DETERMINANTS OF MORAL RESPONSIBILITY

For a person to be held morally responsible for his act, it is

important that his act be deliberate or voluntary that is, the act must
be knowing and free. If a person fully knows and fully intends his act,
then the act is perfectly voluntary hence, he is absolutely responsible
for the act and its consequences. But without knowledge and
freedom, or in the absence of any of these two attributes, the act
becomes less voluntary and the moral responsibility of the doer
becomes less.
It is, thus, important to take note that a person is morally
responsible only for his act and its foreseen injurious effects, in
which he has (1) knowledge of relevant facts and the moral
wrongfulness of the act, and (2) freedom in performing the act,
which include ability (i.e., power to perform the act) and choice (i.e.,
availability of alterative acts, aside from the act performed, e.g., the
alternative of not doing the act).
This explains why individuals below the age of reason (e.g.,
children), the insane, morons, imbeciles and other individuals who
are considered incapable of acting knowingly, are not morally
responsible for their actions. However, this does not include persons
who acted with ignorance. Ignorance defined as the absence of
knowledge which one ought to have, is not an excuse. Every person
with sound rationality is expected to know at least, the common
norms of good conduct. It is also within a person’s powers to ask for
information if ever the person is not sure about something
A person's moral responsibility also diminishes if the person is
not acting freely, that is, by his own volition and powers. For
instance, an unethical action (e.g., lying) done under tremendous
pressure (i.e., threat and intimidation) is not entirely a free action.
Clearly, therefore, a person who is in control of his actions is
responsible for his/her consequences. For instance, a person who
deliberately saves a drowning child deserves to be rewarded because
his act, together with its consequence, is praiseworthy. While a
person who murders a helpless child deserves punishment because
his act, together with its consequence, is unspeakably evil.
ACTIONS WITH UNINTENDED RESULTS
It is clear that a person is morally responsible for actions which
he performs deliberately and their perceived consequences. But is he
also morally responsible for the result he did not directly intend?
For instance, Pedro, who is acting from a sincere intention to
help an ailing friend, has administered faulty medication to Juan
which, later results in Juan's poisoning and death. Is Pedro morally
liable for the unintended result of his act?
It asserts that a doer is morally responsible for the unintended
result of his act only when:
1. he is able to foresee the evil result or effect, at least, in a
general way;
2. he is free to refrain from doing that which would produce the
foreseen evil;
3. the doer has moral obligation not to do that which produces
an evil effect.
Applying these principles, let us assess the case we have
presented above. First, as a rational being, it is within Pedro's power
to foresee the possibility and danger of administering the wrong
medicine which could possibly result in poisoning, or the possibility
and danger of administering its inaccurate dosage, which could result
in drug overdose – any of which would result to more harm than
help. Second, because there is no need to do the act, Pedro is free to
refrain from doing the act (e.g., giving the medicine) which would
produce the wrongful result (i.e., poisoning and death). Lastly,
though Pedro has a moral obligation to help his ailing friend, it does
not mean that he has the moral obligation to administer medicine,
He should have accompanied Juan to a doctor who is more
knowledgeable and competent to provide for the right medication.
Considering all these, the moral judgment is clear: Pedro is morally
responsible for the result of his act which he did not directly intend-
the death of his friend
Compare the case of Pedro to the case of a mother who is not
aware that the food she is serving to her children is contaminated
which, soon after, unintentionally results in the poisoning of her
children. Is she morally responsible for the result of her act?
Clearly, the mother could not be held morally responsible,
because, following the three conditions, the mother could not have
foreseen the evil result of the act that is, poisoning. She was not
aware, and in no way could she have known that the food she was
serving was contaminated. If she could not foresee the evil result,
then, it is logical that she could not have refrained from committing
the act of serving contaminated food to her children. And a mother,
(that is, being a mother), has the moral obligation to feed her
children. This case illustrates how a person could be exempted from
moral responsibility.
However, a person may be free from responsibility for results he
did not directly intend, but it does not mean that the person is
always free of moral obligation. Peter French's Principle of
Responsive Adjustment, clearly provides for the limitation of
exempting from moral responsibility those who unintentionally
commit wrongful acts.
Thus, a mother who now unintentionally poisons her children
may be free from any moral responsibility. Assuming her children
survived the catastrophe, the mother now has a moral obligation to
check and to make sure that the food she serves her children the
next time are not contaminated. If she unintentionally poisons her
children again, the mother is no longer free of her moral
responsibility. She, instead, assumes full responsibility for the act and
its unintended result,
Thus, a person who repeatedly commits the same act that
produces evil result not directly intended -even if his action remains
involuntary, is no longer excused from guilt and assumes full
responsibility for his act and its unintended consequences.
DOUBLE EFFECTS
Directly related to actions with unintended results are actions
with double-effects. In cases where the act performed has produced
two different consequences or results, one good (intended) and the
other evil (unintended), it is unclear whether the doer is morally
liable for the evil result of his action.
For instance, if a doctor, in the course of saving the life of a
pregnant mother, incidentally aborts her unborn, is the doctor
morally responsible for such evil and its unintended result
(abortion)? In this case, the direct intention (i.e., saving the life of the
mother) is perfectly good-but the act has resulted not only in saving
the mother (which is morally good), but also in the incidental killing
of the fetus (which is undoubtedly evil).
This is the principle to determine the moral responsibility of
persons whose acts produce double-effects:
A human act, from which two effects may result, one good and
one evil, is morally permissible under four conditions. If any of these
conditions is violated, then the action is not justifiable and should
not be done. These four conditions are:
1. The action which produces double-effects must be good in
itself, or at least morally indifferent.
2. The good effect must not come from the evil effect. To do evil
in order to achieve something good is not justified.
3. The motive of the doer must be towards the attainment of
the good. The evil is permitted only as an incidental result.
4. The good effect must outweigh the evil result in its
importance.
Based on the principle, and following its four conditions, we can
say that the doctor in our case example is not morally responsible for
the evil effect (i.e., therapeutic abortion), because first, the act of
saving the mother is in itself good: second, the good effect, which is
the life of the mother has been saved, does not come from the evil
effect (i.e., abortion), but from the therapeutic act itself; third, the
motive of the doctor is towards the attainment of the good, which is
the saving of the life of the mother, and abortion, as the evil effect, is
just an incidental result and lastly, the good effect, which is the
saving of the life of the mother, outweighs in importance, the evil
result (i.e., abortion).
THE NORMS OF MORALITY
A norm, in general, is a standard of measurement. It is an
instrument of which the quality or quantity of a thing is determined.
The clock that tells time, the thermometer that indicates
temperature, the speedometer that measures velocity, and the scale
that determines weight are in this sense, norms.
The norms of morality are the standards that indicate the
rightfulness or wrongfulness, the goodness or evilness, the value or
disvalue of a thing. Obviously, these are qualities that cannot be
measured by any mechanical device. They are spiritual qualities that
appeal only to reason.
Judges in a contest follow a given criteria for deciding the
winner. In like manner, for us to decide what action is good or bad,
we need criteria, a set of principles from which we miay deduce a
conclusion.
Morality, therefore, consists in the relation of a thing with the
norm. This relationship is one of conformity or non-conformity.
Morality may then be defined as the quality of things manifesting
their conformity or non-conformity with the norm or criteria. That
which conforms is good or moral. That which do not conform is evil
or immoral.
The remote nom of morality is Natural Law. The proximate
norm of morality is conscience. Both natural law and conscience are
rooted on Eternal Law, the ultimate norm. Thus, there is only one
nom: Eternal Law.
Eternal Law
Eternal Law is the plan of God in creating the universe and in
assigning to each creature therein a specific nature. It is, according to
St. Thomas Aquinas, the exemplar of divine wisdom as directing all
actions and movements. For St. Augustine, it is the divine reason or
will of God commanding that the natural order of things be
preserved and forbidding that it be disturbed.
Eternal Law provides for the cosmic order where every creature
stands different and independent but not apart from the unified
purpose of creation. There is harmony in diversity in the universe so
that the early Greeks referred to it as “cosmos”, meaning beautiful.
Natural Law as the Essential Need to Become a Person
Natural law is recognized by all men regardless of creed, race,
culture, or historical circumstances. Philosophers agree that an inner
force compels man towards good and away from evil. In this sense,
they speak of morality as being written in the hearts of men.
Philosophers regard the natural law as the "original principle of
our constitution." They also called it the "eternal laws of reason or
the "Will of God." What we call "will of God" is actually our
"essential being with its potentialities, our nature declared as “very
good” by God who created it. It explains further that natural law is
the "command to become what one potentially is, a person within a
community of person.
It is worth noting that the content of natural law is precisely our
Filipino concept of pagpapakatao which is a moral obligation that
arises from human nature, compelling an individual to be true to his
nature as tao. When a person debases himself by his immoral
actions, he becomes less than a person: masamang tao. On the
other hand, one who conducts himself according to his rational
demands of his human nature is truly a person: mabuting tao.
In the Filipino mind, as well as in the consciousness of many
people, man is either good or bad depending on how he conforms or
not with the demand of rational nature. Thus, natural law insofar as
it is the principle of our human nature is the nom of morality.
Properties of the Natural Law
The following are the properties or characteristics of the Natural
Law:
1. It is universal. Natural Law is a constitutive element of human
nature. Therefore, it is true wherever human nature manifests itself.
All men are precisely equal because of shared human nature.
2. It is obligatory. Natural law is human nature, calling for itself
to be actualized, to be "lived" according to its basic and essential
demands. Immanuel Kant calls this natural urge the "categorical
imperative." It is imperative because it is a duty that ought to be
fulfilled. It is "categorical" because it accepts no exemption, since it is
nature itself.
3. It is recognizable. It is imprinted in the human nature and
man has the light of reason to know it. The Scholastic philosophers
referred to this light of reason as "synderesis." It enables man to
recognize self-evident principles, such as: Do good and avoid evil;
Honor your father and mother; Be honest; etc.
4. It is immutable or unchangeable. Natural law is human
nature. It is immutable because man's essential nature can never be
lost as long as man is man. It may be blurred by malice or
conditioned by social pressure, but it cannot be destroyed
altogether.
Contents of the Natural Law
Man discovers by the light of reason those fundamental moral
principles contained in the Natural Law.
Ethical writers distinguish between formal norms and material
norms. Both are derived from Natural Law. Formal norms are those
that relate to our character, that is, to what kind of persons we ought
to be. Examples of formal norms are such truths as: "Do good and
avoid evil", "Whatever you wish others to do to you, do so to them",
"Be honest", "Be chaste", or "Do not be selfish, proud, vain, or
foolish."
Formal norms are absolute principles and are unchangeable.
What kind of person we ought to become is not a relative and
subjective decision. Justice, Truth, and Diligence are, for example,
absolute values. The Chinese, the Japanese, the Hindu, the
Indonesian, the Filipino, and all people for that matter are expected
to be just, honest, and diligent.
Material norms relate to the sorts of actions we ought to do.
Material norms are the application of the formal norms to individual
concrete action, such as, speech, killing, making promises, or using
contraceptives. They answer the question “What should I do?”
 Since material norms deal with concrete and specific actions,
they are not absolute. For example, what makes "killing" just or
unjust depends on a lot of factors. Consequently, material norms are
open to various interpretation. This is where relativity in morality
comes in. This does not mean though that each individual is free to
act on the basis of his personal interpretation or whim. The
expectation that we act in accordance with the "dictate of reason”
implies precisely that we listen to our reason as enlightened by the
guidance of virtuous and prudent men. In this sense, the
authoritative consensus of learned men or church on how the
natural law is to be interpreted must be followed.
Conscience
Conscience is the proximate norm of morality. It is proximate
because it is what directly confronts an action as good or bad. Its
function is to examine, to judge, and to pass a "sentence” on all
moral actions.
The word is derived from the Latin "conscientia" which means
"trial of oneself" both in accusation and in defense.
Conscience is defined as an act of the practical judgment of
reason deciding upon an individual action as good and to be
performed or as evil and to be avoided.
It is a "practical judgment" because it is an inference whose
conclusion leads to something practicable. The main function of
conscience is to determine what ought to be done in a given
situation. After the commission of an act, conscience assumes the
role of approving or reproaching. A reproving conscience is called
guilty conscience.
It is a practical judgment because it is an inference leading to a
practicable conclusion. As an inferential reasoning, it makes use of
the principles of Natural Law. Thus, conscience is but an extension of
the Natural Law which guides man to seek the good of his nature.
The main function of conscience is to determine what ought to
be done in a given situation. After the commission of an act, it
assumes the role of approving or reproaching.
Kinds of Conscience
1. Correct or True Conscience judges what is good as good and
what is evil as evil. It is correct conscience which tells that getting the
property of another without consent is stealing. It is also correct
conscience which judges that we ought to pay our debts.
2. Erroneous or False Conscience judges incorrectly that what is
good is evil and what is evil is good. It is erroneous conscience which
tells the husband to have a mistress, since it is the macho thing to
do.
Error in conscience comes from the following factors:
a) Mistake in inferential thinking, such as deriving a wrong
conclusion from given moral principles;
(b) Ignorance of the law,
(c) Ignorance of the fact and other circumstances modifying
human actions,
(d) Ignorance of future consequences, especially those
dependent on the free will of others.
An erroneous conscience whose error is not willfully intended is
called inculpable conscience. It is inculpable conscience operating in
a person, who unaware of it, pays for grocery with "bogus money.”
An erroneous conscience whose error is due to neglect, or
malice, is called culpable conscience. It is culpable conscience which
believes that cheating is good since it helps us pass the exam and
everybody does it anyway. The difference between culpable and
inculpable conscience lies in the distinction between a voluntary
error and an involuntary error. It is culpable precisely because the
error is voluntary on the part of the person. It is inculpable because
the error is involuntary, an “honest mistake.”
3. Certain Conscience is a subjective assurance of the lawfulness
or unlawfulness of a certain act. This implies that the person is sure
of his decision.
It is possible, however, to be sure of something as good when in
fact it is just the opposite, and vice-versa. It is possible for a
policeman to be sure that killing the suspect is the best alternative
under the principle of self-defense, whereas such killing is in fact
unnecessary.
Many theologians believe that a certain conscience should
always be followed. This is to preserve the integrity of the human
reason. One who, therefore, contradicts his certain conscience is
morally guilty.
4. Doubtful Conscience is a vacillating conscience, unable to
form a definite judgement on a certain action. A doubtful conscience
must first be allowed to settle its doubts before an action is
performed.
5. Scrupulous Conscience is a rigorous conscience, extremely
afraid of committing evil. A scrupulous conscience is meticulous and
wants incontrovertible proofs before it acts.
6. Lax Conscience is one which refuses to be bothered about the
distinction of good and evil. It rushes on and is quick to justify itself.
Many Filipinos who act on the impulse of "bahala na” on matters of
morals are acting with lax conscience.
The Compulsory Nature of Conscience
Our bond with the natural moral law is an exalted participation
in the eternal law of God manifested by our conscience whose
natural function is to reveal our likeness to God. Conscience,
therefore, is aptly called the “voice of God.”
Insofar as conscience operates within the realm of truth and
sound reason, it is compulsory. When error creeps in, we should
always trace it to its roots in order to eradicate it. It is only when
conscience impels us to act according to our rational insights that it is
truly the "voice of God." But when it deviates from the correct norm,
then it ceases to be rational, and is no longer the voice of God, but
“our own evil work.”
Conscience operating according to sound rational insights is
infallible. It should be followed.
Education of Conscience
 One has the obligation to cultivate a clear and true conscience.
This requires that we apply ourselves to the education of our
conscience. This we can accomplish by studying and searching for
truths in the laws and in the sciences, since conscience is not
independent from the treasury of knowledge available to each
individual
Another method of education is the cultivation of good habits.
This means that the practical truths we discover must be internalized
and then externalized in actions. It is useless to appreciate the good
in abstract when we despise it in our concrete actions.
Another method is to militate against evil, condemning it where
we find it. Indifference to evil dulls the spirit. We must learn not only
to turn our backs against evil but fight against it.
Above all, we must learn how to use our freedom. To use it
properly, we must understand it properly. "Human freedom, if it is
true freedom in action, is not submission to the coercive pressure of
external force, but self-fulfillment through inner love of the good in
accordance with the pattern of the divine holiness which is the
eternal law (lex eterna) reflected in man's own nature (lex naturalis).