✏️

Module 2: Moral Personhood

and Accountability

Lesson 1: Moral Person and Rights

Defining Moral Persons

Moral persons are beings or entities having moral status or standing. They are
the appropriate objects of moral concern.

The actions which we subject to a moral evaluation are those that concern
moral persons—either as the doers or recipients of these actions.

The dead may be considered as a moral person (depending on the state) who is
only a receiver of the moral actions. Other than them, people who are considered
as recipients and not doers of moral actions are babies, comatose patients as
well as incapacitated people with mental challenges.

Module 2: Moral Personhood and Accountability 1

 Moral standards only apply to actions performed by moral persons.

At the minimum, to be a moral person is to be a bearer of moral rights. All

moral persons have moral rights but some have moral duties as well.

Not all individuals have moral duties but everyone has moral rights.

Defining Moral Rights

Rights and Duties

Rights are entitlements; they are interests one is allowed to pursue or actions
one is allowed to do. Duties, in contrast, are what we are obliged to do.

An example of this is education. Primary and Secondary Education are the basic
rights of people as this guarantees that individuals are able to learn the basic skills
in order to find a job. College Education or Tertiary Education is a privilege but not
a right, though this can also be depending on the state one lives in.

Rights correlate with duties: one’s rights impose duties on other people; and
one’s duties are intended to respect the rights of other people.

One has the right to free speech, therefore the duty imposed to exercise this right
is the provision of the venue as well as protection. Another would be education
wherein the duty imposed is the provision of the venue as well as the funding for
the persons tuition in order to study.

Not exercising rights will not merit sanctions (penalties or punishments), while
not performing duties will merit such.

Though the right of one to vote can not be exercised, they would be observing
their right to abstain (though it’s not that recommended). On the other hand, the

Module 2: Moral Personhood and Accountability 2

 duty of one to pay their taxes is mandatory and not doing so can lead to fines and
breaking the law as this can be considered as tax evasion.

Classifying Rights
Rights are classified according to (1) the duties they impose (the duties having
such rights impose on other people), and (2) the manner of their acquisition.

Positive and Negative Rights

According to the duties they impose, rights are either positive or negative.

a. Negative rights impose the duty of non-interference in a person’s exercise of

his/her rights. E.g., right to free speech.
b. Positive rights impose the duties of non-interference and provision in a
person’s exercise of rights. E.g., right to life, right to information.

Some rights are negative or positive in consideration of some factors.

Contractual, Legal, and Moral Rights

According to their manner of acquisition, rights are either contractual, legal, or

moral.

a) Contractual rights are acquired upon entering an agreement or contract.

Contractual rights may be formal or informal.
ex. Marriage and Divorce, though the later is still not legal in some states as well
as same sex marriage (issue on morality)

b) Legal rights are acquired through citizenship.

c) Moral rights are acquired upon becoming a moral person or upon possession
of the morally relevant qualities (such as sentience and rationality—discussed
under Criteria for Moral Personhood).

Module 2: Moral Personhood and Accountability 3

 “Human Rights”: the moral rights of humans

“Animal Rights”: the moral rights of animals

“Machine Rights”: the moral rights of intelligent machines

Lesson 2: Moral Agents and Patients

Moral persons are either the sources or receivers of moral concern or (morally
evaluable) actions. Accordingly, moral persons are either moral agents or moral
patients.

Moral Agents: moral persons acting as the sources of morally evaluable

actions; they necessarily possess both moral rights and duties; they can be
morally accountable for their actions (i.e., they can deserve moral blame or
praise for their actions).

Moral Patients: moral persons acting as the receivers or recipients of morally

evaluable actions; they necessarily posses moral rights only; they cannot be
morally accountable for their actions.

All moral agents are moral patients; but not all moral patients are moral
agents. Accordingly, we can distinguish between agentive and and non-
agentive moral persons.

Agentive Moral Persons: moral persons who can be both moral patients and
agents. E.g., normal human adults

Non-agentive Moral Persons: moral persons who can only be moral patients.
E.g., animals, mentally challenged humans, infants

Lesson 3: Criteria for Moral Personhood (Theories of

Personhood)

General Classification of Theories of (Moral) Personhood

Module 2: Moral Personhood and Accountability 4

 1.) Uni-criterial Theories: theories claiming that there is just one defining feature
of moral personhood

2.) Multi-criterial Theories: theories claiming that there is more than one defining
feature of moral personhood

3.) Meta-criterial Theories: theories about nature of the defining features of

moral personhood

Uni-criterial Theories of Personhood

1.) Genetic Theory: moral persons are those possessing human DNA.

2.) Life Theory: moral persons are those who are alive.

3.) Rational Theory: moral persons are those with reason and will (or those
capable of intelligence and free choice).

4.) Sentient Theory: moral persons are those capable of experiencing pain (or
suffering) and pleasure.

5.) Relational Theory: moral persons are those in caring relationships

Multi-criterial Theories of Personhood

May involve any combination of the defining moral features.

Module 2: Moral Personhood and Accountability 5

 The combination may be interpreted in two ways:

1.) Strict (or Conjunctive) Interpretation: a moral person possesses all features in
the combination.

2.) Liberal (or Disjunctive) Interpretation: a moral person possesses at least one
of the features in the combination

The most reasonable multi-criterial theory is the rationality-sentience-

relationality combination interpreted liberally, as it is able to account for the
moral agent-patient distinction, and the kinds of moral personhood assumed
in ethical theories of consequentialism, deontology, and virtue ethics.

Meta-criterial Theories of Personhood

1.) Social Theory: moral personhood is a social construct. The criteria for moral
personhood are decided by society.

2.) Gradient Theory: moral personhood comes in degrees. The criteria for moral
personhood can be possessed in greater or lesser degree. Consequently, some
entities have greater moral personhood than the others. (E.g., the more rational or
sentient, the greater moral personhood)

Both theories are criticized for justifying inhumane treatment of one group of
persons by another group. The social theory may justify, for instance, the
practice of slavery.The gradient theory may justify, for instance, the practice

Module 2: Moral Personhood and Accountability 6

 of ethnic cleansing—where the perpetrators think of themselves as belonging
to a superior race or as having moral ascendancy over those they exterminate.

Lesson 4: Features of Moral Accountability

Accountability in General
The natural product of a person’s intelligence and freedom: a
person’sIntelligence enables him/her to know what is right and wrong; while a
person’s freedom enables him/her to choose whether to do what is right or
what is wrong.

The deservingness of blame or punishment for doing what is wrong or not

doing what is right, and praise or reward for doing what is right or not doing
what is wrong.

Moral Accountability: a person’s deservingness of moral blame or praise for

his/her actions.

Accountability and Responsibility

Though related, these two concepts should not be confused. There are three
senses of responsibility, one of which equates it with accountability.

1.) Responsibility as Accountability

A responsible person is one who deserves blame or praise for his/her actions.

2.) Responsibility as Agency

A responsible person is one who does or causes the action. An agent is not
necessarily accountable for his/her actions.

Module 2: Moral Personhood and Accountability 7

 3.) Responsibility as Duty
A responsible person is one who does his/her duties or obligations.One is
accountable for failing to perform one’s duties.

Moral and Legal Accountability

They differ in terms of their standards: legal accountability is based on the
laws of the government; while moral accountability is based on moral
principles.

They differ in terms of their sanctions: the sanctions for legal accountability
are external (e.g., imprisonment, physical punishment, fine, revocation of
license); the sanctions for moral accountability are internal (e.g., shame, guilt,
remorse, low self-esteem);

Lesson 5: Conditions for Moral Accountability

Attribution Conditions: conditions that determine whether a person is morally

accountable for his/her actions. They may be incriminating, when they commit
a person to moral accountability, or excusing, when they excuse or absolve a
person from moral accountability.

Degree Conditions: conditions that determine the extent or gravity of a

person’s moral accountability. They may be mitigating, if they tend to lessen
the degree of moral accountability, or aggravating, if they tend to increase the
same.

Incriminating Conditions:

Module 2: Moral Personhood and Accountability 8

 1.) Agency: the person causes the action.

2.) Knowledge: the person knows whether the action is good or bad.

3.) Intentionality: the person is free to perform the action and intends to do it.

For a person to be morally accountable for an action, all conditions should be

present: he/she causes the action, knows the morality of the action, and is
free to perform the action.

Excusing Conditions

1.) Non-agency: the person does not cause the action.

2.) Ignorance: the person does not know the morality of the action (Note: the
person should be blamelessly ignorant—see next slide).

3.) Non-intentionality: the person is not free to perform the action or does not
intend to perform the action.

For a person to be excused from moral accountability for an action, at least

one condition should be present: either he does not cause the action, is
ignorant of the morality of the action, or is not free to perform the action.

Excusable & Non-excusable Ignorance

Real / Blameless Ignorance: the excusable ignorance; the ignorant person

cannot be said to have known better.

Module 2: Moral Personhood and Accountability 9

 Irresponsible / Blameful / Blameworthy Ignorance: the non-excusable
ignorance: the ignorant person can be said to have known better.

Some Factors to Consider

The ignorant person’s mental and physical conditions.

The ignorant person’s access to the relevant information.

Whether the ignorant person has the duty to know what he does not know.

Degree Conditions

1.) Knowledge: the greater the knowledge, the greater the accountability; the
lesser the knowledge, the lesser the accountability

2.) Pressure or Difficulty in Life: the greater the pressure, the lesser the
accountability; the lesser the pressure, the greater the accountability

3.) Intensity of the Injury: the greater the intensity of the injury, the greater the
accountability; the lesser the intensity of the injury, the lesser the accountability

4.) Degree of Involvement: the greater the involvement, the greater the
accountability; the lesser the involvement the lesser the accountability

Module 2: Moral Personhood and Accountability 10