Ethics: Moral Personhood &

Accountability
Monica Policarpio

GEETHIC
 OVERVIEW
• Lesson 1: Moral Persons and Rights
• Lesson 2: Moral Agents and Patients
• Lesson 3: Criteria for Moral Personhood
• Lesson 4: Features of Moral Accountability
• Lesson 5: Conditions for Moral Accountability
 OVERVIEW
• Lesson 1: Moral Persons and Rights
• Lesson 2: Moral Agents and Patients
• Lesson 3: Criteria for Moral Personhood
• Lesson 4: Features of Moral Accountability
• Lesson 5: Conditions for Moral Accountability
 Moral Persons and Rights
Defining 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.
What makes a moral person?
 Moral Persons and Rights
Defining Moral Persons
• 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.
 Moral Persons and Rights
Defining Moral Rights
• What are rights in general and how are they

classified?
• How are moral rights different from other

kinds of rights?
 Moral Persons and 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.
• 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.
• Not exercising rights will not merit sanctions
(penalties or punishments), while not performing
duties will merit such.
 Moral Persons and Rights
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.
Rights

Positive and Contractual,

Negative Legal, and
Rights Moral Rights
 Moral Persons and Rights
1. Positive and Negative Rights
• According to the duties they impose, rights are
either positive or negative.
• Negative rights impose the duty of non-interference in
a person’s exercise of his/her rights. E.g., right to free
speech.
• 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.
 Moral Persons and Rights
2. Contractual, Legal, and Moral Rights
• According to their manner of acquisition, rights
are either contractual, legal, or moral.
• Contractual rights are acquired upon entering an
agreement or contract. Contractual rights may be
formal or informal.
• Legal rights are acquired through citizenship.
 Moral Persons and Rights
2. Contractual, Legal, and Moral Rights (cont’d)
• 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).
• “Human Rights”: the moral rights of humans
• “Animal Rights”: the moral rights of animals
• “Machine Rights”: the moral rights of intelligent
machines (?)
 OVERVIEW
• Lesson 1: Moral Persons and Rights
• Lesson 2: Moral Agents and Patients
• Lesson 3: Criteria for Moral Personhood
• Lesson 4: Features of Moral Accountability
• Lesson 5: Conditions for Moral Accountability
 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 Agents and Patients
• 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.
 Moral Agents and Patients
• All moral agents are moral patients; but not
all moral patients are moral agents.
Accordingly, we can distinguish between
agentive 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
 Agentive vs. Non-Agentive
Moral Persons

● moral persons who can be ● moral persons who

moral agents; cannot be moral agents
● can be moral agent and ● can be moral patient/
patient/ recipient; recipient but not moral
● have moral rights and agent
duties and; ● have only moral rights
○ can be morally and therefore;
accountable for their ○ cannot be morally
actions (i.e. can be accountable of their
blamed or praised) actions

Agentive Non-agentive
 OVERVIEW
• Lesson 1: Moral Persons and Rights
• Lesson 2: Moral Agents and Patients
• Lesson 3: Criteria for Moral Personhood
• Lesson 4: Features of Moral Accountability
• Lesson 5: Conditions for Moral Accountability
Criteria of Moral Personhood
General
Classification of
Theories of (Moral)
Personhood

Uni-criterial Multi-criterial Meta-criterial

Theories Theories Theories

theories claiming theories claiming

theories about
that there is just that there is more
nature of the
one defining feature than one defining
defining features of
of moral feature of moral
moral personhood
personhood personhood
 Criteria for Moral Personhood
Uni-Criterial Theories Excludes
Genetic Theory Non-humans (e.g. animals, spiritual
beings, [possibly] aliens)
Life Theory None but extremely impractical
Rational Theory Human infants, mentally challenged
humans, comatosed px’s, px’s in
vegetative state, certain kinds of
animals
Sentient Theory Humans who suffered from paralysis or
in a vegetative state; justifies lack of
concern to env’t like the trees and
rivers
Relational Theory beings not in caring relationships would
have no value at all
 Multi-criterial Theories of
Personhood
*example 2-criteria for
illustration purposes

Strict Interpretation
must have all of the
criteria
★ Sentient and Rational
❏ Sentient but not Rational
❏ Rational but not Sentient
❏ Neither Sentient nor
Rational
Liberal Interpretation
must have only 1 or 2 of
many criteria (Sentience,
Rational, Relational)
★ Sentient and Rational
★ Sentient but not
Rational
★ Rational but not
Sentient
❏ Neither Sentient nor
Rational

Conjunctive Construal Disjunctive Construal

 What makes a moral person?
Sentience
• the capacity to experience pleasure and pain

Rationality
• the capacity to know and choose freely

Relationality
• being in a caring relationship

[!] 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.
 Criteria for Moral Personhood
Meta-criterial Theories of Personhood
• Social Theory: moral personhood is a social
construct. The criteria for moral personhood are
decided by society.
• 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)
 Criteria for Moral Personhood
Meta-criterial Theories of Personhood
• [!]Criticisms against social and gradient theory

Meta-Criterial Theories Justifies

Social Theory inhumane treatment of one group of
persons by another group (e.g. practice
of slavery)
Gradient Theory Belief of superior race or as having
moral ascendancy over other “inferior”
moral persons such as ethnic cleansing
(e.g. Nazi genocide)
 OVERVIEW
• Lesson 1: Moral Persons and Rights
• Lesson 2: Moral Agents and Patients
• Lesson 3: Criteria for Moral Personhood
• Lesson 4: Features of Moral Accountability
• Lesson 5: Conditions for Moral Accountability
 Features of Moral
Accountability
Accountability in General
• The natural product of a person’s intelligence

and freedom: a person’s Intelligence 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.
 Features of Moral
Accountability
Moral Accountability:

• a person’s deservingness of moral blame or

praise for his/her actions.
 Features of Moral
Accountability
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.
 Features of Moral
Accountability
Accountability and Responsibility (Cont’d)
• 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.
 Features of Moral
Accountability
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);
 OVERVIEW
• Lesson 1: Moral Persons and Rights
• Lesson 2: Moral Agents and Patients
• Lesson 3: Criteria for Moral Personhood
• Lesson 4: Features of Moral Accountability
• Lesson 5: Conditions for Moral Accountability
 Necessary Conditions of Moral
Accountability
• Attribution Conditions
– Whether a morally evaluable action can be
attributed to the moral person (an action done)
• Incriminating
• Excluding

• Degree Conditions
– The extent (greater or lesser) of which the morally
evaluable action is attributed to a moral person
• Mitigating
• Aggravating
 Conditions for Moral
Accountability
Conditions for Moral
Accountability

Attribution
Degree Conditions
Conditions

Incriminating Mitigating Aggravating

Excusing Conditions
Conditions Conditions Conditions

Makes one morally

Spares one from Lessens the degree Increases the
accountable to the
moral accountability of one’s moral degree of one’s
morally evaluable
of the action accountability moral accountability
action
 Conditions for Moral
Accountability
Attribution Conditions

Incriminating Conditions Excusing Conditions Degree Conditions

Agency Condition Knowledge Condition Intentionality Condition

A person knows or has

the capacity to know the A person intends or
A person is the cause of
moral quality (moral freely chooses to perform
his/her action
goodness and badness) an action s/he is doing
of his/her action
Necessary Conditions of Moral
Accountability
A person is accountable for an action if and
only if s/he:
• 1) is the agent of an action;

• 2) knows or has the capacity to know that the

action is good or bad;

• 3) intentionally performs an action

[!] If at least one of them does not occur, then the

person is excused from moral accountability.
 Conditions for Moral
Accountability
Conditions for Moral
Accountability

Attribution
Degree Conditions
Conditions

Incriminating Mitigating Aggravating

Excusing Conditions
Conditions Conditions Conditions

Makes one morally

Spares one from Lessens the degree Increases the
accountable to the
moral accountability of one’s moral degree of one’s
morally evaluable
of the action accountability moral accountability
action
 Conditions for Moral
Accountability
[!] For a person to be excused
from moral accountability for an
Attribution Conditions
action, at least one excusing
condition should be present:
either he does not cause the
action, is ignorant of the morality
of the action, or is not free to
Incriminating perform the action.
Excusing Conditions Degree Conditions
Conditions

Non-agency Ignorance* Non-Intentionality

the person does not

the person is not free
know the morality of
the person does not to perform the action
the action (Note: the
cause the action or does not intend to
person should be
perform the action
blamelessly ignorant)
 Conditions for Moral
Accountability
Attribution
Conditions

Incriminating Excusing Degree

Conditions Conditions Conditions

Agency Knowledge Intention Non-agency Ignorance* Involuntary

*Blameworthy Ignorance – when a person is said to have known

better, or an irresponsible negligence to duty to know certain things
according to the role or position; the capacity for finding out things
should be enough to be accountable to blame of such ignorance
Necessary Conditions of Moral
Accountability
Blameworthiness (What determines whether a person should have known better?)
❑ Does a person have a capacity to know what

s/he ought to know in a given situation?

❑ Given the person’s role in a given situation, is it

his/her duty to know what ought to be known

in such a situation?
❑ [!]Other factors to consider: maturity, mental

health condition, access to relevant information

 Conditions for Moral
Accountability
Attribution
Conditions

Incriminating Excusing Degree

Conditions Conditions Conditions

Intensity
Involvement
Agency Knowledge Intention Non-agency Ignorance* Involuntary Knowledge Pressure (seriousness
(participation)
of injury)
 Necessary Conditions of Moral
Accountability
Degree Conditions
• Knowledge: the greater the knowledge, the greater the
accountability; the lesser the knowledge, the lesser the
accountability
• Pressure or Difficulty in Life: the greater the pressure, the
lesser the accountability; the lesser the pressure, the greater the
accountability
• 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
• Degree of Involvement: the greater the involvement, the
greater the accountability; the lesser the involvement the lesser
the accountability
pause to solicit
examples
 Review Questions
1. Compare and contrast the two kinds of moral persons.
2. Identify and explain the kinds of rights. Give examples for
illustration.
3. Differentiate the various approaches to moral
personhood.
4. Identify and explain the necessary conditions for the
attribution of moral accountability. Give examples for
illustration.
5. Identify and explain the factors or conditions that affect
the degree of one’s moral accountability. Give examples
for illustration.
 Discussion Questions
1. Are all human beings moral persons? Explain.
2. Are all moral persons human beings? Explain.
3. When a wrong person does not appear to feel shame or
guilt or show remorse for wrongdoing that s/he has freely
and knowingly done, would it still matter to say that s/he is
morally accountable for his/her wrongdoing? Explain.
4. Do you think that intelligent machines can be held morally
accountable for their actions that injure humans? Explain.
5. Do factors beyond our control, like our social environment,
biological make-up, and the particular situations we find
ourselves in (like being in the wrong place at the wrong
time), significantly affect our moral accountability for our
actions? Explain.
 Discussion Questions
6. Refer to the play Oedipus Rex by Sophocles. Do you find
Oedipus morally accountable for killing his father and
marrying his mother? Defend your answer.
7. Refer to Jose Rizal's novel Noli Me Tangere. In the story,
Ibarra was arrested for insurrection and the evidence used
against him was a letter he gave to Maria Clara. For some
reason, Maria Clara gave his letter to the authorities. Do you
find Maria Clara morally accountable for the arrest of Ibarra?
If yes, how would you evaluate the degree of her moral
accountability given the conditions surrounding her act?
• GEETHIC Blueprint Presentations
• Prepared by: Napoleon M. Mabaquiao, Jr
• Department of Philosophy, DLSU

• Reference: Evangelista, F. and N.

Mabaquiao. Ethics: Theories and
Applications (Anvil Publishing Inc., 2020).
 Questions?

monica.policarpio@dlsu.edu.ph

/poli