Topic 4 - The Moral Agent PowerPoint Presentation PDF

Topic 4 – The Moral Agent Atty. Ignatius C. Tablada, LPT Pre-Lesson Activity Ponder on the following questions: 1.Can dogs be a moral agent? Why or why not? 2.Can robots be moral agents? Why or why not? The Human Person as a Moral Agent “Moral” – from Latin “mores” – re...

Topic 4 – The Moral Agent Atty. Ignatius C. Tablada, LPT Pre-Lesson Activity Ponder on the following questions: 1.Can dogs be a moral agent? Why or why not? 2.Can robots be moral agents? Why or why not? The Human Person as a Moral Agent “Moral” – from Latin “mores” – refers to society’s patterns, standards, rules of doing things. * Note that they are not limited to “laws”, but also those rules which the society considers as binding upon all their members. “Agent” – from Latin “agere” – to do, act. Taken together, it would mean ‘one who performs an act in accordance with moral standards’. How do we define ‘moral agent’? Moral agent is a being who is capable of those actions that have moral quality and which can be properly denominated as good or evil in a moral sense. Note: It is only moral agents who are capable of human acts, or those acts which a man is master, which he has the power of doing or not doing as he pleases. Human acts are also those acts which proceed from man as a rational being. * These are acts which proceeds from man as a rational being, man who thinks, man who deliberates, man who can make a choice base on certain principles. What is a sufficient condition for moral agency? a.The agent must at least have the capacity to conform to some external requirements of morality. If they can obey MORAL LAWS, then they can be considered moral agents regardless of their motivations for obeying. b.In the same line, if the person has no capacity to conform to moral standards, like an insane person or a young person/child, he cannot be considered a moral agent. Hence, they are excluded from moral agency. c.The main elements of moral agency being: one must knowingly, freely and voluntarily perform an act. The Purpose-driven Moral Agent St. Thomas states: “Every human act is directed toward an end.” Aristotle would say that an end is that which is pursued for itself and not for something else. And, that which is pursued for itself, for its own sake is the summum bonum, the highest. For Aristotle, the summum bonum is HAPPINESS. St. Thomas Aquinas would go on further and would say that “the absolute final end is GOD. Three Thomistic Principles (cited by Alfred Panizo) a.Every agent that performs an action acts for the sake of the end or purpose to be attained. b.Every agent acts for an ultimate end. c.Every agent has the power of moving for an end which is suitable or good for him. This means that a moral agent has the capacity to pursue a purpose, an end, which he finds in himself as pleasing and good, or at least convenient for him. No Pre-fixed Plan for Man  There is prevailing argument in the 20th century thinkers - there are no pre-existing directions. There are no signs in heaven. There are no pre- designed, pre-fixed design, plan, purpose of man’s being.  This is the argument of the existentialists, like Jean Paul Sartre – that a human person is or becomes what he/she makes of himself/herself by choice. No Pre-fixed Plan for Man  According to Process Philosophers, who a person is or becomes is result of a creative process.  There is no pre-determination. What exists is the transient occasions of change or BECOMING as the only fundamental things of the ordinary everyday real world.  This philosophy questions the theory of ‘substance as unchanging’, or that substances are fixed concepts. No Pre-fixed Plan for Man  So far, these philosophers have this in common: they claim that since there is no goal or end designed for man, he would be completely be the author of what he turns out to be. He will be responsible for what he will be.  For both the existentialists and process philosophers – they do not want any other being to be co-responsible with them for what they decide to do. No Pre-fixed Plan for Man However, there are other philosophers who usher the notion of being-with-others like Heidegger, Marcel and Buber. For them, a being is a being inseparably related to their fellow men. Part of this argument is their contention that we have the capacity to realize that other persons are subjects as well, who is emitting signals communicating a message for their creative response. So, it becomes a way of saying “let us learn to live together.” Together, we design our end and purposes, guided by messages unveiled in a life of dialogue with ourselves and with other selves and with the world. Thank you!