Unit 1: Ethics and the Moral Person PDF

DON HONORIO VENTURA STATE UNIVERSITY Cabambangan, Villa de Bacolor 2001, Pampanga, Philippines COLLEGE OF SOCIAL SCIENCES Tel. No. (6345) 458 0021; Fax (6345) 458 0021 Local 211 ISO 9001: 2015 AND PHILOSOPHY URL: http://dhvsu.edu.ph...

DON HONORIO VENTURA STATE UNIVERSITY Cabambangan, Villa de Bacolor 2001, Pampanga, Philippines COLLEGE OF SOCIAL SCIENCES Tel. No. (6345) 458 0021; Fax (6345) 458 0021 Local 211 ISO 9001: 2015 AND PHILOSOPHY URL: http://dhvsu.edu.ph DHVSU Main Campus, Villa de Bacolor, Pampanga QMS-Certified ETHICS UNIT 1 – ETHICS AND THE MORAL PERSON CHAPTER 1 – ETHICS: BASIC CONCEPTS AND ISSUES A. WHAT IS ETHICS? Ethics has been understood by people in different ways. It is also confused with morality, as these two concepts are often loosely interchanged with each other. Thus, it is important that we first clarify what ethics means so that we can see how it differs from morality, what particular questions are raised in ethics, and what subject areas are under or overlap with ethics. Morality refers to the set of standards by which individuals judge what is right or wrong, good or bad, and whether someone is virtuous. These standards guide our actions and beliefs and can vary among individuals due to different influences and backgrounds. From childhood, individuals are influenced by family, friends, elders, religious institutions, schools, books, films, and organizations. These influences shape their basic ideas of morality, leading to diverse perspectives on moral issues. For instance, views on homosexual marriage and the death penalty differ among people based on their upbringing and social influences. Morality also encompasses the standards of right and wrong upheld by a society or cultural group. Different societies have their norms: Islamic societies: Muslims refrain from eating pork. European societies: Homosexual relationships are often accepted. Eskimo communities: Infanticide may be permissible. These social norms guide the actions and behaviors of a society's members. While morality pertains to personal and societal standards, ethics is the discipline that examines these standards. Ethics involves reflecting on and evaluating the soundness and reasonableness of the moral standards one has accepted. Ethics requires individuals to question and critically analyze the moral standards they have inherited from various influences. It encourages self-awareness and self-criticism, urging us to adopt only those standards supported by good reasons. Ethics aims to address fundamental questions such as: What is right conduct? What principles should govern moral decision-making? What constitutes a good life? Ethics is not limited to specific moral actions but encompasses the entirety of moral ideals and behaviors, guiding individuals in evaluating and understanding their own moral beliefs and practices. AREAS OF ETHICS 1  DON HONORIO VENTURA STATE UNIVERSITY Cabambangan, Villa de Bacolor 2001, Pampanga, Philippines COLLEGE OF SOCIAL SCIENCES Tel. No. (6345) 458 0021; Fax (6345) 458 0021 Local 211 ISO 9001: 2015 AND PHILOSOPHY URL: http://dhvsu.edu.ph DHVSU Main Campus, Villa de Bacolor, Pampanga QMS-Certified Ethics, a branch of philosophy, is categorized into three main areas: metaethics, normative ethics, and applied ethics. 1. Metaethics examines the nature, meaning, and foundations of moral values. It addresses fundamental questions such as: What is the nature of moral claims? How is morality distinct from other normative standards? Is morality objective or relative? Who has moral rights? What does it mean to be morally accountable? Metaethics is considered "second-order" moral theorizing as it focuses on the nature of morality itself what is moral. 2. Normative ethics explores the moral standards that define right and wrong conduct. It formulates moral norms or rules for actions, institutions, and ways of life. Theories in normative ethics generally fall into three categories: Consequentialism: Evaluates the outcomes of actions. Deontology: Considers adherence to rules. Virtue Ethics: Focuses on the character of the moral agent. 3. Applied ethics applies philosophical methods to practical moral issues in both personal and social contexts. It analyzes and clarifies ethical issues using tools from metaethics and normative ethics, guiding moral judgment. Applied ethics covers diverse fields such as business, medicine, environmental policies, law, and media. Descriptive ethics, though related, is not a branch of moral philosophy. It describes what people believe about right and wrong, how they behave, and how they reason about ethics, incorporating research from anthropology, psychology, sociology, and history. Unlike normative ethics, it does not seek to determine what should be the case but rather what is the case. For example, anthropologists may describe practices like certain tribes throwing babies from temple roofs, but they do not judge the morality of such practices. Ethics, however, seeks to answer whether such practices are right or wrong. Descriptive ethics describes and explains moral beliefs and practices without evaluating their validity. B. NATURE OF MORAL STATEMENTS To better understand ethics normative character as a study of morality, it is important to understand the nature of claims that pertain to morality which we will label moral statements. Such clarification is important in understanding how these statements should be justified or how they should be evaluated as acceptable or unacceptable. This will also shed light on the difference of morality from law, etiquette, and religion. MORAL STATEMENTS AS NORMATIVE STATEMENTS 2  DON HONORIO VENTURA STATE UNIVERSITY Cabambangan, Villa de Bacolor 2001, Pampanga, Philippines COLLEGE OF SOCIAL SCIENCES Tel. No. (6345) 458 0021; Fax (6345) 458 0021 Local 211 ISO 9001: 2015 AND PHILOSOPHY URL: http://dhvsu.edu.ph DHVSU Main Campus, Villa de Bacolor, Pampanga QMS-Certified Moral statements are normative, expressing value judgments about how things should be, rather than factual statements about how things are. Normative statements provide an evaluative account and are assessed based on criteria, standards, or norms, not empirical data. Normative Statement Basis of Assessment You ought to return the excess change to the Moral standard cashier. There should be unity, balance, and contrast Aesthetic standard in your painting. You ought to use the preposition “in” rather Grammatical standard than “on”. It is illegal to make a U-turn there. Legal standard Cover your mouth when you laugh. Standard of etiquette As mentioned above, since a factual statement expresses a claim that something is the case, its claim can be empirically assessed as true or false based on either research, observation, or experiment. For example: Factual Statement Basis of Assessment The Philippine Independence day was Historical Research declared on June 12, 1946. Some tribes in India practice cannibalism. Observation The cause of the fish kill in the river is Scientific Research pollution from agricultural biotoxins. A blue litmus paper will turn red when dipped Experiment in an acid solution Normative statements differ from factual statements in their justification and assessment methods. While factual statements rely on research, experiments, or observation, normative statements are evaluated based on specific standards or criteria. Types of Normative Statements Normative statements can pertain to various domains such as: Visual Arts: "This painting is beautiful." Grammar: "This sentence is grammatically correct." Law: "One ought to obey the law." Etiquette: "One should say 'please' and 'thank you.'" Religion: "One should observe the Sabbath." In the next section, we will elaborate on the distinctions between moral statements and these other types of normative statements. For now, we focus on the normative nature of moral claims. 3  DON HONORIO VENTURA STATE UNIVERSITY Cabambangan, Villa de Bacolor 2001, Pampanga, Philippines COLLEGE OF SOCIAL SCIENCES Tel. No. (6345) 458 0021; Fax (6345) 458 0021 Local 211 ISO 9001: 2015 AND PHILOSOPHY URL: http://dhvsu.edu.ph DHVSU Main Campus, Villa de Bacolor, Pampanga QMS-Certified Moral statements, as normative statements, cannot be justified solely by appealing to facts, empirical evidence, or data. While facts are significant, they are insufficient for justifying a moral claim. Consider the argument: Factual Claim: "According to a study, the rate of criminality in ten countries decreased after enforcing the death penalty." Moral Conclusion: "Therefore, it is morally right to enforce the death penalty." The factual premise is established through statistical data. However, concluding that the death penalty is morally right requires connecting the factual statement with a moral standard or principle. For example: Premise 1: "Imposing the death penalty will lower the rate of criminality and benefit the greater number of people." Premise 2: "An act is right if it promotes the greater good of the greater number." Conclusion: "Therefore, imposing the death penalty is right." The second premise introduces a moral principle that is not factual but necessary for the moral argument. Without this principle, the factual statement alone cannot justify the moral conclusion. People may accept the fact that the death penalty reduces criminality but still find it morally wrong based on other principles, such as the inviolability of the right to life. This shows that moral conclusions depend on underlying moral standards, not just empirical data. Factual statements are often easier to settle through empirical evidence, while moral statements rely on norms and standards, making disagreements more challenging. However, some moral claims, like "It is morally wrong to torture a person for fun," are easier to justify than others, such as those involving complex issues like homosexual marriage or euthanasia. Similarly, not all factual claims are easy to resolve. Controversial factual statements, like "Humans evolved from primitive primates," "The death penalty deters murder," and "Aliens have visited Earth," can be difficult to establish. Therefore, the distinction between moral and factual statements is not about the difficulty of resolving disagreements but about the basis for determining their acceptability: empirical data for factual statements and norms and standards for moral statements. MORAL STATEMENTS AND MORAL STANDARDS Normative statements, justified by standards rather than facts, encompass various domains like etiquette, law, language, aesthetics, and athletics. These standards, however, are not moral standards. To distinguish moral standards from non-moral ones, ethicists have identified key characteristics that, when taken together, set moral standards apart. 1. Serious Harm or Benefit: Moral standards deal with actions that can significantly harm or benefit human beings. Norms against cheating, lying, and killing address actions that can severely impact people's lives. Issues like human dignity, safe working conditions, and health-affecting products are governed by moral standards. 2. Universal Validity: Moral standards apply universally to all in similar situations. If an action is morally wrong for one person, it is wrong for anyone in a similar context. For 4  DON HONORIO VENTURA STATE UNIVERSITY Cabambangan, Villa de Bacolor 2001, Pampanga, Philippines COLLEGE OF SOCIAL SCIENCES Tel. No. (6345) 458 0021; Fax (6345) 458 0021 Local 211 ISO 9001: 2015 AND PHILOSOPHY URL: http://dhvsu.edu.ph DHVSU Main Campus, Villa de Bacolor, Pampanga QMS-Certified example, the moral rule "Do not do unto others what you would not have them do unto you" is expected to be upheld universally, unlike specific cultural or religious practices. 3. Overriding Importance: Moral standards are considered to have greater importance than other values. Violations of moral rules, like killing or stealing, are deemed more serious than breaches of etiquette or grammar rules. Moral judgments also outweigh aesthetic judgments and can challenge legal standards when laws are perceived as unjust. 4. Independence from Authority: Moral standards are not established by authoritarian decisions, consensus, or tradition. Unlike laws made by legislators, religious practices taught by clergy, or etiquette shaped by tradition, moral standards are validated by the adequacy of the reasons supporting them. Morality, law, etiquette, and religion all provide norms guiding behavior, but they differ significantly: Law: Enforced by legal authorities, laws can be questioned and revised based on moral principles like justice and fairness. Etiquette: Rooted in cultural traditions and consensus, etiquette governs manners and social behavior, varying widely across cultures. Religion: Religious norms and practices are taught by religious authorities and are specific to particular faiths, not universally applicable. Moral standards, with their focus on human well-being, universal applicability, overriding importance, and reason-based validity, are distinct from these other normative standards. Understanding these differences helps clarify the unique role of morality in guiding human conduct. C. MORALITY AND OTHER NORMATIVE SUBJECTS MORALITY AND ETIQUETTE Etiquette refers to the set of rules or customs that determine the accepted behaviors in a particular social group. Following these rules shows respect and courtesy to others. For example, when eating out, one should wait until everyone at the table has been served before starting to eat. Etiquette covers various areas of social life, including dining, occasions like baptisms and funerals, public transportation, business, and communication (such as sending emails and posting on social media). These rules of etiquette can vary significantly between cultures. What is considered polite in one culture may not be in another. Differences between Morality and Etiquette: Proper Behavior vs. Right Conduct: Etiquette is concerned with proper behavior, while morality is concerned with right conduct. Arbitrariness and Cultural Basis: Etiquette is more arbitrary and culture-based than morality. People follow etiquette to gain social approval, show respect, and be thought of well by others. Violating etiquette can lead to being seen as ill-mannered or impolite but not necessarily immoral. For example, making loud slurping sounds while eating noodles or not closing one's mouth while chewing may be seen as impolite but not immoral. 5  DON HONORIO VENTURA STATE UNIVERSITY Cabambangan, Villa de Bacolor 2001, Pampanga, Philippines COLLEGE OF SOCIAL SCIENCES Tel. No. (6345) 458 0021; Fax (6345) 458 0021 Local 211 ISO 9001: 2015 AND PHILOSOPHY URL: http://dhvsu.edu.ph DHVSU Main Campus, Villa de Bacolor, Pampanga QMS-Certified Observing Etiquette vs. Acting Morally: Following etiquette does not necessarily equate to acting morally. Shaw (2002) pointed out that strict adherence to etiquette can obscure moral issues. Before anti-discrimination laws were enacted in the United States, it was considered bad manners for blacks and whites to eat together or sit side by side on a bus. However, such rules of etiquette were rooted in racial discrimination and human degradation. Rosa Parks' refusal to give up her seat for a white man, despite violating social expectations, was a morally right act as it fought for equality and fairness. Relationship between Morality and Etiquette: Overlap and Context: Though not synonymous, morality and etiquette can overlap as both concern human action. Disregarding etiquette can be considered immoral in certain circumstances. Greeting customs vary across cultures: in Japan, people bow; in Oman, men press their noses together; in Thailand, people press their hands together and bow their heads. Once these customs are adopted, they can take on the importance of moral rules under the wider principle of showing respect. Cultural Sensitivity: In Islamic societies, standards of modesty call for women to cover their bodies, particularly their chests. Some Muslim women wear hijabs or scarves to cover their heads, necks, and upper chests, believing it protects their dignity and promotes modesty. While there is nothing immoral about a non-Muslim woman wearing sleeveless blouses or skimpy clothes, doing so in a Muslim community may be offensive and considered morally insensitive or scandalous. MORALITY AND LAW Law and morality both regulate human conduct, which often leads to confusion between the two. Both systems prohibit certain actions and prescribe others, such as the moral imperative not to kill a person aligning with the legal prohibition against murder or homicide. However, there are key differences between the two: Moral vs. Legal Imperatives: Breaking the Law vs. Immorality: An action that breaks the law is not always immoral. For example, if your mother has a heart attack and you drive at 100 kph to get her to the hospital, you are breaking the speed limit law but doing what seems morally right by prioritizing her life. Legal Actions and Morality: Conversely, legal actions can be morally wrong. Abortion, where it is legally permitted, remains morally contentious for some. Similarly, Janet Napoles invoking the right to self-incrimination, while legal, may be morally questionable if it obstructs justice. Relationship between Law and Morality: Laws Based on Morality: Many laws are rooted in moral principles. For example, RA 9211, which bans smoking in public places, is based on the moral principle of promoting the greater good. Laws often codify a society’s moral values, reflecting what is deemed important by that society. 6  DON HONORIO VENTURA STATE UNIVERSITY Cabambangan, Villa de Bacolor 2001, Pampanga, Philippines COLLEGE OF SOCIAL SCIENCES Tel. No. (6345) 458 0021; Fax (6345) 458 0021 Local 211 ISO 9001: 2015 AND PHILOSOPHY URL: http://dhvsu.edu.ph DHVSU Main Campus, Villa de Bacolor, Pampanga QMS-Certified Law vs. Moral Guidance: Despite their connection, law and morality are not identical. Laws may not cover the full spectrum of individual and group conduct and might not always align with moral ideals. Shaw (2002) notes that "law cannot cover the wide variety of possible individual and group conduct, and in many situations it is too blunt an instrument to provide moral guidance" (p. 6). Law as a Blunt Instrument: Limitations of Law: Laws can be too broad or too specific to provide comprehensive moral guidance. They can be enacted or repealed based on political interests rather than moral considerations. For example, the Anti-Political Dynasty bill in the Philippines, which aims to limit political power concentration, has faced resistance in Congress, potentially due to the interests of existing politicians. MORALITY AND RELIGION Morality is often intertwined with religion, as religious teachings have historically influenced moral behavior. For instance, Christians may forgive others as per Christ’s teachings, Jews may follow Kosher laws, and Muslims may give alms as per Islam. This connection suggests that religion can shape our understanding of morality, often seen as a divine command. However, morality's dependence on religion raises questions. Socrates' Euthyphro dilemma asks whether things are good because God commands them, or if God commands them because they are inherently good. This question highlights potential issues: General Guidelines: Religions often provide broad moral directives, which may not address specific modern issues such as genetic engineering or abortion. Thus, general religious principles may not resolve every moral dilemma. Conflicting Beliefs: Different religions may have conflicting moral teachings. Relying solely on religious morality can complicate dialogue and understanding across different faiths. Rational Judgment: Basing morality solely on religious doctrine might limit rational moral reasoning. Historical controversies within religious institutions underscore the need for a moral framework that goes beyond religious adherence. ETHICAL RELATIVISM Ethical relativism posits that morality is relative to individuals or cultures. It contrasts with ethical skepticism, which denies the validity of moral principles, and ethical objectivism, which asserts universal moral standards. Cultural Relativism: Morality is determined by cultural norms. For example, practices accepted in one culture may be rejected in another. This perspective allows for cultural diversity but faces criticism for potentially justifying harmful practices. Individual Relativism: Morality is based on personal beliefs. This view faces criticism for its radical subjectivism, leading to potentially absurd conclusions, such as equating morally questionable actions with widely accepted ones. 7  DON HONORIO VENTURA STATE UNIVERSITY Cabambangan, Villa de Bacolor 2001, Pampanga, Philippines COLLEGE OF SOCIAL SCIENCES Tel. No. (6345) 458 0021; Fax (6345) 458 0021 Local 211 ISO 9001: 2015 AND PHILOSOPHY URL: http://dhvsu.edu.ph DHVSU Main Campus, Villa de Bacolor, Pampanga QMS-Certified While individual relativism struggles with criticism, cultural relativism is more widely accepted, acknowledging that morality can be based on social norms rather than absolute standards. This approach provides a basis for moral judgment within cultural contexts, promoting a more practical understanding of ethics. ATTRACTIONS OF ETHICAL RELATIVISM Ethical relativism attracts interest for several reasons. The Diversity Argument highlights that moral beliefs and practices differ across cultures and over time. For instance, practices such as polygamy, homosexuality, and abortion are viewed differently in various societies. The customs of the Eskimos, including infanticide and abandonment of the elderly, illustrate this diversity. Proponents argue that the varying moral beliefs across cultures and historical periods suggest that morality is relative to cultural contexts. The Dependency Argument asserts that moral beliefs are shaped by cultural and social environments. According to this view, an individual's moral values are influenced by their cultural norms and traditions, making morality context-dependent. There are two versions of this argument: the strong version claims that all truths, including scientific ones, are relative to cultural contexts, while the moderate version suggests that the meaning of human behavior and moral actions depends on cultural norms. The Toleration Argument proposes that recognizing and respecting different moral beliefs fosters tolerance and social harmony. As anthropology evolved from an absolutist to a relativist perspective, it began to appreciate the validity of diverse cultural practices. This shift has promoted respect for different cultures and contributed to reducing prejudice and fostering social harmony. CHALLENGES OF ETHICAL RELATIVISM Despite its appeal, ethical relativism faces significant criticisms. One major issue is its logical flaws. The argument that moral diversity implies moral relativism is problematic. For example, historical disagreements about astronomy do not negate objective truths. Thus, the mere existence of diverse moral beliefs does not necessarily justify relativism. Another challenge is the negative implications of accepting ethical relativism. If morality is purely relative, it becomes difficult to criticize harmful practices, such as terrorism or discrimination. Relativism might prevent us from challenging actions that violate human rights, as it suggests that all cultural practices are equally valid. Ethical relativism also impedes moral progress. If moral judgments are solely based on cultural norms, it becomes challenging to critique or reform harmful practices within a society. Historical progress, such as the abolition of slavery and the fight against gender discrimination, demonstrates the need for critical examination of societal norms to advance moral standards. Finally, critics argue that universal moral standards exist despite cultural differences. Basic values like respect for life and the pursuit of truth are common across cultures. For instance, the Buddhist practice of refraining from eating animals reflects a shared human concern for life, even though the specific beliefs vary. This suggests that some fundamental moral principles are universally acknowledged, challenging the notion that morality is entirely relative. 8  DON HONORIO VENTURA STATE UNIVERSITY Cabambangan, Villa de Bacolor 2001, Pampanga, Philippines COLLEGE OF SOCIAL SCIENCES Tel. No. (6345) 458 0021; Fax (6345) 458 0021 Local 211 ISO 9001: 2015 AND PHILOSOPHY URL: http://dhvsu.edu.ph DHVSU Main Campus, Villa de Bacolor, Pampanga QMS-Certified CHAPTER 2 – MORAL PERSONHOOD AND ACCOUNTABILITY The actions that we judge to be either morally good or bad are those that involve moral persons (whether human or non-human), both as the sources and recipients of these actions. This implies that in judging the morality of an action, it is first necessary to determine whether the doers and recipients of these actions are moral persons. Given this, before we study the various ethical theories and their applications, we must first clarify what it means to be a moral person. We, for instance, need to be clear about the defining features of moral personhood and the kinds of beings that can be regarded as moral persons. A significant part of being a moral person is being morally accountable for one's actions; for when moral persons act as doers of morally evaluable actions, they may deserve moral blame or praise for these actions. A thorough understanding of the nature of moral personhood thus requires an examination of its corollary concept of moral accountability. This chapter, divided into two parts, examines the nature of moral personhood along with the concept of moral accountability. The first part, which examines the nature of moral personhood, accounts for the significance of moral personhood in terms of possession of moral rights, explains the classification of moral persons into moral agents and moral patients, and examines the different views on what constitutes the qualifying features of moral personhood. The second part, which deals with nature of moral accountability, clarifies the difference of moral accountability from related concepts, and explicates the conditions for attributing moral accountability. A. MORAL PERSONHOOD In evaluating whether an action is morally good or bad, or morally right or wrong, we refer to our moral standards or principles. For example, we might deem killing morally wrong based on the principle that we should respect a person's right to life. However, this judgment presupposes that the entities involved—both the source and recipient of the action—are considered moral persons. Moral Personhood involves recognizing entities as having moral status. This typically applies to humans, who are regarded as moral persons both in terms of being sources and recipients of actions. In contrast, animals are usually seen as moral patients (recipients) rather than moral agents (sources of actions). Determining whether an action is morally evaluable requires us to establish whether it involves moral persons. For instance, the moral evaluation of a human killing another human is clear, but the moral status of actions involving non-human animals or humans with significant mental impairments requires further scrutiny. To understand moral personhood better, we need to address the following questions: 1. What does being a moral person entail? This question explores the significance of moral personhood and its implications for moral judgments. 2. What are the ways to be a moral person? This considers whether there are different ways or categories of moral persons, such as moral agents and moral patients. 3. How does one qualify as a moral person? This examines the criteria or capacities required for an entity to be considered a moral person. 9  DON HONORIO VENTURA STATE UNIVERSITY Cabambangan, Villa de Bacolor 2001, Pampanga, Philippines COLLEGE OF SOCIAL SCIENCES Tel. No. (6345) 458 0021; Fax (6345) 458 0021 Local 211 ISO 9001: 2015 AND PHILOSOPHY URL: http://dhvsu.edu.ph DHVSU Main Campus, Villa de Bacolor, Pampanga QMS-Certified KEY CONCEPTS: Moral Rights: Being a moral person entails possessing moral rights, which are essential for making moral judgments about actions involving that person. Moral Agents vs. Moral Patients: Moral Agents are entities that can make moral decisions and are responsible for their actions (e.g., most humans). Moral Patients are entities that can be affected by actions but may not be capable of moral decision-making themselves (e.g., animals, individuals with severe cognitive impairments). Theories of Personhood: Different theories provide various criteria for what constitutes a moral person. These might include cognitive abilities, consciousness, and the capacity to engage in moral reasoning. Understanding moral personhood helps clarify when and how moral judgments apply, emphasizing that moral evaluations are contingent on recognizing the moral status of the entities involved. MORAL PERSONS AND RIGHTS Moral Personhood refers to entities that possess moral status or standing, making them subjects of moral concern. For an entity to be a moral person, it must have moral rights, which is a defining feature of moral personhood. Rights in general are entitlements that allow individuals to pursue interests or perform actions. For example, the right to live means being entitled to actions necessary for one's existence, while not having the right to kill means one is not entitled to take another's life. Rights vs. Duties: Rights imply what individuals are entitled to do or receive. Failure to exercise a right does not warrant punishment. Duties are actions that individuals are obligated to perform, and failure to fulfill them often results in sanctions or penalties. Rights and duties are interconnected: Rights imply duties: Possessing a right entails that others have duties related to that right. For instance, if you have the right to use library resources, others must not prevent you from doing so. Duties respect rights: Duties often involve respecting the rights of others. For example, we have a duty not to kill because every person has a right to life. Classification of Rights 1. By Type of Duty: 10  DON HONORIO VENTURA STATE UNIVERSITY Cabambangan, Villa de Bacolor 2001, Pampanga, Philippines COLLEGE OF SOCIAL SCIENCES Tel. No. (6345) 458 0021; Fax (6345) 458 0021 Local 211 ISO 9001: 2015 AND PHILOSOPHY URL: http://dhvsu.edu.ph DHVSU Main Campus, Villa de Bacolor, Pampanga QMS-Certified Negative Rights: These impose a duty of non-interference. For instance, a student's right to use library resources means others should not interfere with this right. Positive Rights: These involve both a duty of non-interference and a duty to provide. For example, a right to education entails that the state must provide resources for education, not just refrain from obstructing access. 2. By Mode of Acquisition: Contractual Rights: Acquired through agreements or contracts. They can be formal (e.g., employee rights) or informal (e.g., rights in personal relationships). Legal Rights: Granted by law or citizenship, such as the rights provided by a country's constitution. Moral Rights: Acquired by being a moral person or member of the moral community. These are based on intrinsic qualities like sentience and rationality. Human rights, for example, are moral rights that are considered higher than legal rights and are not contingent upon legal or contractual conditions. Moral Rights and Their Importance Moral rights are significant because they are fundamental to moral personhood. They often take precedence over legal and contractual rights. For instance: Human Rights: These are moral rights that transcend legal rights. Historical changes in law, such as anti-discrimination laws, reflect evolving understandings of moral rights. Animal Rights: Even if certain treatments of animals are legally permissible, they may violate moral rights. Future Considerations: If intelligent machines develop traits associated with moral personhood, they might be granted "machine rights" based on moral considerations. In essence, the recognition of moral rights is crucial for determining the moral obligations that individuals and societies have towards others, encompassing humans, animals, and potentially intelligent machines. MORAL AGENTS AND PATIENTS Moral Personhood implies having a certain moral status that can apply to both human and non- human entities. Whether these entities are classified as moral agents or moral patients depends on their role in morally evaluable actions. 1. Moral Agents Definition: Moral agents are entities that act as sources of morally evaluable actions. They perform actions that are subject to moral evaluation and can be held responsible for their actions. Characteristics: Moral agents possess moral duties and can be morally accountable for their actions. They have the capacity to make decisions based on moral considerations. 11  DON HONORIO VENTURA STATE UNIVERSITY Cabambangan, Villa de Bacolor 2001, Pampanga, Philippines COLLEGE OF SOCIAL SCIENCES Tel. No. (6345) 458 0021; Fax (6345) 458 0021 Local 211 ISO 9001: 2015 AND PHILOSOPHY URL: http://dhvsu.edu.ph DHVSU Main Campus, Villa de Bacolor, Pampanga QMS-Certified Examples: Normal adult humans, who are capable of making informed decisions and fulfilling moral duties. In the context of the parent-child relationship, parents act as moral agents by taking care of their children because it is their moral duty. 2. Moral Patients Definition: Moral patients are entities that receive morally evaluable actions. They are the recipients of actions done by moral agents and have moral rights that require respect from others. Characteristics: Moral patients possess moral rights but do not necessarily have moral duties. They are not held morally accountable for their actions. Examples: Human infants and individuals with severe mental impairments, who receive care and protection from others but cannot be expected to perform moral duties themselves. Agentive vs. Non-Agentive Moral Persons 1. Agentive Moral Persons Definition: These are moral persons who can both act as moral agents and be moral patients. They possess moral rights and duties and can be morally accountable for their actions. Examples: Normal human adults who are capable of making moral decisions and fulfilling moral obligations. 2. Non-Agentive Moral Persons Definition: These are moral persons who can only act as moral patients. They have moral rights but lack the capacity to perform moral duties. Examples: Human infants and mentally challenged individuals who have moral rights but cannot be expected to perform moral duties. Moral Accountability Agentive Moral Persons: Can be morally accountable for their actions. They can be praised or blamed based on their performance of moral duties. Non-Agentive Moral Persons: Cannot be morally accountable for their actions as they do not possess the capacity to fulfill moral duties. The distinction between moral agents and moral patients, and further between agentive and non- agentive moral persons, helps clarify moral responsibilities and avoid confusion in assigning moral personhood. For instance, a comatose patient or someone in a persistent vegetative state still retains moral personhood as a moral patient, even though they cannot act as moral agents. This distinction prevents the erroneous assumption that moral personhood requires the ability to perform morally evaluable actions. CRITERIA FOR MORAL PERSONHOOD 12  DON HONORIO VENTURA STATE UNIVERSITY Cabambangan, Villa de Bacolor 2001, Pampanga, Philippines COLLEGE OF SOCIAL SCIENCES Tel. No. (6345) 458 0021; Fax (6345) 458 0021 Local 211 ISO 9001: 2015 AND PHILOSOPHY URL: http://dhvsu.edu.ph DHVSU Main Campus, Villa de Bacolor, Pampanga QMS-Certified Moral Personhood is the status of being a moral person, which entails the possession of moral rights and duties. Theories of personhood seek to identify the criteria that qualify an entity as a moral person. These theories can be broadly classified into Uni-Criterial, Multi-Criterial, and Meta-Criterial approaches. 1. Uni-criterial theories assert that a single quality defines moral personhood. Here are some key examples: Genetic Theory: Proposes that being human, or possessing human DNA, is the defining feature of moral personhood. This theory is often criticized for excluding non-human entities that may possess morally relevant characteristics, like rationality or sentience. Life Theory: Claims that being alive is the defining feature of personhood. While this view may seem inclusive, it leads to impractical implications, such as granting moral status to all living beings, including microorganisms. Rational Theory: Suggests that the capacity for rationality—reason and free will— defines personhood. However, this excludes beings without rationality, like infants or those with severe cognitive impairments, despite their moral significance. Sentient Theory: Argues that the capacity for sentience, or the ability to experience pleasure and pain, is what makes an entity a moral person. This theory includes animals but excludes beings that lack sentience, such as individuals in a vegetative state. Relational Theory: States that moral personhood is defined by relationships with others. This theory suggests that beings gain moral status through their connections with others, such as a mother and child. However, it raises concerns about the moral value of beings outside of such relationships. 2. Multi-criterial theories propose that a combination of qualities defines moral personhood. This approach typically combines aspects from the uni-criterial theories, offering a more inclusive view of moral personhood. Mary Anne Warren’s Cognitive Theory: Defines a person as one who possesses capacities like consciousness, reasoning, self-motivated activity, communication, and self-awareness. This theory blends rationality and sentience, allowing for a broader inclusion of entities as moral persons. Conjunctive vs. Disjunctive Interpretation: Multi-criterial theories can be interpreted strictly (conjunctive) or liberally (disjunctive). The strict interpretation requires an entity to possess all the listed qualities to be considered a moral person, which could restrict moral personhood. The liberal interpretation requires an entity to possess at least one of the qualities, thereby expanding the moral community. For a balanced view, the liberal interpretation of the multi-criterial approach is more widely accepted, as it prevents the exclusivity of uni-criterial approaches while avoiding the over- inclusiveness that might result from combining too many criteria. 3. Meta-criterial theories focus not on the criteria themselves but on the nature and attribution of these criteria. 13  DON HONORIO VENTURA STATE UNIVERSITY Cabambangan, Villa de Bacolor 2001, Pampanga, Philippines COLLEGE OF SOCIAL SCIENCES Tel. No. (6345) 458 0021; Fax (6345) 458 0021 Local 211 ISO 9001: 2015 AND PHILOSOPHY URL: http://dhvsu.edu.ph DHVSU Main Campus, Villa de Bacolor, Pampanga QMS-Certified Social Theory: Asserts that personhood is a social construct, determined by societal agreement. This view suggests that what qualifies as a moral person can change depending on societal norms. Gradient Theory: Proposes that personhood exists in degrees, with entities possessing moral qualities to varying extents. This theory implies that some beings are "more of a person" than others based on the degree to which they exhibit morally relevant traits, such as rationality or sentience. Criticism of Meta-Criterial Theories: These theories are criticized for potentially justifying the inhumane treatment of certain groups. For example, the social theory could rationalize slavery in societies that do not recognize slaves as persons, while the gradient theory might justify ethnic cleansing by attributing higher moral status to certain groups over others. The most acceptable approach to defining moral personhood is the liberal multi-criterial approach, combining sentience, rationality, and relationality. This approach allows for a more inclusive and balanced view of moral personhood, recognizing entities that possess any one, two, or all three of these qualities as moral persons. This framework ensures that moral principles apply appropriately across diverse entities while maintaining coherence with ethical theories such as consequentialism, deontology, and virtue ethics. B. MORAL ACCOUNTABILITY Moral Accountability is a concept closely related to moral personhood, particularly concerning moral agents. Moral agents can be held accountable for their actions towards moral patients. Understanding moral accountability involves distinguishing it from other forms of responsibility and exploring the conditions that determine when an individual is morally accountable for their actions. ACCOUNTABILITY AND "RESPONSIBILITY" Moral Accountability refers to the deservingness of blame or praise for one's actions. It stems from our rational capacity—our ability to distinguish between right and wrong (reason) and to choose freely among actions (free will). When we knowingly choose to perform a wrong action or neglect a right one, we deserve blame; conversely, when we choose to do what is right, we deserve praise. Two key aspects of moral accountability are: Involvement of Both Praise and Blame: Accountability is not only about assigning blame for wrongdoing but also about giving praise for good deeds. It's important to recognize and appreciate both aspects. Deservingness Beyond Actuality: Deservingness of blame or praise is independent of whether it is actually received. For example, a person may deserve praise for a good deed even if they never receive it, just as someone may deserve blame even if they never experience guilt or shame. Responsibility, often used interchangeably with accountability, has several meanings that should not be confused: 14  DON HONORIO VENTURA STATE UNIVERSITY Cabambangan, Villa de Bacolor 2001, Pampanga, Philippines COLLEGE OF SOCIAL SCIENCES Tel. No. (6345) 458 0021; Fax (6345) 458 0021 Local 211 ISO 9001: 2015 AND PHILOSOPHY URL: http://dhvsu.edu.ph DHVSU Main Campus, Villa de Bacolor, Pampanga QMS-Certified Causation: Responsibility can refer to being the cause of something. For example, we might say a storm is responsible for flooding a city. In this sense, responsibility is about causality, not accountability. Inanimate objects or animals can be responsible in this sense, but they are not morally accountable. Agency: When the cause of an action is a person, we refer to that person as an agent. Being an agent is necessary for moral accountability, but it is not sufficient on its own. For instance, just because Juan is the agent who wrote on the wall does not automatically make him morally accountable for it; other conditions must be met. Duty or Obligation: Responsibility can also mean having certain duties or obligations toward others. For example, parents have responsibilities toward their children. This type of responsibility, referred to as prospective responsibility, concerns future actions and is related to what one is expected to do. Retrospective responsibility, on the other hand, concerns actions already performed and whether they deserve blame or praise. Key Questions About Responsibility When we ask, "Who is responsible for this action?" in relation to a specific individual, we might be inquiring about one of three aspects: 1. Who caused the action? 2. Whose duty or obligation was it to perform the action? 3. Who deserves blame or praise for the action? These questions are interconnected but distinct. The person who causes an action may not necessarily be the one who had the duty to perform it, nor the one who deserves blame or praise for it. MORAL AND LEGAL ACCOUNTABILITY Moral Accountability is distinct from other types of accountability, particularly legal accountability, based on the standards used to assess actions and the sanctions imposed for wrongdoing. Differences Between Moral and Legal Accountability Standards Used: Moral Accountability relies on moral standards—principles that determine the rightness or wrongness of an action. These standards are often derived from ethical theories, cultural norms, or personal beliefs. Legal Accountability is based on legal standards, which are established by laws and statutes. These legal standards may not always align with moral principles, as laws can sometimes be unjust or discriminatory. Sanctions or Penalties: Moral Sanctions are internal and involve psychological or emotional responses, such as guilt, shame, or remorse. These sanctions affect the moral agent's sense of self-worth and moral integrity. 15  DON HONORIO VENTURA STATE UNIVERSITY Cabambangan, Villa de Bacolor 2001, Pampanga, Philippines COLLEGE OF SOCIAL SCIENCES Tel. No. (6345) 458 0021; Fax (6345) 458 0021 Local 211 ISO 9001: 2015 AND PHILOSOPHY URL: http://dhvsu.edu.ph DHVSU Main Campus, Villa de Bacolor, Pampanga QMS-Certified Legal Sanctions are external and typically involve physical penalties, such as fines, imprisonment, or community service. These penalties are enforced by legal authorities and are intended to maintain social order. Because of these differences, a person might be morally accountable for an action but not legally punished, or legally punished for an action they are not morally accountable for. Additionally, even when legal standards reflect moral principles, laws may not be implemented effectively, leading to disparities between moral and legal accountability. Conditions for Moral Accountability Moral accountability is determined by specific conditions, which can be classified into Attribution Conditions and Degree Conditions. 1. Attribution conditions determine whether moral accountability can be assigned to a person for an action. These conditions include: 1. Agency Condition: The person must be the agent or cause of the action. If a person did not cause the action, they cannot be held morally accountable for it. 2. Knowledge Condition: The person must know or have the capacity to know the moral quality (rightness or wrongness) of their action. Ignorance can excuse a person from moral accountability, but this depends on whether the ignorance is blameless or blameworthy. Blameless Ignorance: Occurs when the person could not reasonably be expected to know better, such as a child mistaking a real gun for a toy. This type of ignorance excuses the person from moral accountability. Blameworthy Ignorance: Occurs when the person should have known better, such as a factory manager failing to know that fumes are hazardous to workers. This type of ignorance does not excuse the person from moral accountability. 3. Intentionality Condition: The person must have intentionally performed the action. If the action was not intentional, the person may be excused from moral accountability. If all these conditions are met—agency, knowledge, and intentionality—the person is morally accountable for their action. If any of these conditions are absent, the person may be excused from moral accountability. 2. Degree conditions affect the level of moral accountability a person bears for an action. These conditions can either mitigate (lessen) or aggravate (increase) the degree of accountability: 1. Degree of Knowledge: The more a person knows about the moral wrongfulness of their action, the greater their moral accountability. Conversely, less knowledge can reduce accountability. 2. Degree of Pressure or Difficulty: Greater external pressure or life difficulties that influence a person to commit a wrongdoing can mitigate their moral accountability. Lesser pressure increases accountability. 3. Degree of Injury: The severity of the harm caused by the action affects accountability. Greater harm results in higher accountability, while lesser harm reduces it. 16  DON HONORIO VENTURA STATE UNIVERSITY Cabambangan, Villa de Bacolor 2001, Pampanga, Philippines COLLEGE OF SOCIAL SCIENCES Tel. No. (6345) 458 0021; Fax (6345) 458 0021 Local 211 ISO 9001: 2015 AND PHILOSOPHY URL: http://dhvsu.edu.ph DHVSU Main Campus, Villa de Bacolor, Pampanga QMS-Certified 4. Degree of Involvement: In collective wrongdoing, the level of a person's involvement determines their accountability. Principal actors bear more accountability than accomplices. These conditions help in assessing both whether a person is morally accountable and the extent of their accountability, ensuring that moral judgments are fair and proportionate to the circumstances of the action. 17