Transcript Ethics (Voluntariness)

ETHICS
(VOLUNTARINESS)
VOLUNTARINESS: ITS IMPORTANCE TO ETHICS
 Ethics
deals with the study of
human acts (voluntary acts of
man)
 It is the amount or degree of
voluntariness present in an act
which determines the amount or
degree of responsibility and this
in turn will determine the
amount of punishment, if any, to
be meted out.
Perfect Voluntariness
Imperfect Voluntariness
Acts
There
done with
full knowledge
and consent
is no
perfect
knowledge or
consent
DIRECT VOLUNTARY ACT
when
the act is
intended for its
own sake, either
as a means or as
an end
EXAMPLE
 He
who intends to go
to a party in order to
drink with friends
wills both the going to
the party and the
drinking with friends.
Both acts, therefore,
are directly voluntary.
INDIRECT VOLUNTARY ACT
an act which is not
intended for its own sake
but with merely follows as
a regrettable consequence
of an action directly willed.
 Refers to an act which is
desired not as an end in
itself but as a foreseen
effect or consequences of
an act.
 Refers to an act which is
the foreseen consequence
of another act directly
intended.

EXAMPLES
 Throwing
precious cargoes from a sinking
boat to save lives of passengers. Here the
throwing and losing of the cargoes is not
desired or intended. It comes as a
consequence of saving lives of passengers.
 Going to a party to enjoy with friends but
making trouble when drunk. The making
of trouble may have been foreseen and
foreknown but it may have been intended;
in which case, the act of making trouble is
only indirectly voluntary.
 Surrendering
and giving your money and
valuables to a holdupper who gravely
threatened to kill you if you don’t.
Why is an indirect
voluntary
act
still
voluntary
when it is not
intended
and
follows only as a
regrettable side
issue?
It
is when we will to do an act,
we will the whole act including
its consequences; and since we
place the cause, we also
indirectly
will
the
effect,
although this is in itself
regrettable. We are therefore
responsible for the consequences
of our actions even if these are
not intended.
When
is
the
agent
responsible for
the evil effect of
a cause directly
willed?
CONDITIONS:
 If
the agent foresee the evil
effect, at least in a general
way;
 If the agent is free to
refrain from doing that
which is the cause of the
evil effect; and
 If the agent knows that he
is morally bound not to do
that which is the cause of
the evil effect.
EXAMPLE
A person committed suicide by throwing himself
down from the 14th floor of a building. However,
instead of falling on the ground, he fell on an old
man and the old man died instantly. Is the
person who wanted to commit suicide responsible
for the death of the old man?
 Did he directly intend to kill the old man?
 Did he foresee the evil effect of the act (suicide)
i.e. the death of the old man?
 Can the person refrain from committing suicide –
which is the cause of the death of the old man?
 Is the person morally responsible for the death of
the old man?

A
woman is pregnant with her threemonth-old fetus suffers from severe cough
due to tubercolosis. She knows that if she
takes medicine, her fetus may be aborted.
Nevertheless, to free herself from the
illness, she takes a considerable dose of
medicines. Is the woman morally
responsible of the death of the fetus?
 Yes, because she foresees the evil effect of
her intake of medicine.
THE MORAL
PRINCIPLE INVOLVED
IN ACTIONS HAVING
TWO EFFECTS
 Should
a man be restrained from saving his
honor because the reputation of a high
government official will be destroyed from
disclosures so he has to make in his defense?
 Was it morally right to drop the atomic
bomb which would shorten the war, but
which would destroy thousands and
thousands of innocent lives?
 Is it morally right to do an act which entails
bad as well as good consequences?
A difficult question
sometimes arises
as to whether it
would be morally
right to do certain
actions from which
good as well as
bad effects follow.
CONDITIONS
 The
act itself should be good, or at
least morally indifferent;
 The evil effect should not be directly
intended, but morally allowed to
happen as a regrettable side issue;
 There should be a reason sufficiently
grave in doing the act; and
 That the evil effect should not
outweigh the good effect.
THE ACT ITSELF SHOULD BE GOOD, OR AT
LEAST MORALLY INDIFFERENT
 Requires
the act to be good in itself
 The end does not justify the means.
We should not employ bad means
even, in order to attain a good end.
We may not do evil that good may
result.
 The morality of an act primarily
depends on the nature of the act itself
and not on the intention of the agent,
nor on the consequences of the act.
APPLICATIONS:
One may not tell a lie even for the purpose of
saving one’s honor, or in order to win a case, etc.,
without incurring moral guilt, because while the
end is good the means employed (lying) is bad.
 It is not morally justified to shorten the life of one
dying even with the intention of saving him from
the prolonged and useless pain and suffering.
 It is not morally justified to shorten the life of one
dying even with the intention of saving him from
the prolonged and useless pain and suffering.
 It is immoral to practice intentional abortion for
any reason whatsoever.

APPLICATIONS:

To correct the mistake of others is good but if it is
done intentionally in such a manner that the
person corrected is embarrassed, the whole action
is bad.
THE EVIL EFFECT SHOULD NOT BE DIRECTLY INTENDED, BUT
MORALLY ALLOWED TO HAPPEN AS A REGRETTABLE SIDE ISSUE;

Requires that the evil effect be
not intended. The reason behind
this is that if the evil be directly
intended, the act would be done
for the sake of evil, and this is
forbidden directly by the moral
law.
THAT THE EVIL EFFECT SHOULD NOT OUTWEIGH THE GOOD
EFFECT.

The reason behind the
fourth is that if the evil
effect be greater, then the
intention and motive in
doing the act would be more
for evil than for good, and
this is against the moral
law.