Transcript Factors that Lessen Accountability

Ignorance
Innocence
the
absence of
intellectual
knowledge
 the
absence of
knowledge in person
who is not required to
know what he does not
know.

From the standpoint of the object
› refers to the “thing of which a person may
be ignorant”
› the thing of which the person lacks the
required knowledge in law, fact and
penalty.
 ignorance
of the law is the ignorance
of the existence of the duty, rule, or
regulation
 ignorance of fact refers to an
ignorance
of
the
nature
or
circumstances of an act as forbidden.
Lack of knowledge that what one is
actually doing comes under the
prohibition of a known law.
 Ignorance of penalty refers to the lack
of
knowledge
of
the
precise
sanction…affixed to the law.

From the standpoint of
the subject
› refers to that ignorance
on the part of the person
by whom ignorance
exists.

Vincible ignorance
› Can be dispelled or overcome by due amount
of diligence
› conquerable ignorance and therefore a vincibly
ignorant person is culpable for his action (that
proceeds from his ignorance)
› a kind of ignorance that can be removed by the
agent from himself in terms of ordinary efforts.
› however if the agent does not exert any effort
at all, then he is liable for his actions. The agent
lacks due diligence and this is his fault.

A Manila resident who
violated traffic laws, not
knowing of such laws
before, would still be
responsible for his act,
because his ignorance is
vincible.

Invincible Ignorance
› cannot be overcome by any amount of
diligence or effort because under the
circumstances it is impossible for one to
know.
› the agent is not responsible for his act either
he does not realize his own state of
ignorance, or because it is almost impossible
for him to acquire the proper knowledge of
the matter
 he does not know that he is ignorance
 he exerts effort (presupposing that he knows, he does
not know what he must or ought to know) but his
efforts are ineffective in removing his ignorance.

A negrito who had
been living all his life in
the mountains, and
who happened to
come to Manila for the
first time, and violated
traffic laws, could not
be held responsible for
violating the law.

From the standpoint of
the act
› Refers to the
consideration of
ignorance “with reference
to the acts that are
performed in ignorance”
Belongs to man’s sensory
appetites
 refer to the emotions and
feelings of man in relation to
his actions.
 these
are
irrational
and
interchangeably used with
passions
 defined as appetites towards
the possession of good and
avoidance of evil

 concupiscence
or
passions are
morally indifferent
 they are
movements of the
sensitive or
irrational appetite
of man
passions can be good
“when ordered by the
rational will to help man
in the practice of virtue
or in the attainment of
that which is morally
good”
 passions can become
bad when they are
“used by the rational
will
to
accomplish
morally evil actions.

Consequent
Antecedent



are those that arise “when the will, directly
or indirectly, stirs them up or fosters them
antecedent
actions
can
become
consequent when they receive the
approval of the rational will.
spring into action unstimulated by any act
of the will, that is, when they arise
antecedently to the will act
› anger that occurs due to unjust treatment
of
another
› the desire for revenge due to an act of cruelty
done by another
Antecedent
concupiscence
lessens
voluntariness of an act;
 Antecedent concupiscence does not
destroy the voluntariness of an act; and
 Consequent concupiscence, however
great, does not lessen the voluntariness
of an act


MORAL PRINCIPLES
› When we act because of
fear, our will is dragged
along, so to say, and so its
freedom is restricted and our
responsibility is diminished
correspondingly. Great fear
sometimes
exempts
a
person from acts enjoined
by positive law.

Violence
is
an
impulsive from without
tending to force the
agent to act against
his will.

Under certain conditions
it is morally right to use
force or violence in
defense of certain basic
rights, even if by the
employment
of
such
force or violence certain
evil effects or effects may
follow, such as the death
of the aggressor.
Man as a person possesses certain
fundamental rights.
 The existence of a right of one entails a
corresponding duty on others to respect
this right.
 That if these rights are violated or denied,
the possessor thereof has the right to
defend, and use the means necessary to
defend his rights

Sometimes the employment of force or
violence resulting in bloodshed or death
of an aggressor is the only possible way
to defend said rights.
 The evil effect is not directly intended
 Involves an act which has two effects
(good and bad)
 Between two evil effects, choose the
lesser one.

In
short,
violence
springs
from
the
principle
that
the
possession of a right
naturally includes the
right to defend such
right.
 Right without power to
defend itself is dead.


“Violence can never be a
means for solving social conflict,
and
class
struggle
which
opposes one group to another
cannot create justice since its
premise is destruction and
contempt for man. To construct
a truly human society in the
Philippines, every man and
woman must take choice for
justice and love, for solidarity
and
brotherhood,
against
selfishness and hatred.” (Pope
John Paul II)
Acts done owing to violence (i.e. acts
one does because one is forced against
his will to do) are not voluntary provided
that
due
resistance
is
made.
Consequently, the doer is not morally
responsible for doing such acts
 Acts done by force of habit are still
voluntary, at least in cause, as long as
the habit is allowed to stay.

 If
a virgin is raped physically, entirely
against her will, making all due
resistance to the rapist, did she lose
morally her virginity? Cite the moral
principle applicable to this case.
 Is
a drug addict still morally
responsible for his acts over which he
has no more control? Explain your
answer.
If one intentionally shoots to kill another,
who later was found to have been
already dead before, did the former
incur any moral guilt? Is he legally guilty?
 Why
is homicide through reckless
imprudence a crime even if the driver
never intended to kill?


Two men were engaged in a fist fight. A
policeman intervened and was stabbed
by a balisong in the abdomen. The
wound was not fatal, but the policeman,
because of his crass ignorance had
himself treated by a quack. As a result
the wound developed into peritonitis
causing the death of the policeman.
Who is responsible for the death of the
policeman?
What
moral
principle
applies here?
Peter merely intended to burn the house
of his enemy Juan. But the flames,
fanned by strong winds, spread like
wildfire and burned the whole town. Is
Peter responsible or not for the burning of
the town? Cite the moral principle that
applies in this case.
 When a man entertains adultery in his
desires and thoughts and intends to
consummate the act but fails, did he
incur any moral guilt, and is he morally
responsible? Explain your answer.
