Name: Janara Monique T.

Marcial Date: September 2, 2021

Course: ABPSYCH3A

VOLUNTARINESS AND RESPONSIBILITIES

Question: Illustrate the concept of indirect voluntariness in the case of
surrendering your wallet to a holdupper; paying ransom money to kidnappers, for
release of hostages.

The concept of indirect voluntariness is evident in both cases, given that there is an undesirable
act that needs to be done. In the first scenario, the act of surrendering the wallet is neither desired
nor intended. And although this is regrettable for the person because he will lose his valuables as
a consequence, he or she still needs to give up it up for safety. In the same way, in the second
situation, the act of paying ransom here is an act not done for its own sake. Although there is a
foreseen regrettable consequence which is losing money, whether small or huge amount of
money, the act is still not meant in the first place. The only difference between the two cases, is
that the first one is done for the sake of oneself and the second one is done for the sake of other
people.

Question: Is one morally responsible for inflicting damages which he never

intended to cause another? Justify your answer.

There are a lot of things to consider in determining whether a person is morally responsible for
inflicting damages which he never intended to do. First is ignorance (invincible),
because the doer cannot be held liable if there is an absence of knowledge. Second is passion
(antecedent), which includes emotions. And when a person acts out of emotion, the choice made
is not intentional. Third is fear. It is usually an instinct for self-defense or self-preservation. And
lastly, is violence, although there are a lot of external factors that argues against the explanation
of a person for doing a certain action. These are just some of the factors which may provide
exceptions or less moral responsibility for the person involved in the action. However, there are
also some conditions under which a person can be considered morally responsible even if the
outcome of his action is not intentional. The first is when the doer foresees the effect of his
action. Second, if the doer can at least do something to prevent the consequences but chooses to
avoid doing it. Third, is when the doer is fully aware of what he is doing. And lastly if the doer
did something out of free will.

For me, deciding whether a person is morally responsible for causing damages that was not
intended depends on the given situation. The question only provides limited information or facts.
That is why I cannot conclude a straight-to-the-point answer. But given the consideration above,
one should look at the other factors that may affect the case.
Question: Why is homicide through reckless imprudence a crime even if the driver
never intended to kill? Explain how and why the concept of an indirect voluntary
act applies herein.

Reckless imprudence resulting to homicide is considered a crime, simply because the driver
lacked precautions or failed to prevent a negative outcome from happening. And according to the
law, any negligence or imprudence done unintentionally shall be punishable by a lesser penalty
compared to the imprudence that is intentional.

In this case, if the driver was proven careless in his job, then he would face criminal charges
(compensation and imprisonment). However, if there is acceptable evidence that he was in the
right mind and did his job responsibly without the intention of killing, then he could have
justified the circumstances.

An indirect voluntary act is applied here because the driver has no intention of killing someone,
although the action done due to recklessness causes regrets later.