Name: Janara Monique T.

Marcial Date: September 14, 2021

Course: ABPSYCH3A

TWO EFFECTS THEORY AND INDIRECT VOLUNTARINESS

Question: In the light of the same concept of indirect voluntariness, why our law
holds one responsibility for consequences of one’s action?

In our previous lesson, indirect voluntariness is defined as an action that was not intended for its own sake
but follows a regrettable consequence of an action that is directly willed. It is also mentioned that an
indirect voluntary action is still considered voluntary. Now, why does our law still hold people
responsible for consequences they did not plan to commit? Because when a person does an act, the person
is also completely aware of its consequences. Since the person is conscious of it, he or she indirectly
willed the effect, although it is regrettable. Therefore, even if the action is unintended, the person is liable
for them.

Furthermore, the intention is irrelevant. If a person can foresee the effects of his action then the person is
morally responsible for it. But some legal law, considers intention of the person in identifying the level of
tenacity of the action. In the Philippines, an individual can be held responsible for actions he or she did
not mean to do. However, it is modified according to the given circumstances, resulting to a lesser
punishment or penalties (e.g., monetary sanction and community service).

Question: Give an example of an act having two effects. Explain your answer.

A girl was threatened by her boyfriend to spread their sex tape if she did not do as her boyfriend
wanted. As the girl was trying to get the phone, it slipped from her boyfriend's hand. The girl
pushed her boyfriend away so that he could not get the phone and upload the video to the public.
Suddenly, the boyfriend lost his balance and hit his head on the fence, which caused injury. It
was later on found that even before the incident happen, the boyfriend constantly abuses his
girlfriend.
In this situation, two effects are evident because the action has both good (right of privacy) and
bad effect (injury of the boyfriend). To be morally permissible, the act must follow certain
conditions:

Condition 1: The act must be morally good, or at least morally indifferent.

In this case, the action is neutral (morally indifferent) for the reason that both good and bad
effect to the persons involved.

Condition 2: The evil effect should not be directly intended, but morally allowed to happen
as a regrettable side issue.
The evil effect (injury of boyfriend) is not directly intended. It only occurs because the girl wants
to prevent him from posting their video without her consent (privacy and self-defense issue).
Condition 3: There should be a reason sufficiently grave in doing the act.
The girl has a sufficient reason for doing the action, which is for self-protection (privacy). Even
if the girl consents the recording of intimate video, that does not mean that girl is consenting to
the broadcast or publication of such video.

Condition 4: The evil effect should not outweigh the good effect.
The girl has a civil right to be safe and free from any abuses, therefore it should be exercised. It
is mentioned that before the case, the boyfriend had already physically abused his girlfriend
several times. The fact that he abused and threatened his girlfriend is greater than the injury
happened to him.