Accountability of Moral Act

→ Responsibility and Accountability

Responsibility
• comes from the Latin word “responsus,” which means “to respond.”
• It is the state of being responsible, answerable, or accountable for something
within one’s power or control.
• It is an ethical concept that refers to the truth that individuals are morally inclined
to obligations and duties to others and broader ethical and moral codes, standards,
and traditions.
• According to Aristotle, moral responsibility originated with the moral agent as a
decision-maker and grew out of an ability to reason, an awareness of action, and
a willingness to act free from external compulsion.
• Accountability arises out of responsibility.
Accountability
• While responsibility is a bundle of obligations associated with a role, accountability,
on the other hand, may be defined as “blaming or crediting someone for an action
that is associated with recognized responsibility.” The accountable actor is “held
to external oversight, regulation, and mechanisms of punishment aimed to
externally motivate responsive adjustment to maintain adherence with appropriate
moral standards of action.”
• Therefore, it is the practice and idea that an individual is responsible for their
actions and the consequences.
• It demands that a person shall be a moral interlocutor. Being a moral interlocutor
means that a person is ready for ethical reasons in favor of or against the behavior.
• A person that has accountability is willing to be transparent, allowing others to
observe, evaluate, and correct one’s performance.
“Every human act, since it is a free act, is imputable to him who performs it.”

To whom are we accountable? For violation of government laws, people are held
accountable directly to the government, and indirectly to the people. How about violations
of moral standards? Under Christian natural law ethics, God is deemed the author of the
law, hence violators are accountable to God. For non-theistic morality, violators are
accountable solely to themselves.
→ Three Bases for Moral Accountability
o Knowledge – human act must be done knowingly
▪ You are in possession of a normal mind; you are not insane or ignorant
or sleepwalking due to somnambulism.
 ▪The awareness of or familiarity with a fact, situation, or truth, unveiled
through experience or disclosed in a dialogue or encounter with persons
or things
▪ To have genuine knowledge, your mind must be normal, not impaired or
vitiated by mental condition or ignorance.
o Freedom – the act must be done freely
▪ this happens when you can exercise your power of choice
▪ your freedom should not be impaired by an irresistible force or
uncontrollable fear
▪ if the act you intend to choose is testifying as to your personal
knowledge; what you saw, heard, etc., you should be free to do so,
without being subjected to an uncontrollable fear of being silenced by
death.
o Voluntariness – the act must be done voluntarily
▪ The act is either intentional or negligent
• An act is voluntarily intended when it is done with the aim,
purpose, or goal of attaining a result
• An act is negligent when it is done voluntarily, but without care or
precaution in avoiding the happening of a foreseeable event.
“To be recognized for a good act or held morally liable or responsible for an evil act, a
person must have done it knowingly, willingly, and voluntarily.”
→ Modifiers of Human Act
Modifiers of the Human Act and Morality refer to the different conditions that could
affect the moral agent’s performance of an act that could increase or decrease
accountability. It can also impact the mental and emotional state of the person in which
the voluntariness involved in doing the action is either improved or diminished. These
modifiers are analogous to exempting, mitigating, aggravating, and justifying
circumstances in criminal law. These modifiers include:
o Fear – is the disturbance and apprehension of the mind caused by the thought
of impending danger or harm to the moral agent or loved ones. Acts done with
fear are voluntary, but acts done because of intense or uncontrollable fear or
panic are involuntary.
Ethical Principle:
An act done from fear, however great, is simply voluntary, although it is
regularly also conditionally involuntary.

o Habit – is the disposition of the mind and body for doing an action that is
acquired through repetition of the same act. It can be formed with or without
knowledge of its immorality.
 Ethical Principle:
Habit does not destroy voluntariness; and acts from habit are always
voluntary, at least in cause, as long as the habit is allowed to endure.

o Violence or Coaction – refers to any physical force exerted on a person by

another free agent for the aim of compelling the moral agent to act against his
or her will. Actions performed by a person exposed to violence or irresistible
force are involuntary and not accountable.

Ethical Principle:

Acts elicited by the will are not subject to violence; external acts caused by
violence, to which due resistance is offered, are in no wise imputable to the agent.

o Passion or Concupiscence – are strong dispositions and emotions (positive

or negative) of a person to perceive something as good or tendencies to avoid
something evil. It is also known as sentiments, affections, or desires.

2 Types of Passion

o Antecedent passions are those that precede the act, do not always ruin
voluntariness, but they reduce accountability for the resultant act because it
tends to blind judgement of the intellect and freedom of the will. Examples of
antecedent passions are hatred, grief, shame, joy, anger, disgust, and pity.
▪ a person is emotionally aroused to perform an act
▪ non – voluntary act
▪ without being arouse intentionally
▪ Example:
o Consequent passions are those that are intentionally aroused and kept. They
do not lessen voluntariness but may increase accountability.
▪ result of an act which causes it to be aroused
▪ fault of the agent
▪ the will is present

Antecedent concupiscence is an act of man, and not a human act. It is therefore a

non- voluntarily act, and the agent is not responsible for it. Consequent concupiscence,
however, is the fault of the agent, for it is willed, either directly or indirectly, that is either
in itself or in cause. The agent is, in consequence, responsible for it.

Ethical Principles:
Antecedent concupiscence lessens the voluntariness of an act.
Antecedent concupiscence does not destroy the voluntariness of an act.
Consequent concupiscence, however great, does not lessen the voluntariness of
an act.
 o Ignorance – is the “absence of knowledge” or “absence of intellectual
knowledge in man.” Thus, ignorance is a negation of knowledge; it is a negative
thing. But when it is absence of knowledge that ought to be present, the
ignorance is not merely negative, but privative. Ignorance has also a positive
aspect when it consists not just in the absence of knowledge, but in the
presence of what is falsely supposed to be knowledge.
o For example, Jason saw a stranger in the street, and realizes that he doesn’t
know him, his ignorance of his identity is negative. But, if Jason is misled by his
poor eyesight or by a resemblance in the stranger, and judge him to be an
acquaintance, then Jason’s state of mind is in positive knowledge of what the
judge of the stranger’s identity. Such positive ignorance is called mistake or
error.

Ignorance in its Object – the thing of which a person may be ignorant is a matter
of law, fact, or penalty.

a. Ignorance of Law is the ignorance of the existence of a duty, rule, or regulation.

b. Ignorance of Fact is ignorance of the nature or circumstances of an act as
forbidden.
c. Ignorance of Penalty is lack of knowledge of the precise sanction (i.e., an
inducement sufficient to make reasonable men obey the law) affixed to the law.

Ignorance in its Subject – in the person whom it exists, ignorance of law, fact, or
penalty is either vincible or invincible.

a. Vincible Ignorance – is an ignorance that can be dispelled using ordinary

diligence. Such ignorance is due to the lack of diligence on the part of the
ignorant person; thus, it is the person’s fault. In consequence, vincible
ignorance is culpable ignorance.

Degrees of Vincible Ignorance

i. Crass or Supine Ignorance –the result of total or almost total lack of
effort of a person to enlighten oneself about the law, fact, or penalty.
Such ignorance does not excuse one from penalties imposed by law.
ii. Simple Vincible Ignorance – wherein some efforts were made by the
person but unsuccessfully employed to dispel it.
iii. Affected Ignorance – is when a person exerts a positive effort to avoid
knowing something (e.g., rules, law, penalty) and remained ignorant.

Maria is a one-month college freshman until now; she doesn’t know the
college rules. She is in a state of vincible ignorance. After weeks and days, she
still made no effort to check the rulebook or ask her classmates about the campus
rules. Thus, her ignorance is crass or supine. Then she started asking her
classmates, and she also skimmed through the rulebook but failed to finish and
 wholeheartedly learn it; she was in a state of simple vincible ignorance. But if she
positively avoids learning any of the rules so that she has an excuse for violations
and says, “I don’t know the rules,” her ignorance is affected.

b. Invincible Ignorance – an ignorance that cannot be overcome by the due

amount of diligence. This sort of ignorance is attributable to one of two causes:
either the person who’s ignorant doesn’t realize his lack of knowledge, or the
person realizes his ignorance but finds his effort ineffective to dismiss it. Hence,
invincible ignorance is never the fault of the person in whom it exists and is
aptly called inculpable ignorance.

Ignorance in its Result – Here we consider ignorance of fact, law, or penalty with
reference to acts performed while ignorance exists.

a. Antecedent Ignorance precedes all consent of the will

b. Concomitant Ignorance is that ignorance which accompanies an act that
would have been performed even if the ignorance is not present. An act done
in concomitant ignorance is non – voluntary.
c. Consequent Ignorance is that which follows upon an act of the will. The will
may be directly affected (directly willed) it or supinely (indirectly willed) neglect
to dispel it. Thus, consequent ignorance is similar to vincible ignorance.

Ethical Principles:
Invincible ignorance destroys the voluntariness of an act.
Vincible ignorance does not destroy the voluntariness of an act.
Vincible ignorance lessens the voluntariness of an act.
Affected ignorance in one way lessens and, in another way, increases
voluntariness.

More Accountability for What Could Have Been

The sin of Omission is willful disobedience. It refers to failure to act despite

knowledge of being free, therefore different from negligence or lack of foresight. It is
intentionally not doing the same thing when one should have done it.

→ It is sinful to avoid doing good, just as it is sinful to pursue what is evil.

"Anyone, then, who knows the good he ought to do and doesn’t do it, sins." – James 4:17
 Feelings as a Modifier of Moral Decision Making

→ Feeling
o is an emotional state or reaction and experience of physical sensation (e.g.,
joy, warmth, love affection, sad, angry, etc.).
o Most people do not realize how much their emotions direct and control their
moral choices, however, experts think that it is impossible to make any
important moral judgements without emotions.
o Feelings are instinctive and trained responses to moral dilemmas. No one can
deny that when a person is struggling with a moral dilemma, their decisions
can also be highly affected by their feelings which either can be an obstacle
or help
o Inner – directed negative emotions such as guilt, embarrassment, and shame
often motivate people to act and decide ethically.
o While outer – directed emotions aims to discipline or punish. People often direct
anger, disgust, or contempt at those who have acted unethically, thus,
discouraging other from behaving the same way.
o Positive emotions like gratitude, admiration, and affection, which people may
feel when they see other people acting with compassion or kindness, can
inspire people to help others.
o Emotions and feelings evoked by suffering, such as sympathy and empathy,
often lead people to act ethically toward others.
o Although we believe that our moral decisions are influenced most by our
philosophy or religious values, in truth our emotions play a significant role in
our ethical decision-making.

The moral decision that a person makes will not be completely objective. For
instance, one’s decision about the morality of the death penalty will vary if he is in a
situation wherein his family is greatly affected by a murderous act. A person who’s not a
victim of any crime may view the death penalty as morally unacceptable. At the same
time, a person who has a close relative charged with robbery may cry for forgiveness,
while those who do not have may demand punishment. In this regard, a moral decision
can result from feelings or emotions.
Feeling-based Theories in Ethics
There are at least two theories in ethics that gives focus on the role of feelings on
morality. They are (1) Ethical Subjectivism and (2) Emotivism (De Guzman et al. 2017).

1. Ethical Subjectivism. This theory utter runs contrary to the principle that there is
objectivity in morality. Fundamentally a meta-ethically theory, it is not about what things
are good and what are things are bad. It does not tell how we should live or what moral
norms we should practice. Instead, it is a theory about the nature or moral judgments (De
Guzman et al. 2017).

In the article “Basics of Philosophy,” Ethical Subjectivism holds that there are no
objective moral properties and that ethical statements are in fact arbitrary because they
do not express immutable truths. Instead, moral statements are made true or false
by the attitudes and/or conventions of the observers, and any ethical sentence just
implies an attitude, opinion, personal preference or feeling held by someone. Thus, for a
statement to be considered morally right merely means that it is met with approval by the
person of interest. Another way of looking at this is that judgments about human conduct
are shaped by, and in many ways limited to, perception.

As cited in the article “Basics of Philosophy,” there are several different variants
which can be considered under the heading of Ethical Subjectivism:

• Simple Subjectivism: the view (largely as described above) that ethical

statements reflect sentiments, personal preferences and feelings rather than
objective facts.
• Individualist Subjectivism: the view (originally put forward by Protagoras) that
there are as many distinct scales of good and evil as there are individuals in the
world. It is effectively a form of Egoism, which maintains that every human being
ought to pursue what is in his or her self-interest exclusively.
• Moral Relativism (or Ethical Relativism): the view that for a thing to be morally
right is for it to be approved of by society, leading to the conclusion that different
things are right for people in different societies and different periods in history.
• Ideal Observer Theory: the view that what is right is determined by the attitudes
that a hypothetical ideal observer (a being who is perfectly rational, imaginative
and informed) would have.

2. Emotivism. As cited in the “Emotive Theory of Ethics” refers to a theory about

moral judgments, sentences, words, and speech acts; it is sometimes also extended to
cover aesthetic and other nonmoral forms of evaluation. Although sometimes used to
refer to the entire genus, emotivism is the name of only the earliest version of ethical
noncognitivism (also known as expressivism and nondescriptivism).
 Emotivism is the most popular form of non-cognitivism, the meta-ethical theory that
claims that ethical sentences do not convey authentic propositions. Moral judgments,
according to Emotivism, are not statements of fact but are mere expressions of the
emotions of the speaker especially since they are usually feelings—based (De Guzman
et al. 2017).

To understand how the theory views moral judgments, it would help to note that
language is used in a variety of ways. Principally, language is used to state facts or what
we believe to be facts. But there are other purpose for which language may be used like
utterance or command. The purposes of utterances are (1) they are used as means of
influencing other’s behavior and (2) moral sentences are used to expresses (not report)
the speaker’s attitude (De Guzman et al. 2017).

As cited in the article “Emotivism,” Emotivists believe that moral language

expresses emotions and tries to influence others; it has no cognitive content. If I say
homosexuality is evil, I’m just expressing my feeling that homosexuality is disgusting! I
am expressing my emotions and, at the same time, trying to influence you to dislike
homosexuality. The same analysis applies to any moral judgment. If I say that capital
punishment is wrong, I’m just expressing my dislike for it and trying to get you to agree
with me. I might as well have said capital punishment while shaking my head and rolling
my eyes. And if I say that Stalin or Cheney were bad men—which they were—I’m merely
trying to get you to agree with what I’m really saying.

Criticisms on Ethical Subjectivism and Emotivism

Stated in the article “Subjectivism,” subjectivism implies the moral statements are
less significant than most people think they are – this may of course be true without
making moral statement insignificant. More so, Ethical Subjectivism has implications that
are contrary to what we believe about the nature of moral judgments.it also implies that
each of us is infallible so as long as we are honestly expressing our respective feelings
about moral issues. Furthermore, it cannot account for the fact of disagreement in ethics.
Finally, the theory could also have dangerous implications in moral education (De
Guzman et al. 2017).

→ Managing the Feelings

o Aristotle wrote:

“Anyone can get angry – that is easy – but to do this to the right person, to the right
extent, at the right time with the right motive, and in the right way, which is not for
everyone, nor is it easy. In other words, your anger should not be displaced. The moral
person manages his/her feelings well.”
 References:
Course Hero. (2020). Coursehero.com. https://www.coursehero.com/u/file/69557863/Human-
Acts-to-Modifiersdocx/?justUnlocked=1

Course Hero. (2021). Coursehero.com.

https://www.coursehero.com/u/file/94532193/LESSON-6-FEELING-AS-A-MODIFIER-
OF-MORAL-DECISION-MAKING-1pptx/?justUnlocked=1

Course Hero. (2020). Coursehero.com.

https://www.coursehero.com/u/file/53061004/MODIFIERS-OF-HUMAN-ACT-
Ignorancepptx/?justUnlocked=1

Course Hero. (2021). Coursehero.com.

https://www.coursehero.com/u/file/108545066/Accountability-of-Moral-Actsdocx/

Ethics and Accountability | Bizfluent. (2019). Bizfluent. https://bizfluent.com/13654405/ethics-

accountability

GotQuestions.org. (2011, September 27). What is a sin of omission? | GotQuestions.org.

GotQuestions.org. https://www.gotquestions.org/sin-of-omission.html

Manuel, M. (2014). Modifiers of morality. Slideshare.net.

https://www.slideshare.net/mbeth_1505/modifiers-of-morality

MODULE 11 FEELINGS AND REASON and Moral Decision-Making. (2019). StuDocu;

StuDocu. https://www.studocu.com/en-us/document/batangas-state-
university/ethics/module-11-feelings-and-reason-and-moral-decision-
making/15956177

Penn. (2022). Ethical Principles of Responsibility and Accountability. Psu.edu.

https://www.pagecentertraining.psu.edu/public-relations-ethics/ethics-in-crisis-
management/lesson-1-prominent-ethical-issues-in-crisis-situations/ethical-principles-
of-responsibility-and-accountability/

responsibility. (2022). Vocabulary.com. https://www.vocabulary.com/dictionary/responsibility

Surbhi S. (2016, June 22). Difference Between Responsibility and Accountability (with
Comparison Chart) - Key Differences. Key Differences.
https://keydifferences.com/difference-between-responsibility-and-accountability.html

Toppr-guides. (2019, May 31). Toppr-Guides. https://www.toppr.com/guides/fundamentals-of-

economics-and-management/organising/concept-of-responsibility/