Voluntariness of Human Act

link vid:https://lair.education/pluginfile.php/325984/mod_label/intro/DegreesOfVolunatriness.mp4

PPT:
Voluntariness - Latin word “Voluntas” referring to the will.
- Essential to an act, without it an act is a mere act of man.

Degrees of Voluntariness

Perfect – when the agent fully knows and fully intends the act
Example: telling a lie to your parents
Imperfect – when there is some detect in the agent’s knowledge, intention, or both.
Example: adding details in narrating an event

Simple and Conditional

Simple voluntariness - is present in a human act done, whether the agent likes or dislikes doing it.
Example: washing the dishes after the family meal
Conditional voluntariness is present in the agent’s wish to do something other than that which he is
doing but doing with dislike.
Example: washing the dishes with a wish of just watching TV

Positive and Negative

Positive voluntariness is present in a human act of doing, performing. It is present in an act that the
agent is ought to do and is doing it.
Example: A student attends class on his scheduled time.
Negative voluntariness is present in a human act of omitting, refraining from doing. It is present in an
act that the agent is not ought to do but is doing it.
Example: A student deliberately misses class.

Two Types of Voluntariness

Direct voluntariness – is present in a human act willed in itself.

Indirect voluntariness - is present in that human act which is the foreseen result of another act directly
willed.

A human act that is directly willed is called voluntary in se

while that which is indirectly willed is called voluntary in causa.
A person is accountable for his actions and their consequences. But is he also accountable for results
not directly intended?

Paul Glenn considers a person accountable for indirectly voluntary results of his acts when:

1. The doer is able to foresee the evil results or effect, at least, in a general way;
2. The doer is free to refrain from doing that which would produce the foreseen evil;
3. The doer has moral obligation not to do that which would produces an evil effect.

Principle of Double Effect

The agent may lawfully perform an act which has two effects, one good and one evil, when the
following conditions are met:

1. The goal itself must be good or at least morally neutral.

2. The good effect must not come about as a result of the evil effect but must come directly from
the good action.
3. The evil effect must not be desired in itself but only permitted if there is no other choice.
4. There must be a sufficiently grave reason for permitting the evil effect to occur.

The example shown below is for the treatment of an ectopic pregnancy, where the preborn child is
developing in the Fallopian tube. If the child continues to grow there, the tube will eventually rupture
and will probably cause the death of both the mother and the child.

1. The goal of the surgery itself must be good or at least morally neutral. In this case, the goal of
the surgery is to remove a pathological organ which presents an imminent threat to the life of
the woman—a good goal. By contrast, the goal of surgical or chemical abortion is simply to kill
the preborn child.
2. The good effect must not come about as a result of the evil effect, but must come directly from
the good action, which in this case is the surgery intended to heal. The good effect (saving the
mother’s life) is not caused by the bad effect (the death of the preborn child). By contrast, in
the case of direct abortion (surgical or chemical abortion), the death of the child is wrongly
considered to be the “good” effect.
3. The evil effect must not be desired in itself but only permitted, if there is no other choice. In the
case of the removal of an ectopic pregnancy, the surgeon does not intend or want to kill the
baby; the baby’s death is an unintended and unwanted side effect of the surgery. By contrast,
the intent of abortion is to kill the preborn child.
4. There must be a sufficiently grave reason for permitting the evil effect to occur. In this case, the
reason is to save the life of the mother when all other options for saving her life have been
exhausted, a good that is greater than or equal to the evil effect of the baby’s death. Pro-
abortion groups often stretch this principle to absurd lengths, going so far as to
justify all abortions under the principle of double effect because, as they falsely allege, most or
all pregnancies threaten the life of the mother.