✏️

Module 2: Moral Personhood and

Accountability

Lesson 1: Moral Person and Rights

Defining Moral Persons

Moral persons are beings or entities having moral status or standing. They are the
appropriate objects of moral concern.

The actions which we subject to a moral evaluation are those that concern moral
persons—either as the doers or recipients of these actions.

The dead may be considered as a moral person (depending on the state) who is only a
receiver of the moral actions. Other than them, people who are considered as recipients
and not doers of moral actions are babies, comatose patients as well as incapacitated
people with mental challenges.

Module 2: Moral Personhood and Accountability 1

 Moral standards only apply to actions performed by moral persons.

At the minimum, to be a moral person is to be a bearer of moral rights. All moral

persons have moral rights but some have moral duties as well.

Not all individuals have moral duties but everyone has moral rights.

Defining Moral Rights

Rights and Duties

Rights are entitlements; they are interests one is allowed to pursue or actions one is
allowed to do. Duties, in contrast, are what we are obliged to do.

An example of this is education. Primary and Secondary Education are the basic
rights of people as this guarantees that individuals are able to learn the basic skills in
order to find a job. College Education or Tertiary Education is a privilege but not a right,
though this can also be depending on the state one lives in.

Rights correlate with duties: one’s rights impose duties on other people; and one’s
duties are intended to respect the rights of other people.

One has the right to free speech, therefore the duty imposed to exercise this right is the
provision of the venue as well as protection. Another would be education wherein the
duty imposed is the provision of the venue as well as the funding for the persons tuition
in order to study.

Not exercising rights will not merit sanctions (penalties or punishments), while not
performing duties will merit such.

Though the right of one to vote can not be exercised, they would be observing their right
to abstain (though it’s not that recommended). On the other hand, the duty of one to pay

Module 2: Moral Personhood and Accountability 2

 their taxes is mandatory and not doing so can lead to fines and breaking the law as this
can be considered as tax evasion.

Classifying Rights
Rights are classified according to (1) the duties they impose (the duties having such
rights impose on other people), and (2) the manner of their acquisition.

Positive and Negative Rights

According to the duties they impose, rights are either positive or negative.

a. Negative rights impose the duty of non-interference in a person’s exercise of his/her

rights. E.g., right to free speech.
b. Positive rights impose the duties of non-interference and provision in a person’s
exercise of rights. E.g., right to life, right to information.

Some rights are negative or positive in consideration of some factors.

Contractual, Legal, and Moral Rights

According to their manner of acquisition, rights are either contractual, legal, or

moral.

a) Contractual rights are acquired upon entering an agreement or contract.

Contractual rights may be formal or informal.
ex. Marriage and Divorce, though the later is still not legal in some states as well as
same sex marriage (issue on morality)

b) Legal rights are acquired through citizenship.

c) Moral rights are acquired upon becoming a moral person or upon possession of the
morally relevant qualities (such as sentience and rationality—discussed under Criteria
for Moral Personhood).

Module 2: Moral Personhood and Accountability 3

 “Human Rights”: the moral rights of humans

“Animal Rights”: the moral rights of animals

“Machine Rights”: the moral rights of intelligent machines

Lesson 2: Moral Agents and Patients

Moral persons are either the sources or receivers of moral concern or (morally
evaluable) actions. Accordingly, moral persons are either moral agents or moral
patients.

Moral Agents: moral persons acting as the sources of morally evaluable actions;
they necessarily possess both moral rights and duties; they can be morally
accountable for their actions (i.e., they can deserve moral blame or praise for their
actions).

Moral Patients: moral persons acting as the receivers or recipients of morally

evaluable actions; they necessarily posses moral rights only; they cannot be morally
accountable for their actions.

All moral agents are moral patients; but not all moral patients are moral agents.
Accordingly, we can distinguish between agentive and and non-agentive moral
persons.

Agentive Moral Persons: moral persons who can be both moral patients and
agents. E.g., normal human adults

Non-agentive Moral Persons: moral persons who can only be moral patients. E.g.,
animals, mentally challenged humans, infants

Lesson 3: Criteria for Moral Personhood (Theories of

Personhood)

General Classification of Theories of (Moral) Personhood

Module 2: Moral Personhood and Accountability 4

 1.) Uni-criterial Theories: theories claiming that there is just one defining feature of
moral personhood

2.) Multi-criterial Theories: theories claiming that there is more than one defining
feature of moral personhood

3.) Meta-criterial Theories: theories about nature of the defining features of moral
personhood

Uni-criterial Theories of Personhood

1.) Genetic Theory: moral persons are those possessing human DNA.

2.) Life Theory: moral persons are those who are alive.

3.) Rational Theory: moral persons are those with reason and will (or those capable of
intelligence and free choice).

4.) Sentient Theory: moral persons are those capable of experiencing pain (or
suffering) and pleasure.

5.) Relational Theory: moral persons are those in caring relationships

Multi-criterial Theories of Personhood

May involve any combination of the defining moral features.

Module 2: Moral Personhood and Accountability 5

 The combination may be interpreted in two ways:

1.) Strict (or Conjunctive) Interpretation: a moral person possesses all features in the
combination.

2.) Liberal (or Disjunctive) Interpretation: a moral person possesses at least one of
the features in the combination

The most reasonable multi-criterial theory is the rationality-sentience-relationality

combination interpreted liberally, as it is able to account for the moral agent-patient
distinction, and the kinds of moral personhood assumed in ethical theories of
consequentialism, deontology, and virtue ethics.

Meta-criterial Theories of Personhood

1.) Social Theory: moral personhood is a social construct. The criteria for moral
personhood are decided by society.

2.) Gradient Theory: moral personhood comes in degrees. The criteria for moral
personhood can be possessed in greater or lesser degree. Consequently, some entities
have greater moral personhood than the others. (E.g., the more rational or sentient, the
greater moral personhood)

Both theories are criticized for justifying inhumane treatment of one group of
persons by another group. The social theory may justify, for instance, the practice of
slavery.The gradient theory may justify, for instance, the practice of ethnic cleansing

Module 2: Moral Personhood and Accountability 6

 —where the perpetrators think of themselves as belonging to a superior race or as
having moral ascendancy over those they exterminate.

Lesson 4: Features of Moral Accountability

Accountability in General
The natural product of a person’s intelligence and freedom: a person’sIntelligence
enables him/her to know what is right and wrong; while a person’s freedom enables
him/her to choose whether to do what is right or what is wrong.

The deservingness of blame or punishment for doing what is wrong or not doing
what is right, and praise or reward for doing what is right or not doing what is wrong.

Moral Accountability: a person’s deservingness of moral blame or praise for his/her

actions.

Accountability and Responsibility

Though related, these two concepts should not be confused. There are three
senses of responsibility, one of which equates it with accountability.

1.) Responsibility as Accountability

A responsible person is one who deserves blame or praise for his/her actions.

2.) Responsibility as Agency

A responsible person is one who does or causes the action. An agent is not necessarily
accountable for his/her actions.

3.) Responsibility as Duty

Module 2: Moral Personhood and Accountability 7

 A responsible person is one who does his/her duties or obligations.One is accountable
for failing to perform one’s duties.

Moral and Legal Accountability

They differ in terms of their standards: legal accountability is based on the laws of
the government; while moral accountability is based on moral principles.

They differ in terms of their sanctions: the sanctions for legal accountability are
external (e.g., imprisonment, physical punishment, fine, revocation of license); the
sanctions for moral accountability are internal (e.g., shame, guilt, remorse, low self-
esteem);

Lesson 5: Conditions for Moral Accountability

Attribution Conditions: conditions that determine whether a person is morally

accountable for his/her actions. They may be incriminating, when they commit a
person to moral accountability, or excusing, when they excuse or absolve a person
from moral accountability.

Degree Conditions: conditions that determine the extent or gravity of a person’s

moral accountability. They may be mitigating, if they tend to lessen the degree of
moral accountability, or aggravating, if they tend to increase the same.

Incriminating Conditions:

1.) Agency: the person causes the action.

2.) Knowledge: the person knows whether the action is good or bad.

Module 2: Moral Personhood and Accountability 8

 3.) Intentionality: the person is free to perform the action and intends to do it.

For a person to be morally accountable for an action, all conditions should be

present: he/she causes the action, knows the morality of the action, and is free to
perform the action.

Excusing Conditions

1.) Non-agency: the person does not cause the action.

2.) Ignorance: the person does not know the morality of the action (Note: the person
should be blamelessly ignorant—see next slide).

3.) Non-intentionality: the person is not free to perform the action or does not intend to
perform the action.

For a person to be excused from moral accountability for an action, at least one
condition should be present: either he does not cause the action, is ignorant of
the morality of the action, or is not free to perform the action.

Excusable & Non-excusable Ignorance

Real / Blameless Ignorance: the excusable ignorance; the ignorant person cannot
be said to have known better.

Irresponsible / Blameful / Blameworthy Ignorance: the non-excusable ignorance: the

ignorant person can be said to have known better.

Module 2: Moral Personhood and Accountability 9

 Some Factors to Consider
The ignorant person’s mental and physical conditions.

The ignorant person’s access to the relevant information.

Whether the ignorant person has the duty to know what he does not know.

Degree Conditions

1.) Knowledge: the greater the knowledge, the greater the accountability; the lesser the
knowledge, the lesser the accountability

2.) Pressure or Difficulty in Life: the greater the pressure, the lesser the accountability;
the lesser the pressure, the greater the accountability

3.) Intensity of the Injury: the greater the intensity of the injury, the greater the
accountability; the lesser the intensity of the injury, the lesser the accountability

4.) Degree of Involvement: the greater the involvement, the greater the accountability;
the lesser the involvement the lesser the accountability

Module 2: Moral Personhood and Accountability 10