ETHICS

(VOLUNTARINES
S)
VOLUNTARINESS: ITS IMPORTANCE TO
ETHICS

 Ethics deals with the study of human

acts (voluntary acts of man)
 It is the amount or degree of
voluntariness present in an act which
determines the amount or degree of
responsibility and this in turn will
determine the amount of punishment,
if any, to be meted out.
Perfect Voluntariness Imperfect Voluntariness

Acts done with There is no

full knowledge perfect
and consent knowledge or
consent
DIRECT VOLUNTARY ACT

when the act is

intended for its own
sake, either as a
means or as an end
EXAMPLE
 He who intends to go to a
party in order to drink
with friends wills both the
going to the party and the
drinking with friends.
Both acts, therefore, are
directly voluntary.
INDIRECT VOLUNTARY ACT

 an act which is not intended for

its own sake but with merely
follows as a regrettable
consequence of an action directly
willed.
 Refers to an act which is desired
not as an end in itself but as a
foreseen effect or consequences of
an act.
 Refers to an act which is the
foreseen consequence of another
act directly intended.
EXAMPLES
 Throwing precious cargoes from a sinking boat
to save lives of passengers. Here the throwing
and losing of the cargoes is not desired or
intended. It comes as a consequence of saving
lives of passengers.
 Going to a party to enjoy with friends but
making trouble when drunk. The making of
trouble may have been foreseen and foreknown
but it may have been intended; in which case, the
act of making trouble is only indirectly
voluntary.
 Surrendering and giving your money and
valuables to a holdupper who gravely threatened
to kill you if you don’t.
Why is an indirect
voluntary act still
voluntary when it is
not intended and
follows only as a
regrettable side
issue?
It is when we will to do an act, we
will the whole act including its
consequences; and since we place the
cause, we also indirectly will the
effect, although this is in itself
regrettable. We are therefore
responsible for the consequences of
our actions even if these are not
intended.
When is the agent
responsible for the
evil effect of a
cause directly
willed?
CONDITIONS:
 If the agent foresee the evil
effect, at least in a general way;
 If the agent is free to refrain
from doing that which is the
cause of the evil effect; and
 If the agent knows that he is
morally bound not to do that
which is the cause of the evil
effect.
EXAMPLE
 A person committed suicide by throwing himself down
from the 14th floor of a building. However, instead of
falling on the ground, he fell on an old man and the old
man died instantly. Is the person who wanted to commit
suicide responsible for the death of the old man?
 Did he directly intend to kill the old man?

 Did he foresee the evil effect of the act (suicide) i.e. the
death of the old man?
 Can the person refrain from committing suicide – which
is the cause of the death of the old man?
 Is the person morally responsible for the death of the old
man?
A woman is pregnant with her three-month-old
fetus suffers from severe cough due to
tubercolosis. She knows that if she takes
medicine, her fetus may be aborted.
Nevertheless, to free herself from the illness, she
takes a considerable dose of medicines. Is the
woman morally responsible of the death of the
fetus?
 Yes, because she foresees the evil effect of her
intake of medicine.
THE MORAL
PRINCIPLE INVOLVED
IN ACTIONS HAVING
TWO EFFECTS
 Should a man be restrained from saving his honor
because the reputation of a high government
official will be destroyed from disclosures so he
has to make in his defense?
 Was it morally right to drop the atomic bomb
which would shorten the war, but which would
destroy thousands and thousands of innocent
lives?
 Is it morally right to do an act which entails bad as
well as good consequences?
A difficult question
sometimes arises as
to whether it would
be morally right to do
certain actions from
which good as well as
bad effects follow.
CONDITIONS
 The act itself should be good, or at least
morally indifferent;
 The evil effect should not be directly
intended, but morally allowed to happen
as a regrettable side issue;
 There should be a reason sufficiently
grave in doing the act; and
 That the evil effect should not outweigh
the good effect.
THE ACT ITSELF SHOULD BE GOOD, OR AT
LEAST MORALLY INDIFFERENT
 Requires the act to be good in itself
 The end does not justify the means.

We should not employ bad means even, in

order to attain a good end.

We may not do evil that good may result.

 The morality of an act primarily depends on the

nature of the act itself and not on the intention
of the agent, nor on the consequences of the
act.
APPLICATIONS:
 One may not tell a lie even for the purpose of saving
one’s honor, or in order to win a case, etc., without
incurring moral guilt, because while the end is good the
means employed (lying) is bad.
 It is not morally justified to shorten the life of one dying
even with the intention of saving him from the prolonged
and useless pain and suffering.
 It is not morally justified to shorten the life of one dying
even with the intention of saving him from the prolonged
and useless pain and suffering.
 It is immoral to practice intentional abortion for any
reason whatsoever.
APPLICATIONS:
 To correct the mistake of others is good but if it is done
intentionally in such a manner that the person corrected
is embarrassed, the whole action is bad.
THE EVIL EFFECT SHOULD NOT BE DIRECTLY INTENDED,
BUT MORALLY ALLOWED TO HAPPEN AS A REGRETTABLE
SIDE ISSUE;

 Requires that the evil effect be not

intended. The reason behind this is that
if the evil be directly intended, the act
would be done for the sake of evil, and
this is forbidden directly by the moral
law.
THAT THE EVIL EFFECT SHOULD NOT OUTWEIGH THE
GOOD EFFECT.

 The reason behind the fourth is

that if the evil effect be greater,
then the intention and motive in
doing the act would be more for
evil than for good, and this is
against the moral law.