Lesson 2: Accountability of Moral Act

Bases of Moral Accountability

Says Fr. Coppens (2017):

 When I perform a free act-- one which I am able to do or not to do, as I choose -- the act is evidently imputable to me: if the thing is blameworthy, the blame belongs to me; if it is praiseworthy, I am entitled to the praise. Every human act, therefore, since it is an as 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 a violation of moral standards? Under Christian Natural law ethics, God is deemed the author of the law, hence violators are accountable solely to themselves.

There are three bases for moral accountability, namely: knowledge, freedom, and voluntariness. These are the necessary conditions for the accountability of actions. First, a human act must be done knowingly; second, it must be done freely and third, it must be done voluntarily intentionally or 'negligent). To be credited for a good act or held morally liable or responsible for an evil act, a person must have done it knowingly willingly, and voluntarily. Determining moral liability is analogous to determining criminal liability. In criminal law, for instance, for you to be liable you must have done the criminal act knowingly, freely, and willingly. So similarly, in ethics, for you to be morally liable, you must have done the unethical act knowingly, freely, and willingly or voluntarily.

In other words, for you to be morally responsible for your actions, you must, first, have the knowledge, that is, you are in possession of a normal mind; you are not insane or totally ignorant, sleep-walking due to somnambulism. Knowledge is "the awareness of or familiarity with a fact, situation, or truth, unveiled through experience or disclosed in dialogue or encounter with persons or things." Knowledge that is wrong is stealing the awareness of what stealing is all about, that is, taking the property of another without consent, as well as the awareness of property rights, and all other violating unpleasant consequences of rights. Knowledge that violating others' stealing is wrong is the stealing wrong.

To have genuine knowledge, your mind must be normal, not impaired or vitiated, by mental condition or ignorance.

Secondly, the act is freely done. This happens when you can exercise your power of choice. If the act you intend to do is a choice between stealing or not stealing, then you must have the freedom to choose which to do. 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.

 Thirdly, the act must be voluntary, that is, the act is 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. You can be morally liable either by intentional act or negligent failure to exercise care and precaution. "A voluntary act proceeds from the will and depends upon the will for its performance. When something is done purely by accident, this is referred as fortuitous event, act of God. 

Judas was morally accountable for having betrayed Jesus. He had knowledge. He knew what he was doing. Jesus said, "One of you will betray me." He freely chose to betray Jesus tempted by the thought of 30 of pieces silver. He voluntarily and intentionally did it. He led the soldiers to the Garden of Gethsemane and kissed Jesus to signify to the soldiers that he was the one to be arrested.

For instance, stealing is immoral. To be liable for this immoral act, you must do it knowing that it is immoral, you do it freely, that 1s, you are not forced or coerced, and voluntarily, that is, with intentions to do it. Sideswiping a pedestrian causing his death is immoral if the incident happens due to your negligence, like driving under the influence of liquor, texting while driving, or driving without a license. Accidentally dropping a' gun causing the gun to fire and hit and kill someone won't make anyone accountable, unless you have been negligently playing with the gun. Indiscriminate firing of guns during New Year merry-making leading to the death of someone is criminal negligence and immoral.

 Ultimately, it can be said that your degree of moral accountability depends on the degree or extent of knowledge, freedom, and voluntariness. Addiction of whatever kind, e.g. drugs, sex, power, money, or property, weaken all, three bases: knowledge, freedom, and voluntariness, so that instead of eliminating them "like dregs of civilization," they should be treated with compassion, however, not condoning their acts.

Modifiers of Human Act

There are various factors that either increase or decrease accountability. They are called modifiers of human acts. These are analogous to exempting, mitigating, aggravating and justifying circumstances in criminal law. "They affect the mental or emotional state of a person to the extent that the voluntariness involved in an act is either increased or decreased." They are as follows: 1) ignorance, 2) passions, 3) fear, and 4) violence. (Panizo, 1964)

Ignorance is the "absence of knowledge." There are various degrees of ignorance. Traditional ethics classifies them as vincible, invincible, affected, and supine or gross ignorance. "ignorance, whether of the law or of the facts, is either vincible or invincible. When it cannot be overcome by the due amount of diligence, it 1s invincible; otherwise, it is vincible. The latter is said to be gross or supine when scarcely an effort has been made to remove it; and if a person deliberately avoids enlightenment in order to sin more freely, his ignorance is affected. The basic rule is invincible ignorance, one that is beyond one's ability to overcome is entirely involuntary, and hence removes moral responsibility; Vincible ignorance does not free us from responsibility.

Passion refers to positive emotions like love, desire, delight, hope, and bravery and negative emotions like hatred, horror, sadness, despair, fear, and anger. "Antecedent passions those that precede the act, do not always destroy voluntariness, but they diminish accountability for the resultant act. In criminal law, the commission of a criminal act "with passion and obfuscation" means the perpetrator is blinded by his emotions lessening his accountability from maximum to medium or from medium to minimum. Consequent passions are those that are intentionally aroused and kept. They do not lessen voluntariness, but may increase accountability." (Panizo, 1964).

Fear is the disturbance of the mind of a person due to impending danger or harm to himself or loved ones. Acts done with fear is voluntary, but acts done because of intense or uncontrollable fear or panic are involuntary.

Violence refers to any physical force exerted on a person by another free agent for the purpose of compelling said person to act against his will. Actions performed by a person subjected to violence or irresistible force are involuntary and not accountable. 

Moral Accountability for What Could Have Been

It is termed as sin of omission. Whatever one fails to do but which should have been done is also imputable to him. This refers to failure to act despite knowledge of being free, therefore different from lack of negligence or foresight. It is intentionally not doing the same thing when one has done it. It is failing to act as a Good Samaritan when one acted as such. Pilate had the case of Jesus Christ investigated and Him found innocent. He could have set Jesus free but he did not. Withholding information could have prevented a disaster. Damaging consequences could have been avoided. 

I

se which to do. 

uncontrollable