Module 2

Moral Personhood
and Accountability
Lesson 1: Moral Persons and Rights
Lesson 2: Moral Agents and Patients
Lesson 3: Criteria for Moral Personhood
Lesson 4: Features of Moral Accountability
Lesson 5: Conditions for Moral Accountability
 Lesson 1: Moral Persons 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.
• 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.
Defining Moral Rights
• What are rights in general and how are they classified?
• How are moral rights different from other kinds of 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.
• 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.
• Not exercising rights will not merit sanctions (penalties or punishments),
while not performing duties will merit such.
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.

1. 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.
2. 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.
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).
• “Human Rights”: the moral rights of humans
• “Animal Rights”: the moral rights of animals
• “Machine Rights”: the moral rights of intelligent and fully autonomous
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

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.
• 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—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’s
Intelligence 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
• 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.
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 and 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.

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
GEETHIC Blueprint Presentations
Prepared by: Napoleon M. Mabaquiao, Jr
Department of Philosophy
DLSU, Term 3, AY 2019-20

Reference: Evangelista, F. and N. Mabaquiao. Ethics: Theories and Applications

(Anvil Publishing Inc., 2020).