We assume that people involved in moral actions are moral persons who have moral status. Moral judgement only apply to actions involving them.
Moral persons generally only refer to humans; hence, animals are usually not judged morally—moral doers still get judged when interacting with animals. Nevertheless, it becomes more complicated when discussing humans who are either not sentient or have mental disabilities.
Moral persons and rights
Moral persons are beings with moral status and moral rights; hence, we should be concerned for the rightness or wrongness of how they act or how they are being treated.
Duties are actions we ought to do. Unlike rights, failure to perform them merits a sanction.
People have a duty to respect the rights of others
Rights
Rights refer to interests one is allowed to pursue or actions one is allowed to do. Possession of rights implies that others have duties involving those rights—either duties of non-interference or duties of provision.
Classifications
Based on the duties imposed by rights. It can sometimes be either depending on the condition (like if the duties of provision is impossible)
Negative rights - only involves rights that impose duties of non-interference
Positive rights - involves rights that impose duties of provision and the duties of non-interference
Based on how the rights were acquired
Contractual rights - are rights we acquire when we enter into an agreement or a contract. They are either formal—when the rights and duties of the parties in the contract are explicitly stated—or informal—when the rights and duties are merely implied.
Legal rights - are rights we acquire when we become a citizen of a particular state.
Moral rights - are rights we acquire when we become a moral person or a member of a moral community. This entails that moral rights are granted to those exhibiting the defining qualities of moral personhood: sentience (the capacity to experience pleasure and pain), and rationality (the capacity to know and choose freely).
Human rights refer to the moral rights of humans. Similarly, moral rights involving animals are referred to as animal rights.
We judge the morality of legal and contractual rights on the basis of whether they respect or violate moral rights.
Moral agents perform morally evaluable actions because it is their moral duty
Moral patients receive morally evaluable actions because it is their moral right
All moral persons are moral patients but not all of them are moral agents (everyone has moral rights but not moral duties). In order to be a moral agent, one must have the capacity to make informed decisions
Only agentive moral persons can be held accountable for their actions; however, other conditions must also be satisfied before a moral agent can be held accountable for their actions
Criteria for moral personhood
Views about the criteria by which entities are regarded as moral persons are known as theories of personhood
Assumes that there is only one quality that sufficiently defines moral personhood
The genetic theory of personhood argues that only humans are moral persons. It gives rise to the question of why homo sapiens morally value their genetic uniqueness. Critics say that the baseless denial of personhood to non-humans is a discriminatory form of speciesism.
The life theory of personhood claims that personhood is defined by the possession of life. In its extreme version, it also includes insects and micro-organisms. As a result, it is criticized for being impractical.
The rational theory of personhood contends that rationality—the capacity to act freely and reason—is what defines personhood. It is criticized for excluding beings without rationality (mentally challenged humans, comatose patients, and etc.)
The sentient theory of personhood argues that the defining feature of personhood is sentience—the capacity to feel pain and pleasure. It is criticized for excluding people who lost their capacity for sentience, like paralyzed humans. In addition, it is criticized for not being able to justify why we should care about preserving ecological systems. Lastly, it is criticized for prioritizing animals who have higher sentience than humans (especially those who have lost it due to specific conditions).
The relational theory of personhood contends that the defining feature of personhood is relationships. It is, however, usually limited to human relationships only. Nevertheless, it can be extended to animals and plants. The theory is criticized for entailing that only people part of the/a caring relationships have value. Lastly, it also entails non-living objects can also be objects of moral consideration depending on who cares for them.
Multi-criterial theories
Assumes that a combination of more than one qualities is what is sufficient to define moral personhood (usually a combination of uni-criterial theories). It can be understood in two ways:
conjunctively, conjunctive construal, or strict interpretation, requires that all characteristics are present to be qualified as a person. It is criticized for being counter-productive at times by being too exclusive.
disjunctively, disjunctive construal, or liberal interpretation, requires that at least one characteristic is present to be qualified as a person. It is criticized for being too inclusive; for instance, by potentially including micro-organisms to the moral community.
The cognitive theory of personhood contends that an entity is only considered a person when they exhibit the following qualities: consciousness, reasoning, self-motivated activity, communication, and self-concept and self-awareness. This theory combines the sentient and rational theory of personhood.
For the purposes of this course, only the three should be considered (in the liberal interpretation of it): rationality, sentience, and relationality. This is so that we can understand the three dominant ethical theories.
Meta-criterial theories
Instead of identifying the criteria for determining if a being is a moral person or not, they are qualified with regards to their mode of existence and attribution. There are two prominent theories of this type:
social theory of personhood - states that personhood is a social construct, a mere creation of society, since the accepted criteria hinges on the formed social agreement.
gradient theory of personhood - claims that personhood varies in degrees because moral persons possess the defining traits of personhood in varying degrees too.
The two prominent meta-criterial theories have been criticized for being a potential means for justifying inhumane treatment of certain groups.
Accountability refers to the deservingness of punishment or reward based on the rightness of our actions. It is a product of our rationality because it allows us to distinguish right from wrong.
Just because someone deserves a punishment or reward does not mean that they actually get the punishment or reward they deserve.
Kant believes that the goal of morality is the deservingness of happiness, not really happiness. Accountability is similar in a way that someone may deserve a treatment, but actually do not receive it.
In philosophy, a person is usually referred to as an agent, as opposed to inanimate objects who are known as causes. Being an agent is a necessary precondition for accountability.
An agent being a precondition for accountability does not imply that, by being responsible for an action, you should be held morally accountable for it (just that you can be). This is because there are also other conditions that must be satisfied before holding someone accountable for a particular action. In this context, responsibility refers to the cause of the action.
Responsibility can also refer to the possession duties or obligations that gives rise to accountability. This is also known as prospective responsibility, referring to the responsibility directed towards actions that will or may happen.
On the other hand, retrospective responsibility deals with responsibility directed towards actions that had already happened, which people often interchange with accountability.
Moral and legal accountability
There are different types of accountability; one way of distinguishing them is by focusing on the standards used to evaluate the quality (rightness or wrongness) of an action—moral accountability uses moral standards while legal accountability uses legal standards.
Legal sanctions involve external (physical) forms of punishment while moral sanctions involve internal (or mental) forms of punishment.
Ignorance condition refers to the occurrence when the knowledge condition fails to be satisfied
Blameless ignorance - refers to the ignorance where the ignorant person could have not known better. In this case, the ignorance could be excused.
Blameful ignorance (or blameworthy ignorance) - pertains to the type of ignorance where the ignorant person could have known better (but did not) because it is their duty to do. In this case, their ignorance cannot be excused.
Considerations to determine if a person should have known better or not:
Does the person have the capacity to know what they ought to know in a given situation?
Given their role, is it their duty to know better?
Involuntariness condition refers to the occurrence when the intentionality condition fails to be satisfied
The degree conditions
These conditions deal with the degree of an agent’s accountability. Under these are the following:
4 conditions that determine the degree:
Degree of knowledge - the greater the knowledge, the greater the moral accountability; the lesser the knowledge, the lesser the moral accountability.
Degree of pressure - refers to the difficulty in life that forces one to perform a wrongdoing. The greater the pressure, the lesser the moral accountability; the lesser the pressure, the greater the moral accountability.
Degree of intensity - the greater the intensity (or seriousness) of the injury, the greater the moral accountability; the lesser the intensity, the lesser the moral accountability.
Degree of involvement - the greater the involvement, the greater the moral accountability; the lesser the involvement, the lesser the moral accountability.