ETHICS VOLUNTARINES S VOLUNTARINESS ITS IMPORTANCE TO ETHICS

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 There done with full knowledge and consent is no perfect 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 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 14 th 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 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.