|
|
Ethical ResponsibilityAristotle’s Principle of Responsibility
• Every human act is either voluntary or non-voluntary (not intentional in regard to the act itself or result of the act)
• Praise, blame, and responsibility are attached to voluntary acts and to those in proportion to the voluntariness in the act.
• A voluntary act is not done under compulsion (duress) and is done with knowledge of the circumstances, and by choice (result of deliberation).
* Duress, ignorance, and absence of freedom constitute limits to the voluntary.
• The proportion of voluntariness in the act is Aristotle’s principle of responsibility
• Acts that are deliberate e.g. intentional (fore-thought) and chosen freely are voluntary. E.g. murder “in cold blood” =full blame and full responsibility.
• Acts that are more spontaneous (from passions or appetites like anger, lust) are less deliberate and less voluntary, but still responsible and blameworthy but less so than the cold blooded calculator of the action.
• Acting out of ignorance is from ignorance of circumstances (e.g. driving around a blind curve unaware that another car is making a left hand turn across one's lane; result is a crash).
• The driver intentionally drove around the curve (voluntary), but did not intend hitting the other car (non-voluntary)
• The person is responsible for voluntary part of the act e.g. driving cautiously around blind curves.
• But the driver is not in control of the other car being there (non-voluntary).
• Negligence=deviating from common or proscribed rules for safe performance.
• Reckless=doing some act without due caution
• If the driver was recklessly fast around the curve, then they are more responsible for the crash; if the driver was cautious but had poorly maintained brakes (negligence) they are still responsible unless circumstances mitigate negligence.
• If out of ignorance means the act is done from some degree of unawareness, acting in ignorance means acting without control of one’s mental capacities.
• Three categories are identified for people who are in ignorance:
a) incompetent to exercise judgment,
b) incompetent to form judgment,
c) incompetent to make sound judgment
• Each type of acting in ignorance is acting in a state of mind where the person has lost some degree of responsible self control.
• Incompetent to exercise judgment means non-voluntary because they are unconscious.
• Incompetent to form judgment (immature kids, mental disability)
• Incompetent or unable to make sound judgments (accidental impairment like mental illness, or a self imposed drug or alcohol intoxication)
• An unconscious person isn’t responsible because they cannot exercise judgment
• A child who cannot yet form judgment and is not yet aware of what they are doing can be responsible in a diminished way or not responsible depending on circumstances.
• Choice to loose self control through intoxication (cannot make sound judgments) can be distinct from choice to do something wrong (e.g. striking someone and breaking their jaw).
• To choose to get intoxicated is voluntary and so the loss of self control is blameworthy.
• Is alcoholism a disease? If so, would it be more acting in ignorance (classified as incompetent to make a sound judgment about drink).
• If so, might alcoholism be an addiction which makes the decision to drink alcohol not fully voluntary? In that case, would it be like mental illness? If so, would it be, to some extent, self imposed where mental illness is not considered to be self-imposed?
• Duress= some external force compels a person to do or acquiesce in doing what they would not ordinarily choose to do.
• Examples of duress: imprisonment and torture to get a person to do something like signing a confession, being robbed at gun point, brainwashing.
* Voluntary and non-voluntary are basic to praise and blame; degrees of praise and blame are attached to degrees of voluntary and non-voluntary.
* Judgments about voluntary and non-voluntary, praise or blame, may have to be made in courts, but outside of courts individuals need to be cautious about judging and claiming to know another's ethical state of mind.
|
|
|
