The Moral Principle Involvedin Actions having Two Effects
A difficult question sometimes arises as to whether it would be morally right to do certain actions fromwhich good as well as bad effects follow.
• For example, should a man he restrained from saving his honor because the reputation of a highgovernment official will be destroyed from disclosures he has to make in his defense?
• Was it morally tight to drop the atomic bomb which would shorten the war, but which woulddestroy thousand and thousands of innocent lives?
• Is it morally right to do an am which entails had as well as good consequences? The answer tothese question§ is yes, but under the following conditions:
a) The al in itself should be good, or at least morally indiffer-ent.
b) The evil effect should not be directly intended, but morally allowed to happen as a regrettable sideissue;
c) There should he a reason sufficiently grave in doing the act. andd) That the evil effect should not outweigh the good effect.
Factors that Lessen Accountability
Since responsibility depends on the voluntariness present in an act, we must inquire into the factorswhich affect voluntariness in an action. These are, namely: ignorance, concupiscence, fear, and violence.
Ignorance is the absence of intellectual knowledge.
We distinguish between vincible and invincible ignorance.
Vincible ignorance
• can be dispelled or overcome by due amount of diligence.
Invincible ignorance
• cannot be overcome by any amount of diligence or effort becauate under the circumstances itis impossible for one to know.
PRINCIPLES:
1. Invincible ignorance excuses and relieves the agent of responsibility. Acts done in invincibleignorance are, therefore, not voluntary and the agent is not held responsible for them.
Example: A negrito who had been living all his life in the mountains, and who happened to come to
Manila for the first time, and violated traffic laws, could not be held responsible for violating the law.
2. Vincible ignorance dues not destroy or remove voluntariness, nor responsibility. Acts done invincible ignorance are still voluntary and the agent is still responsible for them.
Example: A Manila resident who violated traffic laws, not knowing of such laws before, would still beresponsible for his act. because his ignorance is vincible.
Concupiscence
(technically called concupiscence) affect the voluntariness of an action.
• For a man, acting under the influence of a passion would not be acting perfectly of his own freevolition.
• A man in a it of anger, for instance, is liable to do acts which otherwise he would not do in hisright senses.
We distinguish between antecedent and consequent concupiscence.
• The former is that type of concupiscence which occurs in to spontaneously without ourstimulating it;
• The latter one arises at the command or continues with the consent of the will.
• The first impulse is not five, and consequently not imputable to us. In as far as concupiscenceimpels the will, it restrains our libeny and thus lessens our responsibility.
PRINCIPLES:
• Antecedent concupiscence lessens but does not remove voluntariness and responsibility.
• Consequent concupiscence neithcr lessens nor destroys responsibility.
Fear and Violence
MORAL PRINCIPLES:
1. When we act because of fear, our will is dragged along, to to say. and so its freedom is restrictedand our responsibility is diminised correspondingly. Great fear sometimes exempts a person fromacts enjoined by positive law (laws of the State)
2. Violence is an impulse from without tending to force the agent to act against his will.
The Principle of Coercion
Active and Passive Principle of Violence
Closely connected with the moral principle of the two-fold effect is the moral principle involvingcoercion w hich may be stated briefly in this form:
" UNDER CERTAIN CONDITIONS IT IS MORALLY RIGHT TO USE FORCE OR EMPLOY VIOLENCE IN DEFENSEOF CERTAIN BASIC RIGHTS. EVEN IF BY THE EMPLOYMENT OF SUCH FORCE OR VIOLENCE CERTAIN EVILEFFECT OR EFFECTS MAY FOLLOW. SUCH AS THE DEATH OF THE AGGRESSOR" This moral principle isjustified on the following grounds:
1. Man as a person possesses certain fundamental sights (Chapter 9).
2. The existence of a right of one entails a corresponding duty on others to respect this right (chapter
3. That if these rights are violated or denied, the possessor thereof has the right to defend, and usethe means necessary 10 defend his rights (Chapters 9, 10, 12. and 13).
4. Sometimes the employment of force or violence resulting in bloodshed or death of an aggressor isthe only possible was to defend said rights.
5. Evil effects that often follow or accompany the use of force arc merely concomitant and resultantfactors and if not directly intended are extrinsic to the nature of thc means (act) used and thereforedoes not contradict our principle that one should not employ intrinsically evil nteans even to attain agood and. The use of force or violence independent of the end or the effects it produces is not bad initself.
6. There are two effects involved hem, one good and one bad, defense of the right of the possessorwhich is good. and harm on the aggressor which is bad; and hence to do an act which brings about thesetwo effects may be justifiable under the conditions provided in the principle of He twofold effect.
7. This is likewise in consonance with the morally sound principle that if one had to choose between twoevil, one should choose the lesser. Herein the evil effects of defensive acts are less than the evil effects
of offense. Offense justifies defense as long as no greater harm be inflicted than what is necessary fordefense. according to the morally established principle of the twofold effect.
In short, the justification of the use of violence springs from the principle that the possession of a rightnaturally includes the right to defend such right. Right without power to defend itself is dead. However,because of the grave evil consequences following the use of violence, evil consequences which usuallyfar outweigh or offset whatever good effects that may be derived from the employ-ment thereof, it isoften very hard, if not impossible, to justify resort to violence: Thus the supreme representative of theSupreme Law-giver and Peacemaker said in one of his addresses:
Violence and Habit
The principle of passive violence can he stated briefly and 1, self-explanatory: Acts done owing toviolence (i.e., acts one does because one is forced against his will to do) are not voluntary provided thatdue resistance is made. Consequently, the doer is not morally responsible for doing such acts. The moralprinciple governing acts done by force of habit reads. Acts done by force of habit are still voluntary, atleast in cause. as long as the habit is allowed to stay.
Explanation of the Two Principles
1. When we are forced to do things or acts entirely against our will, then obviously our acts are notvoluntary and hence we are not responsible therefor, provided due resistance is made. Theresistance should be present throughout will or effort to offer adequate resistancethe whole act.Lack of render the act voluntary, albeit minimally. and disapproval may
2. Re acts done by force of habit, there is still voluntariness on the part of the doer and he isresponsible for the same if he willfully developed the habit and malces no effort to overcome thesame. Whatever therefore flows or follows from the habit which the doer initially entertained andallowed to become a part of him is still voluntary on the pan of the doer.