Accountability of moral acts refers to the responsibility individuals hold for their actions,

particularly in ethical and moral contexts. This concept explores how people are answerable for
their decisions and behaviors, emphasizing personal and social consequences.

Several philosophers have contributed to discussions on moral accountability:

1. Aristotle (384–322 BCE) – In his ethical writings, particularly in Nicomachean Ethics,

Aristotle emphasizes voluntariness in moral actions. He argues that individuals are
responsible for actions performed voluntarily and should be accountable for their choices,
especially when they arise from rational deliberation.
2. Immanuel Kant (1724–1804) – Kant's deontological ethics stresses duty and moral laws.
He believed that moral accountability is grounded in rational autonomy, meaning
individuals are responsible for following universal moral principles and can be held
accountable when they violate them.
3. John Stuart Mill (1806–1873) – As a utilitarian thinker, Mill considered moral
accountability in terms of the consequences of actions. He argued that individuals are
morally responsible when their actions contribute to overall happiness or harm,
reinforcing the principle of the greatest good for the greatest number.
4. Jean-Paul Sartre (1905–1980) – Sartre’s existentialist philosophy asserts radical
freedom and responsibility. He believed that individuals are fully accountable for their
actions since they create meaning and define themselves through their choices.
5. Hannah Arendt (1906–1975) – Arendt explored moral accountability in political and
social contexts. In Eichmann in Jerusalem, she discussed the concept of the banality of
evil, showing how individuals may evade responsibility by blindly following orders,
raising critical questions about ethical accountability in bureaucratic systems.

Comparison to Other Philosophers

 Kant: Morality is based on duty and universal laws.

 Aristotle: Ethical life is built through virtues and habits.
 Mill: Morality is about maximizing happiness.
 Sartre: Humans are free but must take full responsibility for their choices.

Reason refers to the ability to think, analyze, and make judgments based on logic and
understanding rather than emotions or instinct. It is the foundation of rational thought and is
essential in philosophy, science, and ethics.

Philosophical Perspectives on Reason

1. Plato (c. 427–347 BCE) – Reason is the highest faculty of the soul, enabling humans to
grasp eternal truths beyond mere appearances.
 2. Aristotle (384–322 BCE) – Reason, or logos, is what distinguishes humans from
animals. It allows people to deliberate and act ethically.
3. Immanuel Kant (1724–1804) – Reason structures human experience and defines
morality through rational principles, such as the Categorical Imperative.
4. René Descartes (1596–1650) – Famous for "Cogito, ergo sum" ("I think, therefore I
am"), Descartes viewed reason as the basis of knowledge.
5. John Stuart Mill (1806–1873) – Used reason to argue for utilitarianism, where moral
decisions should aim to maximize happiness.

Types of Reasoning

 Deductive Reasoning – Drawing conclusions from general principles (e.g., all humans
are mortal → Socrates is human → Socrates is mortal).
 Inductive Reasoning – Making generalizations based on observations (e.g., the sun has
risen every day → it will rise tomorrow).
 Practical Reason – Used in everyday decision-making and ethics (e.g., choosing
between right and wrong).
 Theoretical Reason – Concerned with abstract thought and truth (e.g., scientific theories
and philosophical inquiries).

The will refers to the faculty of making conscious choices and decisions. It is closely tied to
intention, motivation, and agency in human behavior. Philosophically, the will is often discussed
in relation to freedom, morality, and self-determination.

Philosophical Perspectives on the Will

1. Aristotle – He viewed the will as part of rational decision-making. In Nicomachean

Ethics, he discusses voluntary and involuntary actions, emphasizing that moral
responsibility depends on whether an action is chosen deliberately.
2. Immanuel Kant – Kant introduced the concept of the good will, arguing that moral
worth comes from acting out of duty and rational principles rather than personal desires.
3. Arthur Schopenhauer – He described the will as a blind, irrational force that drives
human behavior and the natural world. In The World as Will and Representation, he
argues that suffering stems from the unrelenting desires of the will.
4. Friedrich Nietzsche – Nietzsche introduced the idea of will to power, suggesting that
human beings are driven by an innate force to assert control, overcome challenges, and
create meaning.
5. Jean-Paul Sartre – As an existentialist, Sartre believed in radical freedom and claimed
that individuals are completely responsible for their actions. He argued that people create
their own values through acts of will.

The Will in Ethics and Psychology

 In ethics, the will determines moral responsibility. A person is accountable for their
actions if they choose them freely.
  In psychology, theories like Freud’s explore willpower as the ability to control impulses
and make rational decisions.

Here are examples for each philosophical perspective on the will:

1. Aristotle – Voluntary vs. Involuntary Actions

o Example: Suppose a student chooses to study hard for an exam. According to
Aristotle, this is a voluntary act, meaning the student is morally responsible for
their decision.
o However, if the same student accidentally falls asleep due to exhaustion, this is an
involuntary act, and they wouldn’t be accountable for failing to study in that
moment.
2. Kant – The Good Will and Moral Duty
o Example: A doctor who provides free medical care to the poor out of moral duty
rather than personal gain is acting with good will, according to Kant.
o Their action is ethical not because it leads to good consequences, but because it
is motivated by duty and respect for human dignity.
3. Schopenhauer – The Will as an Irrational Force
o Example: A person who constantly pursues wealth, even though they are already
financially stable, might be driven by an irrational will to want more.
o Schopenhauer would argue that this endless desire causes suffering, since the
individual is never truly satisfied.
4. Nietzsche – The Will to Power
o Example: A struggling artist who defies societal norms, takes risks, and creates
revolutionary work is acting on will to power—a drive to exert creativity and
influence rather than seeking approval.
o Nietzsche sees this kind of ambition as a way to overcome obstacles and express
individuality.
5. Sartre – Radical Freedom and Responsibility
o Example: If someone stays in an unhappy job and claims they “have no choice,”
Sartre would say they are acting in bad faith by denying their freedom.
o They do have a choice, but they avoid responsibility because making a life
change is difficult.

Kant’s philosophy is based on deontological ethics, meaning he believed morality is grounded

in duty rather than consequences. In his work Groundwork of the Metaphysics of Morals, he
introduced the Categorical Imperative, a principle that states moral actions must be universally
applicable. In other words, an action is morally acceptable only if it can be applied to everyone
without contradiction.

For example, imagine someone is considering lying to escape a difficult situation. Kant would
argue that lying violates moral duty because, if everyone lied whenever convenient, trust would
disappear, and communication would break down—making truth impossible. Thus, by following
the Categorical Imperative, individuals hold personal accountability for their moral choices,
knowing they should act in a way that others could reasonably follow.
Kant also emphasized autonomy, the idea that moral agents must act out of free will and rational
decision-making. Unlike theories that justify actions based on emotions or external pressures,
Kantian ethics holds that true moral responsibility comes from rational, self-governed choices.

Another key concept is good will—the belief that morality isn’t measured by success or
outcomes but by intention. He argued that an individual’s moral accountability lies in their
commitment to ethical duty, regardless of the results.

Kant’s Categorical Imperative is a foundational principle in deontological ethics. It serves as a

universal moral law that applies to all rational beings, guiding them in making ethical decisions
based on duty rather than consequences.

Kant formulated several versions of the Categorical Imperative, but the two most well-known
are:

1. The Universalizability Principle

This version states: "Act only according to that maxim whereby you can at the same time will
that it should become a universal law."

What does that mean? Essentially, before acting, you must ask yourself: “Would it be morally
acceptable if everyone acted this way?” If the answer is no, then the action is morally wrong.

For example:

 Imagine you consider lying to get out of trouble. If lying became a universal law
(meaning everyone lied whenever convenient), trust in communication would collapse.
Since a world where no one trusts each other is irrational, lying fails the test of
universalizability and is morally wrong.
 On the other hand, if you decide to always help those in need, and everyone did the same,
the world would be a better place. Since universalizing help leads to a rational and
positive outcome, helping others is morally permissible.

2. The Formula of Humanity

This version states: "Act in such a way that you treat humanity, whether in your own person or
in the person of another, always at the same time as an end, never merely as a means."

This principle emphasizes respect for human dignity. It means that people should never be
treated as mere tools for achieving selfish goals. Instead, individuals should always be
recognized as valuable in themselves.

For example:

 If an employer exploits workers, treating them purely as a means for profit rather than
respecting their rights, they are violating this imperative.
  Conversely, if an employer ensures fair wages and respects employees’ autonomy, they
are acting morally because they value their workers as human beings, not just as
resources.

1. Acts of Man

These are actions that happen involuntarily or without deliberate thought. They are typically
biological or instinctive activities that do not involve moral accountability. Examples include:

 Breathing
 Blinking
 Reflex actions (like pulling your hand away from a hot surface)
 Unconscious movements during sleep

Since these actions happen naturally or automatically, they are not morally assessed because the
person is not consciously choosing to perform them.

2. Human Acts

These are actions done deliberately, with knowledge and free will. Human acts involve
rational decision-making and are subject to moral judgment. Examples include:

 Helping someone in need

 Choosing to tell the truth or lie
 Making decisions about life and career
 Engaging in social or political participation

Because human acts involve intent and awareness, individuals are accountable for them in
ethical and legal contexts.

Key Difference:

 Acts of Man – Involuntary, instinctive, and automatic. Not subject to morality.

 Human Acts – Conscious, intentional, and voluntary. Morally accountable.

Aristotle’s View on Human Acts

Aristotle distinguishes between voluntary and involuntary actions when discussing moral
accountability:

 Voluntary Acts – Actions that stem from reason and deliberate choice. These acts are
morally significant because individuals consciously decide to perform them.
 Involuntary Acts – Actions performed due to ignorance or external force (e.g., being
forced to act under duress). In such cases, individuals may not be held morally
accountable since they lack full control or awareness.
Moral Responsibility and Habit

Aristotle believes moral virtue is developed through habit. People are accountable for their
actions because repeated choices shape their character. For instance, a person becomes
courageous by consistently practicing bravery in challenging situations.

The Role of Reason and Deliberation

Aristotle highlights that reason plays a central role in moral decision-making. He introduces the
concept of practical wisdom (phronesis)—the ability to make sound ethical judgments based on
experience. A morally accountable person is one who thinks critically before acting rather than
acting impulsively.

Comparison to Kant

 Kant says moral actions must follow universal rules based on duty.
 Aristotle argues that morality depends on cultivating virtues and making practical
decisions suited to each situation.

John Stuart Mill’s approach to moral accountability is rooted in utilitarianism, a philosophy that
evaluates actions based on their consequences. Unlike Kant and Aristotle, who focus on duty and
virtue, Mill believed that morality is determined by the greatest happiness principle—meaning
that actions are right if they promote happiness and wrong if they cause harm.

Mill’s View on Moral Responsibility

1. The Principle of Utility Mill argues that individuals are accountable for their actions
based on their impact on overall happiness. A morally responsible person should aim
to maximize well-being and minimize suffering. For instance, if a leader makes a
decision that benefits the majority while causing minimal harm, it would be considered
ethically justified.
2. Consequences Over Intentions Unlike Kant, who focuses on duty and moral rules, Mill
prioritizes outcomes. He believes that good intentions alone are insufficient—actions are
only morally right if they lead to positive results. For example, donating money to charity
is ethical not because it’s a duty, but because it helps people in need.
3. Individual Liberty and Responsibility In On Liberty, Mill emphasizes the importance
of personal freedom while acknowledging accountability. He argues that individuals
should be free to make choices as long as they do not harm others. This means that
people are morally responsible when their actions negatively affect society.

Comparison to Aristotle and Kant

 Aristotle: Focuses on developing virtuous character through habit.

 Kant: Emphasizes universal moral laws and duty.
Jean-Paul Sartre’s philosophy of moral accountability is grounded in existentialism, which
emphasizes individual freedom, responsibility, and meaning-making. Unlike Aristotle, Kant, or
Mill, Sartre believed that humans are radically free, and with that freedom comes absolute
responsibility for their actions.

Sartre’s View on Moral Responsibility

1. Radical Freedom & Personal Accountability Sartre argues that people are completely
free to choose their actions. Since there is no predetermined essence or universal moral
code, individuals create their own values through their choices. However, this freedom
also means total accountability—no excuses, no blaming fate or external forces.
2. Bad Faith (Self-Deception) Sartre introduces the concept of bad faith, where
individuals deceive themselves to avoid responsibility. For example:
o A person who claims society forced them into a bad decision is evading
responsibility.
o Someone who blindly follows authority without question rejects their moral
accountability.

Sartre insists that authentic individuals must own up to their decisions instead of blaming
circumstances.

3. Existence Precedes Essence Sartre’s famous phrase, “existence precedes essence,”

means humans are born without predefined purpose, and they create their own meaning
through actions. Unlike Kant, who believes moral rules exist universally, Sartre asserts
that morality is shaped by individual choices rather than fixed principles.

Comparison to Other Philosophers

 Kant: Morality is based on duty and universal laws.

 Aristotle: Ethical life is built through virtues and habits.
 Mill: Morality is about maximizing happiness.
 Sartre: Humans are free but must take full responsibility for their choices.

The will refers to the faculty of making conscious choices and decisions. It is closely tied to
intention, motivation, and agency in human behavior. Philosophically, the will is often discussed
in relation to freedom, morality, and self-determination.

Philosophical Perspectives on the Will

1. Aristotle – He viewed the will as part of rational decision-making. In Nicomachean

Ethics, he discusses voluntary and involuntary actions, emphasizing that moral
responsibility depends on whether an action is chosen deliberately.
2. Immanuel Kant – Kant introduced the concept of the good will, arguing that moral
worth comes from acting out of duty and rational principles rather than personal desires.
 3. Arthur Schopenhauer – He described the will as a blind, irrational force that drives
human behavior and the natural world. In The World as Will and Representation, he
argues that suffering stems from the unrelenting desires of the will.
4. Friedrich Nietzsche – Nietzsche introduced the idea of will to power, suggesting that
human beings are driven by an innate force to assert control, overcome challenges, and
create meaning.
5. Jean-Paul Sartre – As an existentialist, Sartre believed in radical freedom and claimed
that individuals are completely responsible for their actions. He argued that people create
their own values through acts of will.

The Will in Ethics and Psychology

 In ethics, the will determines moral responsibility. A person is accountable for their
actions if they choose them freely.
 In psychology, theories like Freud’s explore willpower as the ability to control impulses
and make rational decisions.

Why reason and will Important in Moral Decisions

1. Reason Provides Knowledge and Judgment

o Reason helps individuals analyze ethical dilemmas, weigh options, and
determine what is right or wrong.
o Philosophers like Kant argue that moral laws are based on rational principles
rather than emotions or personal desires.
o Without reason, decisions could be impulsive or inconsistent.
2. Will Provides Motivation and Action
o Willpower ensures that moral knowledge translates into action.
o Aristotle emphasized that virtues are developed through practice—knowing what
is good is not enough; one must will themselves to act ethically.
o A person may understand honesty is important (reason), but they must have the
will to tell the truth even when it is difficult.
3. Balancing Reason and Will Prevents Moral Weakness
o Akrasia (weakness of will) occurs when someone knows the right thing but lacks
the will to act on it.
o For example, a person might reason that helping others is good but fail to act due
to fear or laziness.
4. Philosophical Perspectives on Reason & Will
o Kant: Morality is based on rational duty, but individuals must have a good will to
act ethically.
o Nietzsche: Will is the driving force of human nature—the "will to power" leads
people to create meaning and assert ethical strength.
o Sartre: Humans must take full responsibility for their choices, meaning moral
actions require both rational awareness and personal will.
ACTIVITY to be submitted next meeting

Instruction: in a one whole sheet yellow paper, please answer all questions below.

Here are some reflection questions on moral accountability:

1. Personal Responsibility: Can you recall a time when you had to take responsibility for a
mistake? How did you handle the situation, and what did you learn from it?
2. Impact on Others: How do your actions affect those around you? Have there been
moments when you realized your choices had a bigger impact than expected?
3. Ethical Dilemmas: Have you ever faced a difficult choice where moral accountability
was at stake? How did you decide what was right?
4. Growth and Improvement: How do you think holding yourself accountable helps you
grow as a person? What steps can you take to improve in this area?
5. Community and Accountability: Why do you think moral accountability is important
for building trust in friendships, schools, and society? What happens when people avoid
taking responsibility?
6. Role Models: Who do you look up to as an example of someone who is morally
accountable? What qualities do they have that make them responsible?
7. Future Actions: How can you apply what you’ve learned about moral accountability to
your daily life moving forward? What commitments can you make to act more
responsibly?