The Nature of Philosophy

- Philosophy can be approached in terms of what, why, and how

a. WHAT
- Historical definitions
- Nature of questions (ethical)
- Areas or branches (metaphysics)
- Periods (presocratic, modern, post-modern, contemporary, historical)
- Traditions (Western, Eastern (Confucianism, Buddhist, Hindu, Taoism))
- Different countries have different philosophical traditions
- Have something in common (ideologies, religious traditions) (mostly eastern
traditions in China, India, Japan, etc)
- Relation to other disciplines (Philosophy of science, mathematics, language)
b. WHY
- Significance (enhance critical thinking skills)
- Relevance
- Value of the philosophical enterprise
c. HOW
- Methods
- Scientific method (Identify the problem, formulate a hypothesis, perform
experimentation, observation, conclusion)
- Approaches
- Processes
- Required skillsets
- Typical tools
- Questions in science can also be asked in philosophy but their approach to the questions (Science:
theories empirically, religion: the world is created by God based on divine revelation, philosophy:
empirically, religion, but mainly human reasoning)
- Once questions have been answered by science, it is not considered philosophy.
- Some historical definitions
- An activity that begins in wonder (Aristotle)
- The love of wisdom (Pythagoras - coined term philosophia)
- The handmaiden of theology (Aquinas - way of defending the Christian faith against criticisms,
trying to provide logical ways that God exists)
- The abstract arm of science (positivism - scientific progress is traced back to the efforts of
philosophy, philosophical theories can later be used by science (ex: thought experiments:
Plato’s allegory))
- Clarification of meaning (linguistic analysis: meaning of the words we used, related to the
philosophy of language, become debatable because of misunderstandable meaning)
- A discipline that aims to change not just describe the world (Karl Marx - not just clarify things but
make a difference in the world, talks about the different social classes)
- The most rigorous or “presupposition-less” science (Husserl- phenomenological)
- Inquiry into the meaning of Being (Being - authentic being) (Heidegger - phenomenologoical)
- Worldviews or belief system (eastern tradition)
- Thales is the father of philosophy

What are the different kinds of philosophy?

Five general types
Types Bases

Thematic Topic of the issues being addressed

Positional Solution that is being proposed for a certain issue (Nature of reality, how we
live)

Methodological Method used to resolve a certain issue (existentialist etc)

Regional or Geographical Geographical location in which philosophizing transpires or flourishes (in

places like west and east)

Historical Historical period in which philosophizing occurred

1. Thematic Types

Key area Concern

Logic Correct reasoning

Metaphysics The nature of reality

Epistemology The nature, possibility, and sources of knowledge

Axiology (ethics and The nature of values relating to morality, art, and the good life
aesthetics)

2. Positional Types

Philosophical Views Position

Materialism Reality consists only of material objects

Dualism Reality has dual nature

Platonism (named after Plato) There exist such things as abstract objects

Confucianism (named after Stresses the importance of correct behavior, loyalty, and obedience
Confucius) to hierarchy

3. Regional or Geographical

Region Emphasis

Western Distinctions and oppositions, clarification of ideas, logical proof od

philosophical inquiry

Eastern Commonalities and harmonies; social, ethical, spiritual aspect of the nature
of existence

4. Methodological Types
 - Analysis (logical (premise and conclusion), linguistic, and conceptual)
- Phenomenology (involves inquiry of analysis of a phenomenon (description and understand the
meanings) like in death)
- Hermeneutics
- Socratic dialect
- Dialectics (Hegelian Marxist)
- Deconstruction
- Feminist critique
- Psychoanalytic critique
- Archeological or genealogical critique (Nietzsche, Foucault)
- Mystical experience and revelation

The Value of Philosophy

Jostein Gaarder (1995)
- Is there nothing that interests us all? (Who we are and why are we here, what is the most important
thing in life, what is my purpose)
- It does not give a definite answer to life
- Depends on someone’s situation or how the question is approached
- Relevant to everyday choices (school, career path)
- Is there nothing that concerns everyone -- no matter who they are or where they live in the world?
- Jostein Gaarder claims that there are questions that certainly should interest everyone, and they are
precisely the questions this course is all about
But when the basic needs have been satisfied - will there still be something that everyone needs?
- Philosophers think so. They believe that there is something apart from that which everyone needs, and
this is to figure out who we are and why we are here
- Even beyond Maslow’s hierarchy of needs, you reflect on what is your purpose, who we are and why
are we here
The best way of approaching philosophy is to ask a few philosophical questions:
- How was the world created?
- Is there any will or meaning behind what happens?
- Is there life after death?
- How can we answer these questions?
- How ought we live? How should we live our lives morally?
Basically, there are not many philosophical questions to ask. We have already asked some of the most
important ones. But history presents us with many different answers to each question. So it is easier to ask
philosophical questions than to answer them

What philosophy is and how much is it worth are matters of controversy

- One may expect it to yield extraordinary revelations or one may view it with indifference as a thinking in
the void
- One may look upon it with awe as the meaningful endeavor of exceptional men and women or despise
it as the superfluous broodings of dreamers
- One may take the attitude that is the concern of all men, and hence must be basically simple and
intelligible, or one may think of it as hopelessly difficult
For the scientific-minded, the worst aspect of philosophy is that it produces no universally valid results.
- In philiosophy, there is no generally accepted, definite knowledge
- Any insight which for congent reasons is recognized by all has ipso facto become scientific knowledge
and ceased to be philosophy
Why should we pursue philosophy if it cannot provide valid results?
1. R. Puligandla (1975)
- Indian thinkers believe that the aim of philosophy is not just the satisfaction of intellectual
curiosity or the pursuit of theoretical truths; the more important aim is that philosophy should
make a difference to the style and quality of life
- What is the ideal form of government? What are we doing to make sure we apply this in the
everyday life. How should we live ethically?
2. Bertrand Russell (1969)
- Philosophy, though unable to tell us with certainty what is the true answer to the doubts which it
raises, is able to suggest many possibilities which enlarge our thoughts and free them from the
tyranny of custom
- If you dont ask question, then it would be dangerous to live in a tyranny or a society that expects
you to blindly accept anything, you do not develop as a person and do not live a meaninful life
3. Karl Jaspers (1974)
- With the years we seem to enter into a prison of conventions and opinions, concealment and
unquestioned acceptance, we lose the candor of childhood (or attitude of asking questions)
How come we are no longer preoccupied with these kinds of questions?
- Answers are already given to us, which makes it more convenient
- More practical to refer to standard answers
- We are no longer as preoccupied as before bc life gets busy
- What has been normalized in society has a lso inhibited us from being preoccupied with these
“unimportant” questions

The value of philosophy in terms of enhancing thinking, having answers, broadening perspectives, making
sense of anything and everything related to our existence in order to live a meaningful life

Knowing the Truth (The Nature of Truth)

Nature of knowledge
- Is a crucial aspect in the nature of truth
- What are the conditions that we know the truth
Examples of ways of knowing the truth
1. Empirical evidence
2. Reasoning and argumentation
3. Experience
Truth
- Kind of proper that is ascribed to something (Philippines is in the Southeast Asia)
- Opposite of falsity (Philippines is in South America)
- So when we say that a particular thing is “the truth”, this means that the said thing has the property of
being true
What sort of thing possess the property of being true (truth bearers)
- Philosophers have called such truth bearers (have truth value)
- Candidates for truth bearers:
- Beliefs (Supersticious beliefs, religious beliefs, cultural beliefs)
- Statements
- Sentences
- However, not all sentences could either be true or false
- Only select declarative sentences could either be true or false (ie at least prima facie)
- So in the mean time, we focus on statements and beliefs
Statements
- Also called propositions
- Refers to a linguistic expressions whose function is to advance a claim
- True or false
- Claims describe possible situations in the world
- If claims are realized then the statement is true
- Examples
- She is sitting on a chair. (Empirical proofs)
- Today is Wednesday. (Checking the calendar, evidence)
- Isnt it that this section is the best? (Examples, forms of reasoning, evidences)
What is the difference between a statement and a belief
- Statement - Expressed linguistically
- Belief - Mental expression
So beliefs could be ascribed with truth or falsity as well

What is the difference between truth and fact?

- Truth - Kind of property ascribed to statements
- Fact - Something that occurs in the world that makes statements true
When you claim and prove some thing to be true then it becomes a fact

KINDS OF TRUTH
1. Empirical and Rational
a. Empirical
- Established by means of sense experience
- A posteriori (it can only be known after some relevant experience)
- Examples:
- The tree is tall.
- The candy is sweet.
- The class is quiet.
b. Rational
- Established by means of reason
- A priori (it can only be known before some relevant experience)
- Examples:
- A square has four sides.
- Yesterday is part of the past
- One plus one equals two
2. Synthetic and Analytic
a. Synthetic
- Extends our knowledge
- The information provided by the predicate is contained in the information provided by the
subject (ie empirical truths)
- Examples:
- The table is brown (the color brown is added to our knowledge of what a table is)
- Anna and Maria is sisters
b. Analytic
- Does not extend our knowledge
- The information provided by the predicate is contained in the information provided by the
subject (eg definitions, identity statements, etc)
- Examples:
 - A triangle has three sides (does not add what we already know about triangles)
- All sisters are siblings
3. Contingent and Necessary
a. Contingent
- Not always true (eg empirical truths)
- Is the statement true in all situations?
- Examples:
- The table is brown (may be other colors in some cases)
b. Necessary
- Always true (eg rational truths)
- Examples:
- A triangle has three sides
4. Private and Public
a. Private
- Can only be known directly by the person who has the belief
- Mental states (ie pain emotions etc)
- Examples:
- I have a headache
- I am in pain from my wound
b. Public
- In principle can be directly known by everyone
- Empirical and rational truths
- Examples:
- My wound is bleeding
5. Subjective and Objective
a. Subjective
- Dependent on the attitudes, prefereces or interests of a person (or a group of persons)
- Value judgments (eg aesthetic, moral, etc)
- Examples:
- Chihuahuas are cute.
b. Objective
- Not dependent on the attitudes, prefereces or interests of a person (or group of persons)
- Factual judgments
- Examples:
- Chihuahuas are dogs

6. Universal and Relative

a. Universal
- Truth is acknowledged by everyone
- Objective truths
- Examples:
- The earth is roughly a sphere
- Mosquito is an animal
b. Relative
- Truth is acknowledge only by some people
- Subjective truths
- Examples:
- Morality of euthanasia and abortion
- A chihuahua is cuter than a pug
 7. Deductive and Inductive
a. Deductive
- Truth arrived at is certain
- Rigorous or inescapable reasoning
- General statement to specific (premise to conclusion)
- Examples:
- All humans are mortal; Scorates is human, Therefore socartes is mortal
b. Inductive
- Truth arrived at is probable
- Examples:
- Most Filipinos are hospitable; Juan is a FIlipino; Therefore, Juan is hospitable
Different kinds of truth
- Religious
- Scientific
- Psychological
- Biological
- Economic
Knowing the different kinds of truth aids us to better understandin things. It helps us appreciate arguments and
claims of other people

TYPES OF REASONING
- How does truth relate to reasoning?
- What is the nature of reasoning?
- What are premises and conclusions?
- What are the different types of reasoning?
What is an argument?
- Common misconceptions
- Usually though of as some kind of quarrel or shouting match
- An argument is simply a claim defended with reasons
- Arguments are composed of:
- One or more premises
- Statements in an argument offerred as evidence or reasons why we should accept
another statement, the conclusion
- Conclusion
- The statement is an argument that the premises are intended to prove or support
- An argument is a group of statements, one or more of which (called the premises) are intended to
prove or support another statement (called the conclusion)
- But what are statements? (has truth value)
- A statement (or proposition) is a sentence that can be viewed as either true or false
- The truth claim asserted by a sentence, that is capable of standing alone as a
declarative sentence
- Examples of statements:
- Red is a color
- There are nine planets in the solar system
- The Philippines is in South America
- Freewill does not exist
- Abortion is morally wrong
- Memento is a better movie that Fight Club
 - Some of these statements are clearly true, clearly false, and controversial
- Each can be prefaced with the phrase “It is true that” or “It is false that”
Identifying Premises and Conclusions
- Indicator words are words or phrases that provide clues that premises and conclusions are being put
forward
- Premise indicators
- Indicate that premises are being offered
- Examples:
- Since
- For
- Seeing that
- Inasmuch as
- In a view of the fact that
- Judging from
- Because
- Given that
- Considering that
- As
- As indicated by
- That being the case
- Conclusion indicators
- Indicate that conclusions are being offered
- Examples:
- Therefore
- Hence
- So
- In follows that
- That is why
- Wherefore
- As a result
- This being so
- Thus
- Consequently
- Accordingly
- For this reason
- Which shows that
- Implies that
- That suggests that
1. Having fun can be the spice of our life but not its main course, because when it is over, nothing of
lasting value remains
2. Women are not by any means to blame when they reject the rule of lie, which have been introduced
into the world, seeing that it is men who have made them without their consent.
3. Since effective reasoning requires information, it’s important to be able to distinguish good sources and
trustworthy experts from less useful ones
4. You want people to be honest with you, so be honest with them
5. Sorrrow is merely a state of mind and may not be warranted by the circumstance. Hence, whether or
not you feel sad over something is all in the mind.
Tips on finding the conclusion of an argument:
- Find the main issue and ask yourself what position the writer or speaker is taking on that issue.
 - Look at the beginning or end of the passahe; the conclusion is often but not always found in onr of thos
eplaces
- Ask yourself, “What is the writer or speaker trying to prove?” That will be the conlusion
- Try putting the word therefore before one of the statements/ If it fits, that statement is probably the
conclusion
- Try the “because trick”. That is, try to find the most appropriate way to fill in the blanks in the following
statement: The writer or speaker believes ____ (conclusion) because _____ (premise). The conclusion
will naturall come befor ethe word because.

Identifying premises and conclusions

- Statements that use premise or conclusion indicators but are not arguments:
- I havent seen you since high school.
- You’ve had that jacket for as long as I’ve known you.
- Thus far everything has been great
- It was so cold that even the ski resorts shut down
- I wouldn’t mind seeing that movie again
- There is water on the floor because the sink overflowed
- Remember to consider the context when determining the meaning of an expression
- Many arguments contain no indicator words at all. Here are two examples:
- Cats are smarter than dogs. You can’t get eight cats to pull a sled through snow.
- I can’t be completely responsible for my life. After all, there are many factors outside my control,
people and forces that create obstacles and undermine my efforts.
Distinguishing good arguments from bad ones using basic logical concepts
- In evaluating arguments, you should always answer two key questions:
- Are the premises true?
- Do the premises provide goof reason to accept the conclusion?
Deduction and Induction
- Before effectively evaluating arguments, we need to understand clearly what kind of argument is being
offered
- All arguments claim to provide support--that is evidence or reasons-- ofor their conclusions
- However, arguments differ greatly in the amount of support they claim to provid
- Traditionally, arguments have been divided into two types
1. Deductive arguments
- Try to prove their conclusions with rigorous inescapable logic
- The conclusion asserted is necessarily true given the premises
- Formats:
- All A B Categorical syllogism (uses all, though, some)
All B C
All A C
- If A then B
A
B
2. Inductive arguments
- Try to show that their conclusions are plausible or likely or probable given the premise/s
- Examples:
- Polls show that 75% of republicans favor a school prayer amendment; Joe is a
Republican; Therefore, Joe favors a school prayer amendment
FALLACIES
- After identifying the argument, identify if its inductive or deductive.
- Check if the premises are connected to the conclusion (inferential relationship) (probable ois inductive,
necessary is deductive)
- If the conclusion is necessary given the premises, then we call it a valid argument or a strong inductive
argument.
- Apart from having the strength and validity, the premises have to be true
Fallacy
- A fallacy is a defect in an argument that consists in something other than merely false premises
- Fallacies are usually divided into two grouos: formal and informal
- It can also be detected by looking at the form, weak inductive arguments = fallacious
a. Formal Fallacy
- A formal fallacy is one that may be identified through mere inspection of the form or structure of
an argument.
- Only in deductive arguments that have identifiable forms
1. Categorical Syllogism
All A are B
All C are B Alll B are C
All A are C All A are C
2. Hypothetical Syllogism
If A then B
B A
Therefore A Therefore B
b. Informal Fallacy
- Are those that can be detected only through analysis of the content of the argument. Consider
the following example:
All factories are plants. DIFFERENT MEANINGS OF PLANTS
All plants are things that contain chlorophyll
All factories are things that contain chlorophyll
- A cursory inspection of this argument might lead one top think that it has a different followinh
form:
All A are B
All B are C
All A are C
- The various informal fallacies accomplish their purpose in so many different ways that no single
umbrella theory covers them all:
- Getting the reader or listener to feel various emotions, such as fear, pity, or
camaraderie, and then attaching a certain conclusion to those emotions
- Attempting to discredit an opposing argument by associating it with certain perjorative
features of its author (Ad hominem)
- Appealing to various dispositions on the part of the reader or listener, such a superstition
or mental laziness, to get him or her to accept a conclusion (false laws fallacy)
Example:
1. If Rasputin was really mad, then he deceived Czar Nicholas II If A then B
Rasputin was not really mad Not A
Therefore, he did not deceive Czar Nicholas II Therefore Not B
FORMAL
2. The ship of state is like a ship at sea Weak analogy
No sailor is ever allowed to protest orders from the captain
 For the same reason, no citizen should ever be allowed to protest presidential policies
INFORMAL
3. Barbra Streisand, Paul Newman, and Julia Roberts are Democrats Hasty generalization
Therefore, it must be the case that all Hollywood stars are Democrats
INFORMAL
INFORMAL FALLACIES
1. Fallacy of relevance
2. Fallacies of weak induction
3. Fallacies of presumption, ambiguity and grammatical analogy

THE NATURE OF HUMAN PERSONHOOD

Embodied Spirit - Defines a human person in having a body and spirit

1. Metaphysical approach (What)

- Focuses on the kinds of substances or materials and capacities that uniquely make up a human
person
- Is the human person just his or her body and nothing more?
- Mind (consciousness (ability to reflect, self-awareness)), soul (emphasized in terms of life-giving
function (same as Platonic view)), spirit (refers to nonbodily, nonbiological, nonphysical nature)
- Aristotle believes that when you die, the soul ceases to exist
- Different Metaphysical views
a. Unspirited body view
- The human person is only its body
- Mental states are physical states
- Examples: Mind-brain identity theory, behaviorism (observable behavior based
on external factors like pain)
b. Disembodied spirit view
- The human body is dependent on the spirit
- The spirit is the essential to a human person
- The body is a physical substance or entity while the spirit is a non-physical
substance or entity
- Example: Dualism (Supported by Plato and Descartes)
- Mind and brain are radically different things
c. Embodied spirit view
- The unity of the body and spirit is essential to a human person
- Inseperable of the body and spirit
- The soul as the principle or cause of life (Aristotke)
- The body is the material aspect (Matter) while the soul is the formal aspect
(Form)
THREE KINDS OF SOUL FOR ARISTOTLE
1. Vegetative (Nutritive)
- allows capacity of nutrition
- Share with plants
2. Sentient (sensitive)
- Gives sense experiences
- Share with animals
3. Rational (capacity to analyze, understand, and make reasoned decisions)
- Separates us from the previous two
THREE KINDS OF SOUL FOR AQUINAS
 1. Body dependent:
a. Vegetative (Nutritive)
2. Body independent:
a. Sentient (sensitive)
- Ability be intuitive
b. Rational (capacity to analyze, understand, and make reasoned
decisions)
- Without being independent to the body

2. Existential approach (Who)

- Focuses on the kind of life, or mode of existence that is unique to a human person
- Notable Philosophers
1. Martin Heidegger
- Two ways to get involved in the world:
- The human person as:
- Being alongside (practicality of everyday experiences/
everydayness)
- Has a character of utility (practical needs to fulfill needs)
- The human person is merely a form of equipment or
instrument
- Seen as someone who can satisfy practical needs
- Being with (transcend being alongside)
- Has the character of considerateness (forbearance)
- Constitutes to the human person’s public or social world
- Temporality
- The human person’s existence in the world has the dimension of having a
past, present, and future
- How we understood who we are is also relevant to how we understand
our past present and future
a. Facticity
- A human person’s past; can no longer be changed
- “Thrown into the world”
b. Existentiality
- A human person’s future; refers to all possibilities to be chosen
- “Thrown possibility”
2. Jean Paul Sarte
- Transcendence
- Intentionality
- Fundamental and inherent property of consciousness
- Reflexivity of consciousness; ability of consciousness to be about itself
(conscious that one is conscious)
- Internal consciousness; consciousness directed at things outside of itself
(phone, wall) (primary)
- Self-consciousness; consciousness directed towards itself (reflect on own
thoughts and emotions)
- Two ways of the transcendence of consciousness
1. Things consciousness is directed at the outside or transcendent to
consciousness (consciousness is incomplete) (ex thinking about going to
the beach)
 2. Consciousness is always transcending itself; it continuously fills the gap
within itself (learning a new language over quarantine)

- Transcendence
1. Being for itself
- Consciousness incomplete, free, no fixed essence
- Nature of human person
2. Being in itself
- The non-consciousfull, complete, unfree, fixed essence
- Not human persons per se
- Like a pencil
- Human person is a combination of a being for itself (consciousness) and being in
itself (physical body).
- We are condemned to be free. Take responsibility of ones existence.
- Factors: Social class, cultural beliefs, high grades
1. Natural Environment
- Natural events (Typhoon)
- Natural law (Gravity)
2. Body
- Various characteristics of the body like genetic makeup,
disabilities, age, physical features, race
3. Other people
- Perception of us and relationship with them
- Support of friends and family

Consciousness as the hallmark of personhood

Personhood
1. Sentience - ability to experience senses (Phenomenal)
- Thomas Naygel (how to be a bat)
- Some things are subjective
2. Intelligence - cope with new situations (Self)
- Sufficient understanding of one's situation is a prerequisite to rational action and choice (signing
a contract)
- Counterexample: dog cannot understand the concept of cleanliness even if trained not to pee in
the carpet
3. Self Awareness - being aware of emotions (Self)
- Aware of existence
- Reflect on one's own feelings and beliefs (fear, happiness, etc)
- Animal sexuality (instinctive) vs human sexuality (personal identity etc)
HUMANS vs PERSONS
- Not all humans are persons
- Babies (lack intelligence and self awareness) (self consciousness)
- Brain dead individuals
- Not all persons are humans

Philosophical problem of consciousness

- Physical understanding
 - Psychological understanding (how it works, individua; awareness, sensations environments)
- Therefore subjective and unique to us
Fireworks
- sensory experiences
- Diff subjective experience per person (can correlate with MRI)
- Explanatory gap to physiological experiences
- Brain stuff - matter
- Imagination - mind stuff
Contradiction between dualism and standard physics

Examples of non dualism:

- Idealism (only mental substances exist, negates body)
- Behaviorism (claims that inward experience are dismissed in favor of external stimulus patterns)
- Functionalism (mental states are defined by what they do instead of what theyre made of)
- Mind or brain identity theory (mental states are literally identical with brain states)
- Representational theory (consciousness as a kind of representation, sensory qualities are intentional
properties what it senses)
- eliminationist (the mind is an empirical fact rather than a conceptual thing)

FREEDOM AND ACCOUNTABILITY

- Deciding who we are and what we do
- Two essential traits of human persons: free and accountable
- Basic conditions of a meaningful human life: exercise free will and be held accountable for ones free
choices

FREEDOM
Do we have free will and does it matter?
- Although we are free, we have certain limitations like laws, society, norms, culture, one’s individuality
(status)
- Having free will makes our actions more meaningful

Free will - the ability to make free, unhindered choices

Determinism - the idea that all actions are governed by laws outside of our control

Hard determinism
- The teaching that denies that humanity has free will and believes that all actions have a prior cause
- It removes moral responsibility for actions (not accountable)
Libertarianism (incompatibilism)
- Claims that we are morally responsible for all our actions and are free to make chances
Soft determinism (compatibilism)
- The teaching that says we can be both determined and free, as some of our moral choices are free but
aspects of our nature are determined

Hard Determinism Libertarianism Compatibilism

Is freedom incompatible Yes Yes No

with determinism

Is determinism correct? Yes No Yes

 Are humans free? No Yes Yes

When are human When they are not When they are not When humans are not
choices/actions free? determined by external determined by external forced or compelled to
factors factors make these choices or
do these actions

Meaning of accountability
- Accountability has the deservingness of blame or punishment for a wrongful action that one has
intentionally performed
Various types of accountability
- Legal accountability: uses legal standards
- Moral accountability: use moral standards; higher than legal ones; more fundamental than legal kind

There are actions that are legal and immoral and moral but illegal
Example: euthanasia, jaywalking with no one there, beating the red light

Responsibility and accountability

1. Responsibility as accountability: deservingness of blame or praise for the actions that we perform
2. Responsibility as duty: responsibility means having obligation or duties
3. Responsibility as agency: being responsible means being the cause of something or being the one that
brings about something

Conditions for accountability

1. Choice
- The person does the action intentionally -- that is to say, he or she has the intention to do such action
and he or she performs the action to carry out such intention
2. Knowledge
- The person knows or is capable of knowing that performing such action is right or wrong
a. Real ignorance - where the person who is ignorant cannot be said to have known better
b. Irresponsible ignorance - where the person who is ignorant can be said to have known
better
What are the factors that generally form the bases for determining the degrees of accountability?
1. The degree of difficulty in life or pressure that forces one to perform actions that one believe is wrong
(stealing bread to feed family vs stealing fortunes)
2. The intensity of the wrongdoing or extent of a gravity of injury done to a person as a consequence of
the wrongful action done to other person (killing someone vs injuring someone)
3. The degree of one's involvement in the case of a collective action (assisting a murderer by telling them
where vs committing the murder)
4. The degree of one’s knowledge of the wrongfulness of an action