Anna Krajewska

The main purpose of this essay is to defend moral principles in the light of their critique by advocates of anti-theory in ethics. Moral principles, according to critics, cannot realize the main aim of principle-based ethics, which is providing a decision procedure. Abstract, general character of rules cannot correctly recognize an action’s moral value. The relation between normative and descriptive cannot be captured by principles. The above arguments were critically analyzed. For our moral judgments to remain rational and justifiable, they must assume the necessary relationship between what is non-moral (descriptive) and what is normative. Without that, moral evaluation would be arbitrary. Attention was drawn to the fact that rules are the result of the general (abstract) nature of human cognition, which takes place in particular situations. The principles themselves are revealed as specific regularities discerned in particular instances. The limited usefulness of principles requires the development of a moral theory to complement their deficiencies.

In the paper, I defend the claim that agent who caused unintentional loss should take responsibility for it. Such kind of responsibility is neither a result of being guilty, being moral responsible for the loss, nor is just the expression of one’s sensitivity to other people’s hurt, but it has proper objective reasons. Human being experiences unity of his agency both in intentional actions and in actions which result in unintended harm. Moral agent is not only autonomous author of the action but also, through his corporeality, is somebody vulnerable to influence of accidental, unintended factors. In order to preserve personal integrity agent is obliged to admit the relation between his action and caused harm. Reasons to take responsibility for unintended results of action do not only relate to structure of human agency, but also relate to the structure of action itself and its relation to acting person. These issues are presented in two first paragraphs of the article. Characteristic features of obligation to take responsibility for unintended loss is presented in the last part of the article. Such responsibility is not a matter of voluntary agency, does not lie in the core of one’s agency but concerns what belong to “penumbra of agency.” Agent through act of his will makes himself responsible. Act of taking responsibility encompasses such behaviours like explanation, apology, help.