of the engineer. A bull is not held responsible if he gores a child. The responsibility for the bull's acts is referred to its owner. In every case responsibility attaches to the character of a human being. Man acknowledges his conduct as his own and accepts responsibility for it.[1]
(3) Conduct involves moral obligation. Every action is either right or wrong. Right conduct is conduct that ought to be as it is; and wrong conduct is conduct that ought not to be as it is. Of every moral action we can say either that it ought to have been done, or that it ought not to have been done. An ideal of duty is implied in all conduct. Now, moral obligation attaches only to conduct. I cannot strictly say that my type-writer ought to run more smoothly than it does: no moral obligation can attach to it: the type-writer has no duty. If I do say that it ought to work more smoothly, what I really mean is that the makers ought to have built it more carefully, or that I ought to have kept it free from dust. The ought is really referred from the type-writer to some person who is responsible for it.
(4) All conduct is conceived to have some moral value. The moral quality of conduct depends partly on the disposition and attitude of the self whose conduct it is. This disposition will comprise feelings of pleasure and pain, and certain emotions and
- ↑ That only human beings are responsible agents is a principle that took long to establish. According to the Mosaic code, an ox which gored a man was to be put to death (Ex. xxi. 28). During the Middle Ages, pigs, rats, and other animals were prosecuted before the civil and ecclesiastical courts. Thus, in 1403 in Paris a pig was tried, condemned, and executed for the murder of a baby. Animals were thought to be both morally and legally responsible.
