Rahul One would have to be blind to the reality of moral obligation to deny that people who believe ...........

Legal Reasoning Others

Generally, a person is liable for his own wrongful acts and one does not incur any liability for the acts done by others. In certain cases, however, vicarious liability, that is the liability of one person for the act of another person, may arise. In order that the liability of A for the act done by B can arise, it is necessary that there should be certain kind of relationship between A and B, and the wrongful act should be, in certain way, connected with that relationship.

The common examples of such a liability are:
(1) Liability of the principal for the tort of his agent;
(2) Liability of partners of each other’s tort;
(3) Liability of the master for the tort of his servant.

So Vicarious Liability deals with cases where one person is liable for the acts of others. In the field of Torts it is considered to be an exception to the general rule that a person is liable for his own acts only. It is based on the principle of qui facit per se per alium facit per se, which means, “He who does an act through another is deemed in law to do it himself”. So in a case of vicarious liability both the person at whose behest the act is done as well as the person who does the act are liable. Thus, Employers are vicariously liable for the torts of their employees that are committed during the course of employment.

Section 89 in The Indian Penal Code

89. Act done in good faith for benefit of child or insane person, by or by consent of guardian.—Nothing which is done in good faith for the benefit of a person under twelve years of age, or of unsound mind, by or by consent, either express or implied, of the guardian or other person having lawful charge of that person, is an offence by reason of any harm which it may cause, or be intended by the doer to cause or be known by the doer to be likely to cause to that person:

Rahul: One would have to be blind to the reality of moral obligation to deny that people who believe a course of action to be morally obligatory for them have both the right and the duty to pursue that action, and that no one else has any right to stop them from doing so.

Richa: But imagine an artist who feels morally obliged to do whatever she can to prevent works of art from being destroyed confronting a morally committed anti-pornography demonstrator engaged in destroying artworks he deems pornographic. According to your principle that artist has, simultaneously, both the right and duty to stop the destruction and no right whatsoever to stop it. Which of the following, if substituted for the scenario invoked by Richa, would preserve the force of her argument?

A medical researcher who feels a moral obligation not to claim sole credit for work that was performed in part by someone else confronts another researcher who feels no such moral obligation.

A manufacturer who feels a moral obligation to recall potentially dangerous products confronting a consumer advocate who feels morally obliged to expose product defects.

An architect who feels a moral obligation to design only energy-efficient buildings confronting, as a potential client, a corporation that believes its primary moral obligation is to maximize shareholder profits.

A health inspector who feels morally obliged to enforce restrictions on the number of cats a householder may keep confronting a householder who, feeling morally obliged to keep every stray that comes along, has over twice that number of cats.