Final answer:
The ability to be moral or immoral typically assumes the capacity for free will and choice. Philosophical debates on moral responsibility differ on the importance of free will, with determinism challenging this notion and utilitarianism focusing on outcomes rather than intent. Yet, society often ascribes inherent value to beings regardless of their ability for moral agency, such as children.
Step-by-step explanation:
Whether beings can be considered moral or immoral without being subjects of moral motivation is a complex issue in philosophical and ethical discussions. When beings do not possess free will or the capacity to choose between different courses of action, attributing moral responsibility becomes problematic. The notion that human beings bear total responsibility for their choices relies on the assumption of free will. Humans are often considered radically free, responsible for the consequences of their actions. However, if they are not free, then moral accountability may need to be reassessed.
Compatibilists argue that there exists a form of freedom that is compatible with determinism, which is necessary for moral responsibility. However, determinism suggests that all actions are the result of prior influences, which would undermine the classic concept of moral agency. Utilitarianism, on the other hand, emphasizes the outcomes of actions when determining moral fault, irrespective of the agent's intent or free will, thereby providing a different perspective on moral responsibility.
In cases like children or individuals with impaired rational agency, society still ascribes inherent value and rights, suggesting that moral worth is not solely contingent on the ability to make free choices.