PALAWAN STATE UNIVERSITY SOCIAL RESPONSIBILITY & GOOD GOVERNANCE

SOFRONIO ESPAÑOLA

Chapter 2- THE FUNDAMENTAL PRINCIPLES OF ETHICS & CRITICAL

SURVEY OF THE DIFFERENT NORMATIVE ETHICAL THEORIES
COMMONLY USED IN BUSINESS DECISION-MAKING
“Without moral perception, man is only
an animal. Without morality, man as a
rational being is a failure.

- Ramon B. Agapay-
OVERVIEW

Ethics is a science that investigates the nature of the human conduct. In the process of
investigating the nature of the human conduct, it is important that we differentiate
between the human act and act of man. The distinction between these two is an
important process in the determination of the morality of man’s actions.

Business ethics as an applied branch of General Ethics must be studied from the
perspective of philosophy. This is because ethics is part of philosophy, and it is
unthinkable to discuss ethical concepts and morals principles without being
philosophical. Secondly, the process of moral reasoning involves the use of
metaphysical terminologies and concepts that is best understood only in the light of
philosophical abstractions.

Learning Objectives:
At the end of this chapter, the students are expected to:
1. Understand the nature of the human acts and act of man.
2. Identify and explain the different components of the human acts.
3. Understand and evaluate critically the various ethical theories and principles as
proposed by different philosophers.
4. Resolve moral issues and ethical dilemmas in business from the perspective of
various ethical theories.

THE NATURE OF THE HUMAN ACT

Human acts are actions that proceed from the deliberate free will of man. These
actions are therefore done with knowledge and consent and willfully carried out by the
person.

Human Acts are characterized as:

1. The free and voluntary acts of man;
2. Acts done with knowledge and consent;
3. Acts which are proper to man as a rational being since man has been gifted with
rationality and freedom of will; and
PALAWAN STATE UNIVERSITY SOCIAL RESPONSIBILITY & GOOD GOVERNANCE
SOFRONIO ESPAÑOLA

4. Acts which are conscious and under our control and for which we are
responsible.

Acts, therefore, to be truly human, must be done deliberately, intentionally and willful
choice on the part of the doer of the act, there can be no human acts.

Acts of man, on the other hand, refer to certain types of actions that are naturally
exhibited by man and as such they are morally indifferent (or neutral) because we
cannot judge natural acts that we perform by virtue of our nature as animal beings.

Two Categories of Acts of Man:

1. Natural Involuntary Actions- these are actions of man that are performed
intuitively or involuntary, e.g., blinking of the eyes, metabolism, perspiration,
beating of the heart.
2. Natural Voluntary Actions- these are actions that are within the control of man’s
will only for some period, e.g., breathing, sleeping, eating, walking.

HUMAN ACTS IN RELATION TO REASON

 Good acts are those done by man in harmony with the dictates of right reason.
 Evil acts are those done by a man in contradiction to the dictates of right reason.
 Indifferent acts are those acts that are neither good nor evil.

THE VOLUNTARINESS OF THE HUMAN ACTS

The concept of voluntariness is important in ethics because only voluntary acts
have moral bearing. This means that because human acts are performed by man with
knowledge and consent, he is therefore responsible for his actions.

The Categories of Voluntary Actions

1. Perfect Voluntariness- actions performed with full knowledge and with full
consent.
2. Imperfect Voluntariness- actions that occur when there is no perfect knowledge
or consent, or when either or both knowledge and consent is partial.
3. Direct Voluntary- actions that are intended for its own sake, either as a means or
as an end, e.g., murder, stealing
4. Indirect Voluntary- actions that are not intended for its own sake, but which
merely follows as a regrettable consequence of an action.,e.g..., bombing an
enemy’s hideout that leads to the killing of non-combatants within the area.

THE MORAL PRINCIPLE INVOLVED IN ACTIONS HAVING TWO EFFECTS (THE

INDIRECT VOLUNTARY ACT)

A difficult question sometimes arises as to whether it would be morally right to do

certain actions from which good as well as bad effects follow; meaning is it morally right
PALAWAN STATE UNIVERSITY SOCIAL RESPONSIBILITY & GOOD GOVERNANCE
SOFRONIO ESPAÑOLA

to do act which entails good as well as bad consequences? The answer to this question
is “yes” provided one follows the following conditions (Panizo,1964):
1. The action must be morally good, or at least morally indifferent.
2. The good effect of the act must precede the evil effect. The evil effect is morally
allowed to happen as a regrettable consequence.
3. There must be a grave or sufficient reason in doing the act.
4. The evil effect should not outweigh the good effect or, at least, the good effect
should be equivalent in importance to the evil effect.

The Morality of Human Acts

“Human acts, that is, acts that are freely chosen in consequence of a judgment of
conscience, can be morally evaluated. They are either good or evil” (Catechism of the
Catholic Church, 1749). “Acting is morally good when the choices of freedom are in
conformity with man’s true good and thus express the voluntary ordering of the person
towards our ultimate end: God himself.”
The morality of human acts depends on:
— the object chosen.
— the end sought or the intention.
— the circumstances of the action.

THE MORAL OBJECT

“The morality of the human act depends primarily and fundamentally on the
‘object’ rationally chosen by the deliberate will, as is borne out by the insightful analysis,
still valid today, made by Saint Thomas.”2 The moral value of human acts (whether they
are good or evil) depends above all on the conformity of the object or act that is willed
with the good of the person according to right reason.
“The reason why a good intention is not itself sufficient, but a correct choice of
actions is also needed, is that the human act depends on its object, whether that object
is capable or not of being ordered to God, to the One who ‘alone is good,’ and thus
brings about the perfection of the person.”

Reason attests that there are objects of the human act which are by their nature
‘incapable of being ordered’ to God, because they radically contradict the good of the
person made in his image. These are the acts which, in the Church’s moral tradition,
have been termed ‘intrinsically evil’ (intrinsece malum): they are such always and per
se, in other words, on account of their very object, and quite apart from the ulterior
intentions of the one acting and the circumstances.”

Consequentialism and proportionalism are erroneous theories concerning the

moral object of an action. “The former claims to draw the criteria of the rightness of a
given way of acting solely from a calculation of foreseeable consequences deriving from
a given choice. The latter, by weighing the various values and goods being sought,
focuses rather on the proportion acknowledged between the good and bad effects of
PALAWAN STATE UNIVERSITY SOCIAL RESPONSIBILITY & GOOD GOVERNANCE
SOFRONIO ESPAÑOLA

that choice, with a view to the ‘greater good’ or ‘lesser evil’ actually possible in a
particular situation.”

INTENTION
Intention In human actions “the end is the first goal of the intention and indicates
the purpose pursued in the action. The intention is a movement of the will toward the
end: it is concerned with the goal of the activity” (Catechism of the Catholic Church,
1752).6 An act that “can be offered to God according to its object, is also capable of
being ordered to its ultimate end. That same act then attains its ultimate and decisive
perfection when the will actually does order it to God.”7 The intention of the person
acting “is an element essential to the moral evaluation of an action” (Catechism of the
Catholic Church, 1752).

“Intention is not limited to directing individual actions, but can guide several
actions toward one and the same purpose; it can orient one’s whole life toward its
ultimate end . . . One and the same action can also be inspired by several intentions”
(Catechism of the Catholic Church, 1752). “A good intention does not make behavior
that is intrinsically disordered, such as lying and calumny, good or just. The end does
not justify the means” (Catechism of the Catholic Church, 1753).8 “On the other hand,
an added bad intention (such as vainglory) makes an act evil that, in and of itself, can
be good (such as almsgiving; cf Mt 6:2-4)” (Catechism of the Catholic Church, 1753).

CIRCUMSTANCES
Circumstances “are secondary elements of a moral act. They contribute to
increasing or diminishing the moral goodness or evil of human acts (for example, the
amount of a theft). They can also diminish or increase the agent’s responsibility (such
as acting out of a fear of death)” (Catechism of the Catholic Church, 1754).
Circumstances “of themselves cannot change the moral quality of acts themselves; they
can make neither good nor right an action that is in itself evil” (Ibid.). “A morally good act
requires the goodness of the object, of the end, and of the circumstances together”
(Catechism of the Catholic Church, 1755).

RESPONSIBILITY
“Freedom makes man responsible for his acts to the extent that they are voluntary”
(Catechism of the Catholic Church, 1734). The exercise of freedom always brings with it
responsibility before God: in every free act we either accept or reject God’s will.
“Imputability and responsibility for an action can be diminished or even nullified by
ignorance, inadvertence, duress, fear, habit, inordinate attachments, and other
psychological or social factors” (Catechism of the Catholic Church, 1735).

THE MORAL PRINCIPLES

"the principles of right and wrong that are accepted by an individual or a social group." Generally,
morals are what we use to guide our actions. There are some moral principles that most people
PALAWAN STATE UNIVERSITY SOCIAL RESPONSIBILITY & GOOD GOVERNANCE
SOFRONIO ESPAÑOLA

agree on, and others that differ from group to group and person to person. Many people are able to
follow moral principles by following laws.

WHEN YOU DON’T LIVE BY YOUR MORAL PRINCIPLES

It is easy to make small compromises in our moral principles. We do this by rationalizing

our actions. We do or say something that we know we do not think is right, but we find a
way to explain this action or statement to ourselves that makes it sound like it's okay.
However, deep inside, we know we have crossed a line and violated our moral
principles. Compromising your morals in even a small way makes it easier to make
larger compromises as well. Before you know it, you may be making poor decisions and
acting in ways that you would never have imagined you could.

When you act or speak against your morals, you begin to experience guilt and shame.
You feel guilty about your actions, which causes you to feel ashamed of yourself.
Sticking to your moral principles helps you live a life you are proud of, which is
associated with greater happiness. Here are some examples of moral principles and
how they may impact your life.

 Treat Others the Way You Want to Be Treated. When you live by this moral
principle, you take the time to empathize with others and try to see things through
their eyes. You think about the situation they are in instead of just your own and
consider what you would want someone to do for you if you were in that situation.
If everyone lived by this rule, crime and bullying would be greatly diminished.
When you treat other people well, you are likely to be treated well in return.
 Speak the Truth/Do Not Lie. We all want people to be honest with us. We want
to know that we are not being lied to and that we can trust people. In some
cases, however, people may justify not being honest by providing reasons that
sound good in the moment but violate their own morals. They may use phrases
like "white lie" or "doing it for their good" to support their decision. When you are
honest with other people, they will know that they can trust you, which helps
establish better relationships.
 Do not Spend What You Don't Have. Some people believe that being in debt is
wrong. Others do not believe that overspending is inherently wrong, but they
recognize that it has an adverse effect on their life. It is important to be a good
steward of what you are given. Stewardship means that you handle your finances
responsibly, which includes not spending money you do not have.

 Keep Your Word. This moral principle is like being honest and not telling lies,
but it is worth mentioning separately. If you do not keep your word (or promise),
not only does your reputation suffer, but you could be harmed in retaliation. If you
follow through on the things that you say you are going to do, people will trust
you more. You will also trust yourself more. This leads to better personal
relationships, career advancements, and a better life in general.
PALAWAN STATE UNIVERSITY SOCIAL RESPONSIBILITY & GOOD GOVERNANCE
SOFRONIO ESPAÑOLA

 Do not Take What Doesn't Belong to You. Most people would agree that you
should not steal. However, many people make small compromises on a regular
basis that do not line up with this principle.

THE DETERMINANTS OF MORALITY

The factors that link human acts with their norms are called the determinants of
morality. As the link, the determinants of morality serve as the measure of the goodness
and the evilness of the human act. There are three determinants of morality- the end of
the action, the end of the agent, and the circumstances of the act.

1. The End of the Action- this refers to the natural purpose of the act or that
in which the act in its very nature terminates or results, thus, the end of the
action of studying is learning. (The end of the act is the primary
determinant of morality).

2. The End of the Actor- this refers to the intention or the motive of the doer
of the act. This is to be distinguished from the end of the action. The
motive of the agent varies with different individuals, while the end of the
act is always the same.

3. Circumstances of the Act- refer to the conditions that affect the human act
by increasing or decreasing the responsibility of the actor. These
circumstances of the act are not considered part of the action itself which
means acts per se can exist even without the circumstances affect the
morality of the act.

The Following are Considered the Circumstances of the Act

1. Who – refer to the person or the one to whom the act is ascribed.

2. What – refers to the quality or the quantity of the object of the act.

3. Where- refers to the place where the act is performed.

4. How – refers to the manner or mode by which the act is performed.

5. By What Means- refers to the means employed by the actor.

PALAWAN STATE UNIVERSITY SOCIAL RESPONSIBILITY & GOOD GOVERNANCE
SOFRONIO ESPAÑOLA

6. When – refers to the circumstance of time.

7. Why- refers to the circumstances of end or intention of the act.

The Principles Involved in the Circumstances of the Action

Paul Glenn (1968) writes five principles involving the implications of the circumstances
of the act:

1. An indifferent act can become good or evil through circumstances, e.g., eating
meat is indifferent. However, eating meat on Good Friday intentionally is evil.

2. A good act can become evil through circumstances, e.g., giving money to poor
people is a good action. However, giving money to the same poor people to buy
votes during elections is evil.

3. An intrinsically good act can become better or an intrinsically evil act can become
worse through circumstances, e.g., visiting a sick person to comfort him is a good
action. However, not visiting a mother who is sick in the hospital out of hatred is
worse.

4. An evil act can never become good through circumstance, e.g., stealing money
to buy food cannot make the action of stealing good.

5. A good act done with evil means destroys the entire objective goodness of the
act, e.g., giving food to the hungry is a good action. However, giving money to
the hungry through robbery is evil.