MORALITY OF HUMAN ACTS & MORAL ACCOUNTABILITY 7 Specific kinds

a. Who- doer/receiver of action (How would person’s status affect act’s morality”
Human Act (actus humani)
b. Where- geographical location/nature of place (How does place affect morality”
- proceed from insight into nature & purpose of one’s doing & from
c. By what means
consent of free will (Peschke)
d. Why- intention/motive that moves agent to an action
- result of one’s conscious knowledge, freedom, & voluntariness/consent
e. How- manner; condition/modality (voluntariness, consent, violence, ignorance
- performed knowingly, freely, voluntarily (Agapay)
f. When- time
- proceeds from deliberate free will of man (Paul Glenn) g. To Whom- recipient
- performed in a situation when one decides & thinks for themselves
classified as good/bad, right/wrong; thus, subject to morality & its norms Modifiers of Human Act
(Baldameca, et al) - factors/conditions affecting man’s inner disposition towards actions
- influence person’s mental/emotional state to the point that voluntariness &
Basic Elements moral accountability is increased/diminished
1. KNOWLEDGE (Act must be deliberate) - affect acts in terms of knowledge, freedom, voluntariness, making them less
- by conscious agent who’s aware of he’s doing & its consequences perfectly human
(good/evil)
1. Ignorance- absence of knowledge person is ought to have
2. FREEDOM (Act must be performed in freedom)
3 types
- done w/ his volition & powers
a. Invincible I.- person may have w/o awareness/knowledge of it
3. VOLUNTARINESS/CONSENT (Act must be done voluntarily) - lacks necessary means to correct & solve it; not correctible
- decided willfully
b. Vincible I.- correctible by ordinary diligence & reasonable efforts
Human act- free & conscious; done by humans & proper to humans alone c. Affected I.- vincible i. which person keeps by positive efforts to escape
- make human “truly human” blame & accountability
- person concerned becomes morally accountable of such act Governing principles
Acts of Man- happen “naturally” even w/o awareness while doing it a. Invincible ignorance renders act involuntary
- w/o deliberation, reflection, consent; done instinctively b. Vincible ignorance doesn’t destroy but lessen voluntariness & accountability
- physiological process; spontaneously happening during c. Affected/pretended ignorance doesn’t excuse person from bad acts but
person’s impulsive, unconscious, instinctive movement increases their malice
- shared w/animals; emanate from purely sensual nature
2. Passion/Concupiscence- strong emotion/sentiment; bodily appetites/tendency
 “All human acts are acts of man, but not all acts of man are human acts” - inclination towards desirable objects
a. Antecedent passion doesn’t always destroy voluntariness but diminish
Major Determinants of Human Acts’ Morality accountability for resultant act
- allow us to identify concretely if act is good/bad, right/wrong, b. Consequent passion doesn’t lessen voluntariness but increase accountability
moral/immoral in reference to objective norm of morality
- sources defining goodness/rightness; badness/wrongness of human act 3. Fear- disturbance in mind when confronted by impending danger/harm
- act done w/fear; act done out/because of fear
1. Act itself / Object of the Act
a. Acts done w/ fear are voluntary
- done by an agent; simply what person does
b. Acts done because of intense fear/panic are involuntary
- natural act termination/completion which determines whether act is
intrinsically/extrinsically good/evil 4. Violence- physical force inflicted to another for recipient to act against will
- “substance of moral act” a. Action resulting from violence is involuntary (person confronted by violence
2. Motive / Intention must always offer intrinsic resistance by withholding consent)
- purpose/reason behind act; WHY person does what he does b. Absolute violence excludes any voluntariness from forced action
a. Indifferent act becomes morally good/evil depending on person’s intention (relative violence doesn’t impair voluntariness completely but lessens it)
b. Objectively good act becomes morally evil due to wrong/bad motive 5. Habit- constant/easy way of doing acts
c. Intrinsically/Objectively morally good act can receive added goodness if - readiness born of frequently repeated act for acting in certain manner
done w/equally noble intention a. Deliberately admitted habit doesn’t lessen voluntariness & actions
d. Intrinsically evil act never become morally good even if it’s w/good motive therefrom are voluntary atleast in their cause
b. Opposed habit lessens voluntariness & precludes it completely
3. Circumstances
- conditions outside act; influence to lesser/greater degree human act’s
moral quality
- affect act by increasing/lessening its voluntariness
- change & modify specific moral character of human act
a. Circumstance may exempt temporarily someone from doing required act
b. “ don’t prove person’s guilt (Presence in crime doesn’t prove his criminality)
4 types:
a. Mitigating/Extenuating C.- diminish degree of moral good/evil
b. Aggravating C- increase degree of moral good/evil w/o adding new &
distinct species of moral good/evil
c. Justifying C.- show adequate reason
d. Specifying C.- give new & distinct species of moral good/evil
 PHILOSOPHY Difference:
Doing Philosophy: - Ethics specifically study Morality
Arguments- argue in logical manner Ethics (theory)- provides principles/ guidelines as to what’s good/bad,
Questions- raise valid and intelligent questions right/wrong in human conduct
Reflection- reflect meditatively Course Ethics
- principles of ethical behavior in modern society in level of person,
a. UNDEFINABLE
society, & interaction w/ env & shared resources
As a Philosophy of life
- teach to make moral decisions by using dominant moral frameworks
- process of personal reflection of meaning of human life/existence
(ethical theories) & applying 7-step moral reasoning model to analyse &
- quest for personal outlook/lifestyle concerned w/wholeness of society
solve moral dilemmas
- endless process, it has begun but undoubtedly have no end
Morality (praxis)- actualizes theory; gives ethics perspective/rectitude of act
As Love of Wisdom
- provide w/quality that determines/distinguishes right from wrong conduct
- not to be defined but to be inquired into
- standards of right & wrong person originally picks up from community
- not to be defined but a reality to be lived in
- no limits like human mind in its search for explanation of reality & himself  Ethics outlines theories of right/wrong; Morality translates these into action

As Discipline of Questioning Importance of Ethics

Dynamic- unending series of questions & answers 1. Ethics is area of knowledge indispensable in living life which is “truly human”
Personal- philosophical concepts are not immutable doctrines
- Without moral perception, man is only an animal.
b. DEFINABLE – De-Fenire (Latin, “limit”) - w/o morality, man as a rational & free being is a failure.
Etymological Definitions 2. Concerned w/ living of “good life” (man’s most noble & enduring pursuits)
Greek: Philo (love) & Sophia (wisdom) = “Love of Wisdom” - what kind of life person ought to live has preoccupied some of greatest
 To philosophize is to be in a quest/have desire to live acc to truth minds in history
Chinese: Zhe/Che (wisdom) & Xue/Shue (study) = “Study of Wisdom” 3. Ethics & morality served as very foundation of human society
 Inseparability between words & actions - idea of right & wrong is dominant theme in human civilization
 theory application into praxis; challenge to live on what He says - w/o ethics & morality, society would naturally & expectedly deteriorate
Hindi: “Seeing” (Darsana) 4. Ethics as practical science is a study of choices we make
 seeing through totality of being - we become good/bad persons through decisions we make
 Seeing whole reality through total advertence & involvement off looker
5. Can provide moral paradigms/perspectives guides us in determining what’s
Essential Definition right & wrong when confronted w/ moral dilemmas
Philosophy- science that investigates all things in their ultimate causes, 6. Enables us to reason out our moral beliefs & why we hold them
reasons, & principles through use of human reason - critically examine ground/foundation of valid & invalid moral beliefs/claims
7. Aid us to widen our horizon as to what is good & bad
ETHICS - appreciation of ethics complexity is valuable in counteracting our natural
CHED: “The fundamental purpose of higher education is not only to develop tendency toward inflexibility & tribalism where we stubbornly adhere to
knowledgeable & competent graduates in certain field but also well- values of our own specific groups.
rounded individuals who appreciate knowledge, are open minded because 8. Study of ethics is an instrumental value & valuable in its own right
of it, secure in their identities & as Filipinos, & cognizant of their role in life - doing good is better than just knowing good
of nation & larger community” 9. Deepen our reflection on ultimate questions of life
Ethics- introduce to ethical dimension of human existence through personal, - value in itself; what life is worth living?
societal, environmental, cultural levels
ETHICS vs LAW
Ethics: A Philosophy of Action
“What is moral is not always legal; what is legal is not always moral”
- arms person w/ theoretical knowledge of human act morality
- knowing what’s right doesn’t mean doing what’s right “What is right is right even though no one’s doing it; wrong is wrong even if
- “farthest distance for person to cross is distance between head & heart” everybody is doing it”
Ethics ≠ Law
Ethics: A Practical Discipline
- not just an academic study but a “way of life” Law- concerned only w/ public actions that harmed those around us,
- discipline w/initimate connection w/ person’s daily lives detrimental to common good of general public
- knowing what’s right w/o changing behavior morally is useless knowledge Ethics - very foundation of laws; Morality precedes/goes beyond legality
- goes beyond concern & parameters of law; includes human
ETHICS vs MORALITY motivations in its investigations; private actions
Etymology: Ethics (Greek, “ethos”) Morality (Latin, “mos”/”mores”) = SAME - includes thoughts & feelings & subject persons to moral analysis & eval.
 Both deal w/ goodness/badness, rightness/wrongness  Because of ethics, we have laws; we need ethics to refine & perfect legal system
ETHICS vs RELIGION Characteristics of Moral Principles
- both are normative disciplines & concerned w/ right & wrong behavior 1. Reasonability- moral adjustments must be backed up by good reasons
Ethics- relies on natural reason, logic & experience; justification & validation 2. Impartiality – neutral in questioning who are recipients; apply moral principles
of theories & principles concerning good & bad 3. Prescriptivity- practical/action-guiding nature of morality; commanding aspect
Religion- relies on supernatural reason (divine revelation/divine authority)
4. Overridingness- moral standards must have hegemony (reign supreme over
Ethics: A Definition other standards of valuation like morality over legality, morality
- practical science of human act morality & good life over technicality)
- branch of Philosophy dealing w/ how we ought to live, w/pursuit of the good 5.
& Autonomous from Arbitrary Authority- stand on own logic independent from
concept as right &wrong arbitrariness of majority
- investigate & examines critically & systematically by using natural reason, 6. Publicity- moral principles must be public to serve as guidelines to our actions
principles, codes of right/wrong, good/bad 7. Practicability- shouldn’t be impossible to achieve
- use human reason & experience alone (no supernatural reason/divine revelation)
8. Universalizability- moral rule/principle must be applicable to everyone w/o
exception provided that all people are in similar situation/context
Ethics: Moral Philosophy
Questions: What constitutes good life for humans?
What’s basis by which actions can be judged as good/bad, right/wrong?
How man ought to behave so as to live life that’s truly human?

Objects of Ethics
Material- conscious & deliberate conduct/act; one is held morally responsible
- specific subject which science deals w/ in its study
Formal- morality/moral rectitude of human act/conduct
- special way & viewpoint science employs in dealing w/ a specific subject

ETHICS vs OTHER SCIENCES

Ethics- critical normative & prescriptive discipline
Other Sciences- simply descriptive

Division of Ethics
General- human act morality (major elements/constituents & modifiers),
norms of morality (law & conscience)
determinants of morality (major sources of morality)
Special (Applied)– applies General Ethics’ specific & fundamental norms & principles in
specific areas of human life & activity in individual & social domain (Individual
ethics & Social Ethics)
- family, state, church, societal issues (rights/duties, ecology/ environment, labor &
work ethics, sex & marriage, bioethics, politics)

Types of Norms
Norm- standard; measures morality of act
- criteria about kind of person we ought to be & kind of actions we ought to perform
a. Technical–techniques of how certain things should be done
- community prescribes proper ways of working & doing things
b. Aesthetic- perceptual (color, shape, space, movement, sound, emotion, touch,
texture, taste, scent, odor)
- considered by community as ‘ennobling’, ‘cathartic’, “heighten man’s existence”,
‘beautiful’; represent free play & celebration of human spirit
c. Societal- manners/behavior/etiquette recommended for community & strengthening
d. Ethical- ideal vision of a person, ideal stage/perfection of being; ultimate goal & norm
- “non-negotiables”; all other norm types are subordinated here

First Position- A-morality; morality occupies just 1 area in human life

Second P.- all of human life is subjected to morality
Third P./ Middle ground- morality covers where focus of human experience is moral
obligation/value, when we concentrate on what should be done
- morality can also be more in background as a horizon/context that guides us
- our existence is too rich & complex to confine ourselves to 1/ few dimensions
 ETHICAL RELATIVISM We must conform & embrace ethical code of respective cultures
It’s natural to affiliate & conform to accepted ethical standards of
Moral view/framework/philosophy:
particular group where they belong
“MORALITY is mainly, if not totally, dependent on one’s CULTURE” We should be accepting of own societal norms; their beliefs is good
CLAIMS basis for common morality within culture
a. Ethical values & beliefs (as to what’s right/good, wrong/bad) are relative  Ethical Relativism = Conformity to Group’s Accepted Ethical Standards
to time, place, person, situations
b. No universally valid moral principles 5. PROVABILITY ARGUMENT
c. All moral values are valid relative to culture/individual choice Reasons: There’s moral dispute between groups
There’s difficulty in knowing what’s right to do in a situation
d. Act rightness/wrongness depends on society’s moral norms/person’s
moral commitment; no absolute standard exists by which differing We can’t prove which moral opinions are true/false
rules/commitments can be judged Ethical disputes are far from resolved (euthanasia, abortion, divorce)
e. No values cut across cultural boundaries & people Morality can never be proved
f. Morality depends on social/cultural circumstance (tradition/custom)  Ethical Relativism = No Objective Truth in Ethics
g. Morally right/wrong vary fundamentally between person & culture
Critical Evaluation of Ethical Relativism
h. What’s basically right for person may be wrong for another
1. on Cultural Diversity
i. Act may be right & wrong simultaneously (right in 1 culture; wrong in
- sociological & anthropological fact; neutral to making value/moral judgment
Moral Skepticism- no valid moral principle at all/we can’t know if there’s any - doesn’t categorically say what culture is superior
≠ Ethical Relativism- no universal moral principles - doesn’t deny moral values’ objectivity
- product of culture express objective truth, so moral code can be product of culture
Moral Nihilism- nothing is morally right/wrong
yet still express objective truth about how we ought to live
≠ Ethical Relativism- right/wrong depends on factors
2. on Argument from Respect
ARGUMENTS
- Melvill Herskovits: ethical relativism entails intercultural tolerance”
1. CULTURAL DIFFERENCES ARGUMENT
- if people think ethical relativism is true, they will tolerate moral differences
“Morality depends on specific social/cultural circumstance”
- tolerance is not always good/always a virtue
Reasons: Diff societies have different moral codes
3. on Psychological Argument
People in diff society have diff custom/idea on right/wrong
No transcultural consensus on what acts are right/wrong even - guilty of genetic fallacy: just because something comes from dubious source,
though there’s overlapping one’s belief doesn’t follow that it’s false/erroneous
 how one believes doesn’t undermine its truthfulness/validity
Study on cultural practices of diff people supports that what is/isn’t
behaviorally normal is culturally determined (Ruth Benedict) - guilty of misinterpretation fallacy: overstates its case
Acquaintance w/diverse moral beliefs leads to denial that there’s  deceives us that matter of social conditioning is in person’s moral/ethical dev’t.

only 1 correct moral code that applies to & binds all societies fails to consider other powerful factors:
 Ethical Relativism = Cultural Diversity Exercise of freedom of choice/free will
- morality is primary function of free volition; one is a result of decision-making
2. ARGUMENT FROM RESPECT - moral dev’t is entirely a matter of decision, not condition
“What’s morally right/wrong varies fundamentally from person/culture” - fallacy of oversimplification: disregard specific role of early psychological
Reason: People shouldn’t judge others basing on their own moral standards upbringing in moral dev’t & behavior
Moral code of one’s culture has no special status compared w/rest
4. on Argument from Conformity
No culture has right to impose its own ethical views on others
- morality is dependent of what majority decides. What’s good/bad is reducible to
Promote tolerance & respect for different moral standpoints
social contract/group consensus
Entails “intercultural tolerance”
- makes majority as only true & legitimate voice, reducing minority to falsehood
Tolerance is virtue; taking superior stance is height of arrogance &
- ignored subgroup problem where people can belong to overlapping/conflicting
narrow mindedness
societies
We should be accepting of others’ radically diff moralities
 Ethical Relativism = Tolerance & Respect 5. on Provability Argument
- “morality can never be proved” is a logical necessity since we try to prove one’s
3. PSYCHOLOGICAL ARGUMENT ethical viewpoint to another to find out how difficult & frustrating it is
“Ethical values & beliefs are relative to time, place, situations” - some truths may be forever hidden from ordinary/limited mortals
Reason: Moral values are result of how we’re conditioned/trained through - very act of discussion whether it’s possible to resolve disputes is “proof” itself &
parental rearing “answer” exists: in the first place, there’s moral disagreements to resolve
We acquire moral beliefs through psychological conditioning - if there’s moral disagreements, then there’s something independent that serves as
We are un/consciously subjected to psychic manipulation by basis that makes these agreements possible
“significant others” - objective theory “allows us to account for strong feeling that there’s genuine
Moral truth is relative to one’s psychological upbringing disputes about moral matters”
 Ethical Relativism = Psychological Upbringing
4. CONFORMITY ARGUMENT
ETHICAL RELATIVISM & AMBIVALENCE OF FILIPINO VALUES
“Whether act is right/wrong depends on society’s normal
norms/individual’s moral commitments” - negative aspects are used as excuse for our “weak character” (Emerita Quito, 1st
Filipina who obtained PhD abroad)
Reason: Whatever a society believes to be right is right for them
“Good” is what majority of society approves/acknowledges HIYA (Shame)
Morality is dependent of what majority wants/decides Neg: inhibits action; reduces one to smallness/morality of slaves, congealing soul &
What’s good/bad is reducible to kind of social contract/matter of emasculating it, making it timid, meek, & weak
group consensus Pos: contributes to peace of mind & lack of stress
NINGAS-COGON (Procrastination) NATURAL LAW OF ETHICS
Neg: begins ardently & dies down as soon as it begins; renders one inactive/
NATURAL LAW THEORY
unable to initiate/persevere
- moral rules/principles are objective, absolute, & universal truths discovered in nature
Pos: makes one nonchalant, detached, indifferent should anything go wrong,
of things & structure of life through reasoned reflection
conducive to peace & tranquility
- dominated in Medieval Period by St. Thomas Aquinas (Angelic Doctor of Catholic
PAKIKISAMA (Group Loyalty) Church), where his religious interpretation & appropriation of secular & humanistic
Neg: ignore evils to conserve peace & harmony at expense of one’s comfort Aristotelian nature concept has influenced in a way that Catholic teachings are
framed throughout history, esp sexual morality
Pos: one lives for others; constant goal: peace/lack of dissension
- different from “natural law”: morality w/modern science; descriptive generalizations
PATIGASAN (Test of Strength) & not broken/defied; immutably govern how natural
Neg: stubborn, resists efforts at reconciliation; makes us childish, vindictive, world performs (law of gravity)
irrational - to understand its demands, we must look to human nature & ask what it demands
from humans gifted w/knowledge & free will (nothing mysterious)
Pos: sign that we know our rights & not easily cow to submission; occidental in
spirit, keeping “will to power” - accessible to human reason (natural reflection) & experience; reason & common
sense determines what we ought/not do
BAHALA NA (Resignation) - applies universally to all humans regardless of social & cultural differences
Neg: entrusts anything in Divine providence; laziness disguised in religious garb - built into nature of life itself, thus enable us to discover what’s right & wrong
Pos: one relies to superior; humility, modesty, lack of arrogance - we just have to follow reason’s dictates to discover moral truths of existence

KASI (Because, Scapegoat) Stoic’s Interpretation of Natural Law

Neg: one disowns responsibility & makes scapegoat out of someone; one - belief that ethics/morality is grounded on nature: oldest in philosophical thought
remains lily white & has ready alibi for failure - natural law first appeared among Stoics (1st cent BC)
Pos: one can see both sides of argument & know where it failed; never suffer - Stoics views life & world w/calmness (stoic: serenity/ indifference on anything)
from guilt/self-recrimination - believed that “humans have divine spark (logos spermatikos: rational seed/sperm)
that help discover essential eternal laws governing whole cosmos
SAVING FACE - equated nature w/law & reason; taught that it’s important to live life acc to nature
Neg: closely related to hiya; shirk responsibility; one is never accountable for (wisdom): everything happens acc to law; wise person knows that things must be as
anything they are & achieves happiness & purpose by learning to accept necessities
Pos: one’s psyche is saved from embarrassment; saves from accountability/ - fatalism: things can’t be changed as they are bc it’s what they are, nothing more/less
responsibility; enables graceful exit from guilt - whole of universe governed by immutable laws exhibiting rationality. Nothing
happens by chance; it has its own purpose for its own being
SAKOP (Inclusion)
Neg: one never learns to be one’s own; stunts growth; parasitism; consider Aristotelian Conception
world as comfort room
4 basic ideas: 1. Everything in nature has purpose
Pos: one cares for family; stands/falls w/them; concern for family 2. “ “ “ has essential nature (features constituting its defining features)
MAÑANA/MAMAYA NA (Procrastination) 3. “ “ “ has its proper good
4. Natural purpose, essential nature, proper good are intimately related
Neg: constant postpone of action & accomplishes nothing; arise from indolent
mentality that problem goes away by itself - Aristotle (384-322 BC): everything that exists in nature serves specific purpose & we
Pos: one is w/o stress & tension; take what comes naturally; makes one live can never fully understand anything until we understand what it’s purpose. Natural
naturally & w/o artificiality law appears mysterious only if we forget that everything has a law built into nature
- applies to inanimate nature: process of how thing develops from potentiality to
UTANG NA LOOB (Indebtedness) actuality is possible bc of its nature: natural law is story of how things work
Neg: overlooks moral principles when one is indebted to person; another - every substance has intrinsic nature/principle of operation (dynamic, theological,
person will do anything to please him that by doing so he’s able to repay specific); purpose of any fully-developed entity is to be itself
debt; condones what other does & never censure him for wrongdoing Self-actualization/realization: very reason for our being
Pos: recognize indebtedness; “he who doesn’t know how to look to past will - essence of thing is activity; essential characteristic is what it does uniquely/better
never reach his destination” - growth & reproduction are shared by humans w/other living beings; sensual
perceptions are shared/animals/brutes
KANYA-KANYA (Self-Centeredness)
Thinking capacity- distincts human from other creatures
Neg: no regard for others
- exercising intelligence is our purpose & reason what’s to be human
Pos: takes care of oneself & family blood is thicker than water) - doing what’s natural acc to nature as rational is what’s good/right
Reasonability- act acc to nature  Rationality – being good in action/conduct
 we can see positive side of character through appropriation & putting
Morality- exercise capacity to reason/deliberate on what we ought to do
cultural vale in proper perspective
- not allow lower faculties to dominate decision/action
 there’s nothing “absolute”/”objective” in specific trait
Follow nature  follow reason  way to be good  what we ought to be 
 every trait is relative; depend on how it’s used in context purpose/reason of being (goal of human existence)

MORAL LAW
- governing nature/action of all animate/inanimate beings
- constant way of acting/reacting, any directive rule of activity
- rule of conduct governing/regulate/directs free acts of man as rational beings

Thomistic Influence on Natural Law

Law as defined by St. Thomas
- ordinance of reason (command/directive from legitimate authority) for
common good, promulgated by one w/care to community
- binding upon subjects to obey; request & command
- differs from plea/advice since it requires obedience/obligation, rendering it w/force & 4. Natural laws are universal & unchangeable; basis to judge individual cultures &
power—law is imposition which necessitates obedience societies acc to norms & practices
- be in good accord w/human reason where reasonable human can agree with 5. Man through reason can know what’s good
- product of reason 5. Moral laws, based from natural law, have objective validity
6. First self-evident of natural law: Do good & avoid evil
Essential elements for Law to be Reasonable
1. Just- promote inherent rights & dignity
2. Honest- shouldn’t contradict higher law; consistent within itself Ethical Principles under Natural Law Theory
3. Possible of fulfillment- can be followed Principle of DOUBLE EFFECT
4. Relatively permanent- continues to be binding on subjects unless - morality can’t be categorized into definite & simple labeling of good/bad; good & bad
repealed/amended w/good reason by legitimate authority effects are present & unavoidable
5. Promulgated- publicized - neat algorithm for solving moral disputes where act has 2 effects; applied to situation
6. Directed to common good- promote general welfare where good & evil effects result from act w/good cause
7. Promulgated by one w/care to community- by competent/legit authority - finds concrete relevance in medical context
- act w/good & bad effects is morally justified as long as:
Attributes of Natural Law
1. Act is good/morally indifferent/neutral
1. Obligatory- declares moral duty; speaks voice of authority
- one may never do evil to achieve good
2. Universal- applied to all despite differences
2. Evil effect isn’t directly intended but morally allowed as regrettable side issue
3. Proper Sanction
- negative effect must not be primary reason for acting
4. Recognizable- knowable; open to all rational beings
5. Immutable- unchangeable 3. Evil effect is not means by which good effect is achieved
- “end doesn’t justify means”
Contents of Natural Law 4. Good effect must outweigh evil effect/proportional
Formal norm- relate to character/what kind of person we ought to be
- absolute principle; unchangeable Principle of INVIOLABILITY OF LIFE
- human life is of infinite value as it’s sacred gift; outweighs everything
Knowledge on Natural Law - equal worth & dignity to every life (criminal’s = baby); weighing life against other is wrong
- men have capacity to know law’s contents - applies to every human life from conception to subsequent stages
- under normal circumstances, law’s principles can’t be forgotten/banished - intention & direct termination of life (euthanasia, abortion) of medical practitioners is
- passion/emotion may prevent clear thinking & proper understanding immoral  TO HEAL & NOT TO KILL
- since law is grounded in human nature, it cant be ignored
- only competent, qualified persons (hospital ethic committee) are authorized to undergo
- law should be confirmed by positive divine law
decision-making in hard medical situations
Basic & Universal Natural Human Inclination
Principle of FORFEITURE
- purposely put in human nature to aid us in attaining final & ultimate goal: eternal
happiness w/God - morally permissible to defend oneself even if it involves killing
- aggressor’s human inclination to self-preservation/survival is forfeited in your favor
1. Self-Preservation/Survival- preserve in existence - differentiates killing (act; to non-innocent) & murder (crime; unjust; to innocent)
2. Propagation- unite sexually to continue generation - in complicated pregnancy, fetus, though subjectively innocent must be removed as it’s
3. Live in Peace & Harmony w/others- fair dealings objectively an aggressor to mother’s life
4. Seek Truth & Knowledge of Good- use will & intellect
Principle of TOTALITY
Natural Law & Church’s Teaching - part of human body exists for good of whole
on CONTRACEPTION - only infectious organ can be removed for preservation of whole body
- baby conception is natural purpose of sexual act which strengthens relationship - involves ethical & religious principle that persons aren’t owners of bodies but given task
- anything that deliberately/willfully frustrates natural outcome is ethically wrong. of administration
Every sexual act must be open to possibility of conceiving
Principle of STEWARDSHIP
- sexual intercourse that doesn’t lead to pregnancy (homosexuality, masturbation,
anal/oral) are sexual perversions - we aren’t owner of our body; only God has dominion over life & bodies
- suicide & euthanasia are immoral; one must seek medical aid
on PREMARITAL SEX - moral duty to preserve & protect environment
- conceiving outside marriage is immoral as it deprives children of stable env
(Declaration on Certain Questions Concerning Sexual Ethics, Article VII) JUST WAR THEORY
- premarital sex on longterm relationships can’t ensure interpersonal - related principle & application of principle of forfeiture, where defending whole country
relationship/protect relationship from whims & caprices from unjust aggressor is justified
- Church: every genital act must be within marriage. Pleasure can be enjoyed only after - only justified when:
marital vows; sex is for procreation, not recreation
1. Lawful Authority- renounces aggressive war than defensive war
on HOMOSEXUALITY - defined by Constitution; must have mandate over whole community
- homo relations are acts that lacks essential & indispensable finality
2. Just Cause- if it’s waged to protect innocents from harm
- unnatural & evil; worthy of moral condemnation
- war to invade & subjugate nation is morally wrong & unjustified
on MASTURBATION 3. Last Resort- war never be first & primary option; all peaceful/legal means must be used
- grave moral disorder called into doubt/expressly denied today 4. Good Intention- good faith in war to promote common good, peace, etc
- intrinsically & seriously disordered act 5. Reasonable Chances of Success- has reasonable chance of attaining goal
- use of sexual organ outside normal conjugal/marital relations contradicts finality of - going to war w/zero virtual success is immoral (unwinnable war is immoral)
faculty
6. Right Use of Means- no weapons of mass destruction (chemical/biological)
- inhumane means even w/ just cause & honest intention is immoral
Summary of Natural Law Theory
7. Proportional Response- violent response is directly proportional to act of provocation/
1. Everything in world has its own purpose/reason that’s true to humans
aggression; must only repel attack, no overkill
2. Humanity as essential rational nature
3. Morality is governed by law built into human nature as laws of nature also govern  war must cease once it has met its intended purpose/peace is declared
things
Justified Rebellion/Revolution UTILITARIANISM
War- condition of armed & active hostility between nations - disregards act itself as basis of morality
Act of Rebellion- unlawful uprising against government - no action in itself is good/bad apart from its outcome/end
- coup d’ etat (mutiny to lawfully constituted authority) - there’s nothing we can say in act’s moral worth that’s independent to its consequence
- CBCP: violent means to overthrow authority is opposed & condemned as immoral as - actions don’t have intrinsic moral value
it’s tantamount to unjust usurpation of power, except when:
CONSEQUENTIALIST ETHICAL THEORY
1. There’s clear & manifest long-standing tyranny & oppression - utilitarianism: acts are morally significant/valuable in as much as they produce what’s
- basic & fundamental rights are already trampled, gov has become substantially evil desired/expected from then
& pursues its own self-interest
- act is instrument to achieve something
2. All peaceful & legal means to resolve conflict are exhausted
- morality only has instrumental value, a means to an end; not end in itself (unlike
3. There’s reasonable probability that revolve is success deontologist/nonconsequentialist theories where morality is good for its own sake)
4. Good to be achieved is well-proportionate to damage inflicted
5. Decision to wage violent revolt against gov must come from majority Ethical Hedonism
- war must be of, for, & by the people
- hedonistic (pleasure-oriented); abhors pain/unhappiness as effects in performing actions
- if act results to unhappiness, pain, & harm, it has to be rejected/avoided
Critical Assessment of Natural Law Ethics
- right/wrong depends on pleasure/pain act brings (pleasure=right; pain=wrong)
STRENGTHS - primary reason for living is to seek pleasure & avoid pain/suffering
1. Affirms basic belief that in infinite/inherent worth & value of life - good life is spent for pursuit of bodily pleasures (goodness=pleasure of sensual nature)
2. Gives purposive direction & coherent explanation to all realities
3. Offers clear & comprehensive guideline of what ought/not to do “Nature placed man under governance of 2 sovereign masters: pain & pleasure. It’s for
them to know what ought to do & shall do. One hand is standard of right & wrong; on
4. Grounds morality in human nature discoverable by reason
other is chain of causes. They govern in all we think & do: every effort we can make to
5. Emphasize human inclinations as good & must be promoted/enhanced
throw off subjection, will serve but to demonstrate & confirm it”(Bentham, Intro to
6. Grounds morality on universal human values of life, truth, goodness Principles of Morals & Legislation)
7. Integrates role of conscience in knowing what’s right & wrong
8. Explains why nature are the way they are & their implication to moral act Principle of Utility
9. Provides religious dimension to morality - by Jeremy Bentham & John Stuart Mill
10. Rejects relativism & subjectivism in for valid moral principle to govern actions
- utility/usefulness (value): determining element of rightness/wrongness; to bring about
11. Reason justification on why some are good/bad
desirable results (pleasure/happiness)
12. Clear & logical guidelines in complex situations
13. Definite assessment as to morality of popular actions (contraception, etc) “By utility is that property in any object, where it tends to produce benefit,
advantage, pleasure, or prevent mischief, pain, evil, or unhappiness to
14. Philosophical alternative to Divine Command Theory of ethics
party, whose interest is considered”(Bentham, 1976)
15. Consistent w/own intuition about objectivity of morality
- utility=pleasure/happiness=only moral principle/objective moral standard
CRITICISMS - utilitarianism: “happiness theory”
1. Can way things are by nature provide basis for knowing how they ought to be?  measures act’s happiness over unhappiness
- factual matters can’t be subjected to evaluation (facts are facts)  aims at good consequences everybody wants (happiness/pleasure)

2. If natural law is discoverable by human reason & since reason is true to all, why is it
Bentham’s Hedonic Calculus (Cost-Benefit Analysis)
difficult to know what it is?
- hedons (Greek, “pleasure”); calculus (science of calculation)
3. In what sense is natural law a law?
- men being governed by nature is figurative expression of how human nature - to arrive at definite basis of when to say act is right/wrong
is a lawgiver - main goal: help lawmakers/legislators decide what to be done in any circumstance
- what matters is pleasure maximization & pain minimization/total eradication
4. Popular scientific theory of evolution may also present challenge to traditional
- determine morality by measuring exact amount of pleasure & pain/un & happiness
natural law thinking
- things came to be due to natural selection & mutations, thus nature isn’t purposive 1. Intensity- how strong pleasure is; one is morally bound to do act that offers stronger
5. Is human nature fixed? degree of contentment
- invalidated by modern science; humans are dynamic, not static 2. Duration- how long it is; must perform acts that give longer pleasure experience
6. Is human nature inherently good or bad? 3. Certainty- how likely it could be; act where expected pleasures are more probable
- we must truly know what nature truly is 4. Propinquity- when it can arrive; act must bring immediate pleasure
7. What about negative human tendencies? 5. Fecundity- if it causes further pleasure; act must lead to series of pleasures
- man has good & bad inclinations 6. Purity- how free from pain it is; act must not be tainted w/pain/discomfort
8. St. Thomas’ idea that human nature originally comes from God is problematic 7. Extent- how many people are affected; act must make many happy
9. What’s natural for one may not be natural for another
 if we’re faced w/act, proper ethical approach is to calculate pleasure & pain amount
- diff people have diff interpretation
 puts Bentham under level of psychological hedonist (greatest happiness of greatest
10. Is conscience always right?
number = top priority)
- conscience is subjective & conditioned by env & upbringing
Cost-benefit Analysis- cost= pain/suffering; benefits=pleasure/happiness

Greatest Good for Greatest Number

ETHICS OF UTILITARIANISM - by Scottish philosopher Francis Hutcheson; controversial utilitarian phrase
- morality’s social dimension
Utilitarianism belongs to theory in morality called Consequentialist - presupposed by Greeks Epicurus & Aristippus (their schools emphasize pursuit of pleasure
- effects that an act brings than agent’s motive; deed’s result, not deed itself as central meaning & reason of human existence)
- “What good will come from doing this?”
“What benefit can one get in performing act?” 2 types of Pleasures: QUANTITY & QUALITY (Mill)
“What harm comes if action is done?” pleasures of mind & spirit > pleasures of flesh & body
“Who’ll stand to gain if act is performed?”
“It’s better to be a human being dissatisfied than a pig satisfied: better to be Socrates
 concerned w/possible/projected act’s consequences, which differentiates dissatisfied than a fool satisfied)
utilitarianism from Natural Law & Deontological ethics theories
- we must seek higher pleasure than lower kind associated w/sensual satisfaction
- must feed mind & soul & not just to satisfy bodily need/physical cravings
 “A life w/only bodily pleasures isn’t as good as one w/pleasures of mind &
spirit. Pleasure from love, knowledge, being morally good, freedom makes life
more worthy living than life that wallows in bodily pleasures”(Wall, 2003)
- focus: pleasure type (QUALITY) from act than pleasure amount (QUANTITY)
- we belong to higher level of creatures whose concerns aren’t limited to pursuit of brute
satisfaction but also capacity to think pleasure kind worthy of our dignity

Critical Assessment of Utilitarian Ethics

STRENGTHS
1. Transcends view that only confirms itself to person’s interest (Ethical Egoism);
altruistic attitude makes it admirable
2. Grounded on science than speculative/abstract & religious assumption
3. Universally applied; w/ absolute moral principle w/answer for every situation
4. Puts pleasure as center of its concerns; categorization to higher/lower
(quantitative/qualitative)
5. Hedonic Calculus focus on what act gives more pleasure; allows to see/discover how
moral decisions are derived in actual/real life setting
6. Consequence consideration as sole basis of morality affirms that all acts have
consequences that matter
7. Provides us practical, simple, clear procedure for making ethical decisions
8. Flexible & sensitive to circumstance around act; doesn’t judge any act immediately
9. Finds practical/specific applications in many areas/fields
10. Considers well-being of equal value w/everyone

WEAKNESSES
1. Difficulty in knowing exact consequence of act
2. Justifies intrinsically wrong act (murder/stealing) as long as it has positive effect
3. Impractical application since we don’t have time to weigh pleasure/pain
4. Principle of greatest good of greatest number doesn’t justify minority rights as it
adheres to tyranny of numbers
5. Ignores role of motive/intention which can alter radically overall minority (guilty of
simplistic reductionism)
6. Rejects all forms of moral duties (duty to tell truth, help those in need, protect
innocent), making universe devoid of moral duties & ruins human value
7. Makes goodness matter of individual taste & personal preference leading to
subjectivism, resulting to moral chaos in society
8. Fell under relativism (antithesis of belief in absolute morality)
9. “Heartless” philosophy: no place for live as motive of acting in assessing moral worth
10. Assumption that all actions are purposive is based on false psychology; actual
experience testifies that acts are driven by impulse/instinct w/o conscious definite goal