PHILO031 – ETHICS

WHAT IS PHILOSOPHY?
1. What is Philosophy?
a. Comes from the two Greek words:
i. Philia = love
ii. Sophia = wisdom
b. Philosophy means the Love of Wisdom
c. Philosophy is the science that studies beings in their ultimate causes, reasons,
and principles through the aid of human reason alone.
d. Philosophy is concerned with the reason and principles that account for
everything that exists.
2. Love
a. Strong desire for a particular object.
3. Wisdom
a. Correct application of knowledge.
4. Being / Beings
a. All things that exist:
i. Material
1. Examples: Stones, Trees, Persons, Cars, etc.
ii. Immaterial
1. Examples: Notions of God, Soul, and or Spirit.
5. Basic questions in Philosophy:
a. What is the origin of the world, of everything that exists?
b. Why do these things exist, rather than not exist at all?
c. Is there a God? If so, how can we justify the goodness of God in the face of
evil?
d. What is the meaning and purpose of life? Why do we have to suffer?
e. If one is suffering from an unbearable pain, such as cancer, is it morally right to
resort to euthanasia or assisted suicide?
6. Philosopher do not agree on a single definition of Philosophy. In fact, philosophers
differ in their basic understanding of Philosophy.
a. For example, Karl Jaspers, a famous German existential philosopher,
understands Philosophy as a discipline in which questions are more important
than answers, because answers themselves will in turn become questions!
7. Major branches in Philosophy
a. Philosophy in divided into 4 major branches:
i. Metaphysics
1. Comes from the two Greek words:
a. Meta = beyond / after
b. Physika = physical / nature
2. Metaphysics means the study of things beyond the physical;
concepts or things that cannot be experienced such as the
concepts of God, freedom, and soul.
3. Metaphysics is commonly understood as the foundation of
philosophy.
4. In fact, Aristotle calls it the first Philosophy.
5. It is further subdivided into two:
a. General Metaphysics / Ontology
i. Also referred to as Ontology.
ii. Ontology is derived from the two Greek words:
1. Onto = being or that which is
2. Logos = knowledge or study (Heraclitus
understands Logos as the reason or the
underlying principle of all that is).
iii. Studies being in their ultimate causes, reasons,
and principles through the aid of reason alone.
iv. In other words, Ontology studies the first principles
or the essence of things.
v. Basic questions:
1. What is being?
 2. Why do things exist, rather than not exist at
all?
3. What is the meaning and nature of reality?
4. What is the underlying principle of all that
exist?
5. Is there nothing?
b. Special Metaphysics
i. Under Special Metaphysics:
1. Cosmology
a. Comes from two Greek words:
i. Cosmos = world
ii. Logos = study
b. Studies the world (or universe)
including its origin, dynamics, and
characteristics, as well as the laws
that govern its order.
c. Basic questions:
i. What is the origin of the world?
ii. What is the basic material of
which the world is formed?
iii. How do things arise?
iv. In what consists its fundamental
form or principle of order?
v. Is the world or universe infinite?
2. Psychology or Anthropology
a. Comes from the two Greek words:
i. Psyche = soul and mind
ii. Logos = study
b. Study of the nature and dynamics
of the human person as a whole
with emphasis on the way the person’s
 mind functions and the way he / she
behaves.
c. Basic questions:
i. What is the nature of the human
person?
ii. Is there such thing as human
nature?
iii. What is the meaning and
purpose, if any, of life?
iv. Is there life after death?
v. How do we account for the
existence of sufferings in the
world?
3. Natural Theology or Theodicy
a. Derives from the Greek word:
i. Theos = God
b. The word Theodicy was coined by
the famous 18th century German
Philosopher named Gottfried
Wilhelm Leibniz in his 1710 work:
Theodicee
c. Theodicy is the study of God, it
concerns on the justification of the
goodness of God in the face of the
existence of evil.
d. Basic questions:
i. Is there God?
ii. What and who is God, if He
exists at all?
iii. How do we prove the existence
of God?
 iv. If God exists, how do we justify
the existence of evil and
suffering in the world?
v. Does a belief in God really
necessary?
ii. Epistemology
1. Comes from the two Greek words:
a. Epistome = knowledge
b. Logos = study
2. Study of the nature and scope of knowledge and justified
belief.
3. Specifically, it analyzes the nature of knowledge and how it
relates to similar notions such as truth, belief, and justification.
4. Basic questions:
a. What is knowledge?
b. What do we know?
c. How is knowledge acquired?
d. What are the structures and limits of knowledge?
e. What makes justified beliefs justified?
iii. Logic
1. Comes from the Greek word:
a. Logos = science of correct thinking
2. The study of the principles and criteria of a valid argument
3. It attempts to distinguish sound or good reasoning from
unsound or bad reasoning.
4. Basic questions:
a. What is correct reasoning?
b. What distinguishes a good argument from a bad one?
c. How can we detect a fallacy in argument?
d. What are the criteria in determining the validity of an
argument?
 e. What are the types of logic?
iv. Ethics
1. Derived from the Greek word:
a. Ethos = custom or habit
2. Ethics is the morality of human actions
3. Is more concerned on how human persons ought to act, and
the search for a definition of a right conduct, and good life.
4. It is important to know that Ethics is not the same with morality.
a. Because Ethics denotes the theory of right action and the
greater good.
b. While Morality indicates practice, that is the rightness or
wrongness of a human action.
5. Basic questions:
a. What is a right conduct as that which causes the realization
of the greatest good?
b. How do we determine a right conduct?
i. In other words, what makes a right conduct right?
c. What is a good life and can we attain it?
d. What is the difference between human act and actions that
are based on instinct?
e. What do people think is right?

ORIGIN OF PHILOSOPHY
According to Socrates, as Plato reports, “Wonder is the only beginning of Philosophy”.
Then later, Aristotle, in response to his predecessors, especially the Ionian philosophers,
said that, “It is owing to their wonder that men both now begin and at first began to
philosophize”.
This is precisely the context and basis of the now famous claimed that “Philosophy
begins with wonder”.

1. Wonder as the beginning of Philosophy

 a. Is precisely Philosophic Wonder, that is the feeling of being perplexed.
b. For example, the Ancient Greek Philosophers were perplexed about the origin
and nature of the world.
c. As Aristotle writes: “For men were first led to study Philosophy, as indeed they
are today, by wonder. Now, he who is perplexed and wonders believes himself
to be ignorant… they took to philosophy to escape ignorance…
i. In this sense, Philosophic Wonders seeks clarity by trying to understand
the perplexities or vagueness, or confusion that shrouded the inquiring
mind.
ii. In other words, Philosophic Wonders seeks answers to or at least make
sense of the mysterious world. Thus, when one begins to make sense of
the questions regarding for example, the origin of the world, or the
meaning and purpose of life, one begins to philosophize.
iii. Thus, in Philosophic Wonder, one is not merely amazed by the
mysteriousness of the world or of life, but seeks to understand this
mystery, in a word, “One thinks”.
2. Western Philosophy originated in Miletus.
a. Thales, the acclaimed first philosopher in the western world, was from Miletus.
b. Miletus, during the time of Thales, was the richest, and the most powerful of all
the Ionian cities, and was the first center of scholarship in Ancient Greece.
c. Ionia was a Greek city state on the coast of Asia Minor, now called, Turkey.
d. With the decline of Ionia, the intellectual life of Greece, moved to Croton in
Southern Italy in 530 B.C.E.
e. Croton was a splendid and powerful city state of Greece. To where Pythagoras
immigrated from Samos and founded the Pythagorean brotherhood.
3. Thales, the first philosopher.
a. First to put his philosophy into writing.
b. To reiterate, Western Philosophy begins in wonder and that the origin of
Philosophy in terms of place, is said to be in Miletus, Ionia.
WHAT IS ETHICS?
1. The term, Ethics, is derived from the Greek word:
a. Ethos = custom or character
2. Ethics studies the rightness or wrongness of a human action.
3. In particular, this branch of Philosophy is concerned with questions of “How do
human persons ought to act?”. In the search for a definition of right conduct and a
good life.
4. It is for this reason that the attempt to seek the good through the aid of reason, is the
traditional goal of ethicists.
5. There is no single, absolute definition of Ethics.
a. This is because Ethics, as a discipline, is constantly evolving as a result of a
change in socio cultural and political context.
i. For example. In the Greek tradition, Ethics was conceived as relating
to the concept of a good life. Thus, the ethical inquiry during this time
was directed towards discovering the nature of happiness.
1. In fact, Aristotle’s “Nicomachean Ethics”, does not only present a
theory of happiness, but also provides ways in which happiness is
attained.
2. “Being Happy”
ii. Centuries later, a quite different orientation was introduced by the
Judeo-Christian tradition.
1. In this ethical tradition, the ideals of righteousness before God;
love of God and neighbor, not the happy or pleasant life,
constitute the substance of Ethics.
2. “Doing what is right”
b. We are faced with a difficult task of defining the relationship between “Doing
what is right”, and “Being happy”.
c. Ethics is not the same with Morality. Although many philosophers believe that
the two terms can be used interchangeably.
i. This is because.
1. Ethics denotes the “theory” of right action and the greater good.
 a. Ethics undertakes the “systematic study” of the
underlying principles of morality. Hence, it is interested
primarily in the illustration of a more general problem and
the examination of underlying assumptions and the critical
evaluation of moral principles.
2. Morality indicates the “practice”, rightness or wrongness of a
human action.
a. It is more “prescriptive” in nature. It tells us what we ought
to do and exhorts us to follow the right way.
b. According to Terrance McConnel (1994), “Morality is
characterized as an ‘end-governed rational enterprise’
whose object is to equip people with a body of norms that
make for peaceful and collectively satisfying coexistence
by facilitating their living together and interacting in a way
that is productive for the realization of the general benefit”.
c. For example, a religious leader may ask her followers to be
good at all times. In this way, a moralist may want to keep
alive the values she considers to be worthwhile and to
improve the moral quality of the community where she
belongs. Hence, Morality at the very least, aims to guide
one’s action by reason and gives equal weight to the
interest of each individual affected by one’s decision.
Indeed, this gives us a picture of what it really means to be
a morally upright person.
ii. We may conclude that:
1. Ethics = science of morals
2. Morality = practice of ethics
6. Types of Ethics
a. Normative Ethics
i. Prescriptive in nature.
 ii. Seeks to set norms or standards that regulate right and wrong or good
and bad conduct.
iii. This may involve articulating the good habits that we should acquire, the
duties that we should follow, or the consequences of our behavior on
others. Hence, Normative Ethics normally attempts to develop
guidelines or theories that tell us how we ought to behave.
iv. For example, Immanuel Kant’s claim that an act is morally right if it is
done for the sake of duty, is an example of a normative ethics.
b. Metaethics
i. Descriptive in nature.
ii. According to Sumner, Metaethics is allegedly constituted at least in part
by questions of the meanings of the various ethical terms and functions
of ethical utterances.
iii. Hence, if a normative ethical inquiry is evaluative and prescriptive.
Metaethics is an analytical and descriptive.
iv. To put simply, Metaethics is a type of ethical inquiry that aims to
understand the nature and dynamics of ethical principles, it asks
questions about the nature and origin of moral facts as well as the way in
which we learn and acquire moral beliefs.
v. For example, if Normative ethics urges us to do good at all times.
Metaethics asks the question, “What is good?”. For sure, if a moral
philosopher attempts to address the questions: “What is good?”, “What
is justice”, “Why should I be moral?”, then that moral philosopher is
doing metaethics. Hence, when play to propose an answer to the
question “Why should I be moral”, Plato was doing Metaethics. Indeed,
Plato raised a metaethical question.
c. Applied Ethics
i. Is the actual application of ethical or moral theories for the purpose of
deciding which ethical or moral actions are appropriate in a given
situation.
 ii. For this reason, Casuists, that is the adherents of applied ethics, are
concerned with individual moral problems such as abortion or
euthanasia and attempt to resolve the conflicting issues that surround
these particular moral problems. Casuistry also act on some occasions
in an advisory capacity such as guiding individuals in their choice of
actions.
1. For example, they may attempt to resolve the conflicting duties of
a mother suffering from ectopic pregnancy who has no other
option than to abort the fetus.
iii. Applied Ethics is usually divided into different fields:
1. For example, we may talk about Business Ethics, which deals
with ethical behavior in the corporate world.
2. Biomedical and Environment Ethics, which deal with issues
relating to health, welfare, and the responsibility we have toward
people in our environment.
3. Social Ethics, which deals with the principles and guidelines that
regulate corporate welfare within societies.
d. The difference between the three major types of ethics can be illustrated in the
following situation:
i. A police officer shoots a terrorist who is about to blow up a crowded
shopping mall
1. Metaethics: The act of the police officer is morally wrong
according to Metaethics because it is always wrong to kill. As is
well known, killing in itself is intrinsically wrong. However, if the
police officer does not shoot the terrorists, many innocent people
will die or get injured.
2. Normative Ethics: Though the police officer’s act may be wrong,
the adherence of normative ethics may say that it is the right thing
to do in this particular situation because not doing so will result in
the death of so many people. Hence, the action might be morally
correct
3. Casuists: The Casuists may say that the police is just doing his
best to fulfill his duty, that is to protect as many innocent lives as
possible.
WHAT IS MORALITY?
The difference between Ethics and Morality is not that significant. In fact the former is
essentially synonymous with the latter.
1. Ethics comes from the Greek word: Ethos.
2. While Morality comes from the Latin word: Mos (Mores, if used in its plural form).
3. Both words are referring to “customary behavior”.
4. For this reason, we may use the word immoral, instead of the word, unethical
5. Or we may use the word moral, instead of the word, ethical
6. This is the reason we say that a moral person or an ethical person, is one who is
good and does the right thing and an immoral person or an unethical person, is
one who is bad and does what is wrong.
7. As we can see, the terms ethics and morality can be used interchangeably. However,
there is a fine line that divides two. In other words, we can distinguish one from the
other in some respects.
a. The first idea that came to our mind when we asked the difference between
Ethics and Morality is that:
i. Ethics generally refers to the systematic study of the rightness and
wrongness of a human action
ii. Morality is generally understood as the rightness or wrongness of a
human action.
b. In this way, we can say that Ethics is the specific branch of Philosophy that
studies the morality that is the rightness or wrongness of a human action. With
this, we may initially conclude that Ethics is the science of morals, while
Morality is the practice of ethics.
c. Based on this initial discussion on the difference between the two terms, we
can now draw the idea that:
i. Ethics attempts to provide systems of moral principles and the reasons
why these principles are valid. Hence, Ethics is more concerned with
the theories that can be used to explain why a particular moral principle
is valid or not right or wrong.
ii. It is for this reason that ethicists have come up with some of the basic
ethical principles that may help determine the rightness or wrongness of
a human action. Some of these basic ethical principles are:
1. Respect for persons
2. Truthfulness and Confidentiality
3. Autonomy and Informed Consent
4. Beneficence
5. Non-maleficence
6. Justice
iii. Morality refers to the principles of right and wrong behavior or rightness
and wrongness that is goodness and badness of human actions.
1. In determining the rightness or wrongness of human actions, the
moral agent is guided by the broader rules or principles of ethics.
For instance, the person’s moral belief that killing is wrong may
stem from the basic ethical principle of respect for persons or
non-maleficence. Indeed, this example further explains the basic
difference between Ethics and Morality.
2. If Ethics says that killing is wrong because it violates the basic
ethical principles of “Respect for persons” or “Non-
maleficence”. Morality on the other hand says “Do not kill”
because it is wrong.
3. Again, this is the reason why Ethics is understood as the science
of morals while Morality is the practice of the basic principles of
Ethics.
The Nature of Human Acts
I. Definition
Human Acts (Actus Humanus)
an act which proceeds from the deliberate free will of man
an act that proceeds from the knowing and freely willing human being
Example: listening to a talk, studying this PDF
Act of Man (Actus Hominis)
these are man’s animal act of sensation (use of the senses) and
appetition (bodily tendencies) done without advertence and the
exercise of free choice
Example: actions done in infancy, in sleep, in delirium, etc.
- It is to be noted that an act of man can become a human act by
the advertence and consent of the agent.
- Human acts are moral acts.
- For human acts, man is responsible, and they are imputed to him,
as worthy of praise or blame, of reward or punishment.
- Human acts tend to repeat and form habits in man, which in turn,
unite into his character.
Thus, a man is what his human acts make him
II. Classification
A. Based on Complete/Adequate Cause
- There are some acts that begin and are perfected in the will itself, and the rest
begin in the will and are perfected by other faculties under control of the will.
A.1. Elicited Acts
- These are those that find their adequate cause in the will (the deliberate will)
alone. (Example: Your intention to study in your room.)
a. Wish
- refers to the simple love of anything
- the first tendency of the will towards a thing, whether realizable or not
- every human act begins with the wish to act
(Example: I do so long to see you tonight. )
b. Intention
- the purposive tendency of the will towards a thing regarded as
realizable, whether the thing is actually done or not
(Example: I will see you tonight.
c. Consent
- the acceptance by the will of the means necessary to carry out
Intention
- it is the further intention of doing what is necessary to realize the main
intention
(If I will see you tonight, I consent to how really to see you. )
d. Election
- the selection by the will of the precise means to be employed in
carrying out an intention
(I will select riding my bike to see you tonight. )
e. Use
- the employment by the will of bodily or mental powers or both to carry
out its intention by the means elected
(To actually see you, I will command my mental and bodily powers to
carry out my intention. )
f. Fruition
- the enjoyment of a thing willed and done
- the will’s act of satisfaction in intention fulfilled
(I will experience this the moment I will see actually see you. )
A.2. Commanded Acts
- These are those that do not find their adequate cause in the will-act but are
perfected by the action of mental or bodily powers under orders from the will.
(Example: Using your mind, eyes, etc. in studying.)
a. Internal
- acts done by internal mental powers under command of the will
(Example: effort to remember, effort to control anger )
B. Based on the Relation of Human Acts to Reason
- Human acts are either in agreement or disagreement with the dictates of reason, and
this relationship constitutes the morality of human acts.
B.1. Good
- when human acts are in harmony with the dictates of right reason
B.2. Evil
- when human acts are in opposition with the dictates of right reason
B.3. Indifferent
- when they stand in no positive relation to the dictates of reason
b. External
- acts effected by bodily powers under command of the will
(Example: eating halo-halo, writing your answers )
c. Mixed
- acts that involve the employment of bodily and mental powers
(Example: solving a Math problem)
III. Constituents of the Human Acts
- These refer to the essential elements or qualities for an act to be human.
- These qualities are knowledge, freedom, and voluntariness.
1. Knowledge
- A human act proceeds from the deliberate will; it requires deliberation.
- Deliberation means advertence, or knowledge in intellect of what one is
about and what this means. Deliberation means knowledge.
- Thus, no human act is possible without knowledge.
2. Freedom
- A human act is an act determined (elicited or commanded) by the will and
by nothing else.
- It is an act that is under control of the will, an act that the will can do or leave
undone.
- Such an act is called a free act, thus, every human act must be free.
3. Voluntariness
- A human act to be voluntary, or must have voluntariness, simply means it
must be a will-act.
- This is to say that there must be both knowledge and freedom in the agent or
the doer of the action
Voluntariness of Human Acts
I. Degrees of Voluntariness
a. Perfect and Imperfect
Perfect – when the agent fully knows and fully intends the act
( Example: telling a lie to your parents )
Imperfect – when there is some defect in the agent’s knowledge,
intention, or both.
( Example: adding details in narrating an event )
b. Simple and Conditional
Simple voluntariness is present in a human act done, whether the
agent likes or dislikes doing it.
( Example: washing the dishes after the family meal )
Conditional voluntariness is present in the agent’s wish to do
something other than that which he is actually doing, but doing
with dislike.
( Example: washing the dishes with a wish of just watching TV )
c. Direct and Indirect
- Direct voluntariness is present in a human act willed in itself.
- Indirect voluntariness is present in that human act which is the
foreseen result of another act directly willed.
A human act that is directly willed is called voluntary in se
while that which is indirectly willed is called voluntary in causa.
d. Positive and Negative
-Positive voluntariness is present in a human act of doing,
performing. It is present in an act that the agent is ought to do
and is doing it.
( Example: A student attends class on his scheduled time. )
- Negative voluntariness is present in a human act of omitting,
refraining from doing. It is present in an act that the agent is not
ought to do but is doing it.
( Example: A student deliberately misses class. )
e. Actual, Virtual, Habitual, Interpretative
- Actual voluntariness (intention) is present in a human act willed
here and now.
( Example: The “I do” vows of a man and a woman during the
marriage rites. )
- Virtual voluntariness (intention) is present in a human act done as
a result of (or in virtue of) a formerly elicited actual intention
even if that intention be here and now forgotten.
( Example: The faithfulness of the husband/wife with his/her
spouse throughout their married life. )
- Habitual voluntariness (intention) is present in a human act done
in agreement with, but not as a result of, a formerly elicited and unrevoked actual
intention.
- Interpretative voluntariness (intention) is that voluntariness which, in the judgment of
prudence and common sense, would be actually present if opportunity or ability for it
were given.
II. Indirect Voluntariness
- Indirect voluntariness, or voluntariness in causa, is present in that
human act which is an effect, foreseen or foreseeable, of
another act directly willed.
- When we bring together indirect voluntariness and imputability,
that is, as worthy of praise/blame, reward/punishment, two
ethical questions on responsibility and permissibility of the act
are raised:
a. When is the agent responsible for the evil effect of a cause directly willed?
b. When may one perform an act, not evil in itself, which has two effects –
good and evil?
 Principle of Indirect Voluntariness (First Question)
- The agent (doer of the action) is responsible (imputable) for the evil
effect of a cause directly willed when the following conditions are
met:
a. when he can readily foresee the evil effect, at least in a general way
b. when he is free to refrain from doing what causes the evil effect
c. when he is bound to refrain from doing what causes the evil effect
 Principle of Double Effect (Second Question)
- The agent may lawfully perform an act which has two effects, one
good and one evil, when the following conditions are met:
a. when the evil effect does not come before the good effect so as to be a means to it
b. when there exists a reason, proportionately grave or weighty, which calls for the good
effect
c. when the agent intends the good effect exclusively, and merely permits the evil effect as a
regrettable side-issue
From these two principles, we may deduce the following thoughts before the
performance of any act:
- We must do good; we must avoid evil.
- We must never do what is evil, even though good may be looked for and intended as a
result of it
Modifiers of Human Acts
The modifiers of human acts refer to the things that may affect the
human act’s essential qualities and thus lessen the moral character
of the act, and consequently diminish the responsibility of the agent.
There are five of them, namely:
1. Ignorance
Generally, it means the lack or absence of knowledge.
It can be classified into:
a. Negative ignorance is the absence of intellectual knowledge in man.
( Example: A Philosophy teacher lacks knowledge about higher mathematics. )
b. Privative ignorance is the absence of knowledge that ought to be present.
( Example: A licensed civil engineer lacks knowledge about strength of materials. )
c. Positive ignorance is the presence of a false knowledge. This is also called
mistake or error.
( Example: Judging someone in the mall as an acquaintance but really is not due to
poor eyesight. )
A. Ignorance in its Object
This talks about the thing of which the agent may be ignorant about.
a. Ignorance of Law
- This refers to the ignorance of the existence of a duty, rule, or
regulation.
b. Ignorance of Fact
- This refers to the ignorance of the nature or circumstances of an act as
forbidden. It is also lack of knowledge that what one is actually doing
comes under the prohibition of a known law.
c. Ignorance of Penalty
- This is lack of knowledge of the precise sanction affixed to the law.
B. Ignorance in its Subject
- This refers to the agent in whom ignorance exists.
a. Vincible Ignorance
- This is ignorance that can be dismissed by the use of ordinary diligence.
 - This results due to lack of proper diligence on the agent, and is his fault
- This is also called culpable ignorance.
Degrees of Vincible Ignorance
a. crass (stupid/gross) ignorance – if it be the result of total or nearly total, lack of
effort to dispel it
b. simply vincible – if some efforts were done but not persevering and whole-hearted
effort, be unsuccessfully used to dispel it
c. affected ignorance – if positive effort is made to retain it
b. Invincible Ignorance
- This is ignorance that ordinary and proper diligence cannot dispel
because:
a. the agent has no realization whatever of his lack of knowledge
b. the agent who realizes his ignorance finds ineffective his effort to
dismiss it
- This is not the fault of the agent.
- This is also called inculpable ignorance.
Degrees of Invincible Ignorance
a. physically invincible – if no human effort can dismiss it
b. morally invincible – if it would be extremely difficult to dismiss it even with the aid
of some good and prudent men
C. Ignorance in its Result
- This refers to acts performed while ignorance exists
a. Antecedent Ignorance
- It is that which precedes all consent of the will.
b. Concomitant Ignorance
- It is that which accompanies an act that would have been performed
even if the ignorance did not exist.
- An act done in concomitant ignorance is non-voluntary.
c. Consequent Ignorance
- It is that which follows upon an act of the will.
- The will may directly affect it or crassly neglect to dispel it
The Ethical Principles on Ignorance
a. Invincible ignorance destroys the voluntariness of an act.
b. Vincible ignorance does not destroy the voluntariness of an act.
c. Vincible ignorance lessens the voluntariness of an act.
d. Affected ignorance in one way lessens and in another way increases
voluntariness
2. Concupiscence
- It refers to those bodily appetites or tendencies which are called the passions, viz.,
love, hatred, joy, grief, desire, horror, hope, despair, courage or daring, fear, and
anger.
- It can be classified into:
a. Antecedent – when these passions spring into action unstimulated by the
will-act.
( Example: the automatic feeling of awe over a wonderful scenery )
b. Consequent – when these passions are directly or indirectly stirred up or
fostered by the will
Antecedent concupiscence is an act of man, and not a human act
Consequent concupiscence is the fault of the agent, for it is willed, either directly or
indirectly, i.e., either in se or in causa, and thus, the agent, as a result, is responsible for it.
( Example: getting angry on the teacher retained for a long time )
The Ethical Principles on Concupiscence
a. Antecedent concupiscence lessens the voluntariness of an act.
b. Antecedent concupiscence does not destroy the voluntariness of an act.
c. Consequent concupiscence, however great, does not lessen the
voluntariness of an act.
3. Fear
- It is the shrinking back of the mind from danger.
- It is the anxiety or worry of mind (from slight disturbance to actual panic) brought
about by the apprehension of imminent or coming evil.
It may be classified as:
a. From Fear – when actions are done caused by fear
( Example: A student cheats because he is afraid of failing. )
b. With Fear – when fear is the accompanying circumstance in doing an act
(Example: A student cheating is afraid of being caught. )
The Ethical Principle on Fear
An act done from fear, however great, is simply voluntary, although it is regularly also
conditionally involuntary.
4. Violence
- It is the external force applied by a free cause (that is, by human beings) for the
purpose of compelling a person to perform an act which is against his will.
The Ethical Principle on Violence
Acts elicited by the will are not subject to violence; external acts caused by violence,
to which due resistance is offered, are in no wise imputable to the agent.
5. Habit
- This refers to operative habit, which is a lasting readiness and facility, born of
frequently repeated acts, for acting in a certain manner.
The Ethical Principle on Habit
Habit does not destroy voluntariness; acts from habit are always voluntary, at least in
cause, as long as the habit is allowed to endure
Morality of Human Acts and Determinants of Morality
THE MORALITY OF HUMAN ACTS
- Morality is described as that quality of human acts which leads us to call some as
good or evil (not good).
- A thing is good inasmuch as it can answer a tendency, appetite, or desire; otherwise,
it is evil (not good).
- In Ethics, we consider moral good or evil.
A human act always has a last end towards which it tends.
- Objectively, the end is the Summum Bonum, the Limitless Good, God.
- Subjectively, the end is the perfect happiness in the possession of the Summum
Bonum.
 Thus, human acts are good inasmuch as they serve to carry the agent towards the
attainment of this end; otherwise, it is not good or evil.
Norms (Standard) of Morality
a. Divine Reason / Eternal Law – the ultimate norm
b. Human Reason / Conscience – the proximate norm
- Human acts are good or evil inasmuch as they agree or conflict with the Divine
Reason.
- Conscience is the judgment of human reason recognizing and applying the Eternal
Law in human acts.
- From what has been said, morality can now be defined strictly as the relation of
human acts to their norm.
- Furthermore, morality is also defined as that quality or property of a human act
whereby it measures up to what it should be as a step towards the objective last end of
human action or fails so to measure up.
DETERMINANTS OF MORALITY
- These determinants will decide whether a human act measures up or does not
measure up to the norm of morality.
- There are three determinants of morality, and the human act to be morally good
must be in agreement with the norm of morality on all these three; it is evil if it does not agree
with any of the three.
- They are the object, the motive, and the circumstances
The Object
- This refers to the act itself, the deed done or to be done.
- There are certain acts that are intrinsically good or evil.
- The morality of indifferent acts is determined by the end (motive) for which it is
done and the circumstances which affect it.
The Motive (End of the Agent)
- This refers to the agent’s personal intentions or wishes to be achieved by the
act over and above what it naturally tends to.
- An act which is good in itself may still be evil by reason of the agent’s motive for
which it is done BUT an act which is evil in itself cannot be made good by reason of the end
for which it is performed.
Ethical Principles Governing Motive
a. A good act done for a good motive becomes better; it will become
best if done for several good motives.
b. An evil act done for an evil end becomes worse; it will become
worst if done for several evil motives.
c. An good act done for an evil end, is entirely evil if the end is
the whole motive of the act.
d. An evil act can never become good by reason of a good end.
e. An indifferent act becomes good if done for a good end, and evil if
performed for an evil end
The Circumstances
- They are the conditions that affect an act, and may affect it morally, although
they do not belong to the essence of the act as such.
- Seven circumstances can be given: who, what, where, with what ally
(means), how, when, why.
1. Circumstance of Person (WHO)
- Who is the agent? To whom is the act done?
2. Circumstance of quality or quantity of the act (WHAT)
- What is the extent of the act? Was the injury slight or serious? Was the amount
stolen large or small?
3. Circumstance of Place (WHERE)
- Where did the act took place?
4. Circumstance of Means (WITH WHAT ALLY)
- What is used in the performance of the act?
5. Circumstance of Manner (HOW)
- How did the agent perform the act? Was he in good or bad faith? Was his evil
disposition intensely malicious or only slightly so?
6. Circumstance of Time (WHEN)
- How long did the agent retain an evil thought, long period or momentarily?
7. Circumstance of the End of the Agent (WHY)
- This is similar to the second determinant.
Ethical Principles
a. An indifferent act becomes good or evil by reason of its circumstances.
b. A good act may become evil by reason of circumstances.
c. A good or evil act may become better or worse by reason of
circumstances, and may even become best or worst from its
circumstances.
d. An evil act can never be made good by circumstances.
e. A gravely evil circumstance destroys the entire goodness of a good act.
f. A circumstance which is not gravely evil does not entirely destroy the
goodness of a good act