WEEK 1: Introduction to Ethics

ETHICS: its meaning and history

 Ethics was derived from the Ancient Greek “ethikos” meaning “arising from habit”.
 It is a major branch of philosophy which focuses on the study of value or quality.
 It covers the analysis and employment of concept such as good, evil, right, wrong, and
responsibility.
 It is divided into three primary areas: meta-ethics, normative ethics
 ( study of what ethical truths’ there are and how they are known), and applied ethics
which is the study of the use of ethical knowledge.
 Ethics is an area of Philosophy considered as a formative science; it is concerned with
norms of human conduct, as distinguished from the formal sciences, such as mathematics
and logic, and the empirical sciences, such as chemistry and physics.
 Philosophers have attempted to resolve goodness in conduct according to two main
principles, and have considered certain types of conduct either good in themselves or
good because they conform to a particular moral standard.
 The former involves a final value, or Summum Bonum (The Chief Good), which is
desirable in itself and not merely as a means to an end.
 In the history of ethics, there are three major standards of conduct, each of which has
been projected as the highest good: happiness or pleasure; duty, virtue, or obligation; and
perfection, the fullest harmonious development of human potential.
 Occasionally, principles are chosen whose ultimate value and preference may be resigned
to accepting all customs and therefore may develop a philosophy of prudence. He then
lives in compliance with the moral conduct of the period of society.
 Hedoism is that viewpoint in which the highest good is pleasure. The hedonist decides
between the most enduring pleasures or the most passionate pleasures, whether present
pleasure should be denied for the sake of overall comfort and whether mental pleasure are
preferable to physical pleasures.
 In the 6th century BC, the Greek philosopher Pythagoras developed one of the earliest
moral philosophies from the Greek mystery religion Orphism. Believing that the
intellectual nature is superior to the sensual nature and that the best life is one developed
to mental discipline.
 In the 5th century BC, the Greek philosophers known as sophist, who taught rhetoric,
logic and civil affairs, were skeptical of moral conclusions.

According to Plato:
 …good is an indispensable element of reality. Evil does not subsist in itself, but is rather,
an imperfect reflection of the real, which is good. He claims that Human virtue lies in the
fitness of a person to perform that person’s proper function in the world.

 The human soul has three elements-intellect, will and emotion- each of which have a
specific virtue in the good person and performs a definite role. The virtue of intellect is
knowledge or wisdom of the ends of life; that of the will is courage, the capacity to act;
and that of the emotions is self-control or temperance.
  The supreme virtue, justice, is the amicable and agreeable relation of all the others, each
part of the soul doing its appropriate task and keeping its proper place. Plato maintained
that the intellect must be independent, the will second, and the emotions subject to the
intellect and will. The righteous person, whose life is ordered in this way, is therefore the
good person.

Aristotle:
 …considered happiness as the aim of life. In is principal work on ethics, the
Nicomachean Ethics (late 4th century BC0, he defined happiness as action that accords
with the specific nature of humanity, pleasure supplement such activity but is not its
principal aim.

 Happiness results from the distinctive human attribute of reason, functioning

harmoniously with human faculties. Aristotle held that virtues are fundamentally good
habits, and that to attain happiness, a person must develop two kinds of habits: those of
mental activity, such as knowledge, which lead to the highest human activity,
contemplation; and those of practical action and emotion, such as courage.
 Moral virtues are habits of action that agree with the golden mean, the principle of
moderation, and they must be compliant because of differences among people and
conditioning factors.
 According to the Stoics, nature is orderly and rational, and only a life le in accord with
nature can be good. The Stoic philosophers agreed also that because life is influenced by
material conditions one should try to be as independent of such circumstances as
possible.
 In the 4th and 3rd centuries BC, the Greek philosopher Epicurus developed a system of
thought, later called Epicureanism, which identified the supreme good with pleasure,
particularly intellectual pleasure.
 They regarded religious beliefs and practices harmful because they preoccupy one with
disturbing thoughts of death and the uncertainty of life after death.
 The coming of Christianity marked a revolution in ethics it introduced a religious
conception of good into Western thought. In the Christian point of view, a person is
totally dependent upon God and cannot achieve goodness by means of will or intelligence
but only with the help of God’s grace. The most important Christian Ethical belief is
stated in the golden rule, “So whatever you wish that men would do to you, do so to
them.”
 Casuistry is a completely different form of applied ethics that is commonly used. Casuists
compare moral dilemmas to well establish cases referred to as paradigms. Casuistry is the
application of case-based reasoning to applied ethics. Advanced societies and culture
have tried to discourage dishonest practices by their public servants and elected officials
by establishing a code of ethics.
 This may be why casuistry is the foundation of many legal systems. It is essentially based
on applying paradigms to individual cases on their own merits.

ETHICS
Meaning : The word Ethics is derived from the Greek word “ethos” meaning “A characteristic
way of doing things, or a body of
customs”.

From the etymology of the word, one understand ethics to be a study of human customs or ways
of doing things.

 It is also defined as a science of the morality of human acts.

 Science because it is a systematic body of knowledge meant to guide men in their pursuit
of the good and happy life.
 It is therefore a practical science and not a speculative science that merely theorizes.
 It is meant to be applied that is, it teaches how men ought to live.

Morality
 Morality is the quality of goodness or badness of human acts.
 It is also the rightness or wrongness of human acts as they conform or do not conform to
standards.

Human Acts
 These are those that are done with full knowledge and full willingness or deliberation.
 Acts that are done without the full knowledge or full willingness or deliberation or both
are termed acts of man.
 Human acts must conform to a standard to determine whether they are good or bad, right
or wrong, moral or immoral.

GENERAL WTHICS VS SPECIAL ETHICS

 General ethics concerns the individual and what he ought to do to live a happy life in this
world.
 Special ethics concerns the individual as a member of society.
 All problems concerning society and the social order are taken up in Special ethics

Week 2: Imperative of Ethics

THE IMPERATIVES OF ETHICS
Ethics presupposes some imperatives or SINE QUA NON, those without ethics would not be
possible.

These imperatives are;

1. The existence of God or a Supreme Being;

Without the existence of God or a Supreme Being; Ethics would make no sense. There is
no reason for man to deny himself evil but pleasurable acts if there were no final judge to
dispense justice. When one speaks of morality or the goodness or badness of human acts, one
idea is presupposed: retribution. Retribution means that good acts deserve reward; bad acts
deserve punishment. Reward and punishment are presupposed by morality.
Who metes our reward or punishment? It must be a Law-giver or an Arbiter of Morality,
one who dispenses retributive justice. Without this being, the whole structure of ethics will
collapse.
 The Indians do not accept the existence of a personal God but they nevertheless accept
the existence of a supreme being called Brahman which is the totality of reality. Owing to their
ancient culture, the Indians, many centuries prior to the birth of Christ, had already conceived of
a supreme being that encompasses all, or includes everything, past, present, and future in itself.
The Indian concept is pantheistic according to which everything is Brahman, and Brahman is
everything. 
The Indians conceive of Morality and of the idea ensuing therefrom, namely, retribution
through their belief in the existence of a general law, that oversees all things in the universe and
sees to it that everything is brought ineluctably to its end. A special law under which governs
man exclusively is called Karma.
According to the law of Karma, everything that man does has a built-in reward or
punishment. This means that if man performs good acts, reward will follow sooner or later. If
men perform evil deeds, punishment will surely follow. In case retribution is not done in this life,
the Indians believe that in the next life, one is reborn to enjoy reward or to suffer punishment as
the case may be. 
Chinese also do not believe in a personal deity. They believe in some kind of law or
order, or nature which they call “tao”, literally means “way”. Chinese admits that every act
implies its own retribution. That consequent upon good actions is health and the good life, and
upon bad actions, sickness and bad luck. 
Christians believe that there is only one life, they believe in the Natural Moral Law
which, if followed, would ensure happiness in this life and salvation or eternal happiness in the
next. 

2. The existence of human freedom

No ethics is likewise possible without human freedom. Responsibility which is an

indispensable factor in Ethics, would be meaningless if men were not free. If men were like
robots who followed the commands of their master, they would not be responsible for their
actions. If men were programmed to follow the good all the time and be repelled always by the
evil, they would not deserve reward and punishment. Retribution is deserved only if men had the
choice to do or not to do, to follow or not to follow. Children who have no notion of what they
are doing, have no responsibility over their actions. This is the same with persons who suffer
from mental diseases, they are likewise not responsible for their acts. Ethics is the science of the
morality of human acts which presupposes responsibility, which in turn is base on freedom to do
or not to do.

3. The existence of an afterlife, i.e. life beyond the grave, or the immortality of the soul
 
That the soul is immortal, or that the soul will outlive the body, is a postulate in ethics. If
there were no life beyond the grave, i.e. if man’s life were to end absolutely in death, there would
be no point in discussing justice. A man could murder and steal and perform all evil deeds in this
life, knowing hat upon death, all these evils would be erased.
In the Christian religion, man is believed to have but one life. After he dies, he either
goes to heaven or hell or purgatory. If he lived a really bad life, he is plunged into hell and if he
still has unrepented evil deeds but is not dastardly enough to deserve hell, he goes to purgatory
where he is purged of all dross, after which he goes to heaven. The good person goes to heaven
without passing through purgatory.
The Indians do not accept the existence of a hell or of eternal damnation. They believe
that life on earth is hell, and the punishment for evil deeds is rebirth, which means that one
comes back to earth again and again. Once proper compensation is made for evil deeds, one gets
to Nirvana, the counter-part of the Christian Heaven, and one is never to be reborn. The purpose
therefore is reincarnation or the proper compensation of good or evil deeds. 
The Chinese are a this-world people and their philosophy is focused on life on earth
rather than on the afterlife. They believe that every act carries its own punishment or
compensation depending on whether one conforms to the law of heaven which is nature to them.

THE ULTIMATE PURPOSE OF HUMAN LIFE

Purpose is that for which an action is done. One’s purpose or reason for studying is to
learn and earn a degree necessary for employment. One builds a house to have a permanent
dwelling place; one gets married to procreate and to establish a family.
All our actions, provided they are human acts, have a purpose or end or objective. We eat
to satisfy hunger; we bathe in order to be clean; we stand up in order to do something and so on.
There is no human act without a purpose.
Is there a general purpose of human acts? Is there one common end or objective of human
acts? One thing is certain, we do not perform an act in order to inflict pain upon ourselves. No
one consciously seeks misery or unhappiness. Reflecting upon what we do, we are lead to a
common purpose or objective.
All men strive to be happy. The over-all purpose of human life is happiness. Why does a
person eat or drinks and make merry? We may not agree as to what can make us happy, but
collectively, men act for the sake of happiness. People, however, may not be aware all the time
that they aim to be happy. This is because they do not have the habit of examining their deeper
purposes. 
Everything is pursued for the sake of happiness; for no other reason do men indulge in
food or drink or sex or art were it not for the elusive happiness they erroneously think is in these
things. Men, however, soon realize that these things do not only not give lasting happiness but
may even result in pain when overindulged in.
a. Wealth
If the above do not make men happy, what about money? Men do not seem to have enough
money. The millionaire does not stop at millions but desires to make billions. Money is hoarded
or is used to buy goods that would produce more money. Would money satisfy man’s craving for
happiness? Further thought on this matter would easily yield a negative answer. Money is
desired only because of its buying power or for the power that it yields. 
b. Power
Would power constitute happiness? Again, power has its limitations. Power can even be
cumbersome. In some cases, powerful persons are annoyed at the perquisites of power.
c. Good Looks
Would good look satisfy man’s craving for happiness? A man ages, and hence his good looks
will not last forever.
d. Requirements of Lasting Happiness
What can satisfy man’s craving for happiness must be total, permanent, lasting and eternal. If a
man knew that an enjoyable party would soon end, would his happiness be complete? If a man
realizes that old age and death are inevitable, how can he find lasting satisfaction in this life?
True happiness must have no admixture of misery, pain, unhappiness. Nothing in this world is
permanent or lasting. Neither money nor power or popularity and even good looks. Hence, what
can make a person happy cannot be in this world, for nothing in tis world is eternal. What can
make a man happy lies in the satisfaction of his capacities of man as man. 

What are the qualities that make man distinctly man? 

Not his body or senses since he has this in common with brute animals.
Not his capacity to nourish himself, grow and reproduce, because plants can do the same.
What will make man distinctly man are his faculties of intellect and will, and hence man’s
satisfaction lies in total truth and total goodness.

e. Intellect and Will must be Satisfied

The intellect of man seeks truth and will not stop until it possesses truth without error. The will
of man is always inclined towards the good. The good in this sense is the pleasurable good, not
the moral good.
Example: A man is attracted to liquor because he looks upon it as pleasurable good. He drinks in
spite of the hangover or the treat of liver cancer. 
What is the total or absolute truth and good? What is the truth that can satisfy the craving of
man’s intellect? What is the good that will satisfy the craving of man’s will?

f. God is the satisfaction of man’s cravings

 There is only one total truth, and that is God or the Supreme Being. There is only one total good,
and that is God or the Supreme Being. The statement is not a religious but a philosophical one. It
is not due to faith or any membership in a religious sect. One arrives at these conclusions through
the use of one’s reasoning power.

If we therefore search ourselves deeply for the satisfaction of our deepest human desires,
we would find that only the Creator can satisfy His creatures. Hence, God or the Supreme Being
is the ultimate purpose of human life because He alone can make man completely happy. God or
the Supreme Being is the beginning as well as the end of human existence, truly the Alpha and
Omega, the first and last letters of the Greek alphabet.

Week 3: Law and Standard of Morality

How can one know whether the act is good or bad? What is yardstick or standard to determine
the morality of an act? What is the standard of morality?
Any standard must be plain and objective for everyone to understand. It must also be the
same for everyone.
There is a standard meter, a standard yardstick, a standard kilogram. Any other measuring
stick or balance must conform with the standard in order to determine its rightness and
wrongness. In school examinations, there is always a correct answer sheet against which answers
can be compared.

A. CRITERION OF MORALITY
 What is the standard of morality which is the criterion of goodness or badness of human
acts? The immediate or proximate norm of morality is rational human nature or man as
man, meaning human creature as considered by right reason.

Here explained that man possesses qualities in common with plants and animals, bit the
qualities that make him truly human are intellect and will. His spirit composed of his
intellect and will, must lord over his lower nature. Eating, sleeping, sex if subordinated
with man’s higher nature, are good. They become evil when his body or lower nature, to
which these activities belong, tends to subjugate or rule over his higher nature. When
they are done extremely or illicitly, they are evil. All activities of man as man such as
thinking, willing, loving, are in themselves good provided they do not inordinately
oppress the body. If one studies and works intellectually and wills towards the acquisition
of spiritual goods, these activities are good. If, however, one tends to overdo study and
work to the detriment of health, these activities becomes evil. If one loves physical goods
inordinately so as to sacrifice one’s higher nature, then this love ceases to be good.

B. IS GOD’S WILL THE CRITERION OF NORM?

Some persons believe that God’s will ought to be the immediate or proximate norm of
morality, or that God’s will ought to determine the goodness or badness of human acts. It is
indeed good to think so, but how does one determine God’s will? Is it written elsewhere or
communicated by angels? If it is not, then it does not satisfy the qualities of standard, namely
objectivity and plainness. God’s will is not the proximate standard of morality.

C. IS CONSCIENCE THE CRITERION OF NORM?

Some persons erroneously believe that conscience or “that tiny voice” is the standard of
morality. Conscience can be manipulated or it can be too strict or too lenient. Conscience is not
objective, and hence, it cannot be the standard of morality.
D. ELEMENTS OF THE LAW
To determine the moral law, one must know what law is. Law is defined as an ordinance of
reason, promulgated by one who has charge of the community for the common good. The four
elements of law therefore are:
1. An ordinance of reason
2. By one who has charge of the community
3. For the common good
4. Promulgated
A law is always reasonable; otherwise, it is not a law.
It must be made by one who has charge of the community, which means that one is the
authorized ruler. It must be for the common good, meaning, the law is not oppressive or
detrimental to the constituents. It must be promulgated or made known, otherwise, how would
the constituents be able to follow said law?
E. THREE KINDS OF LAW
Ethics teaches that there are three kinds of law:
1. The eternal Law, whereby God directs all creatures unto the end of the universe.
This is indeed the mind and the will of God commanding the natural order of the universe
to be observed, forbidding it to be disturbed. This truth flows from the imperative that
God exists and that He is the creator of the universe.
2. The Natural Law, whereby, Go impresses His mind and will upon creatures through
principles intrinsic or natural to them.
This is the component of the eternal law as it applies to man. This means that every
creature follows a law connatural to it. Plants act like plants, animals act like animals. In
the case of man, natural law means moral law.
3. The positive Law which is a rule or action freely established by a competent authority in
some external, palpable sigh.
This law clarifies the natural law by means of the formulation of clear and unequivocal
directives of morality such as the ten commandments and any law of a duly constituted
authority.
This law could come from God or men to help individuals conform to the natural law.
Of the four elements of the law, the fourth elements which is PROMULGATION, is the
most difficult to explain. How can a law be made known to all men of all ages, countries,
nationalities, beliefs?

F. SYNDERESIS
St. Thomas Aquinas writes that all men, at the moment of birth bears an imprint of the creator,
enabling them to follow a law which the creator in His divine wisdom has decreed that all men
for their happiness and well-being on earth. This imprint is called synderesis which is a quasi-
angelic power to determine what the Natural Moral Law is. It is not knowledge in the strict
sense, for the mind at the moment of birth is TABULA RASA or blank tablet on which nothing is
written.
G. NATURAL MORAL LAW
This is cryptically written as “Do good and avoid evil”. All men, whether born in a sophisticated
village or a backyard village, would know this law.
There is no need to go to school to know this law. Everyone would know that he ought to do
good and avoid what he knows to be evil.
The Natural Moral Law is what conscience applies to a human act.
H. THEORIES REGARDING DOUBT
In the application of law to a situation, DOUBT can sometimes impede action.
I. THE TEN COMMANDMENTS
The ten commandments are helpful in understanding the natural moral law since they reveal a
particular application of the general law of “Do good and Avoid Evil”.
The Commandments are divided into two: the 1st three (3) constitute our duties to God, while the
4rd to the 10th, are the laws to be observed if we are to be good and upright persons. All the
Commandments are mandatory on everyone at all times and at all places.

J. THE EASTERN PHILOSOPHERS

INDIAN
The Indians do not have a concrete standard for determining the goodness or badness of
human acts. A person mode of action must conform to his dharma or duty. The Indians
believe that there are four classes of castes of human beings: namely, the brahmin, one
who belongs to nobility and which has a mode of conduct he should observe. The
ksatriya and vaisha which have a certain calling or station in life that calls for a specific
behavior. Farmers, soldiers, businessmen who belong to these social castes have to
observe specific code, and shudra or untouchables also have a life according to what
shudra ought to be. The code of conduct for each caste is found in the sacred book of
Vedas.

CHINESE
Like the Indians, the Chinese do not have a concrete standard of morality. For
them, one must follow nature if one wants to be happy in this world. Nature is tao which
is also the way, the truth, the law. When one conforms to nature, one experiences ease
and tranquility. The Chinese compare man’s life with water that flows in a brook. When
water encounter rocks, it sidetracts them and goes over them but never hurtles against
them. Likewise, man should live and let live. If the other person wants to behave in a
peculiar way one must be like the water that passes over a rock, unmindful of the obstacle
that the rock poses.
The Chinese standard of morality is nature. If one is tired, one must rest; if sleepy,
one must sleep; if thirsty, one must drink. This is all very good because these actions
involve man’s natural tendencies.

BUDDHIST
The originator of Buddhism was Gautama Siddhartha who was born in Nepal,
North of India, in the sixth century BC.
 The Buddha (literally means “awakened” or “illumined”) was a prince who was
shielded from all forms of pain and suffering.
He lead a mendicant’s life and indulge in long meditations.
After 49 days, he was illuminated and awakened and he formulated the now
famous Four Noble Truths:
1. Life is suffering;
2. Suffering is caused by selfish craving
3. Suffering can be eliminated; and
4. Suffering can be eliminated by the Eightfold Path.

In Buddha’s doctrine, life is suffering; Nothing can be done about that. But suffering can
be eliminated by the eightfold path which is the Middle Path or the Middle way.

Everything that man does must find the right middle ground between two extremes;
otherwise, frustrations occurs.
Example, Food is an enjoyable entity, but too much of it or too little of it could
lead to suffering. To eliminate suffering, one has to discover the right or middle way.

It is important to stress that the Buddha lived in the sixth century,B.C because a
Greek philosopher, Aristotle ( 384-322 B.C) expounded almost the same doctrine
namely, the doctrine of the Golden Mean.

K. THE GREEK PHILOSOPHERS

ARISTOTLE
During the Greek era, philosophers tried to discover a way or standard where one
could live well. For Aristotle, Virtue holds the key to one’s happiness. Virtue lies in
the Golden Mean between two extremes. Aristotle advises against extremes of
behavior. The whole idea of the Golden Mean is Moderation.
One should not be wastrel or a spendthrift but must not be miser either, one ought
to be frugal or economical. One should neither be abstemious nor gluttonous but
ought to be moderate. In above cases, there is a golden mean between two extremes.
Between wastefulness and miserliness lies frugality. Between abstemiousness, and
gluttony lies moderation. Frugality and moderation are virtues.
There is actually no standard golden mean, because each individual has his own
mean. What may be too much for one may be too little for another
Aristotle claims that it is very difficult to aim at the mean between two extremes.
It is like trying to hit a bullseye for there is only one way of hitting it and a thousand
ways of missing it. Finding the golden mean is no guarantee that one would follow. It
is like climbing; one exerts all effort.
Does the Golden Mean of Aristotle serve as the standard of moral goodness or
badness?
 Aristotle’s doctrine is about positive virtues, it does not tackle evil. His theory of
the Golden Mean is a guide of living a life of moderation, but it is not a standard of
morality.
After Aristotle came various Greek thinkers, each one trying to discover the secret
of happiness and at the same time the standard of human goodness.

EPICUREANISM
The Epicureans, named after Epicurus (341-270 B.C.) considered the pursuit of
pleasure to be the essence of happiness. “Be merry, for tomorrow you die”. He taught
that pleasure is the ultimate good, and pain is the only evil. It is curious for man to
pursue his own pleasure and shun pain. If pain must be suffered at all, it must be as a
means to greater pleasures.
*Democritus (460-370 B.C.)- conceived of delight as the supreme good. He also
maintained that the balanced or tempered mind(symmetria) must be obtained by
limiting desire.
*Aristippus (435-354)-taught that pleasure is the supreme good. Thus, one must
seek the pleasure of the moment.

STOICISM
The stoics believed that in apathy and indifferences lies one’s happiness because
one is sheltered from the vagaries or the ups and downs of life. Should life become
joyful or should it turn sour, one should not be affected. Stoicism is one’s weapon
against the vicissitudes of life. One ask whether this negative approach to happiness is
indeed the answer, or it is merely a shield against sorrow and misery.
Like the predecessors, the stoics have not really arrived at the standard of moral
goodness but only at the safest manner of staving off life’s unexpected turns.
The Ascetics are much stricter than the stoics. They believe that in self-
abnegation and deprivation lies man’s happiness. The ascetics would therefore live
according to the minimum of life’s needs. They would even seek the drab, the
wearisome and the difficult.

L. MODERN ETHICAL STANDARDS

UTILITARIANISM maintains that utility or usefulness is the standard of morality
(John Stuart Mill). Anything that is useful is good; the opposite is evil. “Utility or
the greatest happiness principle, holds that actions are right in proportion as they
tend to promote happiness, while actions are wrong as they tend to promote the
reverse of happiness. By happiness is intended pleasure and the absence of pain,
by unhappiness, pain and the privation of pleasure (Utilitarianism). Mill drives at
the heart of modern man to whom uselessness ought to be avoided because it does
not promote happiness.
 JEREMY BENTHAM, “Pleasure is good… Pain is in itself an evil; and indeed
without exception, the only evil; or the words good and evil have no meaning”
(From An Introduction to the Principles of Morals and Legislation). The above
theories of pleasure connote a wrong notion of happiness. Pleasure is fleeting but
happiness is lasting. Food, drink, sex brings about pleasure but man tires of them.
There is a saturation point of pleasure becomes pain. Too much of a good thing
becomes unpleasant and therefore, painful. Happiness has no limit. No man can
ever say that he has enough of it. Happiness has no saturation point. And because
man does not live forever on earth, no man has truly experienced real happiness.
This is perhaps what the Lord meant by his words in the Bible, No eye has ever
seen, no ear has ever heard what the father has prepared for those who love Him”.

M. A SOUND CONCEPT OF HUMAN NATURE

If as earlier stated, rational nature of man or man as man, is the immediate or proximate norm of
morality, it becomes necessary to project a sound concept of human nature.
Man has three layers of life and power:
1. The Vegetative Life (shared in common with plants) The power that comes with this is,
nutrition, growth and reproduction.
2. The Sentient Life (shared in common with brute animals) The power associated to this is
external and internal sensation, appetition and locomotion.
3. The Rational Life (rationality which man alone possesses) The power for intellection and
volition.

Week 4: Human Act

A human act is defined as an act done with full knowledge and full deliberation. Any act done
without full knowledge and full deliberation is called Act of Man. Responsibility is consequent
upon human acts but not acts of man. The degree of responsibility depends on the degree of
knowledge and deliberation. Factors that affects knowledge and deliberation will therefore affect
responsibility.

Factors are as follows:

1. Ignorance
Absence of knowledge affects responsibility and accountability. There are two (2) kinds
of ignorance: vincible and invincible.
 Vincible ignorance is the absence of knowledge which due diligence can compel.
Vincible ignorance does not absolve a person completely of responsibility. His
responsibility depends upon the amount of knowledge at the moment he performs the act.

3 Kinds of Vincible Ignorance:

1. Supine or gross- ignorance occur when scarcely any effort has been exerted.
Ex. A person who does not know the time of the day or the week.
1. Crass- ignorance occurs in a person who ought to know but does not.
Ex. An engineer who does not know strength of materials.
1. Affected- ignorance occurs when a person deliberately refuses to know in order to
give ignorance as an excuse.
Ex. One who refuses to know the law in order to give ignorance an excuse.

Invincible ignorance is the absence of knowledge which no amount of diligence can compel.
Examples: A person who lack knowledge regarding the new ethical consideration of the
use and disconnection of the respirators in persons who are considered clinically dead. 
CIVIL VS. MORAL RESPONSIBILITY

Ignorance of the civil law is not an excuse. The knowledge of civil law is obligatory,
otherwise, they would give ignorance of the law as an excuse, and that can spell a breakdown of
law and order.
Civil responsibility is a matter between a citizen and the civil authority, and therefore
some transparence is required. 
Moral responsibility is a matter between a person and God who sees whether the person
is vincibly or invincibly ignorant, and therefore ignorance of the moral law can absolve a person
moral responsibility.

1. Concupiscence
An impulsive tendency towards a sensible good or away from a sensible evil.

2 kinds of Concupiscence
1. Antecedent- the characteristic of an act that arises without the command of the will.
An act of antecedent concupiscence is unfree and is therefore an act of man. Here, a
person is exempted from responsibility.
2. Consequent- Consequent concupiscence is a human act. A person incurs full
responsibility for acts under this kind. 

Example:  An arousal on hatred upon seeing an enemy is antecedent, but fanning of the
hatred  
      in order to make it more intense becomes consequent.
 1. Fear
This factor can either be antecedent or consequent. The reason is that, a person can act
through fear or out of fear, in which case, he is not free, and therefore not responsible for
his act.

Example: A bank teller who is a victim of hold-up. Under normal circumstances, he

would not hand-over the money in his custody except to the properly authorized person
only. However, at the point of a gun, he could panic and hand it over to the gunman.  
Most hold-up victims act out of fear, rendering their actions to become acts of
man. When the fear is so great as to remove all freedom, the person is completely
absolved from guilt, accountability and responsibility.

1. Violence
This is the use of force to compel a person to act. It is evident that the acts of violence done
on a person are acts of man and the victim involved is freed from all responsibility.

FREEDOM

Special attention must be devoted to freedom because the degree of responsibility

depends on freedom. The classical concept of freedom is the existence of choice or options. This
means that one, has an option to do or not to do, to choose or not to choose, etc.
When there is only one option, there is no freedom. When one chooses, one must have at
least two (2) options to choose from.
Until freedom is translated into an act, it is a misnomer. This condition poses a great
ethical consideration. Ethics must consider this aspect of freedom which might have been
overlooked in the past. We are no longer living in a black and white world where the lines and
choices are clear cut. There are now gray areas which could recast our views on ethics.

Questions:

 Is a person under the influence of liquor or drugs considered free?

If he is not, are the acts he performs imputable to him?
Is he responsible for those actions committed under the influence or liquor or drugs?

St. Thomas Aquinas lists twelve (12) stages in every person’s decision to perform a
human act. These twelve stages involve both a person’s intellect and will. 

INTELLECT WILL

1.Apprehension of end 2.Wishing of end

 3.Judgement and attainability 4.Intension of end
5. Deliberation of means 6. Consent to means
7. Practical Judgement of Choice 8. Choice
9. Command 10. Use
11. Intellect 12. Fruition

Week 5: Morality and Human Act

THE MORALITY OF THE HUMAN ACTS
To determine the over-all goodness or badness of a human act, it is helpful to divide it into
constitutive parts. Every human act has an end, means and circumstances. 
For a human act to be good, all the constitutive parts namely, the end, means and
circumstances must be good. 
This is the meaning of the Scholastic Dictum “ Bonum ex integra causa, malum ex
quocum-que defectu ( In order to be good, a thing must be totally good). This means that a
human act is considered good only if the end, means, and circumstances are good; when any of
these three constitute parts is evil, the entire human act is considered evil, even if the two other
parts are good.

A.  Constitutive parts of human act

The end of human act is the objective, the reason, the intention for doing the act. All
human acts have ends or objectives or even a reason behind them. 

The means of the human act is the action or the deed itself. 

The circumstance of the human act are the external considerations of time, place,
manner, or what answers to What, When, Where, and How 

The human act of eating moderately, taking walks for exercise, sleeping
adequately are good, since the end, means and circumstances are all good. If one eats
excessively or runs great length on a heart ailment, or even sleeps beyond regular hours,
these actions becomes evil. 
Moderation seems to be the rule of thumb in naturally good actions. Too much of
good things is evil. In so far as evil is concern, however, small amount of it is also evil.
 It is therefore false reasoning that stealing just the right amount, or murdering and
raping the right person moderately is good. 

A. Intrinsically evil human acts

If the act itself is evil, no amount of it is excusable. Actions like stealing, cheating, lying,
raping murdering are not tolerated under any circumstances. 
a. Under special circumstances, however, what is normally termed stealing may not be so
anymore. St. Thomas Aquinas explains that “ in times of extreme necessity, “the goods
of the world belongs to everyone” This means that under abnormal circumstances like
war, famine, or isolation, the right to private property must give in to the higher right to
life.
b. Cheating, a form of stealing and is therefore considered evil. Many students nowadays
resort to cheating without knowing that it is evil act. Cheating is dishonesty; it is claiming
what not one’s own. 
c. Lying is intrinsically evil since it is contrary to truth. Truth is God’s imprint on man.
Hence, anything untrue is evil. Lying is never permissible even if it be to save a kingdom.
d. Rape is intolerable under any circumstance because it is the use of force and violence to
drag one to sex. Rape is usually reported among unmarried strangers but rape takes place
whenever there is no consent on the part of either spouse. 
e. Murder is a crime in any region at any time. It is defined as killing a person without
having a right to. 
Hangmen, executioners, guillotiners are appointed by the state to kill persons
found guilty of heinous crimes. During the war, soldiers kill the enemy.
These kinds of killings do not constitute murder. Neither does self-defense,
because in this case, it is one’s right to life pitted against another right to life.
It must be stressed that killing in self-defense is allowed only when there is an
actual struggle and not a mere threat or hint to kill.
Suicide is self-murder and therefore evil. Suicide is taking one’s own life as
though it were his. The pagan philosopher, Plato, wrote that we are mere sentries in
life and we may not leave our post until the appointed time.

A. Intrinsically good acts may deteriorate into evil

There are some human acts that are not patently evil, unlike the above-mentioned
examples. There are, however intrinsically good acts like praying, giving alms, helping
people which can deteriorate into evil. For a human act to be considered good, all the
three constitutive parts, the end, the means, and the circumstances must be good.
Praying is in itself good. The end or purpose is to open one’s heart to God. But
there are some persons who stay in the church all day long, neglecting their children. In
this case, the end and the means are good, but because of the circumstances, “the length
of time”, “out of focus”, the entire act becomes questionable.
A. The Principle of Double effect
No book on Ethics would be complete without the principle of twofold effect.
There are cases where the intentions or end of the human act is good but evil occurs
as a result of the well-intended human act.

Example:
In time of war, a general may consider that the planting of mines during nighttime
may be the best way to win a war and to prevent more bloodletting. He commands a
number of soldiers to plant the mines. As these soldiers were trying to accomplish
their mission, the mines exploded and killed two of the soldiers. This is a case of a
twofold effect which is permissible in Ethics.
Let us examine the constitutive parts of the human act. The end or purpose, which
is to defeat the enemy and finish the war, is good. The means employed is the
planting of mines in enemy territory which in itself is neutral or amoral. The
circumstances—nighttime or under the cover of darkness—is propitious to the
accomplishments of the mission, and hence good. 
Did the general intend the killing of the soldiers?
Did he foresee that the mines would explode?
In this case, the act of planting mines had a double effect, one of which was
unintended which is the killing of the soldiers, and the other effect was the
termination of the war.