What is Ethics? What is morality? Ethics is from the Greek word “ethos” which means custom or a manner of acting and behaving. Mores is the root word of morality that means custom or practice. This might be the reason that ethics and morality are used interchangeably. However, there is a thin line that makes the two terms different from one another, Ethics is focused on the general principles, rules and theories on determining what is right on wrong. While morality is the praxis, the application of those principles (Fernandez, 2012). Human conduct or human act is the material object of Ethics. Whereas, the morality of human act or human conduct is its formal object. Morality is a system of beliefs about what is right behavior and wrong behavior (Rubin, 2015). Morality deals with how a person relates with others and with the world to promote what is good (Thiroux and Krasemann, 2009). In his book, Elements of Moral Philosophy, Dr.JamesRachels asserted that at the very least morality is the effort to guide one's conduct by reason - to act based on the best reasons for doing - while givirig equal weight to the interests of each individual affected by one’s decision (Rachels,2015). Ethics has two divisions, to wit: General Ethics and Applied or Special Ethics. The first deals with morality of the human act that mainly focuses on the basic concepts. On the other hand, the second division refers to the application of the moral principles, standards and norms in various specific areas of human life and activity. Ethics is then both a theory and a practice. One has to know the theories or ethical principles of knowing what is right and wrong and good and bad actions. However, one has to translate these theories into actions. Knowing what is right without changing the way one’s behave morally is a useless knowledge (Fernandez, 2012). Moral principles must have the following characteristics: 1. Prescriptivity - refers to the action-guiding nature of morality. The principles should intend to guide and direct people what to do or should not do. Like “obey your parents” or “thou shall not kill”v Impartiality - means that moral rule should be neutral. It should apply to anyone regardless of status or situation. 3, Overridingness - should mean that moral principles should tower over al] other norms or standards of evaluation. They must have hegemonic authority, ‘Therefore, should be given primary and ultimate importance. 4, Autonomous from Arbitrary Authority - moral standards should beindependent, hence be able to stand on its own. Regardless of what the majority says or decides, something is moral or immoral. An act should be based on the ethical principles and not on what men say. 5, Publicity - since moral standards guide people what to do, they should be made public. Reason dictates that rules are made and promulgated to advice as well as praise or blame certain actions. 6. Practicability - rules are made for men to follow. Hence, moral standards exist in which human beings are capable of doing. Otherwise, if they are too heavyit will be impossible for individuals to obey in which it may result for men to do another act that is illicit in order to obey the norms set forth. It is important to determine on what kind of act of which man is morally accountable and responsible. There are two acts: act of man.and human act. The former refers to those acts of which man has no control. Therefore, it is involuntary act. Like emotions, circulation of the blood, the pumping of the heart, grinding of the stomach and breathing. Those actions which are within the control of man like walking, talking, thinking, eating and biting are examples of the latter. It is deliberate, hence, voluntary act. There are three essential elements of act of man and human act: (1) Knowledge ~ where the doer is aware of what he/she is doing; Obviously, one cannot hold a et capone for something that he or she is not aware of. But if he does ‘areness, that is, doing the action knowingly, then the resphagblliny is 4... idee 4s inevitable. It is because the action has been © person's a i mond vor Pr il thus, what he does is a human act which can either be an act fie (2) h _ out the knowledge of the doer, the act is ordinarily taken as unrestricted from the ie ~ Oo which the act is not done by force; It is a state of being can exercise Cin cee aeey aoe and external pressure. A person is free when he a mself and over his acti i of choices Whether to do it gr vot ver his action, that is, he can make a wide range ue of moral acted upon within theA human act is therefore a free act. Without freedom in the performance of the act, a person can never be held responsible for his action: In fact; it is the amount of freedom present in the act that determines the amount of responsibility of the doer. Thus, without freedom, there can be no responsibility. (3) Will - of which the doer has given its consent to, do the act. Consent can be seen as something emanating from freedom, They may be used interchangeably though they do have distinct function in the determination of the morality of the act. Unless the act is done with consent, no action can be considered a human act. The consent of the doer is critical to make a Particular act a human act. So, what then is consent and what role does it play in defining a human act? Consent, simply puts it, as relating to the acquiescence or approval of the doer for his action. A person may be free to do it or not but if he does not allow his will to approve or disapprove an act, his moral responsibility is diminished, if not, extirpated at all. The approval or the disapproval of the will can make an act a human act. Without the consent, any act can be relegated simply to an act of man which is often characterized by an utter lack or absence of morality. In other words, for a man to be fully morally accountable of his/her act, it must be done knowingly, freely and willfully. The absence of either one or two of the elements may lessen the accountability of the doer or no accountability at all. Voluntariness is very much akin to consent, From the Latin word voluntas, voluntariness refers to the act of the will. Without the action of the will, an act is considered involuntary, hence, the doer in this case cannot be held liable for his action. Only an act that proceeds from the command of the will is voluntary. Needless to say, only a voluntary act is a human act» Conversely, an involuntary act is obviously considered an act of man. There are four kinds of voluntariness: 1. Perfect voluntariness - where all the elements of human act are present. Man is fully accountable of the act committed. 2. Imperfect voluntariness - where knowledge is absent. A man who is not aware of the act that he has done may not be answerable of his act or no accountability at all. A boy giving a box of chocolates to a lady not knowing it is poisoned is absolved from liability. 3. Siniple voluntariness ~ it is simply doing or not doing the act since one has cannot do anything about it. It is either positive or negative. A male student whose house is 10 kilometers from the school will either ride a jeepney or not. In most cases he needs to ride otherwise he will be late. Or when he is inside a hospital and wanted to smoke but cannot because of the No Smoking sign inside the premises or else he has to go out and smoke.4, Morality of an act can eit it’s a good act. Immoral if it this is when the person is forced to do an act in should not be done. When a female employee was he robber pointing a knife to her chest being Conditional voluntariness ~ which in normal condition it forced to give her cellphone to afraid of her life. ther be moral, immoral or amoral. Moral, of course if is bad. If it is indifferent or neither good nor bad, then it is amoral.An indifferent act may either become moral or immoral depending on the motive or intention of the doer. Playing volleyball is amoral. But when one plays volleyball knowing class is being skipped becomes immoral. How do we know the morality of the act then? The following are the determinants of morality: 1 The Object or Act itself - this refers to the deed done by the doer of the action. Itis either good or bad. The act of giving as to the act of killing are examples. Motive or Intent - the purpose or reason of doing the act. Like a daughter gave a bouquet of flowers to her mother celebrating a birthday. Whereas, due to revenge, a certain boy stabbed his neighbor. Circumstances - this involves the situations that surrounds the commission of the act. They are basically practical answers to particular questions. The key questions that will help understand the situation and context. a. Who - refers to the persons involved in the act committed, the doer and the receiver or recipient of the act. A child who accidentally pulled a trigger against his/her playmate thinking the gun is a toy may not be accountable compared to an adult doing same act. A man boxing a woman, is greatly answerable of his act. An educated person is more liable than an illiterate one. b. Why - it the reason or motive of doing the act. Stealing food because of extreme hunger has lesser accountability as to someone who stole due to greediness and selfishness. c. By What Means - though the intention is good but attaining the end is unlawful or illicit, then the act is still immoral. “The end does not justify the means.” Example is a student whose intention is to pass the final examinations in order to graduate but attaining such is through cheating, then it is still considered immoral.d. Where - refers to the setting of the action. An act done in open places like in the market has greater liability than in quite places like in the mountain. Shouting inside a church disturbing the people inside who are praying has a greater responsibility. e. When ~ refers to the time of the commission of the act. Time element is important and in most cases vital to assess and judge morally the human act. Killing a person when he was sleeping connotes greater accountability compared to when the person killed was conscious and still has time to defend himself. Performing the act in a broad daylight has different liability while doing it during nighttime. f. How - raping a woman in front of her husband is greater. Stabbing a person. many times indicates an extreme hatred. Whereas, defaming the person through the use of media is more accountable than doing it in front of one’s friends. . Generally, circumstances could be aggravating, justifying, mitigating or exempting. ‘The act of self-defense is justifying since the person doing the act has no intention of killing at all. It is mitigating when a person is forced to slap the face of another because he was boxed. A wife, due to rush of emotions, killed her husband and her paramour catching them of having sexual intercourse falls under exempting. Man is an organism that does not act in a vacuum. He responds and reacts to stimulus. His personal background, education, social upbringing, political persuasion, religion, personal aims and experiences contributed largely to his development and behavioral preferences (Agapay, 1991). Thus, the accountability of the commission of an act can be modified. The liability can be greater, great, less, lesser or none at all. The following are the modifiers: : 1. Ignorance is the absence of knowledge. Everyone should ought to possess and be responsible to have knowledge. There are two kinds of ignorance: (a) vincible ignorance is where the lack of knowledge can easily be rectified. There are some students who do not know the name of their teachers This can easily be corrected by caring and asking the name of their instructors; and (b) invincible ignoranceis difficult to rectify. There is no way of knowing. A courier delivering an item with no knowledge that what is inside the box is a bomb which killed a lot of people inside a house. When a person is vincibly ignorant and no effort on his/her part to repair the loss for the reason of escaping one’s responsibility has greater liability. The vincible ignorance becomes affected ignorance. The same with pretended ignorance, professing of not knowing when one really knows in order to flee from being blamed.2. Concupiscence or passion refers to emotions whether negative or Positive desire They are neither moral nor isnmoral. But, man has to control or regulate hig emotions and must be submitted to the control of reason. Passions can either be antecedent or consequent. The former tend to weaken the will power o¢ the person and so interfere with the freedom of the will. Man tends to become irrational. These are so called “crimes of passion”. Though, they are Voluntary but diminish the accountability of man. Like a wife caught his husband on the act of having sexual intercourse with another woman and immediately Stabbed them due to extreme emotion felt is exempting from her act due to the circumstances. The later are intentionally aroused and kept where the doer willfully plays his emotions. A man intentionally aroused himself sexually by watching sex videos and reading pornographic magazines and eventually committed the crime of rape, or a woman besmirching the personality of her neighbor due to cultivated resentment. In these scenarios, both are morally accountable, Fear is the disturbance of the mind when a person is confronted by danger or harm to oneself or loved ones. It is also a form of emotion, However, it * Important to discuss this separately since it is important to make a distinction between an act done with fear and act done out of or because of fear. Car racing, sky diving, class reporting, or mountain climbing are activities performed with fear, These are fear reactions and are therefore voluntary and further accountable of the act. However, fear is an instinct for self-preservation. When a child runs upon seeing a mad dog and fell in a manhole because of fear, then that child is not accountable of his act. Or when a girl hurt herself by jumping from the window of her boarding house due to fire is not liable. Violence happens when physical force is exerted to a person by another for the Purpose of compelling or forcing the Person to act against his will. When a father was forced to kill somebody for being threaten that his children will be Killed if he will perform the act is extinguished of his liability. When an accused ‘was compelled to be a witness against himself to stop the bodily torture done against him by the authority is not accountable of his act. Such confession is not admissible in court. Habits are frequently repeated acts, It may be bad or good. In most cases, habits are becoming involuntary since they assume the role of a second nature. It is not easy to overcome or alter habits. It takes a strong-willed person to correct a bad habit, Drug addicts, alcoholics or smokers are having difficulty to reform. Nevertheless, the person is still accountable of one’s habits since the first time the ct was done there is already awareness of the consequences or effects of the act.‘Norm is used to measure whether an act done is good or bad, ral. It a rule or standard in gauging the goodness or badness of an wo types: The first norm js the eternal divine law which is objective and ne? ultimate and absolute norm of morality. It is governed by Divine Reason th; is the she necessary relations between the creator and the creatures. t includes teing reveals physical and moral ofr. In its broadest sens, it governs natute and ation of a the (Montemayor, 1994). The eternal law is made known to man through his re ings conscience known as the natural law (lex naturalis), By his rational nature, mason and to law whats right and wrong, Mora law is ordinance of reson promulgate ae tt who have the authority and care of the community for promotion of the common, a This necessitates obedience on the part of those who are expected to follow it. good. "ight or wrong, moral or immo! Human laws are those laws enacted by men. This includes rules not only in the government but also in private agencies as well as in the churches. The churches help in promoting the eternal law and in real sense should not come up with their own set of doctrines since everything about divine law is already found in the Holy Scriptures, The role of the church is to implement what has been promulgated by God. Further, the difference with the moral law and human law is that the former covers both the external and internal actions of man. Whereas, the former only covers external actions of man, A married man having a mere thought of having a sexual desire to a woman is not illegal but immoral. Once the thought is translated into action then it where human law comes in. Thus, not all immoral acts are necessarily illegal vis-a vis. When aman commits immoral act, he feels guilty with a feeling of remorse but may not be imprisoned. However, violating a human law implies corporal or physical punishment. Human reason is the second norm of morality. This is related to person's conscience which is proximate norm of morality telling a person internally what to do and should not do. It is like a signpost that guides and directs a person to their destination. This e subject itself. It has to require proper formation ‘orrect conscience. Such should the realm of immorality. norm is subjective since it is found in th and education on our part to attain a level of true and c in accord with the objective standard or risk falling into yy with the objective truth, conscience According to the harmony or disharmony Ise. Having a correct conscience must can either be correct or true, or erroneous or fal g nce mi be always obeyed, whatever it commands of forbids. An erroneous conscience be (a) invincibly erroneous conscience ~ a kind of judgment where mistake cane avoid regardless of the effort or attempt exerted to correct such; (b) vincibly a a conscience ~ person is moral accountable since the ld have ce i St ordinary diligence on his/her part; (c) perplexed 7 vain both happen when a person has two alternative options Pp choices that either way he/she feels doomed, the perso! = in making a choice; and (d) pharisaical conscience - here the pers offenses as grave and serious sins as little. 7 error col conscience - this ki but fears that sin is f wn must postpone any action ‘magnifies small‘As to the firmness in its judgment of the morality of the act, conscience is either (a) certain conscience - the judgment is sure that the action is morally good or bad; (b) doubtful conscience ~ the person hesitates in making a particular judgment since he/she is not certain or unsure whether something is good or bad, moral or immoral. Ifa person has this kind of conscience, he/she must never act; (c) scrupulous conscience ~ this type of judgment is a described as very cautious or extremely fearful that the person involved do not want to make any action in a given situation. As a result the individual tends to judge something as right or wrong when in fact there is none; and (d) lax conscience - is very different from the scrupulous conscience since the person takes sinful act very lightly and considers it as good and okey. It always takes things for granted when it comes to grave moral importance. The person is in most cases insensitive, lazy and negligent. A person who has lax conscience must reform his/her state of mind. Norms are formal or material as derived from natural law. Formal norms refers to “what we ought to be” like we should be sensitive, giving and obedient. “What ought to be done’ is referring to material norms. Examples are “do not lie, do good, and do not be selfish”. It is worthy to note that whenever there is a conflict between the civil authority and the divine law (moral natural law), the person has “to obey God rather than men’ as base from the Word of God.