What is a Human person? HUMAN vs.

PERSON

 is made up of body and Human-having human form or

spiritual soul with intellect and attributes
will; because of this we can
Person - a human being
say that the person is dignified
in the most radical sense. Boethius definition of human
 each person is unique. person;
 One's dignity lies precisely
"Individual substance of a rational
that one is a human person and
nature"
therefore, this is the basis of
human rights 3 Issues that arises
Other definitions; Individual
 Rational being composed of  One and in material beings
the corporeal element (soma) the principle of
and the psyche (the soul). individuation is matter.
 The human nature is what is  Responsible (able to
common to all individuals. respond) for the decisions
 Man is a true microsmos one makes.
with a value surpassing that  Individuality has the
of the inanimate cosmos. connotation of freedom.
 Material is from the material  It has the implication of
i.e. the body is from the rights and duties.
parents, and the rationa part
(soul) is from the creator Substance
because it cannot be divided, • a thing whose existence is
and neither can it come from independent of that of all other
matter because it is things, or a thing from which or
immaterial. out of which other things are made
 The powers of the soul are or in which other things inhere.
two, the intellect and will.
 The proper object of intellect • What can stand on its own?
is the truth and the will of • It means that it is not an
God. accidental perfection, but goes to
the core of the being. The souls
can subsist on its own.
• The concept of "self" is evident
which is the knowledge that you
HUMAN ACT vs. ACT OF
exist.
HUMAN
• In simpler terms, one discovers
Human Act (actus humanus)
that he exists, more tha that he is
aware of his existence and in • actions done consciously and
addition that others exist. freely by the agent/or by man
"Knowledge of existing and the
Knower" • an act is perfectly human when it
is done with full knowledge and
Rational nature full consent of the will, and with
full and unhampered freedom of
 Reason. Not only to
choice
reason, but also to choose
freely. • a human act can be morally good
 Implies systematically or morally evil
arriving at something.
Characteristics of a Person
Classifications:
•Self-conscious and aware of
themselves as existing over time a. Moral or Ethical acts

•Can engage in a purposeful • Human acts that observe or

sequence of acts conform to the standard or norm of
morality.
•Has the capacity to appreciate
reasons for acting b. Immoral or Unethical acts

•Who can communicate with other • Human acts that violate or

persons using language deviate from a standard of
morality.
• Who has the capacity to make
moral judgments Types of ethical thoughts

•Has the ability to perceive pain 1.Knowledge

and feel emotion • information, understanding or
• Can be held accountable for their skill that you get from experience
moral actions: know the difference or education
between right and wrong
• awareness of something the state guaranteed by law or a
of being aware of something constitution.
2.Freedom • Spiritual freedom - those beliefs
and thoughts which exists in the
• the quality or state of being free
hearts, minds and souls of each
• the absence of necessity, individual. Such beliefs cannot be
coercion, or constraint in ch action controlled, given, or taken away
from anyone regardless of the kind
3.Conscience of government or leadership a
• the part of the mind that makes person lives under.
you aware of your actions as being Impediments to HUMAN ACTS
either morally right or wrong
 Ignorance
• a feeling that something you have  Concupiscence
done is morally wrong
 Fear
 Violence
 Habit
Ignorance
•pertains to the lack of pertinent
Types of FREEDOM information, as to the nature,
• National freedom - simply means circumstances, and effect of a
a nation's freedom from foreign certain action.
rule. Most societies, regardless of • it takes place when an individual
their culture, government or consciously proceeds to act on a
leadership, want this freedom and certain matter without due
are more than willing to fight it. consideration of the relevant or
• Political freedom - means the necessary information related to it.
right of citizens to be actively
involved in their government,
often referred to as being a Invincible Ignorance
democracy or a republic.
1.One is totally ignorant of the
• Individual freedom - refers to just things surrounding his/her action
those individual rights and liberties and there is no way to
remove/dispel it
2. Culpability of the individual is A situation where one's inordinate
negated passion hinders one to exercise
correct reasoning, thus also affects
Vincible Ignorance
his/her action.
1.Committing a mistake without
2 Types
totally knowing that what you are
doing is really wrong. Antecedent concupiscence
2.Mistakes or wrong actions out of Consequent concupiscence
vincible ignorance lessens one's
Antecedent concupiscence
culpability
A spontaneous/sudden inordinate
passion influences an action before
Affected vincible ignorance it has been controlled by the will.
One is pretending to be ignorant Example: Juan was already
since he/she just wants to gain the running late for his class. When he
approval of the other for his/her entered the school campus, the
wrong action. guard confiscated his ID for no
apparent reason. Out of his anger,
Example: A student who pretends
he unconsciously cursed the guard.
not to know the school's policy on
The culpability of bad actions done
a proper haircut to excuse him/her
out of can be lessened or even
when confronted by the guards.
negated depending on how it
happened.

Supine or crass ignorance Consequent concupiscence

It happens when a person exerts This happens when one is aware of

little effort to know something. the inordinate passion and the will
chooses to arouse the said passion
to perform the bad action.
Example: Giving the wrong Example: Gluttony is a very good
medicine to a sick person may example. Pedro is obese. During a
result in the sickness of the person town fiesta, he had visited the
getting worse. houses of his four friends, eating to
Concupiscence his satisfaction. On his way back
home, he decided to drop by a fast-
food restaurant for more food, and
later on, he vomited. His moral So, a seriously bad act done under
responsibility increases since it is light fear is culpable.
within his will, reason, and
b, Grave Fear: The threat is so
disposal to decide to stop, but
serious or grave that it can really
failed to do so.
influence or force one to do a
Fear certain act.
• affects the performance of a
human act since the individual is
• The culpability of a bad act done
threatened by the impending
under grave fear car be lessened or
dangers. The presence of danger
negated.
and intimidation affects his/her
thought-processes in determining • Example: Cases of hold-ups
the goodness or badness of his/her wherein, people are forced to give
actions. their money or belonging to other
just out of fear; and other similar
• A human act done with fear is
circumstances.
considered voluntary, therefore it
will be culpable if it is a bad act. VIOLENCE
The act is still culpable because
one can still choose not to act • behavior involving physical force
despite the fear or danger. intended to hurt, damage, or kill
someone or something.
However, the culpability of a bad
act done out of fear can be • he unlawful exercise of physical
lessened, increase, or even negated force or intimidation by the
depending on the gravity of the exhibition of such force.
threat and the circumstance • NOTE:
surrounding the action especially
in a situation where one just ■ You must exert all the efforts
follows his/her instinct to survive. needed to defend yourself in
extreme cases where your life or
Types of fear your dignity is at stake.
a. Light Fear: The threat/imminent ■ The morality here is that one is
danger confronting a person is not culpable if he/she will not exert all
so serious or grave to influence or the necessary efforts to defend
force person is one to do a certain herself/ himself from the aggressor
act. if needed and if his life or dignity
is at stake. Although, the • those acts which man performs
culpability can be lessened without being master of them
depending on the circumstance. through his intellect and will
therefore, they are not voluntary.
Habit
• refers to certain types of actions
 is a firm and stable behavior that are naturally exhibited by
pattern of acting. An man.
individual naturally and
consciously performs an • is an involuntary action: it is
action, as a result of its natural act of vegetative and sense
repetitive performance through of fault, but these acts may become
time. One act based on his/her Human Acts when they are
repeated responses to performed with malice or when are
situations. directed by will.
 Good moral habits are called
Two categories of Acts of Man
virtues while bad habits are
vices. People are expected to a. Natural Involuntary actions
exert utmost effort to free
themselves from vicious these are actions of man that are
habits. performed intuitively or
involuntary.
• Examples: speaking bad words
when you are mad, always coming b. Natural Voluntary Actions
late, not attending mass, copying are actions that are within the
during quizzes and exams, etc. control of man's will, but only for
How do we moralize vices or bad some period of time.
habits? Vices or bad habits are Essential Qualities of Acts of
culpable. The culpability is Man
lessened only when one is exerting
effort to correct or stop his/her  Done without knowledge
vices.  Without consent
 Involuntary
ACTS OF HUMAN
SELF-DEFENSE
•actions beyond one's
consciousness; not dependent on
the intellect and the will.
is a classic example in the face of Kant maintains that "one acts
aggression wherein one has to morally if and only one does
protect himself/herself from the whatever one is obliged to do"
attacker.
Act done in accord with duty
。 Conditions for Self-defense:
Example:
The aggression must be unjust.
A doctor perform his/her medical
■The aggression must be actual. functions merely out of the desire
to do so or out of fear of being
Use minimum violence and it must
accused of negligence is acting in
be proportional.
accord with duty
Hence, such acts are non-moral,
i.e., they have no moral
significance.

TYPES OF ETHICAL
THOUGHTS Act done from a sense of duty

KANTIAN'S or KANT'S Example:

ETHICS
Doctors act from a sense of duty if
Established by Immanuel Kant, a they recognize that there is a
German thinker. special obligation to their patients
because of their relationships with
First appeared in his work, them.
"Groundwork of the Metaphysic of
Morals." Kant's pointed out

Kantian ethics focuses on duty or "Most of the time, whether or not

obligation we ought to do something isn't
(deontologism/intuitionism). really a moral choice - instead, it's
just contingent on our desires."
Morality is exclusively within the
human personality Hypothetical imperatives

Morality is a matter of intent, They're commands that you should

motive and will. follow if you want something. But
hypothetical imperatives are about
prudence rather than morality.
Example: circumstances the same way as
you are going to act.
Third, consider whether your
If don't want money, you can
maxim is even conceivable in such
always choose not to work.
a world.
Categorical imperatives
Fourth, consider whether you
These are commands you must could rationally will to act on your
follow regardless of your desires. maxim in such a world. If the
Moral obligations are derived from answer is yes, then your action is
pure reason. morally permissible

Mandates an action without any 2. Kant's Second Formulation

conditions whatsoever, and (Humanity Formulation)
without regard to the consequences
"Act in such a way that you treat
that such an action may yield.
humanity, whether in your own
Kant viewed morality not in terms person or in the person of another,
of hypothetical imperatives, but always at the same time as an end
through what he called categorical and never simply as a means"
imperatives.
NOTE: This formulation is more
Formulations of Kant's Categorical intuitive since using human beings
Imperative merely as instruments instinctively
feels wrong to us.
1. Kant's First Formulation
3. Kant's Third Formulation
"Act only according to that maxim (Autonomy Formulation)
whereby you can at the same time
will that it should become a "Act so that through your maxims
universal law" you could be a legislator of
universal laws"
This is how Kant wants us to act:
"the idea of the will of every
First, formulate a maxim that rational being as a will that
justifies your proposed plan of legislates universal law"
action.
NOTE: This differs from the first
Second, formulate that maxim as a formulation because it conceives
universal law of nature that makes of lawgivers rather than followers.
every rational agent act in the same
4. Kant's Fourth Formulation Theft
Kingdom of Ends Formulation)
The maxim "it is permissible to
"Act in accordance with the steal" could never become a
maxims of a member legislating universal law because that would
universal laws for a merely involve a logical contradiction.
possible kingdom of ends"
Kant speaks of a "kingdom of
The concept of stealing
ends" or a "systematic union of
presupposes private property, but
different rational beings through
if stealing was everywhere and
common laws"
always permissible, private
NOTE: Our moral obligation is to property would not exist. Hence
act only on principles that could this maxim fails the third step.
earn acceptance by a community
of rational agents each having an
equal share in legislating principles The maxim "it is not permissible to
for their community. steal" involves no such
contradiction and is, therefore, a
According to Kant, lying and
categorical imperative.
deception are, under all
circumstances, forbidden. This is
because if lying were to become a
universal action, the concept of Suicide
trust would no longer exist. In the Groundwork, Kant discusses
the example of a man reduced to
despair by a series of misfortunes
The existence of deception who is considering taking his own
presupposes the existence of trust, life.
so the maxim "it is permissible to
deceive" fails the third step
because it involves a contradiction. Now we may ask whether this
could become a

The premise "it is not permissible

to deceive," however, does not universal law. Kant formulates the
involve a contradiction. maxim as follows: "from self-love
You sent I make as my principle to shorten
my life when its continued The universality of such a law
duration threatens more evil than it would obsolete the practice of
promises satisfaction." making promises. If anyone could
break a promise, no one would
take promises seriously. This
This maxim, according to Kant, maxim, therefore, could not
gives us a contradiction when it is become a universal law.
universalized. This is because
destroying a life because of the
very same feeling (self-love) that The maxim "never break a
stimulates the desire to continue promise," on the other hand, does
living is, Kant thinks, a not involve any such contradiction
contradiction. and is, therefore, a categorical
imperative.

Breaking Promise
Idleness
Another example Kant discusses in
Groundwork is about a man who The third example Kant gives in
wants to borrow money, knowing Groundwork is about a man who
well that he will never pay it back. indulges in pleasure and doesn't
bother cultivating his talents. This
does not give us a logical
Kant formulates the man's maxim contradiction by making some
as follows: "when I believe myself practices untenable. But, Kant
claims, the maxim that makes a
man spend his life in idleness
to be in need of money, I will could never become a universal
borrow money and promise to pay law.
it

Kant justifies his position by

back, although I know that I can claiming that alfrational beings
never do so" Could this maxim necessarily will that all their
become a universal law? Kant faculties should be developed
claims that it could not.
This, like most philosophical some case, which depends largely
claims, is open to many objections on what the past and present.
because the premise isn't self-
"Prima facie"
evidently true.
This is where Ross departs
substantially from Kant.
Cultivating one's talents wouldn't
• For Kant all duties are
involve any such contradictions
categorically imperative.
and does therefore pass the test of
a categorical imperative. For Ross, duties are 'prima facie'.
'Prima Facie' means loosely "at
first glance" and is an
epistemological notion. A truly
prima facie duty is a duty that
ROSS ETHICS
looked at first like it was a duty,
What makes Ross a Deontologist? but was not in fact a duty.

Ross rejects classical

Utilitarianism because he rejects
What Ross means is that duties are
hedonism
'pro tanto'. A pro tanto duty is a
Further, he rejects the very idea of duty that is a duty, but that may
consequentialism (the idea that the conflict with and/or be superseded
right- making characteristics of an by other duties.
action are its consequences).
1. Duties we owe to ourselves:
Ross is a deontologist because he
• duties of Prudence
holds that what makes an action
right or wrong is intrinsic to the Self-improvement, physically,
action itself. mentally, morally, etc.
The concept of duty: Note: These aren't duties to do
whatever you want, they are duties
Ross contends that the moral point
to do what is best for you.
of view looks to the past and
present, not to the future. What is
relevant to what you ought to do is
2. Duties we owe to others:
not what will happen as a result,
but rather what your duty is in Based on past actions
Fidelity (keeping promises we
have made, maintaining personal
Value Pluralism
relationships we have entered into
This approach of Ross's brings into
Reparation (compensating people
the picture a concept called "Value
for wrongs we have done them)
Pluralism"
• Gratitude (doing good to those
• Instead of having only one reason
who have done good to us)
to act (for the utilitarian,
Not based on past actions maximizing pleasure; for the
Kantian, acting in accord with the
• Beneficence (helping others in
categorical imperative) we have
need when we can)
many reasons to act, some of
• Non-malevolence (doing no which are more important in some
harm) contexts than in others.

• Justice (giving everyone what Ross's system pays for its

they deserve, and not withholding plausibility with its complexity and
what people deserve) uncertainty.

When duties conflict: attempts to explain why clear

inequalities are unjust and what a
When duties conflict, we must just society really is.
determine which duty is more
important. he imagines a hypothetical
situation in which people come
There is not a fixed hierarchy of together to decide upon the
duties. For example, our duty of principles of justice and calls this
benevolence in saving a child from the original position.
drowning would outweigh our duty
to meet a friend for lunch if we in the original position:
happened to see a child drowning
all participants are free and equal.
on the way to lunch. However, a
promise to buy one's child her each person would negotiate in
ballerina slippers for dance class their own best interests.
would outweigh a duty of
each person negotiates behind a
benevolence in giving some money
veil of ignorance (i.e. he/she does
to a broke traveler.
not know what position in society 1. Equal access to the basic human
he/she will be in when the veil is needs, rights,and liberties
removed (ignorant regarding (guarantees the right of each
gender, wealth, class, race etc.) person to have the extensive basic
liberty compatible with liberty of
The original position is similar to
others)
the concept of "you cut, I choose"
when deciding how to share a cake Example:
(not knowing which piece you get
Right to life
ensures a fair split).
Right to vote
• Rawls believed that in such a
situation the participants would Right to speech
reason conservatively (i.e. would
not gamble with their future) and Right peaceable assembly
would come up with two principles 2. Emphasizes the idea of fair
of justice. equality of opportunity and the
equal distribution of socio-
economic inequalities. This
Rawls' Key Principles of Justice implies that social economic
positions are to be to: everyone
1. Each person should have as
advantage and open to all
much liberty as possible, as long as
others have the same IMPLICATIONS:
2. Social and economic 1. Life should not be sacrificed for
inequalities are permitted,as long the sake of the majority. Example:
as; Suppressing the people's right to
speech and expression for the sake
a. They relate to positions open to
of economic growth is morally
all under equality of opportunity
wrong for rawls.
b. They are for the greatest
2. Erroneous theory is tolerable in
expected benefit of the least
the absence of a good one. He
advantaged members of society
believed that an unjust law is better
(The Difference principle -
than no law at all. In other words,
maximizing the minimum in terms
act of injustice is tolerable if and
of the outcome)
only if it is necessary to avoid
Further Explanations greater act of injustice.
Example: It might be morally right change to an alternative
to incapacitate if not to kill a distribution in which the least
notorious serial killer advantaged might have less, and
still be just.
If it is the only way to stop him
from killing more innocent people.
3.Individual liberties should be ST. THOMAS AQUINAS'
restricted in order to maintain ETHICS
equality of opportunity.
A medieval philosopher (the
According to Rawl, restrictions roman catholic came into power)
through law preserves freedom in
• Also known as natural law
democracy. Example: It is
ethics/Thomistic ethics/Christian
probably right to restrict people
ethics.
from owning more than 5 hectares
of agricultural lot so that other • Influenced by the Greek thought
people will have the chance to own (Aristotle, Plato, Socrates)
a lot.
The essence of the law is to
Criticisms: promote the common good
(common good of community).
The original position is too
unrealistic and abstract: our desires According to St. Thomas, the
for a just society are related to who source of the moral law is reason
we are, so our position in society itself.
(including class, wealth etc) cannot
be ignored. Human good is that which is
suitable to or proper for the human
nature.
The belief that participants in the • The good is built into human
original position would choose nature and it is that to which we
conservatively can be challenged are directed by our natural
(some people could risk-takers) inclinations as both physical and
rational creatures.
Even if Rawls' principles are
perfectly applied, Nozick's Wilt
Chamberlain (Entitlement Theory -
non patterned distribution) VARIETY OF LAW
example shows how this could CLASSIFIED BY AQUINAS
Divine law To preserve our own kind (our
own being or life)
• divine wisdom that directs or
guides human actions so that all of • Our commonality with the
us could actually achieve our ends. animals
• Aquinas recognized that To do sexual intercourse, to
believing that the human beings produce species, to take care of our
were created by Goo and so we off springs.
also directed towards God that is
• Inclination towards goodness in
why God has provided this divine
accordance with our human reason.
wisdom that will actually guide the
existence of human beings and the Nature of human beings to be
existence of the universe. nourished, to be educated.

Human law
something that created and
implemented by the human beings
to themselves into the community
however, to assess the validity or
invalidity of a human law it must
be grounded with the principles of
the natural law.
Natural law
Any act that violates human nature
(promote human life, to be
nourished and care, to be molded
and educated) is morally not
accepted)

3 INCLINATIONS (HUMAN
NATURE)
• Our commonality with other
beings.