NEMSU-Cantilan Campus

DGTT Module 1

LESSON 1: ETHICS: ITS MEANING, NATURE AND SCOPE

Specific Learning Outcomes:

After working on this module, the students will be able to:
1. Understand the meaning of Ethics by expounding it’s meaning and concepts related to it;
2. Differentiate morality from Ethics;
3. Write a personal reflection/essay on their own application to morality and ethics;
4. Evaluate the importance of ethics in our day-to-day living. (Situation analysis)

INTRODUCTION
According to Felix Montemayor (2010), he introduced Ethics with the analogy of the field of Science, its
subject matter which it studies and with which it deals. Thus, geology studies the earth; astronomy, the stars;
zoology, animals; and so forth.
Ethics studies human acts or human conduct. There are indeed other sciences which also study human
conduct, such as psychology, sociology, and education; but ethics differs from each of these in its standpoint,
or in the particular aspect of human acts with which it is particularly concerned; and this is the morality of
human actions.
Morality is life itself. It must not be considered as a mere extract from the crude ore of facts and events
that happen to us daily. Neither must morality be considered as a product of brooding, about one’s own
feelings, nor must it be construed as a matter of frills rather than fundamentals. (Babor, 2006).
We must abandon straight off the idea that we have to sacrifice morality in favor of “practicality” to earn
an inch of progress in our economic capabilities.
Hence, there is little confusion as to the difference between Morality and Ethics. Commonly, these terms are
being used interchangeably. But are they the same? What is ethics then? Morality?

ABSTRACTION
Definitions of Ethics
1. Ethics is the practical science of the morality of human actions.
2. Ethics is the scientific inquiry into the principles of morality.
3. Ethics is the science of human acts with reference to right and wrong.
4. Ethics is the study of human conduct from the standpoint of morality.
5. Ethics is the study of the rectitude of human conduct.
6. Ethics is the science which lays down the principles of right living.
7. Ethics is the practical science that guides us in our actions that we may live rightly and well.
8. Ethics is a normative and practical science, based on reason, which studies human conduct
and provides norm for its natural integrity and honesty.
9. According to Socrates, ethics is the investigation of life.

Let us explain the terms found in these definitions:

a) Science – a systematic study or a system of scientific conclusions clearly demonstrated, derived
from clearly established principles and duly coordinated. It is philosophical science not experimental
science.
b) Morality – the quality of right or wrong in human acts

1
 NEMSU-Cantilan Campus
DGTT Module 1
c) Human Acts – acts done with knowledge and consent.

Relations of Ethics with other Sciences:

1. Ethics and logic – logic is the science of right thinking. Ethics is the science of right living. To think
right often lead to correct doing.
2. Ethics and Psychology – Both deal with the study of man, human nature, and human
behavior. Psychology is not interested in the morality of human behavior, unlike ethics, but it studies
how man behaves while ethics studies how man ought to behave.
3. Ethics and Sociology – Ethics deals with the moral order of the society which is called social order
while Sociology studies the how a particular society behaves.
4. Ethics and Economics – man is also an economic being because he has to support himself by
earning a living, thus its relation to ethics is on the moral order of earning a living.
5. Ethics and Education – Education develops the whole man, his moral, intellectual and physical
capacities, hence it needs the concept of ethics to make a person whole.
6. Morality and Law – Right and wrong, good and bad in human actions presuppose a law or rule of
conduct. The laws of the state are restatements, specifications or interpretations of an interior
natural moral law as we shall learn on Ethics and Law.
7. Ethics and Art – Ethics stands for moral goodness, art, for beauty. But as transcendental the
beautiful and the good are one. Evil always implies ugliness or defects and the good is always
beautiful since it is very object of desire and therefore, like beauty, pleases when perceived.
8. Ethics and Politics – Man owes allegiance to the State. Politics aims at good government for the
temporal welfare of the citizens. But between the temporal and the spiritual and eternal welfare there
is no conflict.
9. Religion and Ethics – Religion is the root of morality without it, morality will die. They are
inseparable because both have the same end – the attainment of man’s supreme purpose or man’s
ultimate end.
The Importance of Ethics
The importance of the study of ethics follows immediately from the importance of ethics itself.
1. Ethics means right living and good moral character, and it is in good moral character that man finds
his true worth and perfection. All the great teachers of the ages maintain that the supreme purpose of
human living lies not in the acquisition of material goods or bodily pleasures, nor in the attainment of
bodily perfections such as health and strength; nor even in the development of intellectual skills but in
the development of the moral qualities which lift man far above brute creation.
2. Education is the harmonious development of the whole man – of all man’s faculties: the moral,
intellectual, and physical powers in man. Now the highest of man’s power and his reason and will.
3. According to Socrates, “the unexamined life is not worth living for man.” Now ethics, as we already
said before, is the very investigation of the meaning of life. That is why Plato calls and considers
ethics as the supreme science, the science par excellence, as it is this science that deals with the
Summum Bonum, the supreme purpose of human living.

What does “morality” mean?

James W. Gray, 2011, Introduction to Moral Philosophy, stated that Morality involves what we ought to
do, right and wrong, good and bad, values, justice, and virtues. Morality is taken to be important; moral
actions are often taken to merit praise and rewards, and immoral actions are often taken to merit blame and
punishment. (Gray, 2011)

2
 NEMSU-Cantilan Campus
DGTT Module 1
 What we ought to do – What we morally ought to do is what’s morally preferable. It’s morally
preferable to give to certain charities and to refrain from hurting people who make us angry; so we
morally ought to do these things.
 Right and Wrong – Something is morally right if it’s morally permissible, and morally wrong if it’s
morally impermissible.
 Good and Bad – “Good” and “bad” refer to positive and negative value. Something is morally good if
it helps people attain something of positive value, avoid something of negative value, or has a positive
value that merits being a goal.
However, there are things that we ought to do, right or wrong to do, bad or good things that has nothing
to do with morality and ethics, has nothing to do with intrinsic value, (Gray, 2011).

Video clip presentation on the difference of Morality and ethics: https://www.ligonier.org/blog/difference-

between-ethics-and-morality/

LESSON 2: THE ETHICAL DIMENSION OF HUMAN EXISTENCE

Specific Learning Outcomes:

In this module, you should be able to:

1. Identify the ethical aspect of human life and the scope of ethical thinking.
2. Define and explain the terms that are relevant to ethical thinking.
3. Evaluate real life moral/ethical issues relevant to their context.

INTRODUCTION
This module will introduce you to the scope and the rationale of ethics. You will explore various
domains of valuation in order to distinguish what makes a particularly grace type of valuation moral or
ethical one. You will be clarified to some of the terms that will be used in the study of ethics. You will
also explore a number of problematic ways of thinking ethics; some give a too simplistic answer to the
question of our grounds or foundations for moral valuation, while others seem to dismiss the
possibility of ethics altogether.

ABSTRACTION

VALUE
Ethics, generally speaking, is about matters such as the good thing that we should pursue and
bad thing that we should avoid; the right ways in which we could or should act and the wrong ways of
acting. It is about what is acceptable and unacceptable in human behavior. It may involve obligations
that we are expected to fulfil, prohibitions that we are required to respect, or ideals that we are
encouraged to meet.
Kinds of Valuations
a. Etiquette – is concerned with right and wrong actions, but those which might be considered not
quite grave enough to belong to a discussion of ethics.

3
 NEMSU-Cantilan Campus
DGTT Module 1
e.g. I may think that it is “right” to knock politely on someone’s door, while it is “wrong” to barge
into one’s office.
b. Technique – is often used to refer to a proper way (or right way) of doing things, but a technical
valuation (or right or wrong technique of doing things) may not be necessarily be an ethical
one.
e.g. When learning how to bake, the right thing to do would be to mix the dry ingredients first,
such as flour or sugar before bringing in any liquids, like milk or cream.

There are instances when we make value judgments that are not considered to be part of
ethics. For instance, I could say that this new movie I had just seen was a “good” one because I
enjoyed it, or a song I had just heard on the radio was a “bad” one because it had an unpleasant
tone, but these are not part of a discussion of ethics. I may have an opinion as to what is the “right
dip” (sawsawan) for my chicken barbecue, or maintain my stand that it is “wrong” to wear a leather
vest over a Barong Tagalog, and these are not concerns of ethics. These valuations fall under the
domain of aesthetics. Aesthetics is derived from the Greek word aesthesis (“sense” or “feeling”) and
refer to the judgments of personal approval or disapproval that we may see, hear, smell or taste.
One complication that can be noted is that the distinction between what belongs to ethics and
what does not is not always so clearly defined. At times, the question of what is grave or trivial is
debatable, and sometimes some of the most heated discussions in ethics could be fundamental
question of whether a certain sphere of human activities belongs to this discussion.

Ethics and Morals

We should be careful particularly on the use of the word “not” when applied to the words
“moral” and ethical” as this can be ambiguous.

Morals – may be used to refer to specific beliefs or attitudes that people have or to describe acts that
people perform. Thus, it is sometimes said that an individual’s personal conduct is referred to as his
morals, and if he falls short of behaving properly, this can be described as immoral.

Moral Judgment/Moral Reasoning – suggest a more rational aspect

Ethics – can be spoken of as the discipline of studying and understanding ideal human behavior and
ideal ways of thinking. It is acknowledged as an intellectual discipline to philosophy. Acceptable and
Unacceptable behaviors are generally described as ethical and unethical. Professional

Ethics – are the acceptable and unacceptable ways of behaving in a given field. e.g. Legal Ethics for
the proper comportment of lawyers and other people in the legal profession; Medical Ethics for
doctors and nurses; and Media Ethics for writers and reporters.

Philosophy – is rooted in the Greek words that translate to “love of wisdom” - remains as the unique
discipline that asks significant questions that other fields are unable to address.

4
 NEMSU-Cantilan Campus
DGTT Module 1
The different branches of Philosophy correspond to some of these questions:
a. Metaphysics – wonders as to what constitutes the whole of reality
b. Epistemology – asks what is our basis for determining what we know
c. Axiology – refers broadly to the study of value and is often divided into
aesthetics, which concerns itself with the value of human actions
d. Aesthetics – concerns itself with the value of beauty, and ethics,

Descriptive and Normative

 Descriptive Study – reports how people, particularly groups, make their moral valuations without
making any judgment either for or against these valuations. This kind o study is often the work of the
social scientist; either a historian (studying different moral standards over time) or a sociologist or
an anthropologist (studying different moral standards across cultures).
 Normative study – is often done in philosophy or moral theology, engages the question: What could
or should be considered as the right way of acting? In other words, a normative discussion prescribes
what we ought to maintain as our standards or bases for moral valuation.

We need to go further. A philosophical discussion of ethics goes beyond recognizing the characteristics of
some theory; also, it does not simply accept as correct any normative theory. A philosophical discussion of
ethics engages in a critical consideration of the strengths and weaknesses of these theories.

Issue, Decision, Judgment and Dilemma

It may be helpful to distinguish a situation that calls for moral valuation. It can be
called MORAL ISSUE. e.g. Imagine a situation wherein a person cannot afford a
certain item, but then possibility presents itself for her to steal it. This is a matter of ethics
(and not just law) insofar as it evolves the question of respect for one’s property. We
should add the “issue” is also often used to refer to those particular situations that are
often the source of considerable and inconclusive debate (thus, we would often hear
topics such as capital punishment and euthanasia as moral “issues”)
https://www.facebook.com/pages/Officer-William-Stacy/1809771735912519

When one is placed in a situation and confronted by the choice of what act to perform, she is called to
make a moral decision e.g. I choose not to take something I did not pay for. When a person is an observer who
makes an assessment on the actions or behavior of someone, she is making a moral judgment. For instance, a
friend of mine chooses to steal from a store, and I make an assessment that is wrong.

Moral Dilemma – is going beyond the matter of choosing right over wrong, or good over bad, and considering
instead the more complicated situation wherein one is torn between choosing one of two goods or choosing
between the lesser of two evils.

Reasoning
Why do we suppose that a certain way of acting right and its opposite wrong? The study of ethics is
interested in questions like these: Why do we decide to consider this way of acting as acceptable while that
way of acting, its opposite, is unacceptable? To put it in other way, what reasons do we give to decide or to
judge that a certain way of acting is either right or wrong?
Asking the question “WHY” might bring us to no more than a superficial discussion of rewards and
punishments, but it could also bring us to another level of thinking. Perhaps one can rise above the particulars

5
 NEMSU-Cantilan Campus
DGTT Module 1
of a specific situation, going beyond whatever motivation or incentive is present in the instance. Beyond
rewards and punishments. It is possible for our moral valuation – our decisions and judgments – to be based
on a principle. Thus, one may conclude that cheating is wrong based on a sense of fair play or a respect for
the importance and validity of testing.

Principles – rationally established grounds by which one justifies and maintains her moral decision and
judgments
Moral Theory – is a systematic attempt to establish validity of maintaining certain moral principles. Theory – is
a system of thought or of ideas, it can also be referred as a FRAMEWORK.
Framework – is a theory of interconnected ideas, and at the same time, a structure through which we can
evaluate our reasons for valuing a certain decision or judgment.

SOURCE OF AUTHORITY
Several common ways of thinking about ethics are based in the idea that the stands of valuation are imposed
by a higher authority that commands our obedience.

Law
It is supposed that law is one’s guide to ethical behavior.
Positive law – refers to the different rules and regulations that are posited or put forward by an authority figure
that require compliance. We do maintain that generally speaking, one should obey the law. However, the idea
that we are examining here is a more controversial one: the radical claim that one can look to the law itself in
order to determine what is right or wrong. The question is: can one simply identify ethics with the law?
One point to be raised is the prohibitive nature of law. The law does not tell us what we should do; it
works by constraining us from performing acts that we should not do. The law cannot tell us what to pursue,
only what to avoid.
We also might find that there are certain ways of acting which are not forbidden by the law, but are
ethically questionable to us.

Religion
The first verse of Chapter 11 of the book Deuteronomy expresses a claim that many people of a
religious sensibility find appealing and immediately valid: the idea that one is obliged to obey her God in all
things. As a foundation for ethical values, this is referred to as the divine command theory.
We are presented with a more-or-less clear code of prohibitions and many of these are given by
religion – “Thou shall not kill”, “Thou shall not steal” and “Though shall not commit adultery”- seem to intuitively
coincide with our sense of what ethics should rightly demand.
On the practical level, we realize the presence of a multiplicity of religions. Each faith demands
differently from its adherents which would apparently result in conflicting ethical standards. e.g. food
prohibitions, different interpretations of the scriptures
Generally speaking, it is a good thing for a person of faith to abide by the teachings of his/her particular
religion. But the divine command theory demands more than this as it requires us to identify the entire sense of
right and wrong with what religion dictates.
The question of the DIVINE COMMNAD THEORY is not a calling into a question of one’s belief in God;
it is not intended to be a challenge to one’s faith. Instead, it is an invitation to consider whether there may be
more creative and less problematic ways of seeing the connection between faith and ethics, rather than simply
equating what is ethical with whatever one takes to be commanded by God.

6
 NEMSU-Cantilan Campus
DGTT Module 1

Culture
Our exposure to different societies and their cultures makes us aware that there are ways of thinking
and valuing that are different from our own, that there is in fact a wide diversity of how different people believe
it is proper to act.

Cultural Relativism – what is ethically acceptable or unacceptable is relative to, or that is to say, dependent
on one’s culture.
1. Seems to conform to what we experience, which is the reality of the differences in how cultures make
their ethical valuations.
2. By taking one’s culture as the standard, we are provided basis for our valuations.
3. It teaches us to be tolerant of other from different cultures, as we realize that we are in no position to
judge whether the ethical thought or practice of another culture is acceptable or unacceptable. In turn,
our own culture’s moral code is neither superior to nor inferior to any other, but they would provide us
the standards that are appropriate and applicable to us.
Problems of Cultural Relativism
1. Because different culture has different moral codes, we cannot say that any one moral code is the right
one.
2. We realize that we are in no position we are in no position to render any kind of judgment on the
practices of another culture.
3. We realize that we are in no position to render judgment on the practices of even our own culture. 4.
We can maintain it only by following the presumption of culture as a single, clearly-defined substance or
as something fixed and already determined.

Cultural relativism deprives us of our use of critical thought. On the positive side, it promotes a sense of
humility, urging us not to imagine our own culture superior to another. However, it also renders us incapable of
discerning about the values we may wish to maintain as we are forced to simply accept whatever our culture
gives us.

SENSES OF THE SELF

It is sometimes thought that one should not rely on any external authority to tell oneself what the
standards of moral valuation are, but should instead turn inwards.

Subjectivism.
The recognition that the individual thinking person (the subject) is at the heart of all moral valuations.
From this point, subjectivism leaps to the more radical claim that the individual is the sole determinant of what
is morally good or bad, right or wrong.
There is some validity to this, however, we know that this statement cannot be taken absolute. ∙ To take
this fact as a ground for not listening to others is to have a mentality that imagines that one’s own situation or
concern is so personal and unique that there is no way another person can possibly understand him/her and
give him/her any meaningful advice.
This right is often stubbornly misconstrued as some kind of immunity from criticism and correction.

7
 NEMSU-Cantilan Campus
DGTT Module 1
Psychological Egoism – is a theory that describes the underlying dynamic behind all human actions. It points
out that there is already an underlying basis for how one act. The ego or self has its desires and interests, and
all of our actions are geared toward satisfying these interests.
The idea is that whether or not the person admits it, one’s actions are ultimately always motivated by self-
serving desire.
Strong points of Psychological Egoism:
 ∙Simple – it has a unique appeal, a theory that conveniently identifies a single basis that will somehow
account for all actions is a good example of this.
 Plausible – it is plausible that self-interest is behind a person’s actions. It is also irrefutable.
Psychological egoism, when we look at its consequences, leads us to a cynical view of humanity, to a
gloomy description of human nature, and finally to a useless theory for someone who is concerned with
asking herself what is the right thing to do.
Ethical Egoism – differs from psychological egoism in that it does not suppose all our actions are already
inevitably self-serving. It prescribes that we should make our own ends, our own interests, as the single
overriding concern. We may act in a way that is beneficial to others but we should do that only if it benefits us.
It acknowledges that it is a dog-eat-dog world out there and given that, everyone ought to put herself at the
center. One should consider him/herself as the priority and not allow any other concerns, such as welfare of
other people to detract from this pursuit.
Ethical egoism ultimately translates into – not just some pleasant pursuit of one’s own desires, but the
imposition of a will to power that is to potentially destructive of both the self and of others.

LESSON 3: DISCERNING MORAL DILEMMA

Specific Learning Outcomes:

During the students' learning engagements, they will be able to:
1. Explain the nature of moral dilemma
2. Analyze the components of moral dilemma
3. Relate the concept of moral dilemma in the real situation.

INTRODUCTION
As students you are obliged to follow rules and regulations of the school. One of the rules of the school
is not to cheat during examinations Perhaps, you are torn between cheating and not cheating. If you cheat,
there is a chance of getting caught and failed; if you do not cheat, there is a possibility of failing due to lack of
study. In either case you likely to fail. This mess is called a dilemma: a situation that challenges an agreeable
solution, conflicting situation. Sometimes, you are faced with more serious situations greater than taking
exams. To illustrate the nature of dilemma, let us view a short video clip

ACTIVITY
Analyze and evaluate the dilemma given below by answering the questions that follow.
Your friend tells you that they committed a crime. They explain that they are having trouble sleeping at night
and feel you are the only one they can trust with their confession. A few days later, you read in the paper that
someone has been arrested for your friend’s crime.

8
 NEMSU-Cantilan Campus
DGTT Module 1
Answer the following questions:
1. What situation that occurs in the scenario?
2. Who are involved in the situation?
3. Is the friend in position to act in this situation? Why?
4. What made it difficult to come up with a decision?

ABSTRACTION
Video clip viewing: Discerning Moral Dilemmas
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dzmNoFnxu68&t=52s

What to do in a Moral Dilemma

A moral dilemma typically involves a situation in which a difficult decision must be made regarding two
or more choices that are not necessarily moral or ethical. There are times in life when we come across moral
dilemmas that test our mental prowess and judgment. We must decide which is the lesser of two evils.
Oftentimes, there is no easy or correct choice.
When faced with a moral dilemma, there are many factors to consider. Who is involved and why? Is
action necessary and, if so, what do you do? Perhaps, it’s better to tell someone else about the dilemma and
let them decide what to do. Maybe there are other solutions that are not plain to see at first.

No matter the situation, here are some recommendations to help figure out how to handle a moral dilemma:

1. Use logic instead of emotion.

While this may seem difficult to do, it’s often the best way to handle a situation without being too biased
one way or another, depending on the circumstances. Using logic forces a person to consider as many
perspectives as possible to find the best possible solution. Thinking logically can also help a person
calm down and relax instead of being too emotionally charged to make a reasonable decision.
Understandably, there will be situations in which this is not possible due to the nature of the dilemma. In
this case, it might be best to wait on a decision until emotions aren’t so volatile.
2. Weigh the pros and cons of each decision.
This is a bit tricky because there may be only cons for each decision. In this case, logic dictates
that the fewest number of cons is likely the most reasonable decision. No matter what, working through
a pros and cons list might bring to light other factors that can influence a decision.
For instance, let’s say a person works at a retail store with their best friend. They witness their
best friend steal some money from the store safe. They confront their friend to convince them to put the
money back, but they refuse. Now, do they report their lifelong best friend to management, or do they
keep quiet about it and assume the store can afford the loss?
This wouldn’t be an easy decision for most people but weighing the pros and cons may help. If
they don’t report their friend, that friend may keep doing it which might affect the store’s ability to stay in
business thereby affecting other people’s income. However, if they do report their friend, it will most
likely cause them to lose their best friend forever.

Discussion of the Scenarios presented

The persons involved to act in the following scenarios are faced to process the following questions
1. Does the situation involved moral dilemma? If the dilemma affects the well-being of a person, then,
certainly, it is moral dilemma. All of the scenarios presented involved well-beings of persons. The first

9
 NEMSU-Cantilan Campus
DGTT Module 1
scenario depicts a driver of a train concerned with 5 bystanders and a person sleeping on the rail track.
This dilemma belongs to personal moral dilemma. The second scenario presents a CEO and board
members considering whether to lay off some of the employees or not. They are experiencing
organizational moral dilemma for the situation involved members of a company. A dilemma that
involves members of company, cooperative and association is of this kind. Lastly, the third scenario
shows the situation in which the lawmakers, SSS executives and our former president tackled the issue
on pensions. This last scenario belongs to structural moral dilemma for the persons involved hold high
level positions in the society.
2. What is the level of involvement of the person caught in the situation? The driver of the train depicted in
the first scenario was truly involved of the situation and he has to do something. The CEO and board
members, lawmakers, SSS executives and the former president are also involved in the situation. The
persons involved in a dilemma is called moral agent.
3. Who are the people that may be affected by the implications of the moral situations or by our concrete
choice of action? These people are called stakeholders. Identifying these stakeholders forces us to give
consideration to people aside from ourselves. The psychological tendency of most of us when
confronted with an ethical choice is to simply think of ourselves, of what we need, or of what we want.
This is also where we can be trapped in an immature assumption that the only thing important is what
we “feel” at the moment, which usually is reducible to the notion of the so called pre-conventional
thinking. When we identify all the stakeholders, we are obliged to recognize all the other people
potentially concerned with the ethical problem at hand, and thus, must think of reasons aside from our
own self-serving one’s, to come up with conclusions that are impartial( in the sense that they take
consideration of everyone’s welfare), though still thoroughly involved.
4. What is the ethical issue at hand? After establishing the facts and identifying the stakeholders and their
concerns in the matter, we must determine whether the action is morally right or wrong. We need moral
principles as bases of our reasoning and to justify actions committed in dealing with dilemma. These
moral principles will be tackled with in the succeeding lessons. We need to know whether is wrong or
not to let the train run over one instead of 5 when the choices are boiled down into two? Is it right to lay
off employees if the company experiences financial setbacks? Is it all right to raise the pension if the
institution will go bankrupt in the long run?
5. The final step is for the individual to make her ethical conclusion or decision, whether in judging what
ought to be done in a given case or in coming up with a concrete action she must actually perform.
Real ethical decisions are often very difficult enough to make and for action and for so many different
reasons. Not all the facts in a given case may be available to the agent for consideration. Some facts
may be eventually turn out to be misleading, or not true at all, and so the agent’s vigilance and
meticulousness in establishing the facts will always be tested in a given ethical situation.
Supplemental article/reading:
https://journalofethics.ama-assn.org/article/principle-double-effect-and-proportionate-reason/2007-0

LESSON 4: THE MORALITY OF HUMAN ACTS AND MORAL ACCOUNTABILITY

Specific Learning Outcomes:

During the students' learning engagements, they will be able to:
1. Differentiate human acts and acts of man and cite examples of it
2. Identify and explain the major determinants of the morality of human acts

10
 NEMSU-Cantilan Campus
DGTT Module 1
3. Explain and evaluate the principles governing each modifier of human acts

INTRODUCTION
When studying Ethics, it is a must for us to know the difference between Acts of Man and Human Acts.
We have to discern one from the other because the moral accountability of the human person lies on it. It is
when a human person is responsible for his/her actions, that’s the only time that we can say that a human
person does human acts. Then, what is/are the difference/s between Human Acts & Acts of Man?
Try asking yourself with these question: What is a human act? Acts of man? Differentiate one from the
other. What are the determinants of the morality of human acts? What is the decisive factor in determining the
morality of human action? What are the modifiers of human acts? Do I need to study this morality of human
acts and moral accountability? Is it abstract to study these? Or something significant to human life? And how
do I know whether my action is morally responsible?

Question:
Which particular actions do you always do as to classified as human acts? Acts of man?

ABSTRACTION

WHAT IS HUMAN ACT?

Human act “is an act which proceeds from the deliberate free will of man”. In ethics, the term deliberate
“means merely advertence or knowledge in the intellect of what one is about and what this means.” The act
then has to be advertently or knowingly done by the agent so that it may be called the human act (Glenn, p.
10). To be considered as a human act, the following elements must be present (Sambajon Jr., pp. 35-36)
a) Knowledge – means that the act is done in the light of an agent’s knowing faculty. He is aware and
conscious of what he is doing. He knows what the performance of his act means
b) Freedom – means that the act is performed in accordance with and not against the will. It is under the
control of the will determining the action. In other words, the power resides in the will to choose to do or
not to do an act. It is, therefore, a free act done without any element of force or coercion
c) Voluntariness – means that the act done by the agent is intentional. When he voluntarily performs an
act, the agent intends it as a product of his decision which is within the power of his will. In other words,
a voluntary act is a willed act, an act that is willfully done. It proceeds from the employment of
knowledge and freedom. The agent cannot voluntarily do an act if he does not know it in his intellect.
He also cannot voluntarily do it without his freedom. Voluntariness takes place only when knowledge
and freedom are present.

The term agent technically refers to the one performing the human act. Now, it is obvious that human
action requires the use of both the rational faculties of knowing (intellect) and willing (freewill). The way the
human act is performed is systematically presented in its constitutive elements (Sambajon Jr., 2011).

The concept of voluntariness is extremely important in Ethics because:

1. As we have just explained, ethics deals precisely with the study of human acts.
2. It is the amount or degree of voluntariness present in an act which determines the amount or degree or
responsibility and this in turn will determine the amount of punishment.

Voluntariness can be distinguish between:

11
 NEMSU-Cantilan Campus
DGTT Module 1
a) Perfect voluntariness – with full knowledge and full consent of the act
b) Imperfect voluntariness – there is no perfect knowledge nor consent

We also distinguish between:

a) Direct voluntary act – when the act is intended for its own sake, either a means or as an end.
b) Indirect voluntary act – an act which is not intended for its own sake but which merely follows as a
regrettable consequence of an action directly willed.

WHAT IS ACT OF MAN?

On the other hand, Acts of Man is an act that does not proceed from the deliberate freewill of man. In
contrast with the human act, acts of man do not require the employment of the rational faculties of intellect and
free will. The three elements of a human act are not present which the following are: knowledge, freedom, and
voluntariness (Sambajon Jr., p.38).

To be considered as an act of man, the three elements of a human act are not present.
1. There is no element of knowledge. An act of man is not deliberately done which means that the
agent is not aware and conscious of what he is doing and what it means. It is not a deliberate or
knowing act.
2. There is no element of freedom. An act of man is not freely done which means that the power of
the free will to determine the act it chooses to elicit or not is not invoked. It is not a free act
3. There is no element of voluntariness. An act of man does not proceed from both knowledge and
freedom, requiring no decision of the will to make the agent intend and willfully do such an act or
not. It is an involuntary act.

DETERMINANTS OF THE MORALITY OF HUMAN ACT

1) The Act itself refers to the deed done or performed. It is technically called the object or nature of the
act. It is the primary determinant of morality.
a) Intrinsic morality – pertains to the fact that there is an act which is, in itself, capable or not, of
being ordered to the dictates of right reason, human nature and, God’s eternal law. The
goodness or evil resides in the act itself
b) Intrinsically good act – is an act whose goodness proceeds from its very nature “capable of
being ordered to the good and to the ultimate end which is God” apart from two other
determinants of morality. It is good as it is in itself
c) Intrinsically evil act – is an act whose evil proceeds from its very nature, incapable of being
ordered to the nature of the human person and God. It is evil in itself regardless of motive and
circumstances.

2) The motive of the agent refers to the end, purpose, or goal to be achieved by means of the act. It is
done. In short, it is the intention of the agent in performing the act.
3) The circumstances referred to the conditions in which the act is done affecting its morality in one way or
another. They exist outside of the nature of the act and are not of the essence of the act. However, if
they arise in the execution of an act, then circumstances can indeed “qualify it in its concrete
performance.” They can increase or diminish the goodness of an act and can aggravate or mitigate the
evil of an act.

12
 NEMSU-Cantilan Campus
DGTT Module 1
a) The circumstance of Person refers to the agent performing the act or to the person to whom the
act is done
b) The circumstance of Quantity or Quality of the Act refers to “what is the extent of the act”
c) The circumstance of Place refers to the venue where the act is performed
d) The circumstance of Means or Instrument refers to that which is used and employed in the
performance of an act. It is deemed associated with the act in its performance
e) The circumstance of Manner refers to the condition in which the act is done or how it is
performed by the agent

MODIFIERS OF HUMAN ACTS

1) Ignorance is the absence of intellectual knowledge. We distinguish between vincible and invincible
ignorance.
a. Vincible ignorance cannot be dispelled or overcome by the due amount of diligence.
b. Invincible ignorance cannot be overcome by any amount of diligence or effort because under
the circumstances it is impossible for one to know.
PRINCIPLES:
a) Invincible ignorance excuses and relieves the agent of responsibility Acts done in
invincible ignorance are, therefore, not voluntary and the agent is not held responsible
for them.
Example: A Negrito who had been living all his life in the mountains, and who happened
to come for Manila for the first time, and violated traffic laws, could not be held
responsible for violating the law.
b) Vincible ignorance does not destroy or remove voluntariness, nor responsibility. Acts
done invincible ignorance are still voluntary and the agent is still responsible for them.
Example: A Manila resident who violated traffic laws, not knowing of such laws before,
would still be responsible for his actions, because his ignorance is vincible.

When we speak of ignorance, we mean usually vincible ignorance. That is why we say “ignorance of
the law excuses no one,” because every citizen of age must and should know the law.
The reason behind these two principles is that (1) when one is invincibly ignorant, the act he does then
would be without knowledge; and without knowledge, there can be no voluntariness; and hence, no
responsibility. No one can consent to violate a law which he does know.
In case of vincible ignorance, however, there is still culpability concerning one’s ignorance which is due
to one’s negligence or omission; and consequently, there would still be accountability on the part of the doer
for his action. His act of violating a law would still be voluntary at least in cause, i.e., indirect voluntary
(Montemayor, pp. 24-25)

2) Concupiscence
Passions (technically called concupiscence) affect the voluntariness of an action. For a man,
acting under the influence of a passion would not be acting perfectly of his own free volition. A man in a
fit of anger, for, instance, is liable to do acts which otherwise he would not do in his right senses.
We distinguish between antecedent and consequent concupiscence. The former is that type of
concupiscence which occurs in us spontaneously without stimulating it; the latter one arises at the
command or continues with the consent of the will.

13
 NEMSU-Cantilan Campus
DGTT Module 1
The first impulse is not free, and consequently not imputable to us. In as far as concupiscence
impels the will, it restrains our liberty and thus lessens our responsibility.

PRINCIPLES
a) Antecedent concupiscence lessens but does not remove voluntariness and responsibility
b) Consequent concupiscence neither lessens nor destroys responsibility (Montemayor, pp.
24-25)

3) Fear is an agitation of the mind brought about by the apprehension of an impending evil
PRINCIPLES:
a) When we act because of fear, our will is dragged along, so to say, and so its freedom is
restricted and our responsibility is diminished correspondingly. Great fear sometimes exempts a
person from acts enjoined by a positive law
b) Fear diminishes the voluntary nature of an act. (Sambajon, pp. 70-72)

4) Violence is an external force extorted by a free cause to coerce the other into doing that which is
contrary to his will. The free cause refers to the person who has the free will to inflict the said force
upon his victim.
PRINCIPLES:
a) 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 (victim).
b) That which is done under the influence of imperfect violence is less voluntary, and so the moral
responsibility is lessened but not taken away completely. (Sambajon, pp.73-75)

5) Habits are the inclination to perform some particular action acquired by repetition, and characterized by
a decrease power of resistance and an increased facility of performance. Sometimes called second
nature; something deeply embedded in an individual but ingrained by being inborn. Repeated actions
performed by the agent.
PRINCIPLES:
Acts done by force of habit are still voluntary, at least in cause, as long as the habit, there is still
voluntariness on the part of the doer and he is responsible for the same if he will fully developed the
habit and makes no effort to overcome the same. Whatever therefore flows or follows from the habit
which the doer initially entertained and allowed to become a part of him is still voluntary on the part of
the doer.(Montemayor, p.28)

Supplemental videos: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0QtzCGP23YI

14