CHAPTER 2- LESSON 4

Freedom and Moral Acts

ETHICS
MR. DEXTER S. VILLAMIN
Introduction

Remember that morality deals with the choices that define who we become and
determine our eternal destiny. How we define and use our freedom would clearly affect
these defining choices. In fact, it defines how we make these decisions. Whether we see
our freedom as license to do whatever we want or as a mission to discern and choose what
will make us better people and our lives more fulfilled inform the entire framework in
which we make these defining choices. If we are off on how we understand human
freedom, or moral compass is inaccurate from the very start.
If we are to choose among possible goods, the goal would be to choose those
goods that meet the other goals of natural law-making us more human, choosing and
protecting authentic human goodness, being true to our physical and spiritual nature, and
enriching human society. For human freedom to fulfill its purpose, we need to have not
only the ability to choose, but the ability to choose what can do the greatest good for us as
human beings. Put simply, true human freedom is the ability to choose the best possible
good.
Objectives:
At the end of the chapter, the students will be able to:
1. Explain why only human beings can be ethical;
2. Discuss the meaning of moral acts;
3. Put into practice Kant's definition of freedom and morality;
4. Analyze the relationship of culture to morality;
5. Detect a moral dilemma; and
6. Identify the three levels of dilemma.
Introduction

• In Kant philosophy, freedom is defined as a concept which is involved in the moral

domain, at the question: What should I do?
• In summary, Kant says that the moral law is only that I know myself as a free
person. Kantian freedom is closely linked to the notion of autonomy, which
means law itself: thus, freedom falls obedience to a law that I created myself. It is
therefore, respect its commitment to compliance with oneself.
• Practical reason legislates (makes laws and requirements) of free beings, or more
precisely the causality of free beings. Thus, practical reason is based on freedom,
it is freedom.
• Phenomena, in the Kantian thought, are subject to the law of natural causality:
each event is the effect of another, and so on to infinity. Unlike the phenomenon
of man, the moral rule is free, ie, it has the power to self-start condition. Kant
ethics is mainly based on the concept of free will and autonomy.
Kant's Morality and Freedom
• To act freely is to act autonomously. To act autonomously is to act
according to a law I give myself. Whenever I act according to the laws of
nature, demands of social convention, when I pursue pleasure and
comfort, I am not acting freely. To act freely is not to simply choose a
means to a given end. To act freely is to choose the end itself, for its own
sake.
• This is central to Kant's notion of freedom. For Kant, acting freely
(autonomously) and acting morally are one and the same thing.
• The capacity to act autonomously in this manner gives humans that special
dignity that things and animals do not have. Respecting this dignity
requires us to treat others not as means to an end, but as ends in
themselves.
To arrive at a proper understanding of Kant's notion of moral law and
the connection between morality, freedom and reason, let's examine
these contrasts

1. Duty vs. Inclination (morality) - Only the motive of duty, acting according to the
law I give myself confers moral worth to an action. Any other motive, while possibly
commendable, cannot give an action moral worth.
2. Autonomy vs. Heteronomy (freedom) - I am only free when my will is
determined autonomously, governed by the law I give myself. Being part of nature,
I am not exempt from its laws and I'm inclined or compelled to act according to
those laws (act heteronomously). My capacity for reason opens another possibility
that of acting according to laws other than the laws of nature: the laws I give
myself. This reason, “pure practical reason”, legislates a priori-regardless of all
empirical ends.
3. Categorical vs. Hypothetical Imperatives (reason) - Kant acknowledges two ways
in which reason can command the will, two imperatives. Hypothetical Imperative
uses instrumental reason: If I want X, I must do Y. (If I want to stay out of jail, I must
be a good citizen and not rob banks). Hypothetical imperative is always
conditional.
• If the action would be good solely as a means to something else, the
imperative is hypothetical. If the action is represented as good in
itself, and therefore necessary for a will which of itself accords with
reason, the imperative is categorical.
• Categorical Imperative is non-conditional. "It is concerned not with
the matter of the action and its presumed results, but with its form,
and with the principle from which it follows. And what is essentially
good in the action consists in the mental disposition, let the
consequences be what they may.
What is Categorical Imperative?
This question can be answered from the idea of a law that binds us as rational
beings regardless of any particular ends. Here are two main formulations of the
Categorical Imperative:
1. Act only on that maxim whereby you can at the same time will that it should
become a universal law. "Maxim" is a rule, a principle that gives reason to action.
This is a "universalizing test" that checks whether my action puts my interests and
circumstances ahead of everyone else's. My action will fail the test if it results in a
contradiction.
Example: I want a loan, but I know I won't have money to repay it. I'm considering
making a promise I know I can't keep. Can I make this a universal law, the law that
says "every time one needs a loan and has no money to repay it, one should make
a false promise"? Imagine everyone then acting according to this maxim. We
quickly realize that this would result in negating the whole institution of promise-
keeping. We arrive at a contradiction.
2. "Act in such a way that you always treat humanity, whether in your
own person or in the person of any other, never simply as a means, but
always at the same time as an end."
For Kant, human existence has in itself an absolute value - it is an end
in itself and the only ground of a possible categorical imperative.
The Role of Freedom in Morality
• The personal aspect of morality, which might more properly be called
ethics— is about the cultivation of virtue: the development of character
traits so that choosing the good becomes a matter of habit. But a person,
in order to be truly virtuous, must be free to cultivate the virtues, or not.
• There is no virtue in being temperate when you are being forced not to
indulge. There is no virtue in being charitable when someone is forcing you
to give up what is yours. Virtue can be guided by cultural traditions and
social institutions, but it cannot be coerced. A virtuous man must also be a
free man.
• The interpersonal aspect of morality is more about rule following. These
rules are important because, they prevent us from "colliding" with each
other. They permit us to live together in harmony, and they also make us
recognize, apart from the mere consequences to ourselves, the rights of
others. Here too, liberty is essential.
• When some people are permitted to dominate others, they treat others as
merely a means to an end, rather than ends in themselves. Not only does
this fail to honor the basic dignity within each person, it also stifles the
flourishing of human potential and creativity. A society of domination will
be a society that never reaches its full potential in the human sciences,
physical sciences, and creative arts. Liberty affords us the greatest space
possible to pursue our projects, in a way that enables us to live well with
one another.
• Having a final end does not obviate the need for liberty. Freedom remains
essential. Freedom is so precious that God will not override it, even when
we badly misuse that freedom. In other words, we can't get where we're
going if we're not free to walk the road. Thus, freedom is essential to a
genuinely good human life at all the levels of morality.
Freedom: The Foundation of Moral Act
• Freedom is humans' greatest quality and it is a reflection of our creator
Freedom is the power rooted in reason and will to act or not to act, to do
this or that and so to perform deliberate actions on one's own
responsibility. Having freedom means having responsibility. Every action
you choose further determines our character.
• Are animals free? Do they have freedom? What separates human from
animals? Reason (Intellect) and will (moral action). Freedom is a power
rooted in reason and will, to act or not to act. Good and evil are forged in
freedom. To the degree that a person reaches higher level of freedom, he
becomes capable of higher levels of morality. The sinful person becomes
slave.
• The existence of freedom is a central premise in Catholic morality. Our
secular culture greatly exalts freedom. Yet it also questions whether
freedom really exists.
Freedom and Free WIII
• While the existence of freedom is a central premise in Catholic
morality, we are not all equally free. There are many possible limits to
our freedom: both external and internal. External freedom is a
freedom from factors outside ourselves that limit or destroy our free
will. Internal freedom is a freedom from interior factors that limit our
free will.
Requirement of True Freedom
• True freedom is dependent upon truth, "You will know the truth, and
the truth will set you free" (John 8:82). Example, lying to a teacher or
to friends. True freedom is oriented toward the good. We should not
understand freedom as the possibility of doing evil. Evil enslaves us
and diminishes our ability to be free. True freedom requires
responsibility. There is no such thing as irresponsible freedom.
Human Acts vs Acts of Humans
Human acts make use of his knowledge and free will. Example: love your enemy,
pray to God, sacrifice for others. Acts of human do not make use of his intellect or
will knowledge. His action is natural. Examples of acts of human are breathing,
blinking, and sneezing.
True freedom liberates us to develop our God-given talents in a responsible way so
we can live our lives for others and for God. True freedom serves what is good, just
and true.
Man is created by God as a human person who can begin and control his own
actions. He is meant to seek God and gain perfection by clinging to him. By freedom
which is rooted in his intellect and will, man has the power to act or not to act. He
can shape his own life, mature in goodness, and gain a perfection which is rooted in
God. Until man attains God, he can choose to do good or evil, to grow in perfection
or to sin. Because human acts are free, they are worthy of praise or blame. By
constantly doing good, man grows in freedom. Doing evil leads man into a "slavery
of sin" (Rom 6:17).
A person is responsible for his voluntary acts. By progress in virtue, in knowledge of
good, and in self-discipline, he gains greater mastery. Man's responsibility and
imputability can be lessened or nullified by ignorance, fear, habits, or inordinate
attachments or other factors.
God confronted Eve, "What is this that you have done?" (Gen 3:13). He also
confronted Cain, "What have you done?" (Gen 4:10). A person is responsible for
any directly willed act. Also, an action can be indirectly voluntary (from negligence
or ignorance). A person is not responsible for an evil act if he did not will it and did
not intend it as a means to an end. For example, a person might incur death while
trying to help another. A person is responsible if they could have avoided the evil as
a drunk driver killing someone.
Every human person must recognize the right of freedom in others. Exercising
freedom, especially in moral or religious matters, is an inalienable right of the
human person. This must be protected by civil authorities within the limits of public
order.
Human freedom who refused God's love becomes a slave to sin. The first sin has led to so many
others. Human history attests that the problems of man come from man's abuse of freedom.
Freedom does not give man the right to say and do everything, because man's purpose is not his
own earthly satisfaction Man's blindness and injustice destroy the cultural conditions needed for
freedom. Deviating from the moral law violates man's own freedom and imprisons him within
himself.
"For freedom, Christ has set us free" (Gal 5:1) and saved us from sin's power. "Where the Spirit of
the Lord is, there is freedom" (1 Cor 17).
Christ's grace is not a rival to man's freedom. The person grows in inner freedom by being docile to
God's Spirit. "Take away from us all that is harmful so we may freely accomplish your will".
Whenever man deliberately chooses, he is the "father of his acts." These freely chosen acts can be
morally evaluated as good or evil.
The object directly chosen by the will determines the basic morality (good or bad). The person's
intellect sees this as according to moral standards (good) or not according to moral standards (evil).
The person also has an intention which determines the act's morality. An intention can
guide many acts or even a whole lifetime (as loving God). One act can have a multiplicity of
intentions (Doing a favor to help someone and also to receive a favor in return).
However, a good intention can never turn an evil act into a good one. A good purpose
cannot justify evil means. However, an evil intention can make a good act into an evil one,
such as giving alms to gain praise.
Only the act and the intention make an act good or bad. The circumstances can increase or
diminish the goodness or evil. For example, stealing a large amount of money increases the
evil, while fear of harm can lessen a person's responsibility. Circumstances can never make
an evil act into a good one.
An act is good when the object, the intention, and the circumstances are all good. A good
act is vitiated by an evil intention like praying in order to be seen as good. Some acts are
evil in themselves as fornication and are always wrong to choose. Therefore, the person's
intention and the circumstances, such as pressure or duress, cannot change a morally evil
act, such as murder, blasphemy, or adultery, into a morally good act. We cannot do evil so
good will come from it.
Lesson 4- Task 1

1. Central to Kant's notion of freedom is acting freely and acting

morally are one and the same thing. Why? How? Support your answer.

2. True freedom is dependent upon truth, and based on John's gospel

"You will know the truth, and the truth will set you free". What does it
mean? Cite examples of this gospel.

3. What will happen to us if there is unlimited freedom or the absence

of freedom in our society? Is freedom absolute? Defend your answer.
Lesson 4- Task 2
Conduct an interview with an advocate of same-sex marriage, and one who
is opposed to it. Come up with your own set of questions aimed at
understanding better the pros and cons in the positions of your interviewees.
Video-record the interview.
Then, at the last part of your video recording, you should be able to
personally explain your answers on the following:
a. Strengths and weaknesses of your interviewees’ position
b. Ways on how the interview helped you better understand the
perspectives of the stakeholder (both pros and cons) and the issue itself
of same-sex marriage
c. Your assessment on the possibility of a dialogue between the opposing
sides of the issue regarding same-sex marriage