CONTENT:  MORAL  AND  SOCIAL  ISSUES  IN  CONTEMPORARY  LIVING    

 
HUMAN  ACTS  
Every  action  and  the  only  one  that  proceeds  from  the  deliberate  will  of  a  human  being.  
Consequently  it  proceeds  from  the  knowledge  of  the  intellect  and  the  free  decision  of  the  
human  will.    
Human  acts  are  either  good  or  bad,  depending  on  whether  they  agree  or  disagree  with  the  
norms  of  morality.  
 
HUMAN  ACTS  
1. Knowledge  -­‐  an  act  must  be  performed  by  a  conscious  agent  (doer)  who  is  aware  of  
what  he  is  doing  and  of  its  consequences.    
Children  below  the  age  of  reason,  the  insane  and  the  senile  are  considered  incapable  of  acting  
knowingly.  
2.  Freedom  -­‐  an  act  must  be  performed  by  an  agent  who  is  acting  freely,  i.e.,  by  his  own  
volition  and  powers  
freedom  is  defined  as  "the  control  proceeding  from  the  Self  as  a  whole,  and  determining  the  
Self  as  a  whole.“  
3.  Will  –    
  -­‐  an  agent  must  perform  willfully.  
  -­‐  free  will  conceived  as  capability  of  self-­‐determination  
  -­‐  The  willfulness  is  the  resolve  to  perform  an  act  in  the  here  and  now,  or  in  some  future  
time.  
 
VOLUNTARINESS  or  WILL  
 
   
KINDS  VOLUNTARINESS  
1.  Perfect  voluntariness    
-­‐  possessed  by  a  person  who  is  acting  WITH  full  knowledge  and  complete  freedom  .  
 ex.  Eating  with  your  favorite  ice-­‐cream  or  telling  a  story  with  a  friend  
2.  Imperfect  voluntariness    
possessed  by  a  person  who  is  acting  WITHOUT  full  understanding  what  he/she  is  doing,  or  
without  complete  freedom.  We  act  with  imperfect  voluntariness  when  we  perform  an  act  
which  we  dislike.  
3.  Conditional  voluntariness    
       disposition  of  a  person  who  is  FORCED  by  circumstances  to  perform  an  act  which  he/she  
would  not  do  under  normal  conditions.    
A  person  who  gives  up  his/her  money  to  the  robber  is  acting  with  conditional  voluntariness.    
 
DIRECTLY  AND  INDIRECTLY  VOLUNTARY  
The  result  of  an  act  which  is  primarily  intended  is  said  to  be  directly  voluntary.    
The  result  of  an  act  which  follows  or  goes  along  with  the  primarily  intended  act  is  indirectly  
voluntary.      
 
 
 
 
 
MORALITY  
 
Consists  in  the  CONFORMITY  and  NON-­‐CONFORMITY  of  an  ACT  WITH  THE  NORMS.  
Human  Acts  relate  to  the  NORMS  under  the  following  aspects:  
DETERMINANTS  OF  MORALITY:    
Moral  Completeness  
 
>  In  ITSELF        -­‐-­‐-­‐        as  a  deed  
By  object  is  meant  what  the  free  will  chooses  to  do-­‐-­‐in  thought,  word,  or  deed-­‐or  chooses  not  
to  do.    
 
>  In  Its  MOTIVES  -­‐-­‐-­‐    intentions  
By  end  is  meant  the  purpose  for  which  the  act  is  willed,  which  may  be  the  act  itself  (as  one  of  
loving  God)  or  some  other  purpose  for  which  a  person  acts  (as  reading  to  learn).  In  either  case,  
the  end  is  the  motive  or  the  reason  why  an  action  is  performed.  
 
>  In  Its  CIRCUMSTANCES  
By  circumstances  are  meant  all  the  elements  that  surround  a  human  action  and  affect  its  
morality  without  belonging  to  its  essence.  A  convenient  listing  of  these  circumstances  is  to  ask:  
who?  where?  how?  how  much?  by  what  means?  how  often?    
Some  circumstances  so  affect  the  morality  of  an  action  as  to  change  its  species,  as  stealing  a  
consecrated  object  becomes  sacrilege  and  lying  under  oath  is  perjury.    
Other  circumstances  change  the  degree  of  goodness  or  badness  of  an  act.  
In  bad  acts  they  are  called  aggravating  circumstances,  as  the  amount  of  money  a  person  steals.    
To  be  morally  good,  a  human  act  must  agree  with  the  norm  of  morality  on  all  three  counts:  in  
its  nature,  its  motive,  and  its  circumstances.    
Departure  from  any  of  these  makes  the  action  morally  wrong.    
 
DETERMINANTS  OF  MORALITY:    
Moral  Completeness  
>  determine  how  an  act  is  rendered  good  or  bad  on  the  basis  of  its  relation  to  the  norms  
 
• the  deed,    
• the  intention,    
• the  circumstance  
• >  if  these  3  principles  or  aspects  are  good,  the  action  is  good,  because  it  leads  to  God  
and  makes  the  agent  better  
"BONUM  EX  INTEGRA  CAUSA,  MALUM  EXQUOCUMQUE  DEFECTU“  
It  means  that  an  action  is  GOOD  if  it  has  the  FULLNESS  of  its  parts,  and  it  is  BAD  when  it  is  
DEFICIENT  in  any  of  its  parts  
IMMORAL  ACTS  
 
Immoral  acts  are  either  intrinsically  or  extrinsically  evil.  An  act  is  intrinsically  evil  when  its  
wrongfulness  is  part  of  the  nature  of  such  act.    
   
 
 
 
 
  
 THE  PRINCIPLE  OF  DOUBLE  EFFECT  
 
The  doctrine  (or  principle)  of  double  effect  is  often  invoked  to  explain  the  permissibility  of  an  
action  that  causes  a  serious  harm,  such  as  the  death  of  a  human  being,  as  a  side  effect  of  
promoting  some  good  end.    
The  Doctrine  of  Double  Effect  
 The  Principle  of  Double  Effect  
It  is  claimed  that  sometimes  it  is  permissible  to  cause  such  a  harm  as  a  side  effect  (or  “double  
effect”)  of  bringing  about  a  good  result  even  though  it  would  not  be  permissible  to  cause  such  
a  harm  as  a  means  to  bringing  about  the  same  good  end.    
The  Doctrine  of  Double  Effect  
 The  Principle  of  Double  Effect  
This  reasoning  is  summarized  with  the  claim  that  sometimes  it  is  permissible  to  bring  about  as  
a  merely  foreseen  side  effect  a  harmful  event  that  it  would  be  impermissible  to  bring  about  
intentionally.  
1. Thomas  Aquinas  is  credited  with  introducing  the  principle  /  doctrine  of  double  effect  in  
his  discussion  of  the  permissibility  of  self-­‐defense  in  the  Summa  Theologica  (II-­‐II,  Qu.  
64,  Art.7)  
2.  The  point  to  remember,  however,  is  that  DDE  is  not  just  a  principle  of  retrospective  
justification,  but  mainly  one  of  prior  permissibility:  it  is  designed  as  an  action-­‐
guiding  method  for  judging  what  to  do.  
 
Principles  of  Acts  with  Double  Effect  (Alfredo  Panizo)  
A  person  held  morally  responsible  for  any  evil  effect  which  flows.  from  the  action  directly  
willed  and  as  a  natural  consequences  of  such  action,  though  such  evil  effect  is  not  directly  
willed  or  intended  
2.  A  human  act  with  double  effect,  one  good  and  another  evil,  is  morally  permissible  under  
four  conditions.  A  violation  of  any  of  these  conditions  makes  an  act  unjustifiable.    These  
conditions  are:  
The  conditions  
a. The  action  which  produces  double  effects  must  be  good  in  itself,  or  at  least  morally  
indifferent  .  
b. The  good  effect  must  not  from  the  evil  effect.  It  is  never  justified  to  do  evil  in  order  to  
attain  something  good.  
c. The  purpose  of  the  doer  is  the  attainment  of  the  good  effect,  with  the  evil  effect  being  
tolerated  as  an  incidental  result.    
d. The  good  effect  must  outweigh  in  importance  the  evil  result  
 
APPLICATION  OF  THE  DDE  
A  pregnant  woman  bearing  a  nonviable  fetus,  for  example,  may  be  found  to  have  a  cancerous  
womb  that  will  cause  her  death  if  it  is  not  excised  as  soon  as  possible.    
The  operation  of  hysterectomy  is  ethically  lawful.,    
For  this  the  operation  is  permissible  in  itself  as  a  normal  means  of  saving  the  woman's  life.      
She  does  not  positively  will  the  death  of  her  child,  but  permits  it  as  an  unavoidable  evil.  .  
 
APPLICATION  OF  THE  DDE  
Both  the  benefit  to  her  health  and  the  death  of  her  child  follow  from  the  surgery  with  
equal  directness  or  immediacy  in  the  order  of  causality,  although  the  death  of  the  child  
is  prior  in  the  order  of  time  (prior  permissibility).      
The  woman's  chance  of  restoration  to  health  (the  good  effect)  is  sufficiently  desirable  to  
compensate  for  the  death  of  the  fetus  (the  bad  effect),  which  most  likely  probably  not  
survive  even  if  the  operation  were  not  performed.  
 
 
APPLICATION  OF  THE  DDE  
One  difficulty  in  the  application  of  the  principle  of  double  effect  to  this  case,  however,  is  that  it  
seems  to  lack  the  third  condition,    (The  purpose  of  the  doer  is  the  attainment  of  the  good  
effect,  with  the  evil  effect  being  tolerated  as  an  incidental  result)  since  the  preservation  of  
one's  own  life  seems  to  follow  from  the  killing  of  the  aggressor.      
Hence,  theologians  would  argue  in  this  case  that  God  gives  permission  to  the  victim  to  protect  
oneself,  if  necessary,  by  a  direct  slaying  of  the  unjust  assailant.  
 
All  of  these  actions  are  ethical  using  the  principle  of  the  double  effect  because  the  bad  
effect  that  these  agents  may  incur  to  their  own  life  or  health  is  overweighed  by  the  good  
effect  their  conduct  confers  upon  society.  
 
MORAL  SENSIBILITY  
Moral  sensibility  is  our  response  towards  what  is  right  or  wrong.    
Some  people  have  a  strong  aversion  towards  wrongdoings,  while  some  are  dismissive  of  them.    
Some  are  intolerant  and  stern,  while  others  are  tolerant  and  accommodating.  
Persons  who  are  liberal  and  open-­‐minded  are  inclined  to  accept  evil  as  a  normal  occurrence,  
giving  in  to  such  thoughts  as  “kasi  tao  lang”,  “kasi  bata  pa”’  “kasi  di  nakapag-­‐aral”’  or  “kasi  
masama  ang  gising”.  
People  who  are  intolerant  and  strict  are  inclined  to  punish  people  “para  matuto”,  “para  di  na  
umulit”,  or  “para  magbago”.  
 
MORAL  ACCOUNTABILITY  
Human  acts,  because  they  are  voluntary,  are  accountable  acts.  Actions  are  imputed  on  the  doer  
as  its  principal  cause  and,  therefore,  deserving  of  either  reward  or  punishment.  
 
Sanctions  and  Penalties  
-­‐ The  penal  laws  of  the  Philippines  provide  for  a  system  of  punishment  for  wrongdoings,  
ranging  from  fines  to  imprisonment.  
-­‐  Unless  also  prohibited  by  the  laws  of  the  land,  no  punishments  are  imposed  on  
immoral  acts.  However,  immoral  acts  carry  with  them  the  burden  of  guilt,  remorse  and  
shame.    
 
 
THE  MODIFIERS  OF  HUMAN  ACT  
 
A  voluntary  act  is  under  the  control  of  the  intellect  and  will  of  a  person.    
There  are,  however,  factors  that  may  influence  the  intellect  and  will  so  that  actions  are  not  
perfectly  voluntary.  These  factors  are  called  modifiers  of  human.  They  interfere  with  the  
application  of  the  intellect  and  will,  they  either  reduce  or  increase  accountability.  
 
The  moral  axiom  is:  
“  The    greater  the  knowledge  and  the  freedom,  the  greater  the  voluntariness  and,  therefore,  the  
accountability”    
 
  
THE  MODIFIERS  OF  HUMAN  ACT  
1.  Ignorance  
2.  Passion  
3.  Fear  
4.  Violence  
5.  Habit  
The  ideal  is  for  man  to  act  deliberately,  but  this  is  not  always  possible  though.    
 
1.  Ignorance  
is  the  absence  of  knowledge  which  a  person  ought  to  process.    
  A  lawyer  is  expected  to  know  the  law  
  A  doctor  is  expected  to  know  the  cure  of  illnesses.    
In  the  realm  of  morals  everyone  normal  person  who  has  attained  the  age  of  reason,  is  expected  to  
know  the  general  norms  of  proper  conduct  and  behavior.  
 
Principles:  
1.  Invincible  ignorance  renders  an  act  involuntary.  A  person  is  not  morally  liable  if  he  is  not  
aware  of  his/her  state  of  ignorance.  Person  in  this  situation  are  said  to  be  “  acting  in  good  
faith”,  and  their  wrongdoings  are  regarded  as  “honest  mistakes”.  Such  is  then  case  of  a  
hunter  who  accidentally  shot  a  farmer  whom  he  mistook  for  a  wild  pig.  
2.  Vincible  ignorance  does  not  destroy,  but  lessens  the  voluntariness  and  the  corresponding  
accountability  over  an  act.  Once  a  person  becomes  aware  of  his  state  of  ignorance,  he/she  
should  make  an  effort  to  remedy  it.  To  act  without  being  sure  of  relevant  facts  is  to  act  
imprudently.  A  doctor  may  be  guilty  of  gross  negligence  when  he/she  prescribes  the  
wrong  medicine  to  a  patient.    
3.  Affected  ignorance,  though  it  decreases  voluntariness,  increases  the  accountability  of  an  act.  
Because  affected  ignorance  interferes  with  the  intellect,  it  decreases  voluntariness.  But  
because  it  is  maliciously  kept,  it  increases  accountability.  A  person  who  prefers  to  remain  
ignorant  in  order  to  escape  responsibility  does  not  deserve  kindness.    
 
2.  Passions    or  concupiscence,  are  psychic  responses.    
They  are  either  tendencies  towards  desirable  objects,  or  tendencies  away  from  undesirable  
objects.    
The  former  is  considered  as  positive  emotions,  such  as  love,  desire,  delight,  hope  and  bravery.      
The  latter  are  negative  emotions,  such  as  hatred,  horror,  sadness,  despair,  fear  and  anger.  
 
Principles  
1.  Antecedent  passions  do  not  always  destroy  voluntariness,  but  they  lessen  accountability  
over  an  act.    
Antecedent  passion  weakens  will  power  without  completely  blocking  it.  Thus,  the  so  
called  “crime    of  passion”  are  voluntary.  
Lessens  Responsibility  
2.  Consequent  passions  do  not  lessen  voluntariness,  and  may  even  increase  accountability.    
This  is  because  consequent  passions  are  the  direct  result  of  the  will  consenting  to  them,  
instead  of  subordinating  them  to  the  control  of  reason  
 <  Greater  Responsibility  
 
3.  Fear  –  the  disturbance  of  the  mind  of  a  person  who  is  confronted  by  an  impending  danger  
or  harm  to  himself  or  loved  ones.  
  
PRINCIPLES  OF  FEAR:  
   
1. Acts  done  with  fear  are  voluntary.     (responsible)  
2.  Acts  done  out  of  fear,  however  great,  is  simply  voluntary,  although  it  is  also  
 conditionally  voluntary.  (Responsible)  
3.  Acts  done  out  of  intense  fear  or  panic  are  involuntary.  (not  responsible)  
 
4.  Violence  
Violence  –  refers  to  any  physical  force  exerted  on  a  person  by  another  free  agent  for  the  
purpose  of  compelling  said  person  to  act  against  his  will.  
 
Principles  of  violence:  
1.  External  actions  or  commanded  actions,  performed  by  a  person  subjected  to  violence,  to  
which  reasonable  resistance  has  been  offered,  are  involuntary  and  are  not  accountable.  
(not  responsible)  
2.  Elicited  acts  or  those  done  by  the  will     alone,  are  not  subject  to  violence  and  are     therefore  
voluntary.  (responsible)    
 
 
5.  Habits-­‐    
  a  lasting  readiness  and  facility,  born  of  frequently  repeated  acts,  for  acting  in  a  certain  
manner.  They  assume  the  role  of  a  second  nature,  moving  one  who  has  them  to  perform  
certain  acts  with  relative  ease.  
 
PRINCIPLE  OF  HABITS  
Actions  done  by  force  of  habit  are  voluntary  in  cause,  unless  a  reasonable  effort  is  made  to  
counteract  the  habitual  inclination.  
 
a.  Habits  are  either  good  or  bad.  We  speak  here  of  bad  habits  which  lead  to  immoral    actions.  
b.  Every  action  emanating  from  habit  is  said  to  partake  of  the  voluntariness  of  those    previous  
acts.  Therefore,  for  as  long  as  the  habit  is  not  corrected,  every  action     done  by  force  of  
that  habit  is  voluntary  and  accountable.  
c.  When  a  person  decides  to  fight  his  habit,  and  for  as  long  as  the  effort  towards  this  purpose  
continues,  actions  resulting  from  such  habit  maybe  regarded  as  acts  of  man  and  not  
accountable.  The  cause  of  that  habit  is  no  longer  expressly  desired.