Module III

Human Acts and Responsibility

Scope of the Module

This module consists of five lessons, namely:

Lesson 1. Human Acts vs. Acts of Man

Lesson 2. The Principle of Double Effect
Lesson 3. Ignorance, Concupiscence, Fear and Violence

Lesson 4. Importance of Freedom

Lesson 5. Twelve Stages of Human Act

Overview of the Module

This module is designed to provide you with a clear knowledge of
which acts a human being is responsible for. It provides you with a clear
distinction between civil and moral responsibility. It singles our four
causes which may affect the degree of responsibility of a person. The
topic of freedom is given importance because of its relevance to
responsibility. Finally, the human act is divided into its twelve stages in
order to make the individual determine at which point he begins to be
responsible for his human acts.

Objective of the Module

After studying this module on human acts and responsibility, you
shall be able to:
1. differentiate between human act and act of man;
2. give the meaning of responsibility and the difference between civil
and moral responsibility;
3. explain how ignorance, concupiscence, fear, violence and freedom
can affect man's responsibility; and
4. enumerate the twelve steps of the human act and to determine for
oneself at what stage one is responsible.

1
Module III

Lesson 1. HUMAN ACTS vs. ACTS OF MAN

Lesson Objectives:
After studying this lesson on human acts vs. acts of man, you shall be
able to:
1. give illustrations of human acts and acts of man; and
2. see through the examples the end, means and circumstances in
every human act.

Terms as Defined in the Given Selection

1. Human Act - done with full knowledge and full deliberation
2. Act of man - done without full knowledge and/or full deliberation
3. End of a human act - the objective, the reason, the intention for
doing an act
4. Means of a human act - the action or the deed itself
5. Circumstances of a human act - external considerations of time,
place, manner
6. Equivocation - a way of circumventing the truth through mental
reservation.

Thoughts to Ponder on, Gleaned from the Given Selection

1. Every human act has an end, means, and circumstances.
2. A human act is considered good only if the end, means and
circumstances are good.
3. The Machiavellian doctrine that the "end justifies the mean" is
wrong.
4. No act is in the concrete indifferent.
5. Unconscious actions are acts of man and therefore involve no
responsibility.
 A human act is defined as an act done with full knowledge and full
deliberation. Any act done without full knowledge and/or full deliberation
is called an act of man.
To determine the over-all goodness or badness of a human act, it is helpful
to divide it into constitutive parts. Every human act has end, means and
circumstances. For a human act to be good, all the constitutive parts, namely,
the end, means and circumstances must be good. This is the meaning of
the Scholastic dictum, Bonum ex integra causa, malum ex quocumque
defectu. In order to be good, a thing must be totally good, a single defect
renders it evil. This means that a human act is considered good only if the
end, means and circumstances are good; when any of these three
constitutive parts is evil, the entire human act is considered evil, even if the
two other parts are good.
The end of a human act is the objective, the reason, the intention for
doing an act. All human acts have ends or objectives or reasons behind them.
If one stands up, it is either to answer a phone or to get a glass of water to
drink or to fetch something or to do something else. The means of a
human act is the action or the deed itself. Stealing is the act of getting
what is not one's property. Murder is the act of shooting or stabbing or
strangling or poisoning. Lying is the act of speaking the opposite of the
truth. The circumstances of a human act are the external considerations of
time, place, manner, or what answers to when, where and how or how
much.
The Human acts of eating moderately, taking walks for exercise,
sleeping adequately are good, since the end, means and circumstances are
all good. If one eats excessively or runs great lengths on a heart ailment
or sleeps beyond regular hours, these actions become evil. For while the
act of eating, walking and sleeping are good, the circumstances which
accompany them, namely excess, render these otherwise good actions evil.
Or, walking may be good or at neutral, but when one walks in order to
murder a personal enemy, this action becomes evil because the end or
intention is evil.
Moderation seems to be the rule of thumb in naturally good actions. Too
much of a good thing is evil. In so far evil is concerned, however, even a
small amount of it is evil, let alone a moderation of it. It is therefore false
reasoning to say that stealing just the right amount, or murdering and raping
the right person is good.
If the act itself is evil, no amount of it is excusable. Actions like
stealing, cheating, lying, rape, murder are in themselves evil and are not
tolerated under any circumstances.
Under special circumstances, however, what is normally termed stealing
may not be so anymore. St. Thomas Aquinas explains that "in times of
extreme necessity, the goods of the world belong to everyone" (Summa
Theologiae, Part II-II, Question 32. Article 7). This means that under
abnormal circumstances like war or famine or isolation, the right of private
property must give in to the higher right to life. Thus, if a number of people
are marooned on an island with nothing to eat, a person who happens to have
a can of biscuits no longer enjoys the right to property because the other
persons have a higher right, namely the right to physical existence. The
owner cannot reason out that he brought the can of food precisely to shield
him from hunger, because the abnormal circumstances of unavailability of
food removes his right over his food. If, therefore, one of the persons
marooned is denied a biscuit when he asks for it in order to stay alive, he
can, according to St. Thomas, get a biscuit because then, "the goods of the
world belong to everyone" or the act would not constitute stealing. A famous
example is that of Jean Valjean in Victor Hugo's Les Miserables. Valjean
"stole" a loaf of bread to give to his sister and nephews who were
starving to death due to extreme poverty. For that "crime" Valjean spent
19 years in the gallows. Applying Aquinas' reasoning, one concludes that
this is a case of extreme circumstance, and Valjean had the right to life and
could get what after all
belonged to him. If, however, Valjean stole a diamond necklace to buy food
for his destitute relative, this would have constituted real stealing, and
Aquinas' doctrine would not be applicable. Or when circumstances do not
warrant such action, the act of getting what is not one's own is still stealing.
In other words, stealing is always evil, but what St. Thomas Aquinas depicted
was a totally different act. It was not stealing anymore.
Cheating is a form of stealing and is therefore considered evil. Many
students nowadays resort to cheating without knowing that it is an evil
act. They even consider it a wise move especially when they can get away
with it, believing that they have put over their teachers. Cheating is
dishonesty; it is claiming what is not one's own. Shortchanging a
customer, looking at a classmate's answer during examinations, lessening
one's income in order to evade taxes, coming late or leaving early in one's
work, smuggling, are all forms of cheating and are considered stealing.
Likewise, being an accessory to stealing or cheating is evil. The sale of
stolen goods or smuggled items and the purchase thereof are forms of
cheating and therefore evil. All these are forms of stealing.
Lying is intrinsically evil since it is contrary to truth. Truth is God's
imprint on man. Hence, anything untrue is evil. Lying is never
permissible even if it be to save a kingdom. There are no white lies. All
lies are black. There are other ways of circumventing, if indeed the truth
is embarrassing, or the truth would hurt or cause undue harm. These are
equivocation (or double meaning), fine distinctions and mental
reservations.
Equivocation is allowed under special circumstances. Under oppressive
rule, citizens can make use of equivocation to escape repressive laws.
Observe the following response to a query before a referendum asking the
citizentry to answer " yes" or "no" to allow the dictator to stay in power. To
answer "yes" would have been downright lie. To say "no" would have been
suicidal. When a citizen was asked in public what he would vote in the
referendum, he said:
 Bilang isang Filipino
Nararapat bumotong matalino
Upang ang ating gobierno
Ay lalong maging matino.

When the Lord was asked whether it was allowed to revere both Caesar
and God at the same time with the intention to trap him, the Lord's answer
was a classic in making fine distinctions: "Render unto Caesar the things
that are Caesar's, and to God the things that are God's."
Mental reservations can sometimes be resorted to. When a pest asks for
a person at the door or on the telephone, one can answer, "He/she is not at
home." What was withheld or reserved was the continuation, "for you." Or
if a snoopy neighbor who has no business to know asks where we had been
at 12:00 midnight, we can answer that we were in school - which was the
truth - but, and here is the mental reservation which was left unsaid: "but
we went to the disco after school." Or if a wife asks her husband if he has
money for their children's matriculation, he may not resort to mental
reservation if indeed he has the money. Under oath, one may not likewise
mentally withhold or reserve information. Or if asked by a custom official
whether one has anything to declare, one may not say "No" if indeed one is
carrying dutiable goods.
One must, however, use tact when one answers a patient who is
moribound or nearing death. While it is true that one must not lie to him,
one ought not to be blatant in telling him that he has only three months to
live. What ought to be answered must not be contrary to the truth but
which must not be brutal either. A good answer is that some special remedies
are being discovered and prescribed for his illness, and that while one is
alive, there is hope.
Rape is intolerable under any circumstance because it is the use of
force and violence to drag one to sex. Rape is usually reported among
unmarried strangers but rape takes place whenever there is no consent on
the part of either spouse.
 Murder is a crime in any region at any time. Murder is defined as
killing a person without having a right to. Hangmen, executioners,
guillotiners are appointed by the State to kill persons found guilty of
heinous crimes. During war, soldiers kill the enemy. These kinds of
killing do not constitute murder. Neither does self-defense, because in
this case, it is one's right to life pitted against another's right to life. It
must be stressed that killing in self-defense is allowed only when there is an
actual struggle and not a mere threat or hint to kill. What about cannibals
who kill for their food? Cannibals do not murder but merely kill, if it is for
food. Cannibals, however, are also capable of murder when they take the
life of people they despise. Hence, a distinction must be made between
murder and killing. Killing, per se, is not evil, but murder is.
Suicide is self-murder and therefore evil. Suicide is taking one's own
life as though it were his. The pagan philosopher, Plato, wrote that we
are mere sentries in life and we may not leave our post until the appointed
time ( see Phaedo).
There are some human acts that are not patently evil, unlike the above
mentioned examples. There are, however, intrinsically good acts like
praying, giving alms, helping people which can deteriorate into evil. In
these cases, the rule must be applied: for a human act to be considered
good, all the three constitutive parts, the end, means and circumstances, must
be good.
Praying is in itself good. The end or purpose is to open one's heart to
God. But there are some persons who stay in church all day long,
neglecting their children. In this case, the end and the means are good, but
because the circumstances, namely, length of time, is out of focus, the entire
act becomes questionable. This means that it can no longer be said that
prayer is always and thoroughly good. In all things, propriety is to be
observed. There is a proper time, a proper place, a proper manner of doing
things.
 During a fire, some persons volunteer to help victims carry their
belongings. On the surface, the act is good. The end or purpose of these
persons, however, is to steal these belongings when no one looks.
Because the end is evil, the entire act becomes evil.
Sometimes the end or purpose is to help the poor, which is good
intention. But the means employed is actual stealing or extortion. The entire
act becomes evil. The proper means should have been petition, appeal,
moral suasion. The end never justifies the means. The Machiavellian
doctrine that " the end justifies the means" is patently wrong. One may not
murder or steal or rape in order to save a life or even a kingdom.
Almsgiving is good in itself because the poor are helped. But if the
intention of almsgiving is to obtain a tax shelter for dubious income, the
act of almsgiving acquires a different slant. On the other hand, if the
intention is good, there should be no thought anymore as to what a beggar
will do with the money. If the help is given with the right motive, the act
is good even if the recipient of the largesse uses the money for liquor or
for gambling.
Circumstances, which is the third constitutive part of a human act,
deserve special treatment. The circumstances, if good, do not make an act
good if the act is evil. Circumstances, in fact, can make an evil act
worse. A murder, whether committed is church or in the beach or in the
schoolroom, is evil. Stealing is in itself evil and when committed at
night, it becomes worse. On the other hand, praying is good whether done
in a moviehouse or swimming pool or disco pub. However, when praying
becomes extended as to pre-empt a person's duties like working or taking
care of a family, the circumstance of extension or time renders praying
questionable. Walking may be good but excessive walking to the
detriment of health renders a good action evil. Circumstances can
enhance the goodness or badness of a human act but do not render an evil act
good and can even render a good act evil.
 No act is in the concrete indifferent.
A human act when mulled over or theoretically pursued may be indifferent
or neutral as to goodness or badness. Once done, that human act becomes
either good or bad and no longer indifferent. For example, if one just
wanders about walking or drinking or writing a poem or studying one's lesson
or cleaning one's gun, these are indifferent. If one actually walks for health
reasons, walking becomes good. The same applies to drinking. Actually
writing a poem or studying one's lesson for a good end are good acts.
Cleaning one's gun will either be good or bad depending on one's
intention. If one cleans a gun to prevent it from rusting, the act is good; if
done for the purpose of shooting an enemy during peace, the act is evil.
Walking can even become evil if the assassin walks to the place of his
crime, whereas walking to church or to a home is good… Drinking is in itself
is indifferent; but when concretely done, it becomes either good or evil
depending on whether one intends to get drunk or merely to socialize.
This is the meaning of the ethical dictum "No act is in the concrete
indifferent."
All our concrete actions therefore are either good or bad; provided
they are done consciously. Unconsciously done actions like somnambulism
or those actions done during asleep, or actions done under hypnosis are acts
of man and therefore involve no responsibility.
Module III
Lesson 1

SELF-PROGRESS CHECK TEST

A. Determine whether the following acts are (a) human acts; or (b)
acts of man. On the blank before each number, write only the
letter representing your answer.

__________ 1. Johnny wakes up from a troubled sleep and punches his

wife's abdomen.

__________ 2. After considering the family financial status, Rose who

would have made a fine doctor, takes up physical
therapy.

__________ 3. Pete gets a stomach upset after their town fiesta

celebration.

__________ 4. Shirley asks Paul to write the assignment for her.

__________ 5. The late Senator Benigno Aquino came back from his exile
abroad aware of what might happen to him.

B. On the blank each number, write the word or words that complete
each given statement.

____ knowledge ______ 1. A human act is an act done with full

__________
___ deliberation _______ 2._________and full _.
___end_______ 3. Every human act has three
constituents, namely
________.
____means______ 4. __________,
___ circumstances ______ 5.__and
__ intention ________ 6. The __________ of a human act is the
reason for doing the act.
___ circumstances _______ 7. The __________ of a
human act refers to the
considerations of time, place and manner.
___ St. Thomas Aquinas _______ 8. __________ says that "in times
of extreme necessity, the goods of the world belong to
everyone".
__________ 9. Jesus' response "Render unto Caesar the things that are
Caesar's and to God the things that are God's" is an example
of__________________.
___means_______ 10. The end never justifies the_______.