PRELIMS

WEEK 1: Introduction to Christian Morality in Our Times

God Created all things, (world and the human persons). They were in "paradise" which means, there
was harmony, justice, peace, and joy. Despite the very good conditions of life that they were in, the first
human beings ("Adam" and "Eve") still committed sin.

BRIEF HISTORICAL BACKGROUND OF THE CHURCH

Sacrament: means channel, representative, visible sign of an invisible reality.

GOD JESUS CHURCH

The Sacrament of God is Jesus and the Sacrament of Jesus is the Church (John 20:21, Acts 1:8)

The Church started as a religious renewal "movement"/group in Jerusalem, Israel by no other than
Jesus Christ. Jesus grounded the Church on the foundation of the Apostles and it spread from Jerusalem to
the Roman Empire world until throughout all the earth.

The first "name" of the Church was The Way (Acts 9:2), The members of the Church were called
Christians in Antioch (Acts 11: 26). The Church was persecuted by the Roman Empire (which was still pagan)
until the Conversion of the Emperor Constantine in 313 AD which paved the way for Christians to infiltrate
Rome until Christianity was declared as the official religion of the Roman Empire in 380 AD by Emperor
Theodosius.

Way back in 45 AD, the first apostle who went to Rome and started the Church there was no other
than Peter. Later, reflecting on the mission of Jesus which He passed on to the Church, the Church's official
"name" or title evolved into: One (John 17:21), Holy (Ephesians 1:4, 5:27, 1 Peter 2:9), Catholic (Matthew
28:18-20, Acts 1:8, Gen 12: 3, John 3: 16-17) and Apostolic (Ephesians 2:20).

From the Church developed the Hierarchy (Bishops, priests, and deacons - with the Pope as the
overall head for the sake of division of work and maintaining the unity of the Church while it spreads the
Kingdom of God on earth.

From the Church comes the different "kinds" of priests according to spirituality or mission area.

a) Diocesan is a term use for priests serving their local places;

b) Monks: started in the 3rd century AD in Egypt and in Syria with a life of simplicity or asceticism.
 Monks who are composed of sisters (not priests) only came out later. Example of few monks in
Cagayan who are sisters are those at the St. Claire monastery in Iguig.

c) Missionaries are group/community of priests who really want to go to serve remote places not yet
evangelize.

Examples of missionaries are the following:

• The Dominicans who was founded by St. Dominic in Prouille, France in 1216. (Dominic was a
Spanish priest).
• The Augustinians which started in 1244 in Italy (group or no specific founder).
• The Jesuits or called Society of Jesus who was founded in 1540 by Ignatius of Loyola, formerly a
Spanish soldier who became priest.
• The CICM and other missionary groups only came out later.

The CICM was founded by a diocesan priest Theophile Verbist in 1862 in Scheut, Anderlecht, Brussels,
Belgium.

SO WHAT IS A CICM?

So what is a CICM? It is just one of the missionary groups which is an arm of the Church for
evangelization.

One of the many strategies for missionaries to evangelize people especially the youth to prepare them
to become also evangelizers in their own ways in the future is to establish schools. With this, obviously, in
the missionary schools and even schools established by the local Church, the core of the curriculum is the
Christian Faith Education of the young (children to college); in a wider sense, the Christian formation of the
Community who are running the school. The CICM established schools for such purpose. Here at the
University of Saint Louis, our motto for us to always remember this is "Mission and Excellence" and among
the core values of our University's Vision - Mission, the first is Christian Living.

CICM PHILIPPINES SCHOOL NETWORK: Vision and Mission

At the initiative of the Father,

Sent by the Son, Guided by the Spirit,

Inspired by Theophile Verbist our founder,

Who heard the call of the Lord

And left his country

To proclaim the Good News in China,

Enlightened by those who preceded us

And who like our founder

Left their familiar surroundings

To follow Jesus Christ, the Incarnate Word

 By integrating themselves into a foreign culture,

And by living in solidarity with another people,

Enriched by those we serve,

Especially the poor who reveals to us

The sin of the world

And who help us discover the true meaning

Of God's plan of love,

We CICM missionaries

Of different races and cultures

Live and work together as brothers

In order to bring the Good News of Jesus Christ Wherever it is most needed.

We achieve our mission

When we facilitate

The encounter between Jesus Christ and the 'nations'.

Our mission includes

Enabling people

To experience the coming of the Kingdom

-proclaimed by Jesus Christ-

In their own God-given context.

USL'S VISION, MISSION, AND CORE VALUES

MISSION

USL is a global learning community recognized for science and technology across all disciplines, strong
research, and responsive community engagement grounded on the CICM mission and identity for a
distinctive student experience.

VISION

USL sustains a Catholic academic community that nurtures persons for community, church and society
anchored on CICM's Missio et Excellentia.
EDUCATIONAL PHILOSOPHY AND CORE VALUES

a) Christian Living. We are witnesses to the Gospel values as taught and lived by Christ thus making
God's love known and experienced by all.

b) Excellence. We seek and maintain uncompromising standard of quality in teaching, learning, service,
and stewardship of school resources

c) Professional Responsibility. We are committed to efficiently and responsibly apply the learned
principles, values and skills in the chosen field of discipline, taking initiative and command
responsibility in one's professional advancement.

d) Social Awareness and Involvement. We engage ourselves with society by listening to the prevailing
issues and concerns in the society, thereby initiating and participating in constructive and relevant
social activities for the promotion of justice, peace and integrity of creation and for people's wellness
and development consistent with the CICM charism.

e) Innovation, Creativity and Agility. We keep ourselves relevant and responsive to the changing
needs of our stakeholders by being flexible, solution oriented, and having cutting-edge decisions and
practices.

WEEK 2: Basic Assumption on Christian Morality

WHAT IS MORALITY?

The Descriptive title of our course is Christian Morality in Our Times. First, we have to ask what is
Morality? Basically, Morality is connected with norms. So, the next step is to ask if what is a norm?

Norm is a fundamental concept in the social sciences. It is commonly defined as rules or standards
that are socially enforced. In the ancient times, when there were no formal social structures such as
government and the Church; or when the different religions were not yet as organized as they are now, norms
often come in the forms of customs, rituals, and traditions. This was so since people would easily follow these
standards if it becomes part of their life-styles until it becomes part of their way of living. In the Philippine
context, respecting one's parents would be taught by saying "po" or "opo" to them, or by the practice of
“pagmamano”.

Norms would only come in the forms of rules, regulations, or technically called law when society
became more socially organized in their government systems. When different societies mature or develop,
their moral standards would also become more organized, more so when they realized how important is the
laying out of the rules to govern human actions for the sustenance of the peace and order in society which
will pave the way for more social progress and further developments. So, what is "Morality" in a more technical
definition?

MORALITY is a science that deals with the "quality" (goodness or badness) of human acts/actions. "science"
generally means a field of study. So, Morality will judge whether a certain act or action is good or bad. How
does morality judge human acts/actions? Morality needs basis/bases which are the rules or standards or
technically called Law. In general, these rules or standards or laws are called Norms.
Our next question is, how did morality arrive with these norms? If the human person came up with these
norms or found these norms by thinking deeply/ reflecting or so, called philosophizing, then the process or
the science is called Moral Philosophy. In other situations, if the norms or rules were given or revealed by
God or the Divine being, the science is called Moral Theology.

WHAT IS THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN THE TWO?

Moral Philosophy found out the norms or rules by using purely human reasoning or called
philosophizing, while in Moral Theology, these rules or norms were given or revealed by God. An example of
norms in Moral Theology is the Ten Commandments. So Moral Philosophy relies on pure reasoning/deeply
thinking while Moral Theology would depend on God's revelation and faith. Aside from Philosophizing and
God's revelation, let us try to find out how others come up with norms for the human person

SOURCES OF NORMS

Three Bases in coming up with a good/right norm for human act/ human life: Knowing the Origin,
Nature and the End/Destiny of the human person.

The concepts of the Origin, Nature, and the Destiny of the Human Person and their serious
implications in coming up with moral norms.

1. The Concept of the Origin of the Human Person and all things that surround him/her.

God (man is a creature of God)

Origin:
Apes (man came from apes)

Most if not all religions would strongly believe that all creation and the human person came
from a creator which we call "God" whether you call that God YHWH, Allah, Brahman, Bathala,
Kabuniyan or what so ever term which would indicate being all-powerful and other traits expected of
a supreme being.

Outside the realm of beliefs, some would strongly propose other theories for the origin of the
human person such as the theories that the human person evolved from other creatures or animals
or even product of purely natural happenings.

Serious Implications to Morality:

If you believe that the human person originated from a supreme being called "God", then it
follows that your moral norms/laws will depend on the characteristics of that "God"; or that "God" will
be the one to command or give norms to the human person. An example of this is the 10
Commandments in the case of Judaism or Christianity. The moral laws will greatly respect the dignity
of that "God" and the human person whom He also created. There is what you call "fear of the Lord"
as part of your moral norms.

For the second concept of the origin of the human person which suggests that we evolved from other
animals or just product of purely natural events, its moral norms will just depend on the nature of the human
person which will just be purely animal. With this, there will be no higher dignity for the person to be respected
and there will also be no fear or respect for a higher being or higher authority which is called "God". So, you
can just do whatever you want such as easily manipulating others even to the point of killing fellow human
persons since you may think that man is the highest authority on earth.
 2. Human Nature / Natural law (since man is part of the whole nature or Creation)

The same with the concept of the origin of the human person, one's concept/view of the nature of
the human person will also dictate what set of moral norms is being set to be followed or lived by us
humans.

Serious Implications to Morality:

As being explained above in the concept of the origin of all things, if you believe that we are both
bodily and spiritual beings since we are creations of God, then our moral norms will flow from such
concept, and if you just believe that we are purely animals, then our moral norms will also flow from such
view like treating us as purely animals.

3. Destiny / End / or the Ultimate Goal of human life

Different religions commonly believe that as we were created by a higher being or called supreme
being, we also have a good destiny prepared for us. We commonly believe that there is a life after the
death of our physical aspect. This is called "heaven" in Christianity, and other religions have also their
own terms for such a destiny for the human person.

On the other way around, other people who do not believe in beings that are higher than the
human person will just say that there is no such thing as life after death. Death is the ultimate end of the
human person.

Serious Implications to Morality:

The same with the case of the concept of the origin of all, the view for the end/destiny of the
human person will also dictate what set of moral norms is being laid for us. If you strongly believe in the
life after death and going there at the end of life requires good moral life, then we have to do good in our
lives to be able to attained such destiny. On the other hand, if there is no noble end/destiny for the human
person, then there are no such thing as moral norms. There will be norms but they will greatly depend on
the concept of the people who can manipulate the others.

With the presentation of the different sources of moral norms, I hope it now clear to us why there are
norms or laws which we find not compatible what we believe especially with our views on the origin and the
destiny for the human person. There are also norms/laws which we find not compatible with our basic nature
as human persons. These norms which we strongly believe as not good for us are what we call
misconceptions on morality. So, coming up with "wrong" norms is a product of one's misconceptions of
morality. The misconceptions on morality are just product of the "wrong" concept of the origin, nature, and
the destiny for the human person.

Summarizing what is being discussed above, morality is centered on norms use to judge human
acts/actions or other practices of society whether they are good or bad. The nearest and best basis to come
up with moral norms is the nature of the human person and his/her surroundings/environment since for some
people, the origin and destiny for the human person is still unclear or for them others' belief on those matters
is unacceptable.

As stated in the beginning of this discussion, for us Christians, the two basic ways on how we arrived with
our moral norms are Philosophy (Moral Philosophy) and Theology (Moral Theology). Formally defining the
two will be as follows: Moral Philosophy studies the goodness and badness of human actions in the light of
the highest principles based on human reason alone while Moral Theology studies the goodness and
badness of human actions in the light of revelation (in the light of Christian faith to attain his final goal).

Our course, Christian Morality is based on both Moral Philosophy and Moral Theology. Christian Norms
are product of these two fields of science.

WEEK 3: Human Nature/The Human Person

In our discussion last week, we mentioned the three bases on how morality came up with the norms
for the human person which are: the origin of all things, nature, and the destiny of all. Among these three
bases, the closes or nearest from which morality derived norms for the human person is Nature. Nature in its
totality refers to our environment as a whole, and since we are living on earth or specifically since we have a
body (physical part) which is connected to mother nature/earth, we are essentially part of nature. With this,
we will discuss first the characteristics of the nature of the human person based on nature, after which is
his/her traits in a theological view and the last part will present some views about his/her ultimate end/destiny.

HUMAN NATURE/THE HUMAN PERSON

Who or what is the Human person based on Nature?

Since the actions of the human person flows from what he/she is, we need to
discuss his/her nature by enumerating its essential characteristics.

1. Rational being. The human person has intellect/mind/reason. She/he

discovers things by reason, and she/he is the only animal who knows that she/he
knows. He/she thinks, rationalize, reflect and other activities of the intellect.

2. Has Free-will. The human person is free/ has freedom which means he/she has two or more options
or choices and also has will which is the power to act or not to act on his/her choices. Will is the power
to do or not to do or to act or not to act.

3. Has Conscience. is the practical judgment of the intellect on what is good or what is bad, and is
prompting the person to always do/follow what is good.

4. Loving being - Aside from the love between opposite sex which is designed for the continuity of the
human species, generally, loving means desiring the good of others.

5. Body Person We have a flesh. (physical part), which connects us to the material world. Our bodies
(physical part) is dependent on nature/earth. Our bodies use the elements of the earth. The death of
mother earth will also be the death of our bodies.

6. Sexual. refers to being male or female which is intended for companionship and pro-creation.

7. Unique Though Social. We are individuals and need independence but we are also social being:
live with others. These two are inseparable. We are individuals and need independence but we also
need the presence of others to complete ourselves.

8. Historical. We have a continuity with the past.

9. Transcendental. We always aim higher, to surpass our achievements, since we are longing for
Completeness or total satisfaction/contentment. This also means that the human person has
Metaphysical (meta beyond) aspects such as intellect, = emotion, conscience and others.
WHAT IS THE IMPLICATION OF THE HUMAN NATURE TO MORALITY?

Going direct to the point, what does your nature has to say to your actions? As we have stated above,
our actions flow from our nature. Example, if you are historical beings, then you must learn from your past
experiences; if you are a loving being, you must always desire what is good for others; if you are a rational
being, then think before you act; if you are transcendental, then you are not satisfied with your present
achievements, or it will lead us to ask and reflect that if we are transcendental, are we heading to a certain
destiny?; if we are body persons, do we need to take care of mother earth? and the likes. Among these traits
of the nature of the human person, which should regulate the others and his/her human actions/decisions?

Among the nine traits stated above, the one which should always regulate the others or human actions
which proceed from the other traits is Conscience. This is because using the other traits like intellect or freewill
alone without the intervention of Conscience can lead to misuse, or abuse of human actions. Example is
thinking, if you are problematic, you can think of some bad actions as a solution to your problems which in
the end is not the case, but it will just add or complicate your problem.

Since we are Christians who strongly believe in the existence of a Creator (Theos or God) as the
origin of all and the proper destiny which this Creator prepared for us, we also need to look at the other traits
of the human person based on this perspective.

WHO WHAT IS THE HUMAN PERSON IN A THEOLOGICAL PERSPECTIVE/VIEW?

1. Masterpiece of God (God's Image and likeness). If we are the image and likeness of God, means
we reflect some of the important characteristics of God such as goodness, loving, just, compassionate
and many others. So, if God is good, then basically we are also good; if God is just, we are also
basically just, and others.

2. Fundamentally/innately good or moral being. No human person is bad or evil, only our wrong
actions are bad or evil and not the human person.

3. God's partner / "co-creators" of God. God created the world and us as "incomplete" or imperfect
so our mission is to develop or bring ourselves and our world to perfection. This is why we are called
stewards of God's creation. Part of our being "co-creators" of God is our being sexual (male or female)
which is design for pro-creation.

4. Rational being. has intellect or reasoning or mind.

5. Free-will. Has freedom and will which he/she can use to act or not to act.

6. Brother's keeper (social, and communal). we need to take care of others aside from ourselves

7. Weak/has fallen nature/ "brokenness". This is called original sin in Theology. In other terms we
may call this being "incomplete", or "unfinished". From this being incomplete comes your mission
which is to finish or complete yourselves. Point for reflection: What if God created us as perfect beings,
what will you do?

8. Graced. this means we are aided/being assisted by God in our journey of bringing ourselves to
perfection. In the Catholic Church, God's grace will come to us through the Seven Sacraments and
our other ways of connecting with our Creator.

9. Transcendental. this pushes us to look for the ultimate meaning of life and ultimately to our God.

10. Children/family of God. We belong to the family of God, formally through Baptism.
 11. Destined for the Kingdom. We have our destiny which we commonly call "heaven" or "paradise" or
in Jesus' words called the Kingdom of God.

Basically, most of these traits of the human person in this Theological respective are the same with those
traits based on Nature since these are parts of the basic nature of the human person. There are just other
traits which are rooted in our connectedness with our Creator. So, for its relevance to Morality, we have to
ask the same question, what do these traits of the human person in the Theological view say on how he/she
should act or live?

The same answer, that these traits of the human person should strongly influence how he/she acts or live
his/her life. In the formulation of specific norms for the human person, these traits should be strongly
considered since these are the ones which will help direct the human person to perfection/completeness or
to his/her proper destiny which we call the Kingdom of God.

The same clarification also that why do we need to formulate norms/rules/laws for the human person if
his/her nature should influence his/her actions? Well, there are many people who abuse their other faculties
like mind/intellect, freedom and others, and they also ignore the very basic and immediate norm which is
Conscience. This is why there are many norms or set of norms laid for the good of the human person and
one of the very basic set of norms is the Ten Commandments.

With this, we hope that the sources of the norms of Morality is now very clear to us. For a kind of widening
of horizon, let us look on the other views on the destiny for the human person since we also said earlier that
the concept of the destiny is also one of the sources of the norms of morality.

SOME VIEWS ON THE ULTMATE END/DESTINY OF THE HUMAN PERSON

Most if not all of these other views or concept of the destiny for the human person are just product of
philosophizing (Philosophy).

a) HEDONISM

For this Philosophy, the ultimate goal for the human person is Happiness, and this happiness is
found in pleasure ("sarap)". So, "kung saan ang masarap' dun ang kasiyahan". This pleasure is sensual.

Therefore, for this certain philosophy, the norm for human action is to look for
pleasure/pleasurable things.

b) MARXISM

A philosophy by Karl Marx which looks at the human person as purely material being or from
mater and there are no such things as metaphysical aspects such as soul and also God. This view just
focused on the way of governance since it was more of a reaction to the abuses of the democratic and
other forms of governing people.

For Marxism, the ultimate goal of people is to have a Classless Society (no rich, no poor). This
was achieved in a communistic form of government. Development or progress must always be for the
common good / not individualistic. Norm: Do everything for the common good. Never mind individual
goals or individual progress, set aside yourselves. "all for one, one for all".
 c) NIHILISM

For this philosophy, the human person and his/her life has no ultimate meaning, no ultimate value.
If the human person and life is meaningless or no value at all, what is your norm for life and for your
action? Aside from having no definite norm, you reflect on the danger of this kind of philosophy.

d) CHRISTIAN VIEW

For Christianity, the ultimate goal/destiny for the human person is to enter the Kingdom or to have
eternal union/happiness with God.

Norm: Follow the teachings of God such as the Ten Commandments and others

As you may have noticed in our discussion, the view of the nature of the human person and his/her
ultimate destiny plays a very crucial role in laying out norms for human actions or for his/her way of living. As
we have said in our past discussions, "wrong" concept of the nature and the destiny for the human person
cause a lot of misconceptions about morality and produces a lot of wrong principles or norms. Examples of
these wrong principles/norms of morality are the following:

a) Morality is a matter of opinion. This means that moral norms are subjective; depends on the person.
b) All opinions about morality are equal and correct. Therefore, all opinions should be followed.
c) Morality is outside the world of practical people. Whatever impractical is not good.
d) Morality develops guilt and moral obligation which makes life unhappy. So, we need to set aside
moral norms.

Point for reflection: What are the possible or even probable things that will happen to people and to society
if all these wrong principles about morality are correct? After discussing all the sources of norms for the
human person and their serious implications if there are misconceptions, our next question is, what should
we really judge as good or bad? Is it the human person or his/her qualities or traits or his/her actions? Reflect
on this for our discussion next meeting.

WEEK 4: Basic Concepts in Morality

What is Morality

Morality is an encompassing concept that serves as the underlying force for every action of an
individual and of a society. Morality takes the crucial role of formulating, establishing and setting ethical norms
of conduct that govern behaviors and actions of an individual or group of individuals in order to achieve
harmony, unity, and order within a society

Purpose of Morality

Why do we need to follow certain standards or set of norms? In our past discussions, we answered
this by saying that we need norms since some of the faculties of the human person like freedom and is/her
passions can be exercised in an abusive manner or even destructive to the person himself/herself and to
others. Going deeper, why do we need to use our faculties in a wise or good way? Will it lead us to a higher
end? This will tell us that there are noble reasons why we need to follow set of norms which are the following
bellow:

a) For the Fullness of Freedom-for the Human Person to be Totally Free

God created the human person as a rational being, conferring him/her the dignity of an
individual who can initiate and control his/her actions. God willed that man/woman should be left
 in the hand of his/her own counsel' so that she/he will, of his/her own accord, seek his/her Creator
and freely attain his/her full blessed perfection. Man/Woman is "rational and, therefore, like God.
He/She is created with free will and is master over his/her acts." So, norms are not prohibitions or
imprisonment for the human person but are guide for him/her to be totally free.

To clarify this, what will happen to you if you do whatever you want? This is the young’s'
perception of freedom. If I will do whatever I want, like I will just steal others' property or even kill
someone, what will happen to me? It is either I will end up in the prison cell or I will go hiding.
Doing whatever I want will make me unfree. So, freedom does not mean I will do whatever I want,
but I will always do anything so long as it is good for me and for others. Freedom is aimed at the
perfection of the human person.

b) A Guide to the Fullness of Human Development

Moral development is part of human development. Moral development is the process through
which children develop proper attitudes and behaviors toward other people in society, based on
social and cultural norms, rules, and laws.

Moral development is a concern for every parent. Teaching a child to distinguish right from
wrong and to behave accordingly is a goal of parenting.

So, developments whether scientific, social, economic and others should always follow norms
of morality or else, they are aimed for destruction.

c) A Guide Towards Reality (truth of things, life)

Morality is a guide for the human person to discover reality or the truth of things, and of life.
This will lead the human person to discover the hierarchy of values until the ultimate value of life
and of all things. So, this will help the human person to set his/her priorities in life until her/his
attainment of the ultimate goal which is the eternal union and happiness with his/her Creator.

d) The Entrance of Eternal Life into the Life of the Human Person
After following the moral norms, discovering the truth and real value of all things, and bringing
himself/herself to perfection, the human person will be able to reach his/her final destiny which is
to enter the kingdom of God. Morality reveals and leads the human person to his/her ultimate
end/destiny.

After finding out the Purposes of Morality, let us go back to the causes why there is morality. Although, these
were implied in the discussions above, we will enumerate and briefly explain them for clarification purpose.

MORALITY PRESUPPOSES THE FOLLOWING:

1. The Existence of God

Morality points us to the existence of the Creator of all things who is totally good and perfect
and whom we call "God". Since this Creator is totally good or perfect, He/She also gave us a guide to
attain total goodness or perfection.

2. Intellect and Free Will

Intellect, freedom, will, and passions needs moral norms so for them not to be abuse, misuse
or overuse.
 3. Ultimate Destiny
As discussed above, moral norms are guides for the human person to attain his/her ultimate
destiny which is the Kingdom of God or eternal happiness with God.

4. Accountability to an Ultimate Value

Morality tells us that there are ultimate values or ends that we will be accountable (responsible)
or we will face the consequence later if we do not follow the norms. This ultimate value is our final
destiny which is the Kingdom of God.

OBJECT OF MORALITY

We have been talking about norms, rules, standards or laws of which is being use by morality to judge
our actions. To clarify this, what does morality judge as good or bad? Is it the human person or his actions?
It is the action of the human person. To be very specific, what kind of action needs to be judge as good or
bad? There are two kinds of acts which are the so-called human acts and acts of man. Which of these two
should be moralized? While human acts and acts of man both pertain to the actions or behaviors of an
individual or group of individuals, they must be clearly delineated in order to discern which brings moral
responsibility.

HUMAN ACTS are actions that are proper to humans, thus the crucial element of willful consent and
knowledge of the action must be present. One must freely use his/her intellect and freewill when acting.
Human acts reveal the value of responsibility or accountability. Eating healthy foods, reading notes in
preparation for an exam, and saying no to drugs are just few examples.

ACTS OF MAN are the actions that do not reflect the as a rational being. The actions are performed
without person conscious deliberation or knowledge and with the absence of freewill. Acts of man constitute
unconscious and involuntary actions. Examples are one's way of sleeping, suddenly catching a falling object,
one's way of walking, reacting instinctively when touching a very hot surface, and the likes. These are done
without the use of freewill and reason. Some of these just happen naturally as automatic responses to the
situations.

HUMAN ACTS ACTS OF MAN

Deliberate Indeliberate
Free Not free
Voluntary Involuntary
Conscious Unconscious
Willful Unwilful
Known Unknown
Aware Unaware

CONSTITUENTS OF HUMAN ACTS

1. Human acts are known and deliberate. An individual, as the moral agent, has full knowledge in
doing a certain action. There is a prior knowledge and a deliberate evaluation whether to do an action
or not.
2. Human acts are free. An individual as the moral agent is free from any external factors as well as
internal pressure to do the act. He/She is neither forced nor intimidated to do or not to do something.
3. Human acts are voluntary. The action proceeds from the willingness of an individual to perform
action with a perceived knowledge of the end.

With this given distinction above, it is now very clear that we cannot moralize acts of man but the Huan Acts
Morality therefore covers human acts and not acts of man.
WEEK 5: Determinants of Morality

INTRODUCTION

Last week, we made it clear that what we moralize or judge as good or bad is the human act and not
the acts of man nor the person who is the doer of the action. In the ancient time when there were no
formulated norms yet which we now call law/s, what were their bases or norms to judge people's actions or
practices? Let us first look at the etymology of the word morality or moral. The word "moral" originated from
the Latin word "mores" which means manner or custom/s which are widely used within a particular society or
culture. So, the norms for people at that time were the established practices called customs. Example in the
Philippine context, people do not state the rule such as "honor your parents/elders" but they teach us the
customs on how to do such like saying "po or opo" or "pagmamano" and others.

Even in ways of dressing, our elders had their customs on how to do it to be respectful and others.
So, it is now clear to us that the customs set by our elders before were the norms people to live a good life
and to have a good relationship with one another. From its etymology, moral means good, if you put a prefix
"im", immoral means bad. There are actions which are generally not judge as good nor bad, this is called
amoral or indifferent act. Amoral or indifferent acts are the same with the acts of man. Therefore, if you follow
the norms of society which in the ancient time were customs, traditions, and other practices, then your action
is good, if not then what you are doing is bad.

What is lacking on the norms set by our elders during their time? They are just general guidelines on
how people should live a good life and how to sustain good relationship with each other. There is no criteria
on how are we going to moralize or judge very specific human actions to see if they are really good or bad.
Even most of our laws today are still too general as bases to moralize human actions. They cannot give an
exact judgment or exact amount or degree of reward or penalty which corresponds to the action committed.
With this, we need specific criteria.

ELEMENTS IN DETREMINING THE MORALITY OF HUMAN ACTS

1. THE ACT (the object): There are actions that the act itself will reveal if it is good or bad. There is no
need for norms or rules to base on to see their quality.

Examples: Killing, stealing. cheating.; these acts are clearly or obviously bad. Praying, attending the
Holy Mass; these actions are obviously good.

2. PURPOSE OR INTENTION (the end of act)-WHY: A lot of our action is done with an intention or
purpose - the reason behind the act. Although generally we do things with a good intention, there are
also instances where some will really do an action with a bad intention.
3. CIRCUMSTANCES (involves: place, time, person, manner): It plays an important role in affecting
the morality of an action because human acts are performed at a definite time and place, in a particular
manner, for a certain reason, etc. All of which, in one way or another, increase or diminish the
responsibility of the action. Circumstance can make a good action evil, as when a guard on duty goes
to sleep.

PRINCIPLES FOR JUDGING THE MORALITY OF HUMAN ACTS (application of the 3 criteria above)

1. An act is morally good if the 3 (Act, Purpose and Circumstance) are substantially good.
Examples: Helping, Studying, working, etc.

2. If one of the three is evil, the act is evil.

Helping one to steal, studying how to easily kill someone (what is evil here is the intention)
 3. Circumstance may create, mitigate or aggravate sin/culpability
Circumstance can create, lessen or increase or even remove one's culpability (guilt, penalty)
Example: walking on a newly cemented area is bad since alam na this, how about if the one who
walked on that area is a two years old girl? Will you moralize her action? Of course not.

4. For amoral act or indifferent act, its morality will be judge by its purpose and circumstance.
Example: throwing a stone, walking, etc. how about if one intentionally stepped on the newly
cemented area? Obviously, such action is bad.

5. An act which is intrinsically evil is not morally allowed regardless of any circumstance.
Example: killing, suicide, adultery, rape, and the likes.

a. A good act done for a bad end becomes bad.

Example: Politicians who gave relief goods to people who were greatly affected by the mass
flooding taking advantage of the situation to campaign for the election.

b. A bad act done for a good end does not become good
Example: When a father put the justice into his hands and kills the murderer of his daughter
to take revenge for her death.

c. The end does not justify the means. (The end or purpose does not justify the means or
manner) This is almost the same with letter b. No matter how good the purpose is if the manner
or way or act is bad then it is not morally allowed.
Example: A student cheats during examination to pass and obtain scholarship in a university.
Recall also the Robinhood story.

d. An indifferent act may become morally good or bad. (depending on the purpose/intention)
Example: To study law is in itself an indifferent action. It becomes good when inspired by the
thought of alleviating human sufferings or making a decent living. It becomes bad if it is
intended to perform illegal or immoral actions.

An elder brother who puts hot sauce on a cake before giving it to a begging younger brother,
so that the younger brother will not ask for more, and the elder can have the cake all to himself.

e. Choose the lesser evil (if no other options or it is the last resort) This is only allowed if there
are no other options and the situation is a matter of life and death where you need to decide
at that very moment.

OTHER MORAL PRINCIPLES BASED ON THE THREE CRITERIA OF MORALITY

Why not give the same punishment for the same crimes?

Aside from the purpose and circumstance which can lessen or increase the culpability of a bad action,
there are also other factors which affect the manner or the reason why a person committed such an act. Not
all acts are done perfectly by the doer/agent. There are the so-called kinds of human act or specifically called
kinds of voluntary act.

WILLFUL
HUMAN ACTS
KNOWN
KINDS OF VOLUNTARY ACT

1. Perfect Voluntary Act - the is act done with full knowledge and full consent
2. Imperfect Voluntary Act - the act is done with some defect in the knowledge or consent.
3. Simple Voluntary Act - the act is done by the agent because he/she simply likes doing it.
4. Conditional Voluntary Act - the act is done with a condition. "if"
5. Direct Voluntary Act - the act is intended by the agent.
6. Indirect Voluntary Act - the act is not intended by the agent but an effect or result of the act which
is directly intended.
Example: I intentionally threw a stone to the window but it bounced back and hit my playmates.
7. Actual Voluntary Act - the act is spontaneous; an act is a result of an intention done here and now.
8. Virtual Voluntary Act - an act done is a result of a previous intention (which may have been forgotten)
- it is like the act is planned.
9. Habitual Voluntary Act- the act done is a result of habit.
10. Interpretative Voluntary Act. - an act influenced by an intention which is presumed (interpreted) to
be present in an agent who lacks the ability to express his actual intention.
Example: A mute person is asking you something through sign language, and you are the one who
will interpret what he/she is asking and you did or gave it.

These kinds of voluntary act are great factors which will affect the judgement of a certain action.

Point for Reflection: Which of these kinds of Voluntary Act is the most culpable if the act committed is bad?

WEEK 6: Impediments to Human Acts

Human actions, though naturally a product of will and reason, are sometimes influenced by many factors.
These factors can intervene and bar one's actions from being human or contribute to the reduction of the
quality of a certain action. Since they can bar one's faculties like the mind in performing a human act, these
are called impediments to human acts. These impediments reduce the quality of human acts and so affects
the judgement or morality of human acts.
1. IGNORANCE - pertains to the lack of pertinent information as to the nature, circumstances and effect of
a certain action. Either in commission or omission, the willful lack of initiative to properly understand the
whole picture of the circumstance affects the moral quality of an action.

Ignorance takes place when an individual consciously proceeds to act on a certain matter without due
consideration of the relevant o necessary information related to it. Usually, this takes place when
someone unconsciously violates certain rules and regulations. When asked to be made responsible for
the action committed, one asserts that he/she must not be held accountable since he/she was unaware
that such was a violation. This example is a clear manifestation on how ignorance

Classification:

• Invincible Ignorance - This refers to a total ignorance of the person about the circumstance
and other factors surrounding the action that she/he committed. This total ignorance is
unintentional.
• Vincible Ignorance - This is an ignorance that can be dispelled/removed or learned through
ordinary efforts, conscientiousness and proper diligence. There are two forms of vincible
ignorance:
o Crass Ignorance (lack of effort) - happens when a person exerts little effort to dispel
his ignorance.
o Affected Ignorance - is a willful act of asserting one's ignorance in order to plead
innocence to a charge of guilt in doing or not doing an act. The act is pretended. An
 example is a student who pretends not to know the school's policy on proper haircut
when confronted by the guards.
Morality of Actions Done Under Ignorance

• Wrong actions done under Invincible ignorance is not culpable; because of one's unintentional
total ignorance.
Example: A person who does not know how to read and write caught for jaywalking. You cannot
penalize him/her since he/she is totally ignorant about the norm.

• Wrong action done under Crass Ignorance is culpable but the culpability can be lessened. This
is so, since the person exerted little effort to dispel his/her ignorance despite the opportunities to do
so.’

• Bad action done under Affected Ignorance is totally culpable. In fact, the culpability could
increase since the person just pretended his/her ignorance.

2. CONCUPISCENCE- Happens when inordinate passion hinders one to exercise correct reasoning.
Passions are the emotional elements such as pride, anger, love, joy, and the likes. Concupiscence
happens when these passions push the person in doing a certain act without the intervention of reasoning
or mind.
Examples: Suddenly punching someone out of wrath, destroying someone's image out of envy, having
pre-Marital sex with someone due to being in loved, etc.

Two Kinds of Concupiscence (ante = before, consequent = after)

• Antecedent Concupiscence- A spontaneous inordinate passion influences an action before

it is controlled by the will. The act abruptly or suddenly happens. This is called "gavva lang" in
Ibanag.
Example: Juan was allegedly running late for his class. When he entered the school campus,
the guard confiscated his ID for no apparent reason. Out of anger, he cursed the guard.

• Consequent Concupiscence - happens when the intellect is aware of the inordinate passion
and the will still choses to arouse the said passion and proceed with the act. So, it is pre-
meditated.
Example: you got angry with your classmates and after many hours or even a day, you did
not calm your anger and still wanted to punch your classmates and you did it.

Morality of Action Done Under Concupiscence

• Bad actions done under Antecedent Concupiscence are still culpable but the culpability can be
lessened or can even be negated. This is so since the action was abrupt and so not intentional.
• Bad actions done under Consequent Concupiscence are totally culpable.

3. FEAR - happens when the individual is threatened by impending danger. The existence of danger or
threats can limit one's ability to use the will and reason and merely acts base on the instinct to survive or
overcome the situation.

There are two kinds of Fear

• Light Fear: The impending danger or threat is light or somewhat like remote.
Example is, your classmate tells you that he will slap you if you will not give in to his demand.
 • Grave Fear: The impending danger or threat is so serious like a matter of life and death
choices.
Example is when your classmate demands something from you with his gun pointed at your
head.
Morality of Action Done Under Fear

• Bad action done with light or grave fear are both culpable. This is because, despite the presence of
the threat, one can still choose to do what he/she prefers to do, although the consequence can really
affect the decision.

• Point to ponder: Which is more culpable? Bad action done under light fear or under grave fear?
Which culpability can be lessened? Bad action done under light fear or under grave fear?

4. VIOLENCE - (physical attack) is the application of physical force upon a resisting person to compel
him/her to do or not to do an act like protecting oneself and others. There are two persons involve here,
the one who attacks and the one who defends her/himself. What we judge here is the reaction of the one
being attacked since the act of the one who attacks is understood as bad.

Self-defense is a classic example for violence. With the presence of fear, one has to protect
himself/herself against his/her perpetrator. Self-defense means, there is no intention to kill one's
perpetrator but only to defend oneself.
Morality of Action Done Under Violence

• If you are on the act of defending yourself against your perpetrator like a rapist or killer or kidnapper
and unintentionally, you killed him/her, are you culpable? Of course not, but if you intended to kill your
perpetrator while defending yourself, then you are culpable although your culpability can be lessened.

5. HABIT - Firm and stable behavior pattern of acting. An individual naturally and consciously, although
most often unconsciously performs an action, as a result of its repetitive performance through time. With
the presence of habit, an individual act based on his/her repeated responses to situations.

Good habits are called virtues while bad habits are vices. Obviously, we only moralize bad habits and not
the good ones. Examples of your habits is speaking bad words as a reaction to situations, like "ko diablo"
or "diablo ka ko" or "pesti", or always causing trouble in a party when drunk, etc.
Morality of Action Done Under Habit

• Bad actions done because of habit are culpable. The culpability is lessened only when the person
exerts utmost effort to free himself/herself from a vicious habit.

THE S-T-O-P PRINCIPLE

There is one good practice which is very helpful in dealing with passions a dilemmas or problems in life. This
is called the STOP principle.
S- Search for the fact/s. Study what is the issue behind one's problems or dilemmas and other related
situations.
T- Think for alternatives. This is necessary if your proposed action is not clear or not sure.
O- Others are to be considered for advice. Ask others' advice or suggestions if you are hard up.
P- Pray for guidance and wisdom. Pray to God for enlightenment about the issue or problem.
*One should apply STOP if one is doubting, confused, emotionally disturbed, things are unclear etc.
General Moral Principle: One should not act nor decide if one is doubting, confused, emotionally disturbed,
problematic, things are unclear and other same circumstances.
Point to ponder: What will happen or what could be the probable result if one acts immediately when he/she
is still confused, problematic or controlled by passions? What is the worst thing that one can do if he will act
under these circumstances?

PRINCIPLE OF DOUBLE EFFECT

What is double effect?
There are actions which have two effects (good and bad)
One is allowed to do an act with two effects (good and bad) under the following conditions.
1. The act must be good or at least morally indifferent.
2. The evil effect must not precede the good effect or at least they should happen simultaneously. So,
the good effect must come first before the bad one if ever.
3. There must be a sufficient reason to do the act. Sufficient to do the act means like helping one to
escape death or escape danger and the likes.
4. The intention of the agent is honest. There should be no other intention than to do good like the ones
mentioned as sufficient reasons above.
EXAMPLE: An example of this is a physician/doctor operating a pregnant woman with the expected effects
if ever like the mother might die in the process or the baby in her womb might die or even the two might die.
Point to ponder: What should be the intention of the physician in proceeding with the operation? Should
he/she intend to save only the mother, or the baby, or both, or kill both or what?