Im No.: Im-Ge Ethics-2 SEM-2021-2022: Republic of The Philippines Nueva Vizcaya State University Bayombong, Nueva Vizcaya

Republic of the Philippines
NUEVA VIZCAYA STATE UNIVERSITY

Bayombong, Nueva Vizcaya
INSTRUCTIONAL MODULE
IM No.: IM-GE ETHICS-2ndSEM-2021-2022
College of Arts and Sciences

Bayombong Campus
DEGREE General COURSE GE ETHICS

PROGRAM Education NO.
SPECIALIZATION COURSE Principles of Ethical Behavior in Modern
TITLE Society
YEAR LEVEL All levels TIME 6 hrs WK 4 IM 3
FRAME NO. NO.
I. CHAPTER TITLE: ACCOUNTABILITY FOR MORALITY
II. LESSON TITLE: THE MORALITY OF HUMAN ACTS
III. CHAPTER OVERVIEW
Actions produced by any human being are not necessarily subjects for moral evaluation
or categorization. If actions are classified into two such as human acts or acts of man, it is only
the former that is qualified for moral judgments. It is then in human acts that a person can be
liable in his or her actions. Nevertheless, it is important to understand the different aspects that
qualify this.
1. The Morality of Human Acts
Human acts are actions that are freely chosen in consequence of a judgment of conscience, can
be morally evaluated. They are either good or evil. Acting is morally good when the choices of
freedom are in conformity with man’s true good and thus express the voluntary ordering of the
person towards our ultimate end. The morality of human acts depends on:
— the object chosen;

— the end sought or the intention; and
— the circumstances of the action.
The object, the intention, and the circumstances make up the ‘sources,’ or constitutive elements,
of the morality of human acts.
NVSU-FR-ICD-05-00 (081220) Page 1 of 14
Social Sciences and Humanities Dept. a_garcia
2. The Moral Object
The morality of the human act depends primarily and fundamentally on the ‘object’
rationally chosen by the deliberate will, as is borne out by the insightful analysis, still valid today,
made by Saint Thomas.” The moral value of human acts (whether they are good or evil) depends
above all on the conformity of the object or act that is willed with the good of the person
according to right reason. “The reason why a good intention is not itself sufficient, but a correct
choice of actions is also needed, is that the human act depends on its object, whether that object
is capable or not of being ordered to God, to the One who ‘alone is good,’ and thus brings about
the perfection of the person.
Reason attests that there are objects of the human act which are by their nature
‘incapable of being ordered’ to God, because they radically contradict the good of the person
made in his image. These are the acts which, in the Church’s moral tradition, have been termed
‘intrinsically evil’ (intrinsece malum): they are such always and per se, in other words, on account
of their very object, and quite apart from the ulterior intentions of the one acting and the
circumstances.
Consequentialism and proportionalism are erroneous theories concerning the moral

object of an action. The former claims to draw the criteria of the rightness of a given way of acting
solely from a calculation of foreseeable consequences deriving from a given choice. The latter,
by weighing the various values and goods being sought, focuses rather on the proportion
acknowledged between the good and bad effects of that choice, with a view to the ‘greater good’
or ‘lesser evil’ actually possible in a particular situation.
3. Intention
In human actions “the end is the first goal of the intention and indicates the purpose
pursued in the action. The intention is a movement of the will toward the end: it is concerned
with the goal of the activity” (Catechism of the Catholic Church, 1752). An act that “can be offered
to God according to its object, is also capable of being ordered to its ultimate end. That same act
then attains its ultimate and decisive perfection when the will actually does order it to God.” The
intention of the person acting “is an element essential to the moral evaluation of an action”
(Catechism of the Catholic Church, 1752).
“Intention is not limited to directing individual actions, but can guide several actions
toward one and the same purpose; it can orient one’s whole life toward its ultimate end . . . One
and the same action can also be inspired by several intentions” (Catechism of the Catholic Church,
1752).

“A good intention does not make behavior that is intrinsically disordered, such as lying
and calumny, good or just. The end does not justify the means” (Catechism of the Catholic Church,
1753). “On the other hand, an added bad intention (such as vainglory) makes an act evil that, in
and of itself, can be good (such as almsgiving; cf Mt 6:2-4)” (Catechism of the Catholic Church,
1753).
4. Circumstances
Circumstances “are secondary elements of a moral act. They contribute to increasing or

diminishing the moral goodness or evil of human acts (for example, the amount of a theft). They
can also diminish or increase the agent’s responsibility (such as acting out of a fear of death)”
(Catechism of the Catholic Church, 1754). Circumstances “of themselves cannot change the moral
quality of acts themselves; they can make neither good nor right an action that is in itself evil”
(Ibid.). “A morally good act requires the goodness of the object, of the end, and of the
circumstances together” (Catechism of the Catholic Church, 1755).
5. Indirect Voluntary Actions
“An action can be indirectly voluntary when it results from negligence regarding
something one should have known or done” (Catechism of the Catholic Church, 1736).
An effect can be tolerated without being willed by its agent;
For instance, a mother’s exhaustion from tending her sick child. A bad effect is not
imputable if it was not willed either as an end or as a means of an action, e.g., a death a person
incurs in aiding someone in danger. For a bad effect to be imputable it must be foreseeable and
the agent must have the possibility of avoiding it, as in the case of manslaughter caused by a
drunken driver” (Catechism of the Catholic Church, 1737).
An effect can be said to be “willed indirectly”:
When it is not willed either as an end or a means for anything else, but it is something
that necessarily accompanies the desired action. This is important in the moral life, because at
times actions can have two effects, one good and another bad, and it may be licit to carry them
out in order to obtain the good effect (willed directly), even though the evil one cannot be
avoided (which, therefore, is willed only indirectly). These situations at times require great moral
discernment, where prudence dictates seeking advice from someone able to give sound
guidance.

An act is voluntary (and thus blameworthy) in causa when, though not chosen for itself,
it frequently follows a directly willed action. For example, a person who fails to keep proper
custody of the eyes before obscene images is responsible (because it has been willed in causa)
for the disorder (not directly chosen) in one’s imagination.
6. Responsibility
“Freedom makes man responsible for his acts to the extent that they are voluntary”
(Catechism of the Catholic Church, 1734). The exercise of freedom always brings with it
responsibility before God: in every free act we either accept or reject God’s will. “Imputability
and responsibility for an action can be diminished or even nullified by ignorance, inadvertence,
duress, fear, habit, inordinate attachments, and other psychological or social factors” (Catechism
of the Catholic Church, 1735).
7. Merit
“The term ‘merit’ refers in general to the recompense owed by a community or a society
for the action of one of its members, experienced either as beneficial or harmful, deserving
reward or punishment. Merit is relative to the virtue of justice, in conformity with the principle
of equality which governs it” (Catechism of the Catholic Church, 2006).
We have no strict right to any merit before God for our good works (cf. Catechism of the
Catholic Church, 2007). Nevertheless, “filial adoption, in making us partakers by grace in the
divine nature, can bestow true merit on us as a result of God’s gratuitous justice. This is our right
by grace, the full right of love, making us ‘co-heirs’ with Christ and worthy of obtaining the
promised inheritance of eternal life” (Catechism of the Catholic Church, 2009).
“The merit of man before God in the Christian life arises from the fact that God has freely
chosen to associate man with the work of his grace” (Catechism of the Catholic Church, 2008).
What are the three conditions of the Human Act?

Human (moral) acts are acts which are chosen by exercising one’s free will as a
consequence of a judgment of conscience: Human acts are moral acts because they express the
good or evil when someone is performing them. The morality of acts is defined by the choices
that one makes in accordance with the authentic good, which is based on the eternal law that
has a desire for God as our end goal. This external law is the “natural law” based on God’s Divine

Wisdom, made known to us through His supernatural revelation. A human act is thus morally
good when we make choices coherent to our true good and brings us closer to God.
The goodness of a moral act is assessed based on three conditions: object (and its
goodness), intention (or end as expressed by Saint Thomas Aquinas), and circumstances. For a
moral act to be considered good, all three conditions must be met. A defect in any of these three
conditions causes the act to be deemed morally evil.
Difference between Human Act and Act of Man
1. A human act : involves a person deliberately exercising their intellect and will. The person is
able to discern the choice by having the knowledge, freedom, and voluntariness to do so.
2. Acts of man: however, are acts which do not take place because of one’s deliberation and does
not involve fully utilizing one’s intellect. It is undertaken without knowledge or consent and
without advertence.
Examples of acts of man which are not under the control of one’s will include:
Acts of sensation (the use of senses), acts of appetition (bodily tendencies such as
digestion), acts of delirium, and acts when one is asleep. The presence of these factors
(ignorance, passion, fear, violence, and habits) causes an act to be classified as acts of man.
Since a human act arises from knowledge and free will, acts of man do not have a moral
quality as they do not possess a conscious nature. If either intellect or will is lacking in the act,
then the act is not fully human and therefore not fully moral.
Human Act: Object
Saint Thomas believes that the morality of the human act depends primarily on the object,
rationally chosen by someone who deliberately exercises their will and intellect. The object is the
primary indicator — other than intention and circumstance — for someone to judge whether an
action is good or evil.
Pope John Paul the Second offers that it is not enough to possess good intentions. Since
a human act depends on its object, one needs to exercise prudence in assessing whether that
object is capable or not of being ordered to God — who in His goodness — brings about the
perfection of the person that God intended for him through the object. The object encompasses
the desire for the good that is perceived.
There exist objects which are ‘intrinsically evil (and) incapable of being ordered’ to God,
as they contradict the goodness of a person’s nature. The Second Vatican Council provides the
following examples: “homicide, genocide, abortion, euthanasia and suicide; mutilation, physical
and mental torture; subhuman living and working conditions, arbitrary imprisonment,
deportation, slavery, prostitution, and trafficking.”
Human Act: Intention
In any human act, “the end is the first goal of the intention and indicates the purpose
pursued in the action. The intention is a movement of the will towards the end, concerned with
the goal of the activity. The intention is essential to the moral evaluation of an action.” Since God
is our final end, we evaluate that our acts are good when they bring us closer to God. Our
intention to please God will make our acts good and perfect.
We employ the terms ‘proximate end’ and ‘remote end’ to further understand the
concept of an intention. For instance, a person gives alms to the poor. The proximate end is the
almsgiving, and the remote end is what a person hopes to achieve by means of the proximate
end. The remote end could either be praise and vainglory, or love and charity.
A good intention does not make a disordered action (such as lying), good. The ends do
not justify the means.” Conversely, an ill intention (vainglory) changes an act which was good
(almsgiving), to an evil act.” Saint Thomas observes that “often, man acts with good intentions,
but without spiritual gain because he lacks a good will. (If) someone robs to feed the poor: even
though the intention is good, the uprightness of the will is lacking.”
Human Act: Circumstance
Circumstances “are secondary elements of a moral act. They increase or diminish the
moral goodness or evil of human acts. They also diminish or increase a person’s responsibility”.
Circumstances mitigates a bad act by making it more acceptable or less bad, or it aggravates an
act by heightening the consequences. For instance, the consequences of stealing are aggravated
or mitigated depending on what is stolen, the parties involved, and the location. Circumstances,
however, do not diminish the moral quality of acts; they make neither good nor right an action
that is evil. Stealing is morally wrong regardless of the circumstances.
Conversely, circumstances can make an otherwise good action, evil. For instance, when a
firefighter does not respond to an emergency because he is loafing. Circumstances can increase
one’s guilt when a husband lies to his wife about his extramarital affairs, or minimize one’s guilt
when someone tells a white lie to save a colleague from being fired. Therefore, we need to
understand the circumstances to understand the moral quality of human acts.

SUMMARY
NATURE OF MAN AND ITS DIGNITY
• To “will” something, one has “to know” beforehand. • Man cannot choose or act unless
he knows which is a “better” good.
• When a person chooses to act according to what he knows is right – He acts freely •
Only man is capable of acting free – HUMAN ACTS
• But the intellect does not always determine the will. Intellect Will Soul Body Thinking/
knowing the TRUTH Choosing the GOOD
When is MAN FREE in his actions? When is an act freely done?
1. Under the control of the WILL - It is the power tending toward, choosing, adhering to
& taking
pleasure in a GOOD KNOWN BY THE INTELLECT - voluntary
2. We do things because we want to, we own the decision or the action
3. We face the consequence of our actions/decisions – we face it with full responsibility
Intellect Will
Soul Body Thinking/ knowing the TRUTH Choosing the GOOD
NATURE OF FREEDOM
• Proceeds from the intellect and will • Based on reason which the will followed •
• When man makes decisions, he is free. • Man is accountable for what he is
doing because he is CONSCIOUS of what he is doing, why he is doing it & how he
is doing it.
• DECISION Results in ACTION CONSEQUENCES Faced with Sense of responsibility

HUMAN ACTS VS. ACTS OF MAN
1. Human acts
Actions done Consciously and freely by the agent/or by man • ESSENTIAL
QUALITIES/ Constituent Elements of Human Acts 1. Knowledge of the act 2. Freedom 3.
Voluntariness • Man takes into responsibility of these actions.
Examples:
telling the truth, going to work, finishing your homework, giving money to the
poor, returning a lost item etc.
2. Act of Man
Actions beyond one’s consciousness; not dependent on the intellect & the will •
ESSENTIAL QUALITIES of Acts of Man done without knowledge – Without consent –
Involuntary
MORALITY OF HUMAN ACTS
What is Morality?
• From the Greek word MORES - behavior
• Refers to the sense of rightness or wrongness of an act.
• Quality of the human act that is either good or bad, right or wrong based on
some norms that are either inherent in the act or are observed due to some
individual or social conventional acceptance •

A moral act depends on whether or not there is consent by the will. HUMAN ACTS
They include: 1) Thought 2) Speech 3) Action What is the basis of Morality?
• Morality is based in part upon the fundamental conviction that:
1. There is an objective moral law which can be known by the intellect – NATURAL
MORAL LAW
2. Some actions are intrinsically evil – not justifiable regardless of the
circumstance. Basic Inclination of Man based on Natural Law Seek food including the
highest good which is God. Preserve himself in existence
3. To preserve the species
4. Live in community with other men
5. To use his intellect & will – to know the truth & make his own decisions
Which Action is subjected to morality? • All Human act are subjected to morality.
• Human acts are different from animal act because man by nature acts towards an
end. His life has a purpose. Human acts are those that are freely chosen in
consequence of a judgment of conscience. • They are either good or evil. • Their
morality depends on: the object chosen, the intention and the circumstances.
What are the Moral Determinants of Human Acts ?
HUMAN ACTS are neutral in themselves but they acquire morality when we speak of:
1. OBJECT OF THE ACT

2. CIRCUMSTANCE
3. INTENTION
1. OBJECT OF THE ACT - Substance/nature of the action - Good which the will
deliberately directs itself - OBJECT specifies the “act of the will” - Nature of what was
done to its distinct species - “What was performed by the moral agent?” - “An object if
the act is Good when it is in conformity with reason or when it fulfills or fits the demand
of reason. Otherwise, the object of the act is evil.
2. INTENTION/END IN VIEW - Motive of the agent – factor which the agent acts; either
be morally good or evil - Purpose for which a human agent performs the act - Concerned
with the goal of the activity - It aims at the good anticipated from the action undertaken
- “What specifically does the agent want to accomplish?” • Good intention doesn’t make
an intrinsically disordered act right • The end does not justify the means.
3. CIRCUMSTANCE - Refers to the events, occasions or conditions that make the act
concrete - Modify acts either by increasing or diminishing of the moral goodness or
evilness of an act/ responsibility of the agent - Lighten or aggravate the weight of moral
accountability of the performer * The circumstance do not change the specific nature of
the human act.
What makes a morally act good or bad?:
1. Goodness of object, end or intention & circumstance all together as well as

consequence
2. Evil end or intention corrupts the action even if the object is good
3. Avoid concrete acts that are always wrong to choose – object of the act
4. The acts which in & of themselves independent of circumstance & intention are
always gravely illicit by reason of their object. Error: to judge only the intention &
circumstance
JUDGING THE MORALITY OF HUMAN ACTS:
The moral object can either be good (e.g. praying) bad (e.g. stealing) indifferent (e.g.
eating) The intention can be either good or bad. There are some actions that are evil by their
very nature. (e.g. murder, adultery). • These are never morally allowable, even if the intention
and the circumstances are good. JUDGING THE MORALITY OF HUMAN ACTS
Human Act as Freely Chosen

Human Acts are not merely physical events that come and go, like the falling of rain or
the turning of the leaves, nor do they as Karol Wojtyla emphasized in THE ACTING PERSON,
“happen” to a person. They are, rather, the outward expression if a person’s choices for at the
core of a human act is free, self- determining choice, an act of the will, which as such is something
spiritual that abides within the person, giving him his identity as a moral being. Although many
human acts have physical, observable components, they are morally significant because they
embody and carry out free human choices. • We are free to choose what we are to do and, by so
choosing, to make ourselves the kind of person we are. Human Act as Freely Chosen. But we are
not free to make what we choose to do to be good or evil, right or wrong. • We know this from
our own sad experience, for at time we have freely chosen to do things that we knew, at the very
moment we choose to do them, were morally wrong. We can, in short, choose badly or well.
Human Act as Freely Chosen.
NATURE AND ETHICAL TERM OF MORALITY
Morality claims our lives. It makes claims upon each of us that are stronger than the claims
of law and takes priority over self-interest. As human beings living in the world, we have basic
duties and obligations. There are certain things we must do and certain things we must not do.
In other words, there is an ethical dimension of human existence. As human beings, we
experience life in a world of good and evil and understand certain kinds of actions in terms of
right and wrong. The very structure of human existence dictates that we must make choices.
Ethics helps us use our freedom responsibly and understand who we are. And, ethics gives
direction in our struggle to answer the fundamental questions that ask how we should live our
lives and how we can make right choices.
The Four Nature and Ethical Terms of Morality:
1. Moral
Morals are the prevailing standards of behavior that enable people to live
cooperatively in groups. Moral refers to what societies sanction as right and acceptable.
Most people tend to act morally and follow societal guidelines. Morality often requires
that people sacrifice their own short-term interests for the benefit of society. People or
entities that are indifferent to right and wrong are considered amoral, while those who
do evil acts are considered immoral. While some moral principles seem to transcend time
and culture, such as fairness, generally speaking, morality is not fixed. Morality describes
the particular values of a specific group at a specific point in time. Historically, morality
has been closely connected to religious traditions, but today its significance is equally
important to the secular world. For example, businesses and government agencies have
codes of ethics that employees are expected to follow.
Moral derives from the Latin word meaning "custom" that also gave English mores,
which refers to customs, values, and behaviors that are accepted by a particular group.
As an adjective, moral describes people or things that follow accepted customs or
behavior. For example, a person's moral obligation is to do what is right, and a moral
lesson is one that teaches what is right. As a noun, moral refers to a lesson learned from
a story or an experience ("the moral of the story is to be satisfied with what you have");
plural morals denotes the proper ideas and beliefs about how to act or behave, as in "a
person with no morals" or "the company's actions demonstrate a lack of morals."
Examples of Morals:
Morals are formed out of a person's values. Values are the foundation of a person's
ability to judge between right and wrong. Morals build on this to form specific, context-
driven rules that govern a person's behavior. They're formed from a person's life
experience and are subject to opinion. For example, someone's morals might indicate
they're opposed to murder. That's a pretty general rule of thumb. But what about
something more mundane? While one person's morals might tell them not to gossip,
another person's morals might be quite different. They might not consider gossip to be a
bad thing. Consider the following examples of morals and see how many line up with your
core values and beliefs.
2. Non-Moral
Non- moral has the specific meaning of "not falling into or existing in the sphere of
morals or ethics." Thus, a non-moral act or action is not subject to moral judgment
because morality is not taken into consideration. Spilling milk is a non-moral act, and
although you might be judged by the clothes you wear, your decision to wear them is non-
moral.
So in another part of the survey, we asked about basic cognitive faculties, like
executing voluntary movements and object recognition…; about non-moral personality
change, like extroversion, sense of humor, creativity and intelligence.
3. Amoral
Amoral is an adjective. It means not influenced by right and wrong. If a person who is
immoral acts against his conscience, a person who is amoral doesn’t have a conscience to
act against in the first place. Infants could be said to be amoral since they have not yet
developed the brain capacity to understand right and wrong. Some extreme sociopaths
are also amoral, since they lack a conscience as a result of a cognitive disorder. An amoral
person does not have a sense of right and wrong. For example, an infant, unlearned in
what is right and wrong, is amoral; someone who lacks the mental ability to understand
right or wrong due to illness might be described as amoral. These are illustrative
examples, however; amoral can be used to describe any person, or his or her actions, who
is aware of what is right and wrong but does wrong anyway and responds indifferently
about it.
Additionally, amoral means "being neither moral nor immoral," or specifically "lying
outside the sphere to which moral judgments apply." It's almost a truism, art is amoral. Art doesn't
care about morality. Art may have to deal with morality, but art in its own marshaling of the
materials given to it is only looking for art. It's looking how to make an effect, an impact. Amoral
actions or events: those areas of interest exhibiting indifference to and not abiding by the moral
rules or codes of society.
4. Immoral
The negative prefix im- connects with moral soon after the formation of immoral.
Immoral describes a person or behavior that conscientiously goes against accepted
morals—that is, the proper ideas and beliefs about how to behave in a way that is
considered right and good by the majority of people. Immoral connotes the intent of
evilness or wrongdoing, and it is a true antonym of moral. Immoral actions or events:
those areas of interest where moral categories do apply and of are such a kind as to be
evil, sinful, or wrong according to some code or theory of ethics.
a. Telling a lie is an example of immoral action.
b. An immoral action then can be defined as a violation of a rule or code of ethics.
c. Strictly speaking, on the one hand, an action could be considered immoral on the
basis of one rule, code, or theory and, on the other hand, be considered moral or even
non-moral on another rule, code, or theory. Such examples are common from the point
of view of sociological or moral relativism.
1. Note that this observation does not imply ethical relativism is true since we are
speaking in terms of morals and not ethics.
2. Even though most persons do not clearly distinguish between morals (descriptive
ethics) and ethics (prescriptive ethics), the foregoing is a compelling reason to do so.

IV. LEARNING ACTIVITY
Case Study
A country with a history of corruption and bribery has made great efforts via
education and prosecution to conduct government business in an open and fair way. The
country has made considerable progress. As part of its reform, the country overhauled its
visa procedures for foreigners wanting to live in the country. In the previous corrupt
environment, people with money would secretly pay off a government employee to have
their visa application approved quickly, while other visa applications took much longer.
Now the government has made the application procedure transparent and established a
new procedure in law. The new procedure offers two visa tracks, the "Regular Track",
which does not require any payment, and the "Premium Track", which requires a US
$10,000 payment. The Regular Track takes just as long to process a visa application as an
application without a bribe took before the reforms. The Premium Track moves along just
as quickly as a visa application with a bribe took before the reforms. Most people wanting
to immigrate to the country cannot afford the Premium Track.
What are the issues of integrity, ethics and law posed in the case study? What options
does the country have, and what should it do and why? Classify the moral determinants
of Human Acts in this case (Object of the Act, Circumstance, Intention).
Reference:
The case authored by Akshay Vyas, appear on the website of the Markkula Center for
Applied Ethics at the University of Santa Clara


Im No.: Im-Ge Ethics-2 SEM-2021-2022: Republic of The Philippines Nueva Vizcaya State University Bayombong, Nueva Vizcaya

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Im No.: Im-Ge Ethics-2 SEM-2021-2022: Republic of The Philippines Nueva Vizcaya State University Bayombong, Nueva Vizcaya

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Republic of the Philippines

NUEVA VIZCAYA STATE UNIVERSITY

College of Arts and Sciences

DEGREE General COURSE GE ETHICS

I. CHAPTER TITLE: ACCOUNTABILITY FOR MORALITY

II. LESSON TITLE: THE MORALITY OF HUMAN ACTS

III. CHAPTER OVERVIEW

1. The Morality of Human Acts

— the object chosen;

2. The Moral Object

Consequentialism and proportionalism are erroneous theories concerning the moral

NVSU-FR-ICD-05-00 (081220) Page 2 of 14

Circumstances “are secondary elements of a moral act. They contribute to increasing or

5. Indirect Voluntary Actions

An effect can be tolerated without being willed by its agent;

An effect can be said to be “willed indirectly”:

NVSU-FR-ICD-05-00 (081220) Page 3 of 14

What are the three conditions of the Human Act?

NVSU-FR-ICD-05-00 (081220) Page 4 of 14

NVSU-FR-ICD-05-00 (081220) Page 6 of 14

When is MAN FREE in his actions? When is an act freely done?

NVSU-FR-ICD-05-00 (081220) Page 7 of 14

HUMAN ACTS VS. ACTS OF MAN

MORALITY OF HUMAN ACTS

NVSU-FR-ICD-05-00 (081220) Page 8 of 14

What are the Moral Determinants of Human Acts ?

1. OBJECT OF THE ACT

NVSU-FR-ICD-05-00 (081220) Page 9 of 14

What makes a morally act good or bad?:

1. Goodness of object, end or intention & circumstance all together as well as

JUDGING THE MORALITY OF HUMAN ACTS:

Human Act as Freely Chosen

NVSU-FR-ICD-05-00 (081220) Page 10 of 14

NATURE AND ETHICAL TERM OF MORALITY

The Four Nature and Ethical Terms of Morality:

a. Telling a lie is an example of immoral action.

b. An immoral action then can be defined as a violation of a rule or code of ethics.

NVSU-FR-ICD-05-00 (081220) Page 13 of 14

IV. LEARNING ACTIVITY

NVSU-FR-ICD-05-00 (081220) Page 14 of 14

You might also like