Professional Documents
Culture Documents
Nature and Scope *Ethics should be taken not just as an academic study,
OBJECTIVES but as fundamentally, a “way of life.”
the Golden Rule: “Do unto others what you want others *This is “the substance of the moral act”
to do unto to you,
2.The Motive or the Intention
THE MORALITY OF HUMAN ACTS *The motive is the purpose or intention of which
AND MORAL ACOUNTABILITY something is done.
DEFINITION OF HUMAN ACTS AND ACTS OF MAN *It is the reason behind our acting.
Human acts (actus humani) are those actions done by a *It answers the question “WHY the person does what
person in a certain situation which are essentially the he does?”
result of his/her conscious knowledge, freedom and
*One normally performs an act as a means to achieve
voluntariness.
an end or goal,
Acts of man - are actions which happen in the person
THE FOUR PRINCIPLES OF MOTIVES OR INTENTION
“naturally”, even without his/her awareness of
himself/herself while doing them. These actions are 1. An indifferent act can become morally good or
done without deliberation, reflection and consent. morally evil depending upon the intention of the person
doing the act.
“all human acts are acts of man, but not all acts of man
are human acts” - Speaking/Talking is good or bad…. depending on the
intention of your talking/speaking ‘….to voice your idea
Acts of man, therefore, are those that humans share
or you destroy someone’s reputation
with animals
2. An objectively good act becomes morally evil due to a
These things are performed without deliberation and
wrong or bad motive.
free will.
- Helping or praying is good but it will become evil
The person here is neither morally responsible nor
depending on the intention (election or curse)
accountable for these kinds of actions.
3. An intrinsically (objectively) morally good act can
BASIC ELEMENTS OF HUMAN ACTS
receive added goodness, if done with an equally noble
1.) The act must be deliberate. It must be performed by intention or motive.
a conscious agent who is very much aware of what
-Helping or praying is better when you pray for peace,
he/she is doing and of its consequences good or evil.
give thanks to the Lord for the graces you received, or
2.) The act must be performed in freedom. It must be glorify HIM.
done by an agent who is acting freely, with his/her own
volition and powers.
4. An intrinsically evil act can never become morally which served as a reason for it, render it worthy of
approval or condemnation.
good even if it is done with a good motive or intention.
SEVEN KINDS OF CIRCUMSTANCES
- Robinhood is stealing to help the poor
These circumstances will affect the morality of human
-Cheating to pass the board exam action
-Killing the drug Lord 1. Who - the person who does or receives the action.
THE END SHOULD ALWAYS JUSTIFY THE MEAN…. THE * Status, Position, Education, Age, Illiterate, Out of
MEAN SHOULD ALWAYS JUSTIFY END.. school Youth, Gangster
THE CIRCUMSTANCES 2. WHERE – is the setting of an action. Every act is done
in a particular place.
The moral goodness or badness of an act is determined
not only by the object or act itself, plus the motive or * Is the act done inside the house, street, way going
intention of the moral agent, but also on the home, etc
circumstances or situation surrounding the
3. BY WHAT MEANS – Intentional or accident?
performance of the action.
Is there any use of force, compulsion, threats, coercion,
Circumstances refer to the various conditions outside of
intimidation, embarrassing words, lewd remarks, vulgar
the act. They are not, strictly speaking, part and parcel
statements, insensitive comments?
of the act itself.
4. WHY – is the intention or the motive that moves the
Circumstances are conditions that influence, to a lesser
agent to an action. (#2 determinants of the morality of
or greater degree, the moral quality of the human act.
human act)
FOUR TYPES OF CIRCUMSTANCES
It answers the question “WHY the person does what he
1.Mitigating or extenuating circumstances does?”
It diminish the degree of moral good or evil in an act.
5. HOW – (By what means) This circumstance also
To kill an innocent person is homicide or murder.
involves different conditions or modalities such as
circumstances lessen the severity of the act and its
voluntariness, consent, violence, fear, ignorance.
punishment.
It also includes the particular
2. Aggravating circumstances
weapon/equipment/tools/gadgets/etc. that the person
it increases the degree of moral good or evil
used or employed in the performance of the act.
The same act of murder can be made worse if it is
carried out at night and with the use of superior arms Was the action performed in “cold blood,” “in a painful
by a known recidivist. manner,” “in a very brutal way (as in torture),”
“maliciously,” etc.?
3.Justifying circumstances
It shows adequate reason for some acts done. 6. WHEN –Every act is done at a particular and specific
A person charged with murder can vindicate time. The element of time is also important and even
himself/herself if he/she can prove that he/she killed a vital as to the moral assessment and judgment of the
superior aggressor and that he/she did so in defense of human act.
his/her own life. (Hold up, robbery)
Was the act performed in broad daylight or was it done
4. Specifying circumstances during nighttime? Was it committed when the victim
It gives a new and distinct species of moral good or evil was in the act of praying or while asleep and unaware?
of the act.
The moral quality of the act of murder changes if the 7. TO WHOM—refers to the recipient of the action, or
murderer is wife of the victim, or if the murderer and the person to whom the act is done. (refer to # 1- The
the victim are one and the same. the circumstances who)
PRINCIPLE GOVERNING CIRCUMSTANCES PRINCIPLES GOVERNING IGNORANCE
1. Circumstances may either increase or decrease the A. Invincible ignorance renders an act involuntary. A
wrongfulness of an evil act. person cannot be held morally responsible or
liable if he or she is not aware of the state of his or
2. Circumstances may either increase or decrease the
her ignorance.
merits of a good act.
B. Vincible ignorance does not destroy, but lessens
3. Circumstances may exempt temporarily someone the voluntariness and the corresponding
from doing a required act. accountability over the act. A person who
becomes aware and conscious of the state of
4. Circumstances do not prove the guilt of a person. The ignorance he or she is in the moral obligation to
presence of a person when a crime is committed does correct it by employing enough diligence in finding
not prove he is the criminal when a crime is committed. the information required to make one’s ignorance
MODIFIERS OF HUMAN ACTS disappear. “To act with vincible ignorance is to act
imprudently.”
These modifiers, accordingly, “affect human acts in the C. Affected or pretended ignorance does not excuse
essential qualities of knowledge, freedom, a person from his/her bad actions; on the contrary
voluntariness, and so make them less perfectly human’ it actually increases their malice. This specific kind
(Glenn 1965: 25). of ignorance happens when a person really wants
and chooses to be ignorant so that he/she can
1.Ignorance is the absence of necessary knowledge
eventually escape any accountability arising from
which a person in a given situation, who is performing a
the wrongfulness of the act later on.
certain act, ought to have. Ignorance therefore is a
negative thing for it is a negation of knowledge. MODIFIERS OF HUMAN ACTS
1.1 Vincible Ignorance can easily be remedied through 2. Passion or Concupiscence
ordinary diligence and reasonable efforts on the part of
the person who is in this particular mental state. This Passion or concupiscence is a strong or powerful feeling
specific type of ignorance is therefore conquerable or emotion.
since it is correctible. Positive emotions – love, desire, delight, hope and
Medical practitioner bravery
Student Negative emotions - hatred, despair, horror, sadness,
1.2 Invincible ignorance is the kind of ignorance which anger, grief and the like.
an individual may have without being aware of it, or, According to St. Thomas Aquinas,
having knowledge of it, simply lacks the necessary
means to correct and solve it. This type of ignorance is In themselves passions are indifferent; they are not
unconquerable, and thus not correctible evil…inasmuch as they are the movements of the
irrational appetite, have no moral good or evil in
Restaurant – waiter and chef themselves. But if they are subject to the reason and
School – student and parent will, then moral good and evil are in them. God has
1.3 Affected vincible ignorance This is the kind of endowed the human person with these appetites which
ignorance which an individual keeps by positive efforts pervade his/her whole sensitive life. They are
in order to escape blame and accountability. instruments and means for self- preservation of the
individual and the human race. Every person needs
Student ignores the text of the class president them for self-defense, growth, and improvement. The
saints and Christ Himself expressed their passions (as
cited in Salibay 2008: 40).
Passions are either classified as antecedent or 4. VIOLENCE
Here, the person concerned who willfully acts following if there is a serious threat to one’s life, a person
his/her passion, allows himself/herself to be completely confronted by violence can always offer intrinsic
controlled by it and hence, is considered morally resistance by withholding consent; that is enough to
responsible for it. save one’s moral integrity” (Panizo as cited in Agapay
1991:25).
3. Fear
Fear is defined as “the disturbance of the mind of a 5. Habit
person who is confronted by an impending danger or
Habit, is a “constant and easy way of doing things
harm to himself or loved ones” (Agapay2008: 36-37
acquired by the repetition of the same act” (Panizo
Here, it is treated as a “special kind” of passion, and 1964:37).
hence also treated as another distinct modifier of
Principles governing Habit
human act since it is a kind of a test of one’s mental
character. *When a person will simply let his/her habit take
control of his/her action without doing anything about
Principles governing Fear
it whatsoever, then we can say that he/she is morally
1.Acts done “with” fear are voluntary. This is so since accountable of his/her action by allowing the habit to
the person acting with fear is acting in spite of his/her determine his/her conduct.
fear, and thus, still very much in control of his/her
*When a person decides to fight his habit, and for as
conduct. Therefore the person concerned remains
long as the effort towards this purpose continues,
morally responsible of his/her action, whether good or
actions resulting from such habit may be regarded as
bad, right or wrong.
acts of man and not accountable.
Example: Cheating, Stealing
-THE END IS THE INTEGRAL PART OF EVERY MORAL ACT 5. THE PRINCIPLE OF STEWARDSHIP
THE 3 DETERMINANTS OF MORAL ACTION MUST BE ALL - WE HUMANS ARE ONLY GIVEN THE POWER TO TAKE
GOOD OR MORALLY RIGHT GOOD CARE OF THE CREATION AND DO NOT HAVE SOLE
AUTHORITY TO DO WHATEVER WE WANT.
SPECIAL ETHICAL PRINCIPLES UNDER NATURAL LAW
THEORY - THE EARTH AND EVERYTHING IN NATURE AS A GIFT
FROM GOD, HAS TO BE TAKEN CARED OF AND SHOULD
1. THE FOUR PRINCIPLES OF DOUBLE EFFECT NOT BE ABUSED IN ANY WAY
1. THE ACTION INTENDED MUST BE GOOD IN ITSELF, UTILITARIANISM
OR ATLEAST MORALLY INDIFERRENT; OTHERWISE THE
ACT IS AT THE VERY OUTSET An ethical theory founded by Jeremy Bentham and
developed and popularized by Stuart Mill.
2.THE GOOD EFFECT MUST FOLLOW THE ACTION AT
LEAST AS IMMEDIATELY AS THE EVIL EFFECT, OR THE Principle of Utility
GOOD AND EVIL EFFECTS MUST OCCUR "An act is good or morally right if it promotes happiness
SIMULTANEOUSLY; and bad or immoral if it tends to produce pain."
3. THE FORESEEN EVIL EFFECT SHOULD NOT BE KEY PRINCIPLE IS HAPPINESS
INTENDED OR APPROVED, BUT MERELY PERMITTED TO
OCCUR; In utilitarianism, an act is good or morally right if it
produces greatest happiness to the greatest number of
4. THERE MUST BE A PROPORTIONATE AND people; and bad or immoral if it produces more harm or
SUFFECIENT REASON FOR ALLOWING THE EVIL EFFECT pain than benefits or happiness to the greatest number
TO OCCUR WHILE PERFORMING THE ACTION of people.
2. THE PRINCIPLE OF THE INVIOLABILITY OF LIFE ASSET = GOOD
- EVERY HUMAN LIFE IS OF INFINITE VALUE AS IT IS A LIABILITY = BAD
SACRED AND PRESCIOUS GIFT FROM THE ALMIGHTY UTILITARIANISM IS ALSO KNOWN AS
CREATOR. CONSEQUENTIALISM
Utilitarians do not care whether the action is done out Bentham treats all forms of Happiness as equal
of deception, lie or manipulation as long as it produces
For Mill, Intellectual and Moral pleasures must be
maximum benefits to many people.
regarded as (higher) pleasures. Must be higher than
CHEATING sensual pleasures
KILLING
MURDER DEONTOLOGY
EUTHANASIA Greek root word- “dein” or “deon”, meaning “to be
ABORTION obligated”, “duty”.
INJUSTICE
INHUMANITY Duty or Obligation as the main motivation or intention
DIVORCE in human actions
Felicific Calculus For Kant, he claims that what makes an act right/good
and wrong/bad does not depend on its results or
the intense (intensity) the pleasure, the better. the consequences, since all these are simply beyond one’s
longer (duration) it lasts, the better. the more certain control-hence a matter of luck or accident.
(certainty) that it will happen, the better. the closer
(propinquity) that it will occur, the better. The greater Hence, morality should be something of which one
the possibility (fecundity) that it will be followed by should have total control.
another pleasure, the better. the purer (purity) the
Doing Good of what is right is my Obligation
pleasure, the better; the greater the number of people
that it benefits (extent), the better. Telling the TRUTH is ALWAYS RIGTH even if, in doing so
migth produce BAD results
JEREMY BENTHAM'S MODEL OF UTILITARIANISM
*Lying
Happiness - Pain = Balance
*Hacking Mean End
The Balance is the basis of the morality of an action. In
In making Moral Decision, One must consider first which
other words, for Bentham, if the balance is in favor of
actions are right or wrong then proceed from there.
happiness, then the act is morally right, and if it is in
favor of pain, then it is morally wrong. RIGHT ACTIONS = I have the moral duty to act on it
simple mathematical calculation, 12 Pleaures - 6 Pains = WRONG ACTIONS = I have the moral obligation to act
6 pleasures (Balance) Hence, if this is the case, then for accordingly
Bentham the action is morally right.
THE GOOD WILL of Kant, “nothing can be called good
20 Pains - 5 pleasures = 15 pains(Balance) If this is the without qualification except of a good will”
case, then for Bentham the act is morally wrong
- It facilitates human act.
For John Stuart Mill – UTILITARIANISM We cannot
Good will
calculate the amount of pleasure or pain that an act
-It is good by virtue of its intrinsic value
produces.
-Good without qualification; Good without any
The felicific calculus cannot be the basis of morality but condition.
the majority of the people that attains happiness. *Courage, wealth, health, freedom and the like can be
used for bad purpose.
"an act is morally right if it produces greatest happiness
to the greatest number of people and it is morally GOOD WILL - How it is manifested?
wrong if it produces more pain than pleasure to the 1. When done for the sake of Duty
greatest number of people concerned." a. When you help someone and you expect something
in return....then the “Will” is not GOOD without
Mill’s utilitarianism is considered qualitative
qualification
Intellectual pleasure > Sensual pleasure.
b. If one believes that it is his/her DUTY to help without FORMULATIONS OF CATEGORICAL IMPERATIVE
expecting something in return...then “Will” is GOOD
1. Principle of Universality “Act only on that maxim
without qualification
whereby you can, at the same time will, that it should
- It is done for the sake of DUTY
become a universal law”
There is an autonomy of the WILL
*maxim - a moral principle that the agent acts.
- Self Legislating
- Not influence by outside force/factor *Everyone should act on that maxim in the similar
location/situation.
DUTY should be the motive of all moral acts
*If the maxim cannot be universalized then the action
Inclination or self-interest can never be the motive of
has no moral worth - if you cannot force everyone to
any moral act
“will” the same, then the maxim is impermissible and
ex. The doctor is moved to treat his/her patient/s considered morally wrong eg. Stealing, killing etc
because it is his/her duty, as health worker, to treat the
*If the maxim can be accepted universally.....If we can
patient/s...and not profiting the patient/s his/herself.
force everyone to do the same, then the action is
An act has moral worth if is done for the sake of morally right. eg. helping in times of need
duty....If it has done out of self-inclination then it has no
2. The Principle of Humanity
moral worth...immoral
“So act as to treat humanity whether in your own
ACTIONS THAT ACCORD OF DUTY person or in that of another never as a means but
- have NO moral worth, but not necessarily immoral always as an end”
*Human beings should be treated as an end not just as
ACTIONS DONE FOR THE SAKE OF
a mean
DUTY - have Moral Worth
*If humans are treated as means - they are reduced as a
CATEGORICAL IMPERATIVE thing or an animal eg. a mug, a car, a carabao
For Kant, Morality means acting in accordance of *Any act that treat humanity as a means is not morally
Categorical Imperative = which is the supreme principle right eg. cheating someone is absolutely
of morality “an act is moral if is done in accordance of immoral...cheating is a means to own selfish end
categorical imperative *We are not mere objects that exist to be used by
others. We are our own ends. We are rational and
CATEGORICAL IMPERATIVE autonomous. We have the ability to set our own goals
-is a command that you must follow, regardless of your and work toward them eg. coofee mugs/beers for
desires coffee/beers drinkers, Humans exist for THEMSELVES
- is a moral obligations which derive from pure reason
*It doesn't matter whether you want to be moral or Human is an end in him/herself
not....the moral law is binding on all of us *Lying and deception are unacceptable
*You treat someone as a mean to acquire your
YOU DON'T NEED RELIGION TO DETERMINE WHAT THAT desires...to attain your goals
LAW IS, BECAUSE WHAT'S RIGHT AND WRONG IS
TOTALLY KNOWABLE JUST BY USING YOUR INTELLECT
Can be gleaned from his seminal work titled: But with virtues like: COURAGE AND COWARDICE,
NICOMACHEAN ETHICS WISDOM AND IGNORANCE, AND JUSTICE AND
THE FIRST SYSTEMATIC STUDY OF ETHICS IN INJUSTICE
WESTERN CIVILIZATION WEAKNESS OF CHARACTER OR STRENGHTOF
Offers principles of conduct that would guide CHARACTER
humans in attaining the: GOOD LIFE
CONTRASTING IT WITH PLATO’S TAKE ON 2 MAJOR PRINCIPLE that will guide us in understanding
“ETHICS” Aristotle’s virtue ethics
= which is independent of: EXPERIENCE, PERSONALITY, That the following discussion will focus on:
and CIRCUMSTANCES.
1. How Aristotle develops a concept of
MORAL PRINCIPLES are immanent in our daily activities eudaimonia that appeals to a conception of
and can be discovered only through a careful study of human nature
them 2. The way in which Aristotle develops a account
of virtue that can show idea that THE LIFE OF
=Aristotle begins his ethical inquiry with an empirical VIRTUE is a LIFE OF EUDAIMONIA
study of what it is the people fundamentally desire.
EUDAIMONIA AND VIRTUE
What people fundamentally desire is
HAPPINESS or EUDAIMONIA VIRTUE= as the major source of happiness
Is the ultimate human good “THE CONCEPT OF MORAL VIRTUE= is vital to the “rational of man
HAPPINESS CONSIDERABLY VARY” his concept of HAPPINESS differs from Socrates
and Plato’s HAPPINESS CONSIST ONLY IN
In Plato and Socrate’s ethics is: “VIRTIOUS ACTIVITY”
WHAT KIND OF LIFE SHOULD ONE LIVE?
HAPPINESS=EUDAIMONIA is the ultimate end of human
Was also concerned about the GOOD LIFE life
HOW should one live HAPPINESS or THE ULTIMATE END
=was more concerned about the nature of the
GOOD LIFE Is genuinely desired for its own sake or without
1. WHAT IS THE NATURE OF HAPPINESS? qualification
2. WHAT DOES HAPPINESS CONSIST ON?
ACTIONS=which precede this end
About: THE NATURE OF HAPPINESS
Are the most valuable and cannot be
NICHOMACHEAN ETHICS=raised the question superseded by any actions driven by ordinary
concerning kinds of ends
ARISTOTLE’S VIRTUE OF ETHICS=THE CONDITIONS OF ACTIONS= which result in: HONOR, WEALTH, POWER
ITS ATTAINMENT
Is definitely part of man’s inclination to seek for
=Is ultimately tied to a full understanding of the nature HAPPINESS (as “pleasure”) BUT unfortunately,
of happiness as humanity’s ultimate goal as well as the this could not be the end which offers TRUE
concept of virtue HAPPINESS
AN EXCELLENT CHARACTER