LESSON 2: Human Acts and Moral

Accountability
What Will You Learn?
After studying this lesson,you should be able to:
1.differentiate human acts from acts of man;
2.describe human act  as an object of morality according to its three elements;
3.define the good in human act through its three determinants;
4.determine the culpability in an act through its modifiers and the principles that apply.
5.make judicious dispensing of reward and punishments ;
6.recognize the role of culture in human act;
7.discuss ethical relativism in the Filipino context.

What Is This Lesson About?

Lesson two of this module will address the following questions:
-Are all actions that preceed from man subject to moral analysis?
-Are we always accountable for our actions?
-As to our accountability or culpability,how do we determine the degrees to
judiciously dispense reward or punishments?
-How is good in one’s  determined ?
To give justice to those questions,this fraction of the module will define/describe
human as an object of morality,differentiate with acts of man,enumerate and explain the
three elements that will illustrate how human acts become culpable,subject to moral
analysis or investigation.The good will be described according to its three determinants
as well as the circumstances that modify the good in an act through the principles that
apply.Additional discussion is given to illustrate how does culture influence moral
judgment through ethical relativism.
Let’s Study:
DEFINITION OF HUMAN ACTS
Human acts(Actus Humani)refer to actions that proceed from insight into the
nature and purpose of one’s doing and from consent of free will.Specifically,human acts
are those actions done by a person in certain situations which are essentially the result
of his conscious knowledge,freedom and voluntariness or consent.Hence,these actions
are performed by man  knowingly,freely,and voluntarily.
Paul Glenn defines human acts as an act which proceeds from the deliberate
free will of man (1965:3).It is that which a person does or performs in a given situation
when he  decides and thinks for himself.A human act is that which is classified as good
or bad,subject to morality and its norms.
 DEFINITION OF ACTS OF MAN
Acts of man are those that humans share  with animals whose actions and
movements from purely sensual nature.These things are performed without deliberation
and free will.The person here is neither morally responsible nor accountable for these
kinds of actions.
BASIC ELEMENTS OF HUMAN ACTS
1-THE ACT MUST BE DELIBERATE.It must be performed by a conscious agent who is
very much aware of what he is doing and of its consequences.
2-THE ACT MUST BE PERFORMED IN FREEDOM.It must be done  by an agent who
is freely acting,with his own volition and power.
3-THE ACT MUST BE DONE VOLUNTARILY.It must be performed by an agent who
decides willfully to perform the act.This wilfulness is the resolve to do an act here and
now,or in some other time in the future.
THE ABSENCE OR LACK OF ANY OF THESE ESSENTIAL ELEMENTS
RENDERS AN ENTIRE ACT DEFECTIVE AND LESS VOLUNTARY OR
INVOLUNTARY,WHICH IN TURN ALSO AFFECTS ITS MORAL QUALITY.
MAJOR DETERMINANTS OF THE MORALITY OF HUMAN ACTS
By determinants of morality,we mean the various factors or elements that would
allow us to identify concretely, what is good or bad,in reference to the objective norm of
morality.They are the sources that define the goodness or rightness of actions-done
with knowledge,freedom and consent.
1-THE ACT ITSELF OR THE OBJECT OF THE ACT.They are the actions that are done
or performed by an agent or simply what the person does.More concretely,the object of
the act  is that effect which an action primarily and directly causes.
2-THE MOTIVES OR THE INTENTION.It the reason behind our acting.Depending on
one’s motive or intention,a particular act can be modified in its moral worth,there are (4)
principles to be considered:
2.1.An indifferent act can become morally good or morally evil depending upon
the      intention of the person doing the act.
2.2.An objectively good act becomes morally evil due to a wrong or bad motive.
2.3.An intrinsically morally good act can receive added goodness if done with an
equally noble intention or motive.
2.4.An intrinsically evil act can never become morally good even if it is done with
a good motive or intention.
3-THE CIRCUMSTANCES.The moral goodness or badness of an act is determined not
only by the object or act itself,plus the motive or intention of the moral agent,but also on
the circumstances or situation surrounding the performance of the action.Circumstances
are those conditions outside of the act.They are not part and parcel of the act itself.They
affect the act by aggravating,mitigating,exempting or justifying the voluntariness or
freedom  and thus affecting the morality of the act.
FOUR TYPES OF  CIRCUMSTANCES  THAT AFFECT THE MORALITY OF THE ACT
1-MITIGATING OR EXTENUATING CIRCUMSTANCES.They lessen or decrease the
degree of moral good or evil in an act.  E.g.Antecedent Concupiscence.
2-AGGRAVATING CIRCUMSTANCES.They increase the degree of moral good or evil
in an act without adding a new and distinct species of moral good or evil.  
E.g.Murder,Direct Abortion..
3-JUSTIFYING CIRCUMSTANCES.They show adequate reason for some acts
done.They diminish voluntariness and culpability.  E.g. Self-defense or Just war.
4-SPECIFYING CIRCUMSTANCES.They give a new and distinct species of moral good
or evil of the act.   E.g.The killer is minor or mentally challenged.

Let’s Study:
MODIFIERS OF HUMAN ACT
They are the factors that affect to a considerable extent man’s inner disposition
towards certain actions.They influence specifically the mental and /or emotional state of
a person concerned to the point that the voluntariness involved in an act is either
increased or decreased.This is significant precisely because the moral accountability of
the doer of the action is also increased or decreased,as the case may be.
These modifiers affect human acts in the essentials qualities of
knowledge,freedom,voluntariness and so make them less perfectly human.
1-IGNORANCE
Ignorance is the absence of necessary knowledge which a person in a given
situation,who is performing a certain act,ought to have.Ignorance is the negation of
knowledge.
1. VINCIBLE IGNORANCE-this can be easily remedied through ordinary
diligence and reasonable efforts on the part of  the person who is in this
particular mental state.This type is conquerable since it is correctible.

.AFFECTED VINCIBLE IGNORANCE-an individual keeps by positive efforts

in inorder to escape  blame and accountability.

2. INVINCIBLE IGNORANCE-this type of ignorance which an individual may

have without being aware of it,or having knowledge of it,simply lacks the
necessary means to correct and solve it.This type in unconquerable since it
cannot be corrected.
              
PRINCIPLES GOVERNING IGNORANCE:
a-Invincible ignorance renders an act involuntarily.A person cannot be held morally
responsible or liable if he is not aware of the state of his ignorance.
b-vincible ignorance does not destroy,but lessens the voluntariness and the
corresponding accountability over the act.To act with vincible ignorance is to act
imprudently because he is conscious of the state of his ignorance.Enough diligence
should have been employed to overcome it.
c-affected or pretended ignorance does not excuse a person from his bad actions;on
the contrary it actually increases their malice.

2-CONCUPISCENCE OR PASSION
Passion or concupiscence is here understood as a strong or powerful feeling or
emotion.They are  those bodily appetites or tendencies as experienced and expressed
in such feelings as fear,love,hatred,despair,horror,sadness,anger,grief and the like.It is
also known as sentiments,affections,desires.It is either an inclinations towards desirable
objects or,a tendency away from undesirable or harmful things.
ACCORDING TO ST. THOMAS AQUINAS,”In themselves passions are
indifferent;they are not intrinsically evil...in as much as they are the movements
of the irrational appetite,have no moral good or evil in themselves.But if they are
subject to the reason and will,then moral good and evil are in them.God has
endowed the human person  with these appetites  which pervade his whole
sensitive life.They are instruments and means for self-preservation of the
 individual and the human race.Every person needs them for self-
defense,growth,and improvement.The saints and Christ himself expressed their
passions”(as cited in Salibay2008;40).
2.1.ANTECEDENT CONCUPISCENCE are those that precede the act.It may
happen that a person is emotionally aroused to perform an act.It predisposes the
person to act.
2.2.CONSEQUENT CONCUPISCENCE are the direct results of the will which
fully consents to them instead of subordinating them to its control.
PRINCIPLES GOVERNING CONCUPISCENCE OR PASSION
a-Antecedent passions do not always destroy voluntariness,but they diminish
accountability  for the resultant act.They weaken the will power of a person
without ,however,completely obstructing his freedom.
b-Consequent passions do not lessen voluntariness,but may even increase
accountability.This is because they are the direct results of the will which fully consents
to them instead of subordinating them to its control.Here,the person concerned who
wilfully acts following his passion allows himself to be completely controlled by it,and
hence is considered morally responsible.

3-FEAR
Fear is the disturbance of the mind of a person who is confronted by an
impending danger or harm to himself or loved ones.It a passion which arises as an
impulsive movement of avoidance of a threatening evil ordinarily accompanied by bodily
disturbances.
Only those ACTS DONE OUT OF FEAR or BECAUSE OF FEAR are considered
as modifiers since they modify the freedom of the doer,inducing him to act in a certain
predetermined manner,often without his full consent. There also ACTS DONE WITH
FEAR.
PRINCIPLES GOVERNING FEAR
a-Acts done with fear are voluntary.This is so since the person acting with fear is acting
in spite of his fear,still very much in control of his conduct.The person concerned
remains responsible of his action.
b-Acts done  because  or out of intense fear or panic are simply involuntary.Moral
accountability is extinguished because consent was not exercised when the act was
performed.Actions in this sense exempts the agent from any moral and legal
responsibility.
4-VIOLENCE
Violence refers to any physical force exerted on a person by another free agent
for the purpose of compelling the said person to act against his will. This is any act
where great and brutal force is inflicted to a person like torture,mutilation and the like.
PRINCIPLES GOVERNING VIOLENCE
Any action resulting from violence is simply involuntary.The person whose
physical external conduct emanates from and controlled by violence should always be
in defiance in terms of one’s will.This means that even one is compelled to do
something,one should not consent to it.
Active resistance should always be offered to unjust aggressors.But if
resistanceis impossible,or  if there is a serious  threat to one’s life,a person confronted
by violence can always offer intrinsic resistance  by withholding consent;that is enough
to save one’s moral integrity.ABSOLUTE VIOLENCE excludes any voluntariness from
the forced action.Lack of consent precludes a human act and consequently
imputability.However,RELATIVE VIOLENCE does not impair voluntariness completely
but lessens it.There is a partial consent of the will.

5-HABIT
Habit is a constant and easy way of doing things acquired by the repetition of the
same act.Also,habit is the readiness,born of frequently repeated acts, for acting in a
certain manner.
PRINCIPLES GOVERNING HABIT
Actions done by force of habit are voluntary in cause,unless a reasonable effort
is made to counteract the habitual inclination.This means that if the person  will simply
let  his habit take control of his action without doing anything about it whatsoever,then
we can say that one is morally accountable by allowing the habit to determine one’s act.
An opposed habit lessens voluntariness and sometimes precludes it
completely.The reason is that a habit weakens both the intellect and will in the concrete
situation in a similar way as passion does.When a person decides to fight his habit and
for as long as the effort towards this purpose continues,actions resulting from such 
habit may be regarded as acts  of man and not accountable.The reason is that the
cause of such habit is no longer expressly desired.
Let’s Study!

ETHICAL RELATIVISM
Ethical Relativism is a theory that holds that there are no universally valid moral
principles ;that all moral values are valid relative to culture or individual choice.For an
ethical relativist,whether an action is right or wrongdepends on the moral norms of the
society or ythe moral commitments of the individual,and no absolute standard exists by
which differing rules or commitments can be judged.
Hence,there are no values that cut across cultural boundaries and peoples that
are not relative to the specific place or context in which they are held.Morality therefore 
depends on specific social or cultural circumstances.What is then morally right or wrong
may vary fundamentally from person to person or culture to culture.
Relativism does not,however, try to tell us which acts and practices are right and
wrong.It only says that no matter how we answer that question,we must acknowledge
that an act or conduct may be both right and wrong at the same time –say,right in one
culture but wrong in another.To put it more simply,differing moral views about the same
action may be both right at the same time.

ARGUMENTS FOR ETHICAL RELATIVISM

1.THE CULTURAL DIFFERENCES ARGUMENT
One of the most often cited reasons to support Ethical Relativism is the actual
existence of moral diversity among cultures.Throughout history,many societies have
held beliefs and practices about morality that are strikingly different from our own.It is
uncontroversially true that people have different customs and ideas about
right/wrong,good/bad.There is no universal or transcultural consensus on which actions
are right and wrong.eventhough there is a considerable overlapping with regards to this.
Ruth Benedict(1887-1948),Patterns of Culture(1935),claims that careful study of
the cultural practices of different peoples supports the idea that what is and is not
behaviourally normal is culturally determined.
Thus,acquaintance with the wide diversity of moral beliefs across societies may
lead us to deny that there really is only one correct moral code that applies to and binds
all societies.
2.THE ARGUMENT FROM RESPECT
Part of its powerful drawing power is due to the fact that such view has been
thought to promote tolerance.Accordingly,if moral codes differ from culture and there is
no objective or culturally dependent basis by which to judge the moral code of any
culture,then the moral code of one’s particular culture has no special status compared
with the rest.
Moreover,no culture has the right to impose its own ethical views on anyone
else,least of all on people in different cultures.The appropriate attitude to take is
therefore one of respect and tolerance for moral standpoints different from what one
upholds.Tolerance is a virtue while taking a superior stance is arrogance,if not plain
narrow mindedness especially in this post-modern era when there seems to have a fall
of the absolutes.
 Through Ethical Relativism,it is believed that people would become more
accepting of moralities of others ,no matter how these may be radically different from
their own.People have to realize that the other side of the fence is not necessarily
wrong.
3.THE PSYCHOLOGICAL ARGUMENT
Our values are simply the result of our having been conditioned to behave in a
certain way.All of us acquire our moral beliefs by a process of psychological
conditioning.Thus,if we had been conditioned differently,we would have different moral
beliefs.
The conclusion becomes inevitable:our moral beliefs are neither true nor
false,right nor wrong,for there is no such thing as objective truth in ethics.All of us are
just subject to the psychic manipulation by our significant others.

4.THE CONFORMITY ARGUMENT

Some people accept Ethical Relativism because they somehow think that people
should conform with and embrace the ethical code of their respective societies or
cultures.As social beings,it is but natural for people to easily affiliate and conform to the
accepted ethical standards of the particular group that they belong.
People would come to be more accepting of their own societal norms.Their belief
gives a good basis for a common morality within a culture – in fact,a kind of a
democratic basis where diverse ideas and principles are pooled  in,thus insuring that
the norms that a certain society would eventually accept have a wide and solid support.
5.THE PROVABILITY ARGUMENT
Finally,another reason to believe that what this theory holds is indeed true is the
undeniable fact of moral dispute occurring between and among groups as well as
individuals.The usual experience of people having a great difficulty in knowing what is
the morally right thing to do in a particular situation has led to a general attitude of
scepticism on the possibility of determining ,much worse establishing a universal and
definite moral standard.
The main point of contention in this line of argument is this::”If there is such thing
as objective or universal truth in ethics,we  should be able to prove that some moral
opinions are true and others false.But in fact we cannot prove which moral opinions are
true and false.Therefore there is no such thing as objective truth in ethics”