MIDTERM PERIOD

CHAPTER 6

DETERMINANTS OF MORALITY

1. The End of the Act is the natural termination or completion of an act. The end of the act of
eating is appeasing hunger, the end of playing basketball is scoring a point, and end of
medication is curing illness.

The end of the act determines whether an act is intrinsically or extrinsically good or evil. Any act
which is consistent with the natural tendencies of human nature is intrinsically good. But those that are
contrary to reason are intrinsically evil, such as murder, abortion, kidnapping, robbery and rape. We
speak of these acts as contrary to natural law.

Actions which are neutral or indifferent to the norm of morality are extrinsically good or evil. These
actions are either good or bad, not on account of their nature, but because of factors or circumstances
concomitant to them. The act of eating, for example, is an amoral act and is neither morally good or
bad. But either over-eating or excessive dieting could be healthy and therefore, morally objectionable.

Actions which are intrinsically evil are prohibited at all times. Actions which are extrinsically evil may
be permitted when the factors which render them evil are removed or corrected.

It is a fact that some actions entail pain and suffering, while some do bring pleasures to their doers.
Pain or pleasure do not define whether an act is moral or immoral. The sexual act, for example, could
either be moral or immoral regardless whether it is a painful or pleasurable experienced.

2. The End of the doer is the purpose or motive which the doer wishes to accomplish by his
action. Without a motive, an act is accidental and involuntary. A good motive is truthful,
prudent, temperate, and just. It is the most equitable for the most number of people, or in the
words of the existentialist “the most loving of all in a given situation”.

“The end does not justify the means” is a fundamental moral principle. It affirms that one should not do
wrong (means) in order to attain a good purpose (end). The motive of a person, no matter how noble,
does not excuse as act which is intrinsically evil. The desire to pass a subject does not justify a student
who cheats in the examination. Likewise, the need to feed a family does not justify stealing. The desire
to know the truth does not justify torture of a suspect by the police. The rule is – don’t do wrong even if
this will result in something good.

1
Motive and Action

a. An evil act which is done on account of an evil motive is grievously wrong. A bad action and
a wrong motive make for a dangerous combination. Stealing in order to buy “shabu” means
double trouble.

b. A good action done on account of an evil motive becomes evil itself. This means that
something nice and sweet may turn ugly and sour because of a bad motive.

c. A good action done on account of a good purpose acquires an additional merit. This means
one can go ahead and do the right thing. You can never go wrong with this one.

d. An indifferent act may either become good or bad depending on the motive. This means you
be careful of what you eat or what you say.

3. Circumstances of the Acts are the historical elements surrounding the commission of an
act, such as the status of the doer, the place, the time, or the intensity of an act. The
circumstances are hinted by the interrogative pronouns – who, what, where, with whom, why,
and how.

3.1. “Who” refers either to the doer of the act or the recipient of the act. It has to do with the
age, status, relation, schooling, social standing, an economic situation of those involved
in an act. In this regard, we note the following:

a. The moron, insane, senile and children below the age of reason are incapable of
voluntary acts and are not morally accountable.

b. Educated persons have greater accountability than those with less or without
education.

c. Persons constituted in authority have accountability for the actions of those under
them. This is the meaning of “command responsibility”. Thus, parents have command
responsibility over their children who are minors; employers, over the actuations of
their employees, and superiors, over the acts of their subordinates. The law on sexual
harassment is based on the doctrine of command responsibility.

d. The legal or blood relation of people involved in act may modify the nature of such
act. For instance, killing of a parent changes homicide to parricide.

2
3.2. “What” refers to the act itself, or to the quality and quantity of the results of such act. In
robbery, for instance, what is stolen and how much is stolen are aggravating factors.
Likewise, the number of victims determines the seriousness of the murder.

3.3. “Where” refers to the place where the act is committed. A crime inside a church is more
scandalous that that committed in a secluded place. Murder in a marketplace is more
heinous than that done in a mountain trail.

3.4. “With whom” refers to the companion or accomplices in an act. The more people are
involved in the commission of an act, the more serious is the crime.

3.5. “Why” refers to the motive of the doer.

3.6. “How” refers to the manner the act is perpetrated. Homicide committed with much
cruelty is a heinous crime.

3.7. “When” refers to the time of the act. A murder committed when the victim is sleeping is
more offensive that the one done when the victim is awake.