What is Philosophy_ Meaning of Philosophy (See links below for videos on Branches of Philosophy)
What is Philosophy?
Etymological definition:
Philosophy particularly Western philosophy comes
from the two Greek words:
“philia” which means love and
“Sophia” which means wisdom
Thus, etymological is speaking, philosophy means
the “love of wisdom” as is well known.
Love in this context is understood as a strong desire
for a particular objects.
Wisdom is understood as a correct application of
knowledge.
Thus, philosophy as the love of wisdom at least in
this context could refer to the strong desire of the
human person to possess knowledge and apply it
correctly.
So, it's not a coincidence therefore that most
philosophers in the ancient world particularly in
Greece, India and China were sages or wise men.
Think for example of Socrates, Gautama Buddha,
Confucius, and Plato.
Traditionally, however Philosophy is defined as a
science that studies beings in their ultimate causes
reasons in the principles through the aid of human
reason alone.
and when we speak of being or Beings in philosophy
in this context we mean all things that exist material
or immaterial
An example of beings that are material are: stones,
trees, persons, cars, air, water
Immaterial: the notions of God, soul, and or spirits
All of these are beings and philosophy studies their
ultimate causes reason and principles through the
aid of human reason alone.
In other words, philosophy is concerned with a
reason and principles that account for everything
that exists.
Some of the basic questions in philosophy are:
 What is the origin of the world of
everything that exists?
 Why do this things exist rather than not to
exist at all?
 Is there God if so how can we justify the
goodness of God in the face of evil?
 What is the meaning and purpose of life?
Why do we have to suffer?
 If one is suffering from an unbearable pain
such as cancer is it morally right to resort to
euthanasia or assisted suicide?
These are just some of the questions that philosophy
attempted to address.
And in doing so philosophy uses reason as a tool
which can be expressed in many forms such as the
ability to reflect question, articulate one's thoughts,
and analyze certain phenomenon or events.
In short philosophy attempts to understand things in
a critical and logical manner.
It is important to note however that philosophers do
not agree in a single definition of philosophy.
In fact, philosophers differ in their basic
understanding of philosophy.
For example Karl Jaspers, a famous German
existence of philosopher understands philosophy as
a discipline in which “Questions are more important
than answers because answers themselves will in
turn becomes questions”
MAJOR BRANCES OF PHILOSOPHY
Philosophy is divided into four major branches
namely:
1. Metaphysics
2. Epistemology
 3. Logic
4. Ethics
I. Metaphysics comes from the two Greek words
“meta” which means beyond or after and “physika”
which means physical or in nature.
Hence, etymologically speaking, metaphysics means
the study of things beyond the physical ; that is
concepts or things that cannot be experienced such
as the concepts of God, freedom, and soul.
Metaphysics is commonly understood as the
foundation of philosophy.
In fact, Aristotle calls it the “first philosophy”
Originally, the Greek word metaphysical which
literally means after physics actually designated that
part of Aristotle’s works which came after those
chapters that dealt with physics.
However, it was misappropriated later by the
medieval commentators on a classical texts as that
which is beyond the physical
This overtime, metaphysics has been understood as
the study of that which exists beyond the physical
Now, metaphysics is further subdivided into Two,
namely:
1. General metaphysics/ Ontology
2. Special metaphysics
 Cosmology
 Psychology or Anthropology
 Natural theology or Theodicy
1. General Metaphysics / Ontology
Ontology is derived from the two Greek words:
“Onto” which means being or that which is that is
everything that exists and
“logos” which means knowledge or study.
Note however, that the term “logos” in ancient
Greek scholarship have different connotations.
For example, Heraclitus a Greek philosopher of the
late 16th century BCE understands Logos Is reason or
the underlying principle of all that is.
But going back however Ontology therefore is the
specific branch of philosophy that studies beings in
their ultimate causes reasons and principles through
the aid of reason alone.
In other words, Ontology studies the first principles
are the essence of all things.
Some of the basic questions in ontology are:
 What is being?
 Why do things exist rather than not to exist at
all?
 What is the meaning and nature of reality?
 What is the underlying principle of all that
exists?
 Is there nothing?
To describe very schematically the four major branches of
philosophy.
2. Special metaphysics:
On the other hand, we have special metaphysics
which includes Cosmology, Psychology or
Anthropology, and Natural Theology / Theodicy and I
will also briefly discuss each of these subcategories
 Cosmology from the ancient Greek words:
“Kosmos” which means the world and
“logos” which means study
Is the specific sub branch of philosophy that studies
the world or the universe including its origin,
dynamics, and characteristics, as well as the laws
that govern its order.
Some of the basic questions in cosmology are:
 What is the origin of the world?
 What is the basic material of which the world is
formed?
 How do things arise?
 In what consists its fundamental form or
principle of order?
 Is the world or universe infinite?
 Psychology comes from the two Greek
words
“psyche” which means Soul; but this is
loosely understood as Mind.; And
“logos” meaning study.
 The psychology is the specific sub branch of
philosophy that studies the soul or mind broadly
construed though, psychology is the study of the
nature and the dynamics of the Human person as a
whole with emphasis on the way the person's mind
functions and the way she behaves.
Some of the questions in psychology are:
 What is the nature of the human person?
 Is there such thing as human nature?
 what is the meaning and purpose of any of life?
 Is their life after death?
 How do we account for the existence of
sufferings in the world?
_________________________________________
 Theodicy or Natural Theology. Theodicy is
derived from the Greek word:
“theos” which means God
The word theodicy was coined by the famous 18th
century German philosopher named Gottfried
Wilhelm Leibniz in his 1710 work titled Thedicee /
Theodicy.
Broadly construed Theodicy is the study of God but
specifically the Theodicy is concerned with a
justification of the goodness of God in the face of the
existence of evil in the world.
Some of the basic questions in theology are:
 Is there God?
 What and who is God if he exists at all?
 How do we prove the existence of God?
 If God exists how do we justify the existence of
evil and suffering in the world?
 Does belief in God's really necessary?
II. Now, let's move on to the second branch of
philosophy that is epistemology.
Epistemology comes from the two Greek words:
“Episteme” which means knowledge and
“logos” which means study.
As it is formally defined as the study of the nature
and scope of knowledge and justified belief.
Specifically, it analyzes the nature of knowledge and
how it relates to similar notions such as truth, belief,
and Knowledge.
Here are some of the basic questions in
epistemology:
 What is knowledge?
 What do we know?
 How is knowledge acquired?
 What are the structures and limits of
knowledge?
 What makes justified beliefs justified?
III. The third major branch of philosophy is
Logic.
Logic comes from the Greek word “logos” which as I
already mentioned has different meanings.
However, I would stick to the definition that logic is
the science of correct thinking or the study of the
principles in criteria of valid argument, more
specifically logic attempts to distinguish sound or
good reasoning from unsound and bad reasoning.
The basic questions in logic includes the following:
 What is correct reasoning?
 what distinguishes a good argument from a bad one?
 how can we detect a fallacy in an argument?
 what are the criteria in determining the validity of an
argument?
 what are the types of logic?
IV. The fourth major branch of philosophy is
ethics.
Ethics is derived from the Greek word
“ethos” which means custom or habit.
Broadly construed ethics is the morality of human
actions.
Ethics therefore, is concerned with questions of how
human persons ought to act and the search for a
definition of a right conduct and the good life
It is important to note that ethics is not the same
with morality. This is because ethics denotes the
theory of right action and the greater good while
morality indicates practice that is the rightness or
wrongness of a human action.
Here are some of the common questions in ethics:
 What is the right conduct as that which causes
the realization of the greatest good?
The Origin of Philosophy - Introduction to the Philosophy of the Human Person - PHILO-notes
The Origin of Philosophy: Western Philosophy.
for some reason I will not include here the discussion
on the origin and development of Eastern or Asian
philosophy, This will be discussed in our other
editions.
According to Socrates as Plato reports wonder is
“the only beginning of philosophy”
Then later, Aristotle in response to his predecessors
especially the human philosophers said that “It is
owing to their wonder that men both now begin and
at first begun to philosophize”
This is precisely the context and basis of the now
famous claim that Philosophy begins in wonder, but
what kind of wonder is this?
For sure wonder includes the feeling of surprise
coupled with admiration that is when one is being
curious or being in all.
But this is not enough, wonder as the beginning of
philosophy, is precisely philosophic wonder that is
the feeling of being perplexed.
For example, the ancient Greek philosophers were
perplexed about the origin and nature of the world
as Aristotle writes: “For men were first led to study
philosophy as indeed they are today by wonder now he
who is perplexed and wanders believes himself to be
ignorant... they took to philosophy to escape ignorance”
In this sense philosophic wonder seeks clarity by
trying to understand the perplexities or vagueness or
confusion that shrouded the enquiring mind.
In other words, philosophic wonder seeks answers
to or at least make sense of the mysterious world
Thus, when one begins to make sense of the
questions regarding, for example the origin of the
 How do we determine a right conduct? In other
words, what makes a right conduct, right?
 What is a good life and can we attain it?
 What is the difference between human act and
actions that are based on instinct?
 What do people think is right?
world or the meaning and purpose of life, one begins
to philosophize.
Thus, in philosophic wonder one is not merely
amazed by the mysteriousness of the world or of life
but seeks to understand this mystery in a word one
thinks.
Given this brief discussion on the origin of
philosophy and the conceptual level, it is therefore,
reasonable to suppose that Western philosophy
originated in Miletus because Thales is the
acclaimed the first philosopher in the Western world
was from Miletus.
Miletus during the time of Thales was the richest
and the most powerful of all the Union cities and
was the first center of scholarship in ancient Greece
Ionia was a Greek city-state on the coast of Asia
Minor or now called Turkey.
It is worth noting that with a decline of Ionia which
began with its conquest by the persons in 546 BCE,
the intellectual life of Greece moved to Croton in
southern Italy in 530 BCE. Croton was a splendid and
powerful city-state of Greece to where Pythagoras
emigrated from Samos and founded the
Pythagorean Brotherhood
Now if philosophy begins in wonder, how do we
exactly know that Thales was the first philosopher,
that he was the first one to wonder, that is the first
one to attempt to make sense of the mysteriousness
of the world?
In fact we cannot deny the occurrence of other pre
philosophical rumblings in Egyptian and Babylonian
cultures as well as in India and in China and for sure there
were great thinkers that existed in each of these cultures
and there are evidence that some of the earliest Greek
philosophers had come in contact with at least some of
the products of Egyptian and Babylonian thoughts and of
course we cannot absolutely determine the first person
who wondered or philosophized.
Well to address this question, it is commonly
believed that Thales was the first philosopher
because he was the first at least in recorded history
to put his philosophy into writing . In fact we find
Thales and many philosophers after him some
What is Ethics_ (Ethics Defined, Ethics Meaning) (See link below for more video lectures in Ethics)
What is ethics?
the term ethics is derived from the Greek word
“ethos” which originally means custom or character
broadly construed ethics is a branch of philosophy
that studies the rightness or wrongness of a human
action
In particular, this branch of philosophy is concerned
with questions of “how human persons ought to
act?” in the search for a definition of right conduct
and the good life / “ What is a right conduct and a
good life?”
It is for this reason that the attempt to seek the good
through the aid of reason is the traditional goal of
ethicists
It must be noted however that there is no single
absolute definition of ethics.
This is because ethics as a discipline is constantly
evolving as a result of a change in socio-cultural and
political context
For example in the Greek tradition, ethics was
conceived as relating to the concept of the good life.
Thus, the ethical inquiry during this time was
directed toward discovering the nature of
happiness. In fact Aristotle's Nicomachean ethics
does not only present a theory of happiness but also
provides ways in which happiness is attained.
Now centuries later, a quite different orientation
was introduced by the Judeo-Christian tradition. In
this ethical tradition, the ideals of righteousness
before God and the love of God and neighbor not
the happy or pleasant life constitute the substance
of ethics.
reasoned arguments for the origin and development
of the world.
Indeed this is a unique feature of ancient Greek philosophy
that distinguishes it from the pre philosophical rumblings
of other cultures. And so, to reiterate Western philosophy
begins in wonder and that the origin of philosophy in
terms of place is said to be in Miletus or Ionia.
Indeed, if we make an effort to reconcile these views
we are faced with a difficult task of defining the
relationship between doing what is right (Judeo) and
being happy (Greek).
It is for this reason that we cannot have an absolute
definition of ethics.
The least that we can do in my opinion is to describe
the nature and dynamics of ethics based on a
specific time and context.
it is also important to note that ethics is not the
same with morality
Although many philosophers believe that the two
terms can be used interchangeably this is because
Ethics denotes the theory of right action and the
greater good while the Morality indicates practice
that is the rightness or wrongness of a human action
In other words Ethics undertakes the “systematic
study” of the underlying principles of morality hence
it is interested primarily in the illustration of a more
general problem and the examination of underlying
assumptions in the critical evaluation of moral
principles
Morality of the other hand is more “prescriptive” in
nature it tells us what we ought to do and exhorts us
to follow the right way
According to Terence McConnell (1994) :
“Morality is characterized as an end governed rational
enterprise whose object is to equip people with a body of
norms that make for peaceful and collectively satisfying
coexistence by facilitating their living together and
interacting in a way that is productive for the realization of
the general benefit.”
 For example, a religious leader may ask her followers
to be good at all times. In this way a moralist may
want to keep alive the values she considers to be
worthwhile and to improve the moral quality of the
community where she belongs.
Hence, morality at the very least aims to guide one's
action by reason and gives equal weight to the
interests of each individual affected by one's
decision.
Indeed, this gives us a picture of what it really means
to be a morally upright person.
And so, we may conclude that:
Ethics = is the Science of morals, while
Morality = is the practice of ethics.
During the mid 20th century according to Sumner
(1967) a certain theory in the methodology of ethics
has gradually become more and more widely
accepted at least by British and American moral
philosophers.
According to this position there are Two ways of
doing ethical, namely;
 Applied ethics became its third major type as its
1. Normative ethics
name suggests
2. Meta ethics
3. Applied ethics
 Normative ethics is “prescriptive” in nature as it
seeks to set norms or standards that regulate right
and wrong or good and bad conduct. This may
involve articulating the good habits that we should
acquire, the duties we should follow, and the
consequences of our behavior on others.
Hence, normative ethics normally attempts to
develop guidelines or theories that tell us how we
ought to behave.
For an example, Immanuel Kant's claim that an act is
morally right if it is done for the sake of duty is an
example of a normative ethics.
 Meta ethics on the other hand is “descriptive” in
nature
according to Sumner (1967) meta ethics is allegedly
constituted at least in part by questions of the
meanings of the various ethical terms and functions
of ethical etre insists hence if a normative ethical
inquiry is evaluative and prescriptive meta ethics is
an elliptical and descriptive
put simply meta ethics is a type of ethical inquiry
that aims to understand the nature and dynamics of
ethical principles, it asks questions about the nature
and origin of moral facts as well as the way in which
we learn and acquire moral beliefs
Thus, for example if Normative ethics urges us to do
good at all times, Meta ethics asks the question
what is good
For sure if a moral philosopher attempts to address
the questions:
What is good? What is justice? Why should I be moral?
then that moral philosopher is doing meta ethics.
Hence, when Plato propose an answer to the
question “why should I be moral?” Plato was doing
meta ethics.
Indeed, Plato raised a meta ethical question in the
course of the development of ethics.
Applied ethics is the actual application of ethical or
moral theories for the purpose of deciding which
ethical or moral actions are appropriate in a given
situation
For this reason, Casuists adherents of applied ethics
are concerned with individual moral problems, such
as abortion, or euthanasia, and attempt to resolve
the conflicting issues that surround these particular
moral problems
Casuistry also act on some occasions in an advisory
capacity such as guiding individuals in their choice of
actions
For example, they may attempt to resolve the
conflicting duties of a mother suffering from ectopic
pregnancy who has no other option than to abort
the fetus.
Applied ethics is usually divided into different fields:
Business ethics which deals with ethical behavior in
the corporate world.
Biomedical and environmental ethics which deal
with issues relating to health welfare and the
responsibility we have toward people in our
environment
Social ethics which deals with the principles and
guidelines that regulate corporate welfare within
societies
Finally, the difference between the three major
types of ethics can be illustrated in the following
situation:
“A police officer shoots a terrorist who is about to
blow up a crowded shopping mall. “
The act of the police officer is morally wrong
according to Ethics because it is always wrong to kill,
as it is well known killing in itself is intrinsically
wrong.
However, if the police officer does not shoot the
terrorists men, innocent people will die or get
insured. Though the police officers act may be wrong
the adherence of ignore motive ethics may say that
it is the right thing to do in this particular situation,
because not doing so will result in the death of so
many people. Hence, the action might be morally
correct finally
the Casuistry that the police officer is just doing his
best to fulfill his duty that is to protect as many
innocent lives as possible
 What Is Morality?
Distinguish morality from ethics by explaining the
meaning nature and dynamics of morality
What is morality?
It must be noted however that the difference
between ethics and morality is not that significant.
In fact the former is essentially synonymous with a
latter.
Etymologically speaking, ethics comes from the
Greek word “ethos” while morality is from the latin
word “Mos” or “mores” if used in its plural form.
Both words are referring to customary behavior
for this reason we may use the word immoral in lieu
of the word unethical or we may use the word moral
instead of the word ethical
this is the reason why we say that a moral person or
ethical person is One who is good and does the right
thing
And an immoral person or unethical person is One
who is bad and does what is wrong
As we can see the terms ethics and morality can be
used interchangeably.
However, there is a fine line that divides the two in
other words we can distinguish one from the other
in some respects.
The first idea that came to our mind when we asked
the difference between ethics and morality is that
Ethics generally refers to the “systematic study” of
the rightness or wrongness of a human action
While Morality is generally understood as the
rightness or wrongness of a human action
In this way we can say that Ethics is the specific
branch of philosophy that studies the morality that is
the rightness or wrongness of a human action with
this we may initially conclude that ethics is the
science of morals
While morality is the practice of ethics
Based on this initial discussion on the difference
between the two terms we can now draw the idea
that ethics attempts to provide systems of moral
principles and the reasons why these principles are
valid
hence, ethics is more concerned with the theories
that can be used to explain why a particular moral
principle is valid or not right or wrong.
it is for this reason that ethicists have come up with
some of the basic ethical principles that may help
determine the rightness or wrongness of a human
action.
Some of these Basic Ethical Principles are:
1. Respect for persons
2. Truthfulness and Confidentiality
3. Autonomy and Informed Consent
4. Beneficence
5. Non-maleficence
6. Justice
Now, as already mentioned, morality refers to the
principles of right and wrong behavior or rightness
and wrongness that is goodness and badness of
human actions
And more importantly, in determining the rightness
or wrongness of human actions, the moral agent is
guided by the broader rules of principles of ethics.
For instance, the person's moral belief that killing is
wrong may stem from the basic ethical principle of
respect for persons or non-maleficence
indeed this example further explains the basic
difference between ethics and morality
Lesson No. 1
The Nature of Human Acts
I. Definition
Human Act (Actus Humanus)
 an act which proceeds from the deliberate
free will of man
 an act that proceeds from the knowing and
freely willing human being
 Example: listening to a talk, studying this
PDF
Act of Man (Actus Hominis)
 These are man’s animal act of sensation
(use of the senses) and appetition (bodily
tendencies) done without advertence and
the exercise of free choice
 Example: actions done in infancy, in sleep,
in delirium, etc.
 It is to be noted that an act of man can
become a human act by the advertence and
consent of the agent.
 Human acts are moral acts.
 For human acts, man is responsible, and
they are imputed to him, as worthy of
praise or blame, of reward or punishment.
 Human acts tend to repeat and form habits
in man, which in turn, unite into his
character.
 Thus, a man is what his human acts make
him.
If ethics says that “killing is wrong” because it
violates the basic ethical principles of respect for
persons or non-maleficence, morality on the other
hand says “do not kill because it is wrong”
Again, this is the reason why Ethics is understood as
the science of morals while Morality is the practice
of the basic principles of ethics.
II. Classification
A. Based on Complete/Adequate Cause
 There are some acts that begin and are
perfected in the will itself, and the rest
begin in the will and are perfected by other
faculties under control of the will.
A.1. Elicited Acts
 These are those that find their adequate
cause in the will (the deliberate will)
alone.
(Example: Your intention to study in your room.)
A.2. Commanded Acts
 These are those that do not find their
adequate cause in the will-act but are
perfected by the action of mental or
bodily powers under orders from the
will.
(Example: Using your mind, eyes, etc. in
studying.)
 A.1. Elicited Acts
a. Wish
 refers to the simple love of anything
 the first tendency of the will towards a
thing, whether realizable or not
 every human act begins with the wish to act
( Example: I do so long to see you tonight. )
b. Intention
 the purposive tendency of the will towards
a thing regarded as realizable, whether the
thing is actually done or not
( Example: I will see you tonight. )
c. Consent
 the acceptance by the will of the means
necessary to carry out intention
 it is the further intention of doing what is
necessary to realize the main intention
( If I will see you tonight, I consent to how really to
see you. )
d. Election
 the selection by the will of the precise
means to be employed in carrying out an
intention
( I will select riding my bike to see you tonight. )
e. Use
 the employment by the will of bodily or
mental powers or both to carry out its
intention by the means elected
( To actually see you, I will command my mental and
bodily powers to carry out my intention. )
f. Fruition
 the enjoyment of a thing willed and done
 the will’s act of satisfaction in intention
fulfilled
( I will experience this the moment I will see actually
see you. )
A.2. Commanded Acts
a. Internal
 acts done by internal mental powers under
command of the will
(Example: effort to remember, effort to control
anger )
b. External
 acts effected by bodily powers under
command of the will
( Example: eating halo-halo, writing your answers )
c. Mixed
 acts that involve the employment of bodily
and mental powers
( Example: solving a Math problem )
B. Based on the Relation of Human Acts to Reason
 Human acts are either in agreement or
disagreement with the dictates of reason,
and this relationship constitutes the
morality of human acts.
B.1. Good
 when human acts are in harmony with the
dictates of right reason
B.2. Evil
 when human acts are in opposition with the
dictates of right reason
B.3. Indifferent
 when they stand in no positive relation to
the dictates of reason
III. Constituents of the Human Acts
 These refer to the essential elements or
qualities for an act to be human.
 These qualities are knowledge, freedom,
and voluntariness.
1. Knowledge
  A human act proceeds from the deliberate
will; it requires deliberation.
 Deliberation means advertence, or
knowledge in intellect of what one is about
and what this means. Deliberation means
knowledge.
 Thus, no human act is possible without
knowledge.
2. Freedom
 A human act is an act determined (elicited
or commanded) by the will and by nothing
else.
Lesson No. 2
Voluntariness of Human Acts
I. Degrees of Voluntariness
a. Perfect and Imperfect
 Perfect – when the agent fully knows and
fully intends the act
( Example: telling a lie to your parents )
 Imperfect – when there is some defect in
the agent’s knowledge, intention, or both.
( Example: adding details in narrating an event )
b. Simple and Conditional
 Simple voluntariness is present in a human
act done, whether the agent likes or dislikes
doing it.
( Example: washing the dishes after the family meal )
 Conditional voluntariness is present in the
agent’s wish to do something other than
 It is an act that is under control of the will,
an act that the will can do or leave undone.
 Such an act is called a free act, thus, every
human act must be free.
3. Voluntariness
 A human act to be voluntary, or must have
voluntariness, simply means it must be a
will-act.
 This is to say that there must be both
knowledge and freedom in the agent or the
doer of the action.
that which he is actually doing, but doing
with dislike.
( Example: washing the dishes with a wish of just
watching TV )
c. Direct and Indirect
 Direct voluntariness is present in a human
act willed in itself.
 Indirect voluntariness is present in that
human act which is the foreseen result of
another act directly willed.
- A human act that is directly willed is
called voluntary in se while that which
is indirectly willed is called voluntary in
causa.
Consider this classic example:
A father kills a rabbit for dinner. He directly
wills the act of killing as a means to an end to be
achieved. He also directly wills the dinner as an end
to be achieved by this means. (There is direct
voluntariness in every aspect of the act.)
Suppose that the rabbit is a pet of his
children. It gave them pleasure every time they
played with it. The father knows that if he will kill the
rabbit, it will cause his children sorrow.
Nevertheless, he kills the rabbit to have something
for dinner. (There is indirect voluntariness in the
sorrow experienced by the children.)
The father’s direct act of killing the rabbit is
called voluntary in se while the result, sorrow of his
children, which he does not directly will, is called
voluntary in causa.
d. Positive and Negative
 Positive voluntariness is present in a
human act of doing, performing. It is
present in an act that the agent is ought to
do and is doing it.
( Example: A student attends class on his scheduled
time. )
 Negative voluntariness is present in a
human act of omitting, refraining from
doing. It is present in an act that the agent
is not ought to do but is doing it.
( Example: A student deliberately misses class. )
e. Actual, Virtual, Habitual, Interpretative
 Actual voluntariness (intention) is present
in a human act willed here and now.
( Example: The “I do” vows of a man and a woman
during the marriage rites. )
 Virtual voluntariness (intention) is present
in a human act done as a result of (or in
virtue of) a formerly elicited actual intention
even if that intention be here and now
forgotten.
( Example: The faithfulness of the husband/wife with
his/her spouse throughout their married life. )
 Habitual voluntariness (intention) is
present in a human act done in agreement
with, but not as a result of, a formerly
elicited and unrevoked actual intention.
Consider this example:
You make an intention to be baptized in a Catholic
religion. Years passed by, you did not realize it nor
you revoked it. One day, you became seriously ill,
fighting for your life. A priest came over and baptized
you in your unconscious state. Here, the act of
receiving baptism is in agreement with the actual
intention once made and unrevoked. You possess
then habitual voluntariness for the act of receiving
the sacrament of baptism.
 Interpretative voluntariness (intention) is
that voluntariness which, in the judgment of
prudence and common sense, would be
actually present if opportunity or ability for
it were given.
Consider this example:
The small boy who has to be carried literally to
school and kept there against his will, has an
interpretative intention of going to school. For
parents and teachers know that, if the boy could but
realize the value of schooling, he would certainly will
to attend.
II. Indirect Voluntariness
 Indirect voluntariness, or voluntariness in
causa, is present in that human act which is
an effect, foreseen or foreseeable, of
another act directly willed.
 When we bring together indirect
voluntariness and imputability, that is, as
worthy of praise/blame,
reward/punishment, two ethical questions
on responsibility and permissibility of the
act are raised:
a. When is the agent responsible for the evil effect of
a cause directly willed?
b. When may one perform an act, not evil in itself,
which has two effects –good and evil?
Principle of Indirect Voluntariness (First Question )
 The agent (doer of the action) is responsible
(imputable) for the evil effect of a cause
directly willed when the following
conditions are met:
a. when he can readily foresee the evil effect, at least
in a general way
b. when he is free to refrain from doing what causes
the evil effect
c. when he is bound to refrain from doing what
causes the evil effect
Principle of Double Effect (Second Question)
 The agent may lawfully perform an act
which has two effects, one good and one
evil, when the following conditions are met:
a. when the evil effect does not come before the
good effect so as to be a means to it
b. when there exists a reason, proportionately grave
or weighty, which calls for the good effect
c. when the agent intends the good effect
exclusively, and merely permits the evil effect as a
regrettable side-issue
> Generally, it means the lack or absence of
knowledge.
> It can be classified into:
a. Negative ignorance is the absence of intellectual
knowledge in man.
(Example: A Philosophy teacher lacks knowledge
about higher mathematics.)
b. Privative ignorance is the absence of knowledge
that ought to be present.
(Example: A licensed civil engineer lacks knowledge
about strength of materials.)
C. Positive ignorance is the presence of a false
knowledge. This is also called mistake or error.
(Example: Judging someone in the mall as an
acquaintance but really is not due to
poor eyesight.)

From these two principles, we may deduce the > Before we will discuss the ethical
following thoughts before the performance of any principles governing ignorance, let us first consider it
act: in three ways.
  We must do good; we must avoid evil.
  We must never do what is evil, even
though good may be looked for and A. Ignorance in its Object
intended as a result of it This talks about the thing of which the
agent may be ignorant about.
a. Ignorance of Law
This refers to the
Modifiers of Human Acts ignorance of the existence
of a duty, rule, or
The modifiers of human acts refer to the regulation.
things that may affect the human act's essential
qualities and thus lessen the moral character of the b. Ignorance of Fact
act, and consequently diminish the responsibility of This refers to the
the agent. ignorance of the nature or
circumstances of an act as
> There are five of them, namely: forbidden. It is also lack of
1. Ignorance knowledge that what one is
2. Concupiscence actually doing comes under the
3. Fear prohibition of a known law.
4. Violence
5. Habit c. Ignorance of Penalty
> Let us consider them. This is lack of knowledge
of the precise sanction affixed to
the law.
1. Ignorance
> Before we will discuss the ethical principles
governing ignorance, let us first consider it in three
ways.
A. Ignorance in its Object
This talks about the thing of which the
agent may be ignorant about.
a. Ignorance of Law
This refers to the ignorance of the existence
of a duty, rule, or regulation.
b. Ignorance of Fact
This refers to the ignorance of the nature or
circumstances of an act as forbidden. It is
also lack of knowledge that what one is
actually doing comes under the prohibition
of a known law.
c. Ignorance of Penalty
This is lack of knowledge of the precise
sanction affixed to the law.
B. Ignorance in its Subject
This refers to the agent in whom ignorance
exists.
a. Vincible Ignorance
This is ignorance that can be dismissed by
the use of ordinary diligence.
This results due to lack of proper diligence
on the agent, and is his fault.
This is also called culpable ignorance.
• Degrees of Vincible Ignorance
a. crass (stupid/gross) ignorance - if it be
the result of total or nearly total, lack of
effort to dispel it.
b. simply vincible - if some efforts were
done but not persevering and whole-
hearted effort, be unsuccessfully used to
dispel it.
c. affected ignorance - if positive effort is
made to retain it.
b. Invincible Ignorance
This is ignorance that ordinary and proper
diligence cannot dispel because:
a. the agent has no realization
whatever of his lack of knowledge.
b. the agent who realizes his
ignorance finds ineffective his
effort to dismiss it.
- This is not the fault of the agent.
- This is also called inculpable ignorance.
Degrees of Invincible Ignorance
a. physically invincible - if no human effort
can dismiss it.
b. morally invincible - if it would be
extremely difficult to dismiss it even with
the aid of some good and prudent men.
C. Ignorance in its Result
This refers to acts performed while
ignorance exists.
a. Coming to school
- It is that which precedes all consent of the
will.
b. Concomitant Ignorance
- It is that which accompanies an act that
would have been performed even if the
ignorance did not exist.
- An act done in concomitant ignorance is
non-voluntary.
c. Consequent Ignorance
- It is that which follows upon an act of the
will.
- The will may directly affect it or crassly
neglect to dispel it.
• The Ethical Principles on Ignorance
 a. Invincible ignorance destroys the
voluntariness of an act.
- An act, in so far as it proceeds from
invincible ignorance, lacks voluntariness, is
not a human act, and is not imputable to
the agent.
b. Vincible ignorance does not destroy the
voluntariness of an act.
- The agent has knowledge which bears
indirectly upon the act which he performs in
ignorance, and the act has, in consequence,
at least indirect voluntariness, and is a
human act imputable to the agent.
c. Vincible ignorance lessens the
voluntariness of an act.
- While vincible ignorance does not destroy
the voluntariness of an act, it lessens
voluntariness, and diminishes the
responsibility of the agent.
d. Affected ignorance in one way lessens
and in another way increases voluntariness.
- Despite the bad will which it
implies, it is still lack of knowledge,
direct and perfect, and lessens the
voluntariness of the act that
proceeds from it.
- If being deliberately fostered to
serve as an excuse for sin against a
law, it shows the strength of the
will's determination to persist in
such sins, thus, increases the
voluntariness of an act that
proceeds from it.
2. Concupiscence
-It refers to those bodily appetites or
tendencies which are called the passions,
viz., love, hatred, joy, grief, desire, horror,
hope, despair, courage or daring, fear, and
anger.
- It can be classified into:
a. Antecedent - when these passions spring
into action unstimulated by the
will-act.
(Example: the automatic feeling of awe over
a wonderful scenery)
b. Consequent - when these passions are
directly or indirectly stirred up or
fostered by the will.
(Example: getting angry on the teacher
retained for a long time)
• The Ethical Principles on Concupiscence
a. Antecedent concupiscence lessens the
voluntariness of an act.
Antecedent concupiscence disturbs
the mind and hinders the calm
judgment of the mind upon the
moral qualities of an act, thus,
impairing knowledge needed for
perfect voluntariness.
It is a strong and sudden urge to
action, and thus it lessens the full
and prompt control which the will
must exercise perfectly, hence, it
impairs freedom.
Since knowledge and freedom are
impaired by it, the voluntariness of
an act is thereby lessened, and in
consequence, diminishes the
responsibility of the agent.
b. Antecedent concupiscence does not
destroy the voluntariness of an act.
-Although knowledge and
freedom are lessened by it, they
are not destroyed; and the agent's
responsibility, while diminished, is
not cancelled.

-If the antecedent passion is so
great as to make control of the
agent's acts impossible, then the
agent is temporarily insane, and his
acts are not human acts but acts of
man.
c. Consequent concupiscence, however
great, does not lessen the voluntariness of
an act.
-Consequent concupiscence is
willed, directly or indirectly, thus,
the acts that proceed from it have
their proper voluntariness.
3. Fear
> It is the shrinking back of the mind from
danger.
> It is the anxiety or worry of mind (from
slight disturbance to actual panic) brought
about by the apprehension of imminent or
coming evil.
> It may be classified as:
a. From Fear - when actions are done
caused by fear.
(Example: A student cheats because he is
afraid of failing.)
b. With Fear - when fear is the
accompanying circumstance in doing an act
(Example: A student cheating is afraid of
being caught.)
The Ethical Principle on Fear
An act done from fear, however great, is
simply voluntary, although it is regularly
also conditionally involuntary.
-Fear does not excuse an evil act
which springs from it.
-The law of Church and State
provides that an act done from
grave fear, unjustly suffered, and
excited directly in order to force
the agent to do an act that is
against his will, is an invalid act or
one that may be invalidated.
4. Violence
>It is the external force applied by a free
cause (that is, by human beings) for the
purpose of compelling a person to perform
an act which is against his will.
The Ethical Principle on Violence
Acts elicited by the will are not subject to
violence; external acts caused by violence,
to which due resistance is offered, are in no
wise imputable to the agent.
5. Habit
 This refers to operative habit, which is a
lasting readiness and facility, born of
frequently repeated acts, for acting in a
certain manner.
• The Ethical Principle on Habit
Habit does not destroy voluntariness; acts
from habit are always voluntary, at least in
cause, as long as the habit is allowed to
endure.