Group 9 Members:

Cali, Anica S.
Basher Amani A.
Dima-ampao, Nor-Alya P.

The Meaning of Human Act

Act of Man versus Human Act

According to Fr. Coppens (2017), “human acts are those of which a man is a master, which he has
the power of doing or not doing as he pleases.”
In the other words of Panizo (1964), “human acts are those acts which proceed from man as a rational
being.”

Some of the examples of human acts are as follows;

- Observing prescribed diet

- Tutoring the slow learners
- Preparing for board exams

Hence, “actions committed by unconscious and insane persons, infants, or by those who are
physically forced to do something are not considered as human acts but acts of man.
Likewise, “actions which merely happen in the body or through the body without the awareness of the
mind or the control of the will are not human acts but merely acts of man.

Some examples of the acts of man are as follows;

- Breathing
- Blinking of the eyes
- Dilation of pupil of the eyes
- Perspiring and jerking of the knee

The Determinants of the Morality of Human Act

Rev. Coppens S.J. says that to know whether an individual human act is morally good, three things
are considered. These are called the determinants of morality, namely; the object of the act, the end or
purpose, and its circumstances.

a) The object of an act is the thing done. In reality, it is not distinct from the act itself; for we
cannot act without doing something, and that thing that is done is the object of the act; say, of
going, eating, praising, etc. The act or object may be viewed as containing a further
specification – e.g., going to church, praising God, eating meat. Now, an act thus specified
may, when considered in itself, be good, bad or indifferent; thus, to praise god is good in
itself, to blaspheme is bad in itself, and to eat meat is in itself an indifferent act. But for an
individual human act to be good, its object whether considered in itself or as further specified,
must be free from all defect; it must be good, or at least indifferent.
b) The end or purpose intended by the agent is the second determinant of an act’s morality. The
end here spoken of is not the end of the work for that pertains to the object, but the end of the
workman or agent. No matter how good the object of an act may be, if the end intended is
 bad, the act is thereby vitiated, spoiled or impaired. Thus, to praise God is good in itself, but if
in so acting the intention would be to play the hypocrite, the act is morally bad.
c) The circumstances including the consequences, refer to the time, place, persons and
conditions surrounding the moral act. They have their part in determining the morality of an
individual act. The moral character of an act may be so affected by attendant circumstances,
that an act good in itself may be evil when accompanied by certain circumstances; for
instances; it is good to give drink to the thirsty but if the thirsty man is morally weak, and the
drink is intoxicating, the act may be evil.