at a certain place, the circumstances must
LESSON 1
DETERMINANTS OF HUMAN ACTS
FACTORS DETERMINING THE MORALITY
OF HUMAN ACTS
● Analyzing the morality of the human act is
said to be a complex enterprise since it is
affected by so many conditions which are
within and without.
● Most moralists agree that to judge the
goodness or badness of any particular
human act, three elements must be
weighed from which every act derives its
morality.
● They are: the Object of the act, the
Circumstances surrounding the act, and
the End or Intention that the one
performing the act has in mind.
THE OBJECT OF THE HUMAN ACT
● It is that which the action of its very nature
tends to produce. Or in other words it
refers to the effect which an action
primarily and directly causes. It is
necessarily the result of the act without
taking into account the circumstances or
the end.
● For example the object of setting fire to the
hut of a slum-dweller is to burn whereas
the end might be revenge. The object is
usually regarded as the primary factor for
moral judgment of a human act. From the
viewpoint of an object an act is generally
classified as morally good, bad or
indifferent. For a morally good act, the
object of it must be good.
THE CIRCUMSTANCES CONTEXTUALIZING
THE HUMAN ACT
● These include all the particulars of the
concrete human action which are capable
of affecting its morality. They are such
things as the person involved, the time, the
place, the occasion, which are distinct from
the object, but can change or at times
even completely alter its moral tone.
● Circumstances can make an otherwise
good action better for e.g. giving food to a
person who is almost dying of starvation.
They can make good an act which is
otherwise indifferent, for e.g. sitting with a
person who is feeling lonely. But they can
also make an act worse which is evil in its
object for e.g. robbing a beggar from
his/her only meal of the day.
● Since all human actions occur in a
particular context i.e. at a certain time and
always be considered in evaluating the
moral quality of any human act.
THE END OR THE INTENTION OF THE AGENT
IN PERFORMING A HUMAN ACT
● The end or intention of a human act is the
purpose that prompts one to perform such
an act. Every human act, no matter how
trivial, is done with some intention. It is the
reason for which the agent performs a
particular act. It is the effect that the agent
subjectively wills in his/her action.
● At times it can so happen that the intention
of the agent coincides with the object of
the human act, for e.g. offering a glass of
water to a thirsty person to quench thirst.
However at other times both of them
might be different. For e.g. a captured spy
may commit suicide in order to safeguard
the secrets of the country.
● A human act to be morally good the agent
or doer must have a good intention—he
must want to accomplish something that is
good in one way or another.
● The end too can affect the morality of the
human act just as circumstances do. A
good intention can make better an act
which is good in its object, for e.g. helping
a poor person to start a small business with
the intention of making him independent.
● Also, the end can worsen an act which is
already evil in its object, for e.g. killing the
father, who is the only breadwinner in the
family, so that his children might be on the
street. To a great extent many of the
actions that we do which otherwise might
be indifferent morally in themselves, but
they receive their moral quality from the
intention behind them.
According to the moralists a human act is said to be
morally good when it is good in its object,
circumstances and also in the intention, for it is
believed that an action is good when each of these
three factors is conformed to order (Bonum ex integra
causa). If even one of these determinants is contrary to
order, the action will be bad, at least in part (Malum ex
quocumque defectu).
LESSON 2
MORAL VS NON-MORAL
STANDARDS: MORAL DILEMMAS
MORALITY STANDARDS
● What falls outside the sphere of Morality is
Non-Morality Standards
● Moral standards are different because they
concern behavior that is of serious
consequence to human welfare, that can
profoundly injure or benefit peoples
● The conventional moral norms against
lying, stealing and murdering deals with
actions that can hurt people. And the moral
principle that human beings should be
treated with dignity and respect uplifts the
human personality.
● Moral standards take priority over other
standards, including self interest.
● Their soundness depends on the
adequacy of the reasons that support or
justify them.
MORALITY & ETIQUETTES
● Etiquettes refers to any special code of
behavior or courtesy e.g. It is usually
considered bad etiquettes to chew with
one’s mouth open
● If we violate the rules of etiquettes that we
have read in the books then we rightly
considered as ill- mannered, impolite or
even un-civilized but not necessarily
immoral
● Rules of etiquettes are generally non
moral in nature: “Push your chair back into
place upon leaving a dinner table.“ But
violation of etiquette can have moral
implications . The male boss who refers to
female subordinates as “honey” or “doll”
shows bad manners
MORALITY & LAW
● Before understanding law, we should
know that there are four kinds of law:
statutes, regulations, common law and
constitutional law
Statues
● The law which is enacted by legislative
bodies e.g. The law that prohibits theft is a
statute. Statutes make up a large part of
the law and are what many of us mean
when we speak of laws.
Regulations
● Limited in their knowledge, legislatures
often set up boards or agencies whose
functions include issuing detailed
regulations of certain kinds of conduct –
Administrative Regulations.
Common Law
● It refers to law applied in the English-
speaking world when there were few
statutes. Courts frequently wrote opinions
explaining the bases of their decision in
specific cases, including the legal
principles they deemed appropriate. Each
of these opinions became a precedent for
later decisions in similar cases.
Constitutional Law
● It refers to court rulings on the
constitutionality of any law.
● People sometimes confuse legality and
morality, but they are different things. On
one hand, breaking the law is not always or
necessarily immoral. On the other hand,
the legality of an action does not
guarantee that it is morally right.
● An action can be illegal but morally right
e.g. Helping a Jewish family to hide from
the Nazis was against German Law 1939,
but it would have been a morally
admirable thing to have done.
● An action that is legal can be morally
wrong e.g. It may have been perfectly legal
for the chairman of a profitable company
to layoff 125 workers and use three-
quarters of the money saved to boost his
pay and that of the company’s other top
manager, but morality of his doing is so
open to debate
PROFESSIONAL CODES
● Somewhere between etiquettes and law
lies professional codes of ethics. These are
the rules that are supposed to govern the
conduct of members of a given profession.
Generally speaking, the members of a
profession are understood to have agreed
to abide by those rules as a condition of
their engaging in that profession.
ETHICAL RELATIVISM
● Ethical Relativism is the theory that holds
that morality is relative to the norms of
one's culture. That is, whether an action is
right or wrong depends on the moral
norms of the society in which it is
practiced. The same action may be morally
right in one society but be morally wrong
in another.
MORAL DILEMMA
DEFINITION
● Dilemmas - are situations in which moral
reasons come into conflict, or in which the
application of moral values are problems,
and one is not clear of the immediate
choice or solution of the problems. Moral
reasons could be rights, duties, goods or
obligations. These situations do not mean
that things had gone wrong, but they only
 indicate the presence of moral complexity.
This makes the decision-making complex.
● Example: a person promised to meet a
friend and dine, but he has to help his
uncle who is involved in an accident — one
has to fix the priority.
3 COMPLEX SITUATIONS LEADING TO
MORAL DILEMMAS
1) The Problem of Vagueness
● One is unable to distinguish between good
and bad (right or wrong) principles. Good
means an action that is obligatory.
● Example : the code of ethics specifies that
one should obey the laws and follow
standards. Refuse bribe or accept the gift,
and maintain confidentiality
2) The Problem of Conflicting Reasons
● One is unable to choose between two
good moral solutions. One must fix priority,
through knowledge or a value system.
3) The Problem of Disagreement
● There may be two or more solutions and
none of them are mandatory. These
solutions may be better or worse in some
respects but not in all aspects. One has to
interpret, apply different moral reasons,
and analyze and rank the decisions. Select
the best suitable, under the existing and
the most probable conditions.
LOGICAL STEPS IN CONFRONTING MORAL
DILEMMA
1) Identification of the moral factors and
reasons. The clarity to identify the relevant
moral values from among duties, rights,
goods and obligations is obtained
(conceptual inquiry).
2) Collection of all information, data, and
facts (factual inquiry) relevant to the
situation.
3) Rank the moral options i.e., priority in
application through value system, and also
as obligatory, all right, acceptable, not
acceptable, damaging, and most
damaging etc.
4) Generate alternate courses of action to
resolve the dilemma. Write down the main
options and sub- options as a matrix or
decision tree to ensure that all options are
included.
5) Discuss with colleagues and obtain their
perspectives, priorities, and suggestions on
various alternatives.
6) Decide upon a final course of action, based
on priority fixed or assumed. If there is no
ideal solution, we arrive at a partially
satisfactory or ‘satisficing’ solution.
MORAL AUTONOMY
● Moral autonomy is defined as, decisions
and actions exercised on the basis of moral
concern for other people and recognition
of good moral reasons. Alternatively, moral
autonomy means ‘self determinant or
independent’. The autonomous people
hold moral beliefs and attitudes based on
their critical reflection rather than on
passive adoption of the conventions of the
society or profession. Moral autonomy may
also be defined as a skill and habit of
thinking rationally about ethical issues, on
the basis of moral concern.
LESSON 3
DIGNITY OF MAN
THE DIGNITY OF MAN
● Dignity (Latin – Dignus = Worth) – the state
or quality of being worthy of esteem or
honor
● Esteem – to have great regard for
● Honor – high regard or great respect
given, received or enjoyed
HUMAN DIGNITY : IMAGE OF GOD
● Human beings are created in the image of
God and, therefore, are endowed with
dignity. This inherent dignity carries with it
certain basic rights and responsibilities,
which are exercised within a social
framework.
CHARACTERISTICS OF HUMAN PERSON
1) Transcendent
● Human person is capable of going beyond
oneself, can know the purpose of his life
and the one who designed that purpose.
2) Embodied Spirit
● Intertwining the physical and spiritual in the
person, that man is composed of body and
soul.
3) Sexual Being
4) Relational
● Human person has the ability to relate with
other people since we are social beings.
5) Historical
● Human person makes history and is
affected or shaped by it.
6) Equal
● Each of us is unique and with equal dignity
7) Free
 MAN’S PERSONAL OFFICE Conclusion
● Here we are to talk about man’s duty ● It is never lawful to tell a lie, no matter
towards his soul and body. what great good would come of it; for a lie
is intrinsically evil.
It is licit to conceal the truth when the
DUTIES OF MAN TOWARDS IS SOUL ●
hearer has no right to know the truth and
● Faculties of the Soul
a) Intellect
when there is a sufficient reason for the
b) Will concealment.

INTELLECT DUTIES OF THE WILL

● It must be exercised to know the ultimate ● The will is perfected by the quest of that
truth and his final end and how to achieve which is good.
it. ● The object of the will is good, therefore the
will is perfected by the quest of that which
is good (happiness with God).
LIE
The Offense Against the Duty of Truthfulness
● A disagreement between what one says OFFENSE AGAINST THE DUTY OF
and what one knows GOODNESS
● 3 Types of Lies: 1) Scandal - gossip or the utterance of gossip
a) Jocose Lie that emphasizes true or false details
b) Officious Lie damaging to another’s reputation.
c) Pernicious Lie
2) Servitude - the condition of a slave: state
of subjection to an owner or master.
JOCOSE LIE
● A fallacious statement made for fun and
understood, or easily understandable as a
OTHER GOODS OF THE SOUL
joke GOOD NAME
● This lie does not square with the definition ● It is the reputation one bears among others
of lie, it is not a serious statement for uprightness and honesty, it is the
immediate jewel of the soul.
OFFICIOUS LIE
● It is a lie of excuse or convenience. It is Injuries to Good Name
cowardly refusal to meet the issues of life 1) Suspicious Judgment
2) Calumny - a false charge or
misinterpretation intended to blacken
PERNICIOUS LIE
one’s reputation.
● It is a lie meant to do mischief or injury, the
3) Detraction - the uttering of material (as
worst of lies.
false or slanderous charges) that is likely to
damage the reputation of another.
BAD EFFECTS OF LIE
Injury to Right Reason, To our Neighbor
HONOR
● It is an injury to the right reason; to our
● It is the natural or official dignity of a person
neighbor because you deprive him of
which rightfully calls for esteem, respect,
information he ought to know. He has the
or consideration on the part of others.
right not to be deceived.

Injuries to Honor
Injury to Society
1) Mockery - insulting or contemptuous
● It is an injury to society, for society cannot
action or speech.
exist without mutual faith and reliance
2) Derision - a scorn to belittle someone.
among its members, and if lies are
3) Contempt - the condition of having no
permissible such faith and confidence
respect, concern or regard for
become an utter impossibility.
something/someone.

THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN LYING &

FREEDOM
CONCEALMENT OF TRUTH
● The power to choose the means while
● To lie is to give false information.
safeguarding its final end.
● To conceal is to refrain from giving
information.
 for all eternity. As such, it forbids unjust
FREEDOM I killing and any harm to the integrity of our
● Freedom from – freedom from everything own body and soul and those of our
that coerces a person neighbor.
● Coerce – to restrain or constrain by force
MAN’S POSITIVE DUTIES WITH REGARD TO
2 Obstacles to this kind of Freedom LIFE
Interior Obstacles ● Man does not own his body, God owns it.
1) Ignorance God alone has the right to dispose of it and
● The absence of intellectual knowledge in its life and health. Like all true goods that
man. man may possess, life and health, and all
● 2 Types of Ignorance: that pertains directly to these goods, are to
a) Negative - an absence of knowledge be used for the achievement of man’s last
that is not necessary to be known. end.
b) Positive - an absence of the ● Therefore, absolutely speaking, man is
knowledge that ought to be present.
bound to exercise ordinary care for the
2) Disordered Passion (Emotion / Reason)
conservation of life and health.
● Eg: Fears, personality defect, bad habits,
● Thus he is obliged to maintain the integrity
psycho-disturbance
and perfection of his members, to take
such nourishment as is required for the
Exterior Obstacles
proper development or maintenance of
1) Biological
bodily life, to observe the requirements of
● inherited handicaps, defects
reason in matters of cleanliness and proper
2) Social Pressure
dress, to keep the senses strictly under
● economic, political, cultural
control of reason, and to cultivate the
virtues, particularly temperance and
FREEDOM II
fortitude, which give one readiness in
● Freedom for – growing as full persons and
keeping the appetites of the flesh under
as children of God.
due and proper control.
● Freedom of – the children of God.
● The goal of this process and task of
MAN’S NEGATIVE DUTIES WITH REGARDS
personal freedom is to be set free from
slavery to corruption and share in the
TO LIFE & HEALTH
glorious freedom of the children of God. ● Man’s negative duties with regard to bodily
life and health oblige him to avoid the
following offense against life:
1) Deliberate Abortion
CHARACTERISTICS OF FREEDOM
● The direct killing of an unborn child. It is an
● Freedom is always relational in so far as
extremely grievous form of murder
one cannot just do whatever he wants if it
because aside from destroying the life of
could already harm others. This is
an innocent, defenseless victim, it also
authentically realized when one is other-
deprives that soul of God’s grace for all
centered.
eternity. The Church imposes
● Freedom is related to being a person:
excommunication on all those who have
dignity of being in the image of God.
helped procure an accomplished abortion.
● Freedom is related to becoming one’s
2) Euthanasia
authentic self in relation to God.
● Also known as “mercy killing” and is the
● Freedom is directed to salvation.
deliberate termination of the lives of the
● Freedom is a task and a process.
hopelessly ill, the aged, and social misfits
● Freedom is always value oriented, always
who are considered as a burden to society.
directed to the good.
It is never permissible, since it is always
● Freedom is free from obstacles,
either willful murder or suicide.
impediments.
DUTIES OF MAN TOWARDS HIS BODY 3) Murder
RESPECT FOR LIFE ● The direct and deliberate taking of an
● Human life is sacred because it begins by innocent person’s life.
the creative act of God; it is capable of 4) Suicide
knowing and loving God; it has been ● The deliberate taking of one’s own life
redeemed by the Passion and death of the upon one’s own authority
Son of God, and is destined to possess God
● Suicide can never, under any
circumstances, be permitted. It is an injury
done to God, to society and to the person
committing it.
● It is an injury to God, for it usurps the right
of God, who alone is the master of life and
death.
● It is an injury to society, for man is an
integral part of society and is bound to
promote its welfare; and suicide, by
removing himself from society destroys its
integrity and moreover sets a horrible
example to others, an example which
would mean extinction of society, were all
to follow it.
● Finally, suicide is an injury to the person
who commits it, for such a person acts
against the plain dictates of nature, and
halts the achievement of perfection that
might have been his.
5) Direct Sterilization
● Vasectomy for men and Tubal ligation for
women.
6) Anger
● A desire for revenge.
7) Deliberate Hatred
● It is contrary to charity when one
deliberately wishes someone evil or when
one deliberately desires someone grave
harm.
8) Revenge
9) Drunkenness
● The abuse of alcohol.
10) Drug Addiction
● The use of prohibited drugs is a sin
because of its pernicious effects on one’s
life and health, as well as the grave crimes
to which it leads.
11) Reckless Driving
● One endangers oneself or others’ safety on
the road, at sea or in the air for love of
speed.
THE PRINCIPLE OF SELF DEFENSE
● It is lawful to defend one’s life against
unjust attack even at the cost of the life of
the aggressor, provided there is nothing
inordinate in the time or the manner in
which the fatal defensive act is performed.
The Attack must be Unjust
● It must come from the private authority of
the attacker, or of other private citizens,
and not from justly constituted civil
authority.
Attack must be a Serious Nature
● A man set upon by an enemy, who
evidently intends merely to strike him, is
justified in repelling force with force, but
not in killing his aggressor.
There must be Nothing Inordinate in Time at
which the Fatal Act of Defense is Performed
● If you know that a man has a plan to kill
you, you are not justified in killing him
before he has an opportunity to attack you.
Such an act would be a plain homicide nor
may you kill one who has murderously
attacked you, after you have escaped from
danger. Such an Act would be one of
vengeance, and would also be homicide.
● It is plain, then, that the act of self-defense
which involves the taking of an aggressor’s
life must be performed at the moment of
the attack or during its continuance, and
neither before nor after the attack itself.
JUST WAR
● A war is considered just when it is declared
by the proper authority in defense of a
nation’s right in a grave matter, when it is
undertaken only as a last resort after all the
possible methods of settling the dispute
have been tried, and when the war is
waged, using no more destructive means
than are necessary to achieve an early and
just peace.
DEATH PENALTY
● Assuming that the guilty party’s identity
and responsibility have been fully
determined, the traditional teaching of the
Church does not exclude recourse to the
death penalty, if this is the only possible
way of effectively defending human lives
against the unjust aggressor. However, if
non-lethal means are sufficient to defend
and protect the people’s safety from the
aggressor, authority will limit itself to such
means, as these are more in keeping with
the concrete conditions of the common
good and more in conformity with the
dignity of the human person.
● Today, in fact, cases in which the execution
of the offender is an absolute necessity are
very rare, if not practically non-existent.