MORALITY OF

HUMAN ACT
OBJECTIVE:
IDENTIFY THE MORALITY OF HUMAN ACT.
 THE ESSENCE OF MORALITY

• Human acts are those of which a man is a master,

which he has the power of doing or not doing as he
pleases. While it is true that we are physically free to
certain acts or to omit them that is to do one thing or
its contrary, to choose this act rather than some other.
The good acts our reason approves and commends which we call
right while evil acts our reason disapproves and blames which we
call wrong. The ideas of right and wrong like those of truth and
falsity, cause and effect are primary ideas which are common to all
men which are trustworthy ideas. This implies that the distinction
existing in the mind between right and wrong corresponds to a
distinction existing objectively in human act (Coppens, 1895).
BY HUMAN ACTS IN ETHICS, WE MEAN:

1. The human act that is voluntary (free).

2. Acts done with knowledge and consent.
3. Acts which are proper to man as a man. It is because of his intellect and free will.
4. Acts which, we are conscious, under our control and for which we are responsible.
5. Human acts are those of which man is master, which he has the power of doing or not
doing as he pleases.
 ACTS OF MAN.

The Act of man refers to the act that is perform indeliberately or without
advertence. It is done without knowledge freedom and voluntariness. This is in
contrast with the human act that does not require the employment of the rational
faculties of intellect and free will. The following are the examples: sleep taking,
sleep walking, or daydreaming. In other word, these are acts done among infants,
those in delirium, or in the state of unconsciousness. In addition, the biological
or physiological functions or processes which occur in man’s body such as the
circulation of the blood, the growth of the hair and nails, the opening ang closing
of the valves of the heart, breathing, etc., are not human acts so called.
Therefore, they have no moral bearing or significance
DETERMINANTS OF MORALITY
 THE OBJECT OF THE ACT
The object of the act is the thing done. In reality, it is not distinct from the act itself.
We cannot act without doing something and that something done is the object of the
act like for example of going, eating, praising, etc. The act or object may be viewed
as containing a further specification for example of 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 that an individual act may 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.”
 THE END, OR PURPOSE

• It is about the intention of the agent. 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.
This means that an act that is good may be spoiled by a bad intention. Thus, to praise
God is good in itself but if in so acting the intention be is to play as the hypocrites do,
the act is morally bad. And this holds true whether the vicious end be the nearest,
remote or last end and whether it be actually or only virtually intended. On the other
hand, a good end, though ever so elevated, cannot justify a bad act. In other words, we
are never allowed to do evil that good may result therefrom
 ITS CIRCUMSTANCES

• The circumstances of time, place and persons 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 is good in itself
may be evil when accompanied with certain
circumstances.
The act that may be morally good should necessarily have all
three determinants be without a flaw. It is according to the
received axiom:
"Bonum ex integra causa, malum ex quocumque defectu,“
" A thing to be good must be wholly so; it is vitiated by any
defect."
 ACTIVITY: IN THIS ACTIVITY, YOU ARE REQUIRED TO
EXPOUND YOUR ANSWER TO EACH OF THE QUESTIONS
BELOW.

What makes an act truly human?

2. What determines the morality of human act?

3. How do we know whether one is morally responsible for his/her actions?

4. Distinguish human acts from acts of man.

 MODIFIERS OF HUMAN ACTS

• are also called obstacles of human act that affects or prevents a clear knowledge of
the object of the act.

1. Ignorance is the absence of necessary knowledge which a person in a given

situation, who is performing certain act, ought to have. Ignorance therefore is a
negative thing for it is a negation of knowledge. In short, it is the mere absence of
knowledge
 TWO MAJOR TYPES OF IGNORANCE
• Vincible Ignorance. This is a type of ignorance which can and should be dispelled.
The agent could know and should know. It can be cleared up if one is diligent enough.
The knowledge can be by ordinary effort but was not acquired because of negligence
or intentionally not acquired.
• 1. Simple Vincible Ignorance. This is the kind of ignorance which exerts
certain but not sufficiently enough effort to dispel his ignorance and obtain
knowledge. For example, one is doubtful whether classes are suspended, ask his
classmates who is also doubtful, then decides not to go to class, is culpable of not
coming (absent) to class if there are no suspension.
2. Crass/Supine Vincible Ignorance. This is the kind of ignorance which the agent has the capacity
but does not exert any effort at all to dispel his ignorance and obtain knowledge. For example,
Cristine, a fourth-year education student, does not know about the schedule of practice teaching
she is required to perform. She can easily ask any one of her classmates or check the bulletin
board where the schedule of practice teaching is posted. Yet, she does not bother to do so.

3. Affected Vincible Ignorance. This is the kind of ignorance which the agent exerts positive effort to
deliberately foster his ignorance in order to escape responsibility that knowledge may require. This is
the worst type of vincible ignorance because it is willfully established by the agent himself as an
immediate excuse for any violation stemming from it. For example, a student who does not want to
read the bulletin board or student manual, for he suspects that a certain regulation posted or
written there in is opposed to his plans.
• Invincible Ignorance. This is a type of ignorance which cannot be dispelled by ordinary diligence and
reasonable effort. In other words, he is ignorant of his ignorance. Here, the person cannot be expected to
take steps to enlighten himself because he is unaware that he is in need of enlightenment. The person has
no realization of his lack of knowledge.

Causes of invincible ignorance:

1. It may be impossible for the individual to remove his ignorance because he has no way of suspecting that
he is ignorant. For example, a waiter who is not aware of the poison on the food that he serves.
2. Although one may realize that knowledge at a certain point should be acquired but it is impossible for him
to obtain the knowledge. For example, a doctor who is assigned to cure an impossible disease.
• 2. Passion or Concupiscence. It is a strong or powerful feeling or emotion. It refers more
specifically to those bodily appetites or tendencies as experienced and expressed in such
feelings as fear, love, hatred, horror, sadness, anger, grief and the like.
• a. Antecedent Concupiscence or Passion. This pertains to the occurrence of passions
prior to the act of the will and is not therefore willfully fostered. It may happen that the
person is emotionally aroused to perform an act. For example, the instant feeling of joy at
the immediate sight of an unexpected visit of a cousin or friend or the quick occurrence of a
sexual urge at the unintentional sight of a naked woman.

• b. Consequent Concupiscence or Passion. This pertains to the occurrence of passions

as deliberately fostered by the will. For example, a man who willfully thinks about what
may cause him to be angry to arouse a decision to harm or a woman who decides to submit
for abortion because she dislikes pregnancy.
3. Fear. It is defined as the disturbance of the mind of person who is confronted by an
impending danger of harm to himself or loved ones.
a. Light fear. It is the type of fear in which the evil threatening is present but slight or
serious but remote.
b. Grave fear. It is the type of fear in which the evil threatening is serious and severe.
c. Intrinsic fear. It is the type of fear in which the evil threatening proceeds from
within oneself.
d. Extrinsic fear. It is the type of fear in which the evil threatening proceeds from
outside of the self. It is of two kind:
1. Necessary Extrinsic fear. It is that agitation brought about by the outside forces of nature.
2. Free Extrinsic fear. It is the agitation that proceeds from the free will of another person.
4. Violence. It is an external force (physical) applied by someone on another in order to compel him
to perform an action against his will.
There are two type of violence namely:
1. Perfect violence. It is the type of violence in which the victim gives complete resistance to the
application of external force. This is of two types:
a. Physically perfect violence. This type is that which the victim uses every possible means
of resisting at the command of his will.
b. Morally perfect violence. This type is that which the victim makes use of all powers of
resistance that can be employed.

2. Imperfect violence. It is the type of violence in which sufficient resistance is not exerted despite
the available opportunity and capacity to terminate the violence.
 OTHER FACTORS AFFECTING THE VOLUNTARY
NATURE OF HUMAN ACTION.
1. Habit
It is an inclination to perform some particular action acquired by repetition and
characterized by decreased power of resistance and an increased facility of performance. It
is a stable superadded to a faculty positively inclining a person to act in a certain way. It is
often referred to as second nature. It is synonymous to addiction, dependency, fixation,
obsession, tradition, convention and pattern.
2. Temperament
It is a human person’ disposition. It is the sum total of those qualities which mark an
individual. It is both heredity and environment that plays a part in forming a person’s
temperament.
• We must be cautious (careful) in rendering moral judgement. Placing judgement upon
objective morality of a human act in the concrete, involves a consideration of all the
conditions which affect the morality of the human act (ignorance, fear, passion,
violence, habit and temperance), the nature of the act itself, the purpose of the agent and
the circumstances.

• Everyone has a conscience, but everyone also has a duty of enlightening his conscience.
A particular caution must be given regarding the judging of one’s own case. In this
regard, great wisdom is expressed in the old saying: “No one is a judge in his own
case.” When an important personal moral problem presents itself, it is time to seek
competent advice.