The Norms of Morality

As a child, we learn early the difference between good and bad,

such as between a truth and a lie. It could be said that everybody has a
natural inclination towards morality. Even in a primitive society,
morality plays an essential role in the form of things allowed and
prohibited. Morality is a universal phenomenon. It is manifested in
every person and every society.
People, however, do not seem to agree on what constitutes
morality. It has been the task of both philosophy and theology to find
the answer to this fundamental question: what makes an act good or
bad?
Norms in general
A norm, in general, is a standard of measurement. It is an
instrument of which the quality or quantity of a thing is determined. The
clock that tells time, the thermometer that indicates temperature, the
speedometer that measures velocity, and the scale that determines
weight – are, in this sense, norms.
The norms of morality are the standards that indicate the
rightfulness or wrongfulness, the goodness or evilness, the value or
disvalue of a thing. Obviously, there are qualities that cannot be
measured by any mechanical device. They are spiritual qualities that
appeal only to reason.
The Norms of Morality
Richard M. Gula defines the norms of morality as “the criteria of
judgement about the sorts of person we ought to be and the sorts of
actions we ought to perform”. (What are they saying about moral
norms?, New York: Paulist Press, 1981, P.1)
Judges in a contest follow a given criteria for deciding the winner.
In like manner, for us to decide what action is good or bad, we need a
criteria, a set of principles from which we may deduce a conclusion.
 Morality therefore, consists in the relation of a thing with the
norm. this relationship is one of conformity or non-conformity. Morality
may then be defined as the quality of things manifesting their
conformity or non-conformity with the norm or criteria. That which
conforms is good or moral. That which do not conform evil or immoral.
The remote norm of morality is Natural Law. The proximate norm
of morality is Conscience. Both natural law and conscience are rooted
on External Law, the ultimate norm. Thus, there is only one norm:
Eternal Law
Eternal Law
Eternal Law is the plan of God in creating the universe and in
assigning to each creature therein a specific nature. It is, according to St.
Thomas Aquinas, “the exemplar of divine wisdom as directing all
actions and movements” (Summa Theologica:I-II, 93, 1). For St.
Augustine, it is “the divine reason or will of God commanding that the
natural order of things be preserved and forbidding that it be disturbed”
(Contra Faustum Manicheum; Book 22, Ch. 27).
Eternal Law provides for the cosmic order where every creature
stands different and independent but not apart from the unified purpose
of creation. There is harmony in diversity in the universe so that the
early Greeks referred to as “cosmos”, meaning, beautiful.
Participation of Creatures in Eternal Law
Natural Law should not be taken as a body of codified legal
pronouncements such as those we find in a book of Criminal Law. Rather,
it refers to the nature of all created things which is the principle of their
movements and actions: chemical, biological, psychological, or rational.
Science speaks of Natural Law as the physical laws or properties
governing, for example, the movements of atoms and molecules, of
chemicals, of plants and of animals, including man himself.
Man, however, on account of rational nature, manifests a new
dimension in the cosmic order. This is the moral order whereby man
becomes self-conscious of natural moral laws binding him to seek the
good “fitting” his rational nature. St. Thomas Aquinas writers:
Participation of Creatures in Eternal Law
The light of natural reason, whereby we discern what is good and what is
evil, which is a function of the natural law, evident that the natural eternal law
(Summa Theologica: 91,2)
Natural Law as the Essential Need to Become
a Person
Natural law is recognized by all men regardless of creed, race, culture,
or historical circumstances. Philosophers agree that an inner force compels
man towards good and away from evil. In this sense, they speak of morality
as being "written" in the hearts of men.
Stewart Dugald (1753-1828) regards the natural law as the "original
principle of our constitution". George Berkeley (1685) calls it the "eternal
laws of reason" or the "Will of God". (Frederick Copleston: A History of
Philosophy, Vol. 8, p. 36).
Natural Law as the Essential Need to Become
a Person
Paul Tillich elaborates that what we call "will of God" is actually our
"essential being with its potentialities, our nature declared as "very good" by
God who created it. (Morality and Beyond, p. 16-17)
Tillich explains further that natural law is the "command to become
what one potentially is, a person within a community of person". (ibid.: 11)
This command is the moral imperative. He writes:
Natural Law as the Essential Need to Become
a Person
Therefore, a moral act is not an act in obedience to an external law,
human or divine. It is the inner law of our true being, of our essential or
created nature, which demands that we actualize what follows from it.
And an antimoral act is not the transgression of one or several precisely
circumscribed commands, but an act that contradicts the self-realization of
the person as a person and drives towards disintegration. It disrupts the
centeredness of the person by giving predominance to partial trends,
passions, desires, fears, and anxieties. (Ibid.: 13)
Natural Law as the Essential Need to Become
a Person
It is worth noting that what Tillich describes as the content of natural
law is precisely our Filipino concept of pagpapakatao which is a moral
obligation that arises from human nature, compelling an individual to be true
to his nature as tao. When a person debases himself by his immoral actions,
he becomes less than a person: masamang tao. On the other hand, one who
conducts himself according to his rational demands of his human nature is
truly a person: mabuting tao.
Natural Law as the Essential Need to Become
a Person
In the Filipino mind, as well as in the consciousness of many people,
man is either good or bad depending on how he conforms or not with the
demand of rational nature. Thus, natural law insofar as it is the principle of
our human nature is the norm of morality.
Properties of the Natural Law
We note the following properties or characteristics of the Natural Law:
1. It is universal. Natural Law is a constitutive element of human nature.
Therefore, it is true wherever human nature manifest itself. All men are
precisely equal because of shared human nature.
2. It is obligatory. Natural law is human nature, calling for itself to be
actualized, to be "lived" according to its basic and essential demands.
Immanuel Kant calls this natural urge the "categorical imperative". It is
imperative because it is a duty that ought to be fulfilled. It is "categorical"
because it accepts no exemption, since it is nature itself.
Properties of the Natural Law
3. It is recognizable. It is imprinted in the human nature and man has the light
of reason to know it. The Scholastic philosophers referred to this light of
reason as "synderesis". It enables man to recognize self-evident principles,
such as: Do good and avoid evil, Honor your father and mother, Be honest,
etcetera.
4. It is immutable or unchangeable. Natural law is human nature. It is
immutable because man's essential nature can never be lost as long as man is
man/It may be blurred by malice or conditioned by social pressure, but it
cannot be destroyed altogether.
Contents of the Natural Law
Man discovers by the light of reason those fundamental moral
principles contained in the Natural Law.
Ethical writers distinguish between formal norms and material norms.
Both are derived from Natural Law. Formal norms are those that relate to our
character, that is, to what kind of persons we ought to be. Examples of formal
norms are such truths as: "Do good and avoid evil" "Whatever you wish
others to do to you, do so to them", "Be honest", "Be chaste", or "Do not be
selfish, proud, vain, or foolish". (Gula: p. 56).
Contents of the Natural Law
Formal norms are absolute principles and are unchangeable. What kind
of person we ought to become is not a relative and subjective decision.
Justice, Truth, and Diligence are, for example, absolute values. The Chinese,
the Japanese, the Hindu, the Indonesian, the Filipino, and all people for that
matter - are expected to be just, honest, and diligent.
Material norms relate to the sorts of actions we ought to do. Material
norms are the application of the formal norms to individual concrete action,
such as, speech, killing, making promises, or using contraceptives. They
answer the question: "What should I do?".
Contents of the Natural Law
Since material norms deal with concrete and specific actions, they are
not absolute. For example, what makes "killing" just or unjust depends on a
lot of factors. Consequently, material norms are open to various
interpretation. This is where relativity in morality comes in. This does not
mean though that each individual is free to act on the basis of his personal
interpretation or whim. The expectation that we act in accordance with the
"dictate of reason" implies precisely that we listen to our reason as
enlightened by the guidance of virtuous and prudent men. In this sense, the
authoritative consensus of learned men or church on how the natural law is to
be interpreted must be followed.
Interpreting the Material Norms
How do we apply the material norms in concrete situations? What
determines whether an act is good or bad? The theories of physicalism and
personalism answer these questions differently.
The physicalist suggests that the physical and biological nature of man
determines morality. Anything opposed to man's physical, physiological, or
biological tendencies is wrong and immoral. It maintains that the criteria of
moral judgment are "written" in man's nature and all that is required is for
one to read them off from there (Gula: 35).
Interpreting the Material Norms
The personalist suggests that reason, not the physical structure of
human faculties or actions, is the standard of morality. But what is reason?
According to the Thomistic School, reason is "recta ratio", or right reason. It
is the dynamic tendency in the human person to know the truth, to grasp the
whole of reality as it in Morality based on reason is a morality based on
reality as known to man (ibid.: 41).
Interpreting the Material Norms
While seemingly opposed, these theories compliment each other. In
Christian Ethics, both theories are employed without contradiction. The fact
is that one of the realities which personalism has to take into account is the
reality of man's physical nature. Reason, if it must be recta, has to accept that
the physical and biological facts of human life are not to be denied nor
twisted. On the other hand, the physicalist has to accept that it is through
reason that man "can creatively intervene in a reasonable way to direct the
order of nature in a way that would be truly human" (ibid.).
The Order of Reason
Man participates in the Eternal Law in a way proper to him as a human
being. This participation is through reason. St. Thomas Aquinas calls the
order established by reason as the "specific natural law" (Summa Theol. 1-II,
q. 94, a. 2). Richard M. Gula explains:
In a morality based on the order of reason, the human person is not subject to the God-given
order of nature in the same way the animals are. The human person does not have to conform to natural
patterns as a matter of fate. Rather, nature provides the possibilities and potentialities which the human
person can use to make human life truly human. The given physical and biological order does not provide
moral norms; rather, it provides the data and the possibilities for the human person to use in order to
achieve human goals. (ibid.)
 Accordingly, man has to consider the natural order of things. And yet, he must not confuse the natural
order with the moral order. The moral order is the harmony based on the dictates of reason. It is the order
established by man's intellectual creativity, sharpened by observation, research, analysis, logic intuition and
common sense.
It is reason that which takes Natural Law and interprets it in a way worthy of man's humanity. In this
sense, Natural Law is not the same as the Laws of Nature which are the forces governing the material world.

The task of discovering and interpreting Natural Law in a manner fitting to man belongs to moral
conscience.
Conscience
Conscience is the proximate norm of morality. It is proximate because it is what directly confronts an
action as good or bad. Its function is to examine, to judge, and to pass a "sentence" on all moral actions.

The word is derived from the latin "conscientia" which means "trial of oneself' both in accusation and
in defense (Tillich: 63).

Conscience is defined as an act of the practical judgment of reason deciding upon an individual action
as good and to be performed or as evil and to be avoided. (Panizo: 63)
 It is a "practical judgment" because it is an inference whose conclusion leads to something
practicable. The main function of conscience is to determine what ought to be done in a given situation. After
the commission of an act, conscience assumes the role of approving or reproaching. A reproving conscience is
called guilty conscience.

It is a practical judgment because it is an inference leading to a practicable conclusion. As an

inferential reasoning, it makes use of the principles of Natura Natural Law. Thus, conscience is but an extension
of the Natural Law which guides man to seek the goof of his natue.

The main function of conscience is to determine what ought to be done in a given situation. After the
commission of an act, it assumes the role of approving or reproaching.
Kinds of Conscience

1. Correct or True Conscience judges what is good as good and what is evil as evil. It is correct conscience which tells that getting
the property of another without consent is stealing. It is also correct conscience which judges that we ought to pay our debts.
2. Erroneous or False Conscience judges and correctly that what is good is evil and what is evil is good. It is erroneous conscience
which tells the husband to have a mistress, sense it is the macho thing to do.
Error in conscience comes from the following factors:

(a) Mistake in inferential thinking, such as deriving a wrong conclusion from given moral principles; (b) Ignorance of the
law; (c) Ignorance of the fact and other circumstances modifying human actions; (d) Ignorance of future consequences, especially
those dependent on the free will of others.

An erroneous conscience whose error is due to not wilfully intended is called inculpable conscience. It is inculpable
conscience operating in a person, who unaware of it, pays for grocery with "bogus" money. (Ignorance of the fact)

An erroneous conscience whose error is due to neglect, or malice, is called culpable conscience. It is culpable conscience
which believes that cheating is good since it helps us pass the exam and everybody does it anyway. The difference between culpable
and inculpable conscience lies in the distinction between a voluntary error and an involuntary error. It is culpable precisely because
the error is voluntary on the part of the person. It is inculpable because the error is involuntary, an "honest mistake".
 3. Certain Conscience is a subjective assurance of the lawfulness or unlawfulness of a certain act. This implies
that the person is sure of his decision.

It is possible however to be sure of something as good when in fact it is just the opposite, and vice-
versa. It is possible for a policemen to be sure that killing the suspect is the best alternative under the principle
of self-defense, whereas such killing is in fact unnecessary.

Many theologians believe that a certain conscience should always be followed (Panizo: 65). This is to
preserve the integrity of the human reason. One who therefore contradicts his certain conscience is morally
guilty.

4. Doubtful Conscience is a vacillating conscience, unable to form a definite judgement on a certain action. A
doubtful conscience must first be allowed to settle its doubts before an action is performed.
5. Scrupulous Conscience is a rigorous conscience, extremely afraid of committing evil. A scrupulous
conscience is meticulous and wants incontrovertible proofs before it acts.
6. Lax Conscience is one which refuses to be bothered about the distinction of good and evil. It rushes on and is
quick to justify itself. Many Filipinos who act on the impulse of "bahala na" on matters of morals are acting
with lax conscience.
The Compulsory Nature of Conscience

"Our bond with the natural moral law", says Bernard Haring, is an exalted participation in the eternal
law of God manifested by our conscience whose natural function it is to reveal our likeness to God" (The Law
of Christ, Vol. 1, p. 147). Conscience, therefore, is aptly called the "voice of God".

Insofar as conscience operates within the realm of truth and sound reason, it is compulsory. When
error creeps in, we should always trace it to its roots in order to eradicate it. It is only when conscience impels
us to act according to our rational insights that it is truly the "voice of God". But when it deviates from the
correct norm, then it ceases to be rational, and is no longer the voice of God, but "our own evil work". (Ibid.:
148)

Conscience operating according to sound rational insights is infallible. It should be followed.

Conscience and Authority

Is conscience entirely a private matter? What does "freedom of conscience" means?

Conscience insofar as it is the "voice of God" within the recesses of our nature assumes the authority of
God. God is the ultimate norm to which conscience must conform to.

Conscience too is linked with human authority. First, it is linked with the State insofar as this derives its
authority from nature itself and is affirmed by natural law and divine revelation. Second, it is linked with human
community human community, because conscience depends for help in community and social authority in order to
be informed correctly of its judgement. (Ibid.: 150)

But when the state or the human community claims exclusive rights to legislate and to command, and
this contrary to the demands of natural law, then such human authority loses its moral power to bind individual
conscience to obedience. Law and commands are morally binding only when they are in agreement with the norms
of morals. It is precisely the clamor to be liberated from the oppressive and tyrannical human authority that people
claims "freedom of conscience". Human authority therefore, presupposes individual conscience and is not the
source of it.
Education of Conscience

One has the obligation to cultivate a clear and true conscience. This requires that we apply ourselves
to the education of our conscience. This we can accomplish by studying and searching for truths in the laws and
in the sciences, since conscience is not independent from the treasury of knowledge available to each individual.

Another method of education is the cultivation of good habits. This means that the practical truths we
discover must be internalized and then externalized in actions. It is useless to appreciate the good in abstract
when we despise it in our concrete actions.

Another method is to militate against evil, condemning it where we find it. Indifference to evil dulls
the spirit. We must learn not only to turn our backs against evil but fight against it.

Above all, we must learn how to use our freedom. To use it properly, we must understand it properly.
"Human freedom", says Haring, "if it is true freedom in action, is not submission to the coercive pressure of
external force, but self-fulfillment through inner love of the good in accordance with the pattern of the divine
holiness which is the eternal law (lex eterna) reflected in man's own nature (lex naturalis) (Ibid.: 103)