GENERAL ETHICS

HUMAN ACTS
• Only human acts can be judged as moral
or immoral.
 Human Act (Gawaing Pantao)

Any act, thought or word:

1. That is done with full knowledge
ALAM NIYA. (Knowledge)
2. The person is free to do it.
HINDI SIYA PINUWERSA. (Freedom)
3. The person does it intentionally.
NAIS NIYA TALAGANG GAWIN.
(Voluntariness)
 Knowledge…
 knowing what one is up to and what it
means
 deliberate act
 a knowing act
– An act done in ignorance cannot be attributed
to the person unless the ignorance is due to
his negligence
 Freedom…

 means the act is under the control of the

will
 that the human act is a free act
– A person cannot be answerable for an act
over which he has no control, unless being
compelled to give up such control in some
extreme situations
 Voluntariness…
 from the Latin, voluntas (will)
 also known as actual choice
 the act is a will-act
 synonymous with human act
– A person is responsible for the consequences
of his actions unless when a person loses his
self-control as when he is intoxicated or
hyponotized
 Direct and Indirect
Voluntariness
 willed (in itself) – the act is willed directly
by the person, example: cheating

 indirectly willed (in cause) – the act is not

directly willed in itself, example: going out
with friends out of boredom
Definition:
 refers to an act (thought, word, deed,
desire, omission) that proceeds from the
deliberate free will of man

 a voluntary act performed by human

being when he is responsible
Thus…
 Human act is a willed act
 Human act is a free act
 Human act is a moral act
 it is different from:
– Merely willed act – ex. Being born tall or short
– Violent or artificial act – that which is caused
by external agent
– Natural act – because nature does not act
with reason
 Classification of human act:
Perfectly Human
- done with full knowledge, full consent
of the will and with full freedom of choice
- the doer has the control of the
situation
- the doer has full responsibility with
the consequences of the act
 Classification of human act:
Less Perfectly Human
- when the act is coerced in any way
by any circumstances
- thus, the responsibility of the doer
may be lessened
 Act of Man
 act that man performs indeliberately or
inadvertently and without the exercise of
free choice
 performed without knowledge and
consent
 the actus hominis
 GENERAL ETHICS

Modifiers of Human Acts

(Factors affecting human acts)
 Modifiers of Human Acts

• “Nagtuturing” or “nagpapabago” ng
human act. (Changes the human act.)

• Nababawasan ang pagkakusa ng

ginawa. (Lessens the voluntariness of
the human act.)
 Modifiers of Human
Acts

1. Ignorance
2. Fear
3. Passion
4. Violence
5. Habit
 Modifiers
1. Ignorance
a. Invincible ignorance – the knowledge
cannot be acquired.
Example: The speed limit in China
is written in Chinese.

b. Vincible ignorance – the knowledge

CAN be acquired, but was not acquired
because of negligence or intentionally not
acquired.
Example: You are driving in Manila,
so you must know that there
 What do you think?
3. A businessman heard that there is a new law
on taxes that was just approved. He intentionally
did not read about it so he does not have to
follow the new laws. Is the businessman
responsible? YES

4. A team of government inspectors visited a

factory to find out if they comply with labor laws.
Upon arrival, they were treated to lunch by the
owner. They reported that they did not see any
violations. Are the inspectors responsible? YES
2. Fear
Modifiers
- Fear does not destroy the voluntariness
of the action, and therefore you are still
responsible
- BUT
- it lessens responsibility especially in the
case of grave fear.
Example:
A soldier abandons his post because
he is afraid he might die.
3. Passion Modifiers
a. Antecedent Passion – emotion which arises
BEFORE reason or the will can take over.
Example: hatred upon seeing your father
hurt your mother.

b. Consequent Passion – emotion which arises

AFTER reason or the will has taken over.
Example: You keep on thinking about how
your boyfriend hurt you, so you plan
something to hurt him back.
 Modifiers
4. Violence – force to compel a person to do
something against his or her will

Levels:
a. You resist as much as you can but you
are overpowered, then you are NOT
responsible.
Examples: - A woman resists three
rapists as much as she can, and
is overpowered.
A person is beaten up until he is forced
to lie during a police investigation.
 Modifiers
4. Violence

Levels:
b. You do not resist because it would be useless
anyway, then you are NOT responsible.

Example: While riding a jeepney, a

person points a gun to you and he tells
you to collect all the cellphones of the
other passengers.
 Ethical Principle:

Physical actions resulting from

violence, to which due
resistance is made are
involuntary and not imputable to
the agent.
5. Habit

a readiness for performing particular action

acquired by regular and consistent doing of the same
act i.e., once acquired it is very difficult to get rid of
because they form in man like a second nature

Ethical Principles: Actions done by the force of habit

are voluntary as long as they are permitted to
continue.
 Class Activity (Optional)
1. Divide into groups of 5

2. Think of one situation for each of the Modifiers of Human

Act.
• It should show that the responsibility of person
changes because of the modifier.

3. Describe each situation in the class.

Example: A waiter in a restaurant did not
issue a receipt to a customer. He did this because
he was told not to do it, and he feared losing his
job. (Modifier = fear).

4. Each situation is worth 5 points

 GENERAL ETHICS

DETERMINANTS OF MORALITY
 1. The Object

1. The Object THE MOST IMPORTANT CONSIDERATION

2. The Circumstances
3. The Intention
 There are very few exceptions when
only the OBJECT of the act should be
considered.

– We must also consider:

– The Circumstances
– The Intention
 What do you think?

 What actions are always bad,

regardless of the circumstance and
intention:

– Leading others to sin.

– Torturing an innocent child.
 2. The
Circumstances
 Conditions which affect the voluntariness
of the act.
 May mga kondisyon ba na nakakaapekto
ng pagka-kusa nang ginawa?
 May mga kondisyon ba na pumupwersa
sa ginawa, o malaya ba talaga ang tao
na gawin o hindi gawin ito?
 2. The
Circumstances
A. The PERSON doing it and the person to
whom it is done.
• Examples:
- Tom hit one of the students (Jerry).
- Tom hit the President of University of Baguio.

- Sinauli ni Fr. Tom ang pera na naiwanan sa

taxi.
- Sinauli ng taxi driver ang pera na naiwanan
sa taxi.
 2. The
Circumstances
B. PLACE

• Examples:
- They were fighting inside the school.
- They were fighting inside the chapel.

- He gave money during a fund-raising

campaign.
- He gave money anonymously.
 2. The
Circumstances
C. TIME
• Examples:
- Sinigawan niya ang katulong nang umuwi
siya galing sa opisina.
- Sinigawan niya ang katulong pagkatapos
magsimba.

- Binigyan niya ng pagkain ang isang mahirap.

- Nang pauwi na siya nang hating-gabi,
nakakita siya ng isang mahirap na binigyan
niya ng pagkain.
 2. The
Circumstances
D. MANNER or WAY it was done
• Examples:
- Ini-snatch niya yung cellphone.
- Sinaksak niya upang makuha yung cellphone.

- Sinuwelduhan niya ang mga trabahador.

- Sinuwelduhan niya ang mga trabahador at
nagpapasalamat siya sa kanila.
 2. The
Circumstances
E. CONDITION of the person who did the
action
• Examples:
- Sumama si Ed sa nakawan.
- Pagkatakas sa Mental Hospital, sumama
si Ed sa nakawan.

- Nakiramay si Ed kagabi.
- Kahit may sakit si Ed, nakiramay pa rin
siya kagabi.
 2. The
Circumstances
F. The THING itself.

• Examples:
- He stole P100.
- He stole P100 million.

- She gave her old clothes to the

poor.
- She gave her new clothes to the
poor.
 2. The
Circumstances
G. The MEANS used.

• Examples:
- He cheated in the exam using a “codigo.”
- He cheated in the exam by paying a
bribe to the secretary of the department.

- She helped the poor by giving money.

- She helped the poor by joining them
every weekend to help build their house.
 2. The
Circumstances
A. The PERSON
B. The PLACE
C. The TIME
D. The MANNER
E. The CONDITION of the Person
F. The THING Itself
G. The MEANS
 3. INTENTIONS
• The reason or purpose on why the
person did the action.
 3. THE INTENTION -
PRINCIPLES
A. Good Act
+Good Intention
= DOUBLY GOOD

Example:
He taught street children how to read so
they can do better in school.
 3. THE INTENTION -
PRINCIPLES
B. Bad Action
+Bad Intention
= DOUBLY BAD

Example:
He accepted bribes so that he can
continue his gambling habit.
 3. THE INTENTION -
PRINCIPLES
C. Good Act
+Bad Intention
= BAD

Example:
The mayor went to the flood victims so
that the newspaper reporters can take his
photograph.
 3. THE INTENTION -
PRINCIPLES
D. Bad Action
+Good Intention
= BAD (but lesser guilt)

Examples:
- He stole money so he can send his
children to school.
- He cheated in the exam so he can
maintain his scholarship and help out in the
family.
 3. THE INTENTION -
PRINCIPLES
E. Neutral Action
+Good Intention
= GOOD

Example:
He writes stories in order to inspire
others.
 3. THE INTENTION -
PRINCIPLES
F. Neutral Action
+Bad Intention
= BAD

Example:
He writes stories in order to destroy the
reputation of others.
 If the intention was firm and determined,
then the external act is NOT NECESSARY
to render something as good or bad.

 The external act increases the goodness

or badness of the intention.

 Scripture says that the intention alone is

enough to judge something as good or
bad.

– Everyone who looks at a woman lustfully has

already committed adultery with her in his
heart – Matthew 5:28
 SUMMARY
1.If the OBJECT (RESULT), CIRCUMSTANCE
or INTENTION are all good, then that
action is GOOD.

2.If one of the three is bad, then the action

is BAD.

3.The CIRCUMSTANCE can increase or

decrease the goodness or bad-ness of the
action.
 General ethics

NORMS OF MORALITY
LAW
CONSCIENCE
 LAW

AN ORDINANCE OF REASON
PROMULGATED
FOR THE COMMON GOOD
BY ONE WHO HAS CHARGE OF THE SOCIETY
 ORDINANCE OF REASON

LAW ORDERS AND DIRECTS HUMAN ACTS TOWARDS THEIR END

LAW FLOWS FROM REASONABLE WILL:
FROM THE ILLUMINED UNDERSTANDING OF THE WILL OF AN END
 REASON RECOGNIZES WHAT IS GOOD
GOOD IS WHAT WE OUGHT TO FOLLOW
LAW MAKES US FOLLOW WHAT IS GOOD
 PROMULGATED FOR THE COMMON GOOD
LAW IS MADE KNOWN TO THOSE WHO ARE BOUND BY IT

LAW IS NOT MEANT TO IMPOSE HARDSHIPS

OR NEEDLESS RESTRICTIONS

TRUE LAW TENDS TO MAKE MEN GOOD,

LIBERATES MEN FROM PERVERSE AND MISTAKEN JUDGEMENTS
LEADS THEM TO THEIR ULTIMATE END
 CLASSIFICATION OF LAWS:

A. ACCORDING TO IMMEDIATE AUTHOR

DIVINE LAWS
HUMAN LAWS

B. ACCORDING TO DURATION
TEMPORAL LAWS
ETERNAL LAWS

C. ACCORDING TO MANNER OF PROMULGATION

NATURAL LAW
POSITIVE LAW

D. ACCORDING AS THEY PRESCRIBE OR FORBID AN ACT

AFFIRMATIVE LAWS
NEGATIVE LAWS

E. ACCORDING TO EFFECT OF VIOLATION

MORAL
PENAL
MIXED
 CLASSES OF LAW

ETERNAL LAW
GOD’S ETERNAL PLAN AND PROVIDENCE FOR CREATION
ETERNAL LAW APPLIES TO ALL CREATURES
AND DIRECTS THEM IN HARMONY WITH THEIR NATURE
MAN ALONE MAY REFUSE THE DIRECTION OF ETERNAL LAW

AS A BODILY BEING
MAN ACTS IN ACCORDANCE WITH PHYSICAL LAWS

IN MATTERS THAT LIE UNDER MAN’S FREE CONTROL

MAN MAY REFUSE THE DIRECTION OF ETERNAL LAW
 NATURAL LAW
THAT MORAL ORDER
(A DIRECTIVE, ORDERING MAN TOWARDS ULTIMATE END)
WHICH ARISES FROM THE NATURE OF MAN AND CREATION
AND WHICH CAN BE RECOGNIZED BY MAN’S REASON.

IT IS ALSO DIVINE NATURAL LAW

BECAUSE ITS ORIGIN IS ULTIMATELY TRACED BACK TO THE WILL OF GOD
 HUMAN LAW
LAWS ENACTED BY CHURCH OR STATE
ECCLESIASTICAL LAW
CIVIL LAW

A HUMAN LAW DERIVES ITS BINDING FORCE

FROM NATURAL LAW AND ULTIMATELY FROM ETERNAL LAW

A CONCRETE AND DETERMINATE APPLICATION OF NATURAL LAW

 CONSCIENCE

PRACTICAL JUDGMENT OF REASON UPON AN INDIVIDUAL ACT

AS GOOD TO BE PERFORMED OR EVIL TO BE AVOIDED
 JUDGMENT OF REASON

THROUGH THE PROCESS OF REASONING,

BASED ON MORAL PRINCIPLES,
CONSCIENCE JUDGES AN ACT AS GOOD OR BAD.
 SYNTERESIS/SYNDERESIS
ACQUIRED EQUIPMENT OF MORAL PRINCIPLES
INTUITIVE KNOWLEDGE OF RIGHT AND WRONG

THE STARTING POINT OF THE REASONING PROCESS

WHICH ENDS IN THE JUDGMENT OF CONSCIENCE
WHEN WE ARE CONFRONTED WITH POSSIBLE COURSE OF ACTION
WE COMPARE IT MENTALLY WITH MORAL RINCIPLES
AND ARRIVE AT A CONCLUSION WHETHER THE ACT IS GOOD OR BAD
 CONSCIENCE IS A PRACTICAL JUDGMENT

REFERENCE TO AN ACTION THAT NEEDS TO BE DONE OR AVOIDED

IT IS A REASONING PROCESS THAT ALWAYS ENDS IN JUDGMENT
THAT COMMANDS, FORBIDS, ALLOWS, ADVISES

CONSCIENCE IS A DICTATE:
“DO THIS, DO THAT”
 CONSCIENCE IS A JUDGMENT UPON AN INDIVIDUAL ACT
TO BE PERFORMED OR OMMITTED IN THE PRESENT CIRCUMSTANCE

BEFORE THE ACTION:

CONSCIENCE JUDGES AN ACT AS GOOD TO BE PERFORMED OR EVIL TO BE AVOIDED

AFTER THE ACTION:

CONSCIENCE IS A JUDGMENT OF APPROVAL OR DISAPPORVAL
 STATES OF CONSCIENCE
CORRECT OR TRUE CONSCIENCE
WHEN IT JUDGES AS GOOD THAT WHICH IS GOOD
AND EVIL THAT WHICH IS EVIL
ERRONEOUS CONSCIENCE
INVINCIBLY ERRONEOUS
VINCIBLY ERRONEOUS
CERTAIN CONSCIENCE
WHEN CONSCIENCE IS FIRM AND ASSURED
WHEN THE AGENT HAS NO FEAR OF BEING IN ERROR
MUST BE OBEYED AT ALL TIMES
DOUBTFUL CONSCIENCE
WHEN THE AGENT IS AWARE OF THE POSSIBILITY OF ERROR
IT NOT ALLOWED TO ACT IN A STATE OF PRACTICAL DOUBT
THE DOUBT MUST BE RESOLVED AND REPLACED WITH CERTITUDE
 KINDS OF DOUBTS
Speculative Doubt
UNCERTAINTY ABOUT WHAT IS TRUE.
CONCERN: APPLICATION OF A LAW OR MORAL PRINCIPLE
Practical Doubt
UNCERTAINTY ABOUT WHAT IS TO BE DONE.
Positive Doubt
UNCERTAINTY ABOUT TWO OPPOSITE ALTERNATIVES
WHICH APPEAR TO HAVE EQUALLY GOOD
REASON FOR EACH
Negative Doubt
UNCERTAINTY ABOUT OPPOSING CHOICES WHICH
SEEM TO HAVE NO GOOD REASON FOR BOTH
 STATES OF CONSCIENCE

SCRUPULOUS CONSCIENCE
THAT WHICH IS EXTREMELY CAREFUL AND ALWAYS
AFRAID OF BEING IN ERROR.

LAX CONSCIENCE
IT IS ONE THAT IS UNCONCERNED ABOUT THE
LAWFULNESS OF AN ACT AND ALWAYS KEEN
ON RATIONALIZING GRAVE MISCONDUCT.
 FORMATION OF CONSCIENCE:
TO FORM ONE’S CONSCIENCE MEANS TO GET RID OF DOUBT
AND ACHIEVE CERTAINTY

TO REASON OUT THE RIGHT AND WRONG OF A GIVEN SITUATION

MORAL CERTITUDE IS SUFFICIENT AND REQUISITE
FOR THE GUIDANCE OF THE CONSCIENCE-JUDGMENT

IT IS POSSIBLE TO ACHIEVE MORAL CERTITUDE

DIRECTLY OR INDIRECTLY
 DIRECTLY:
BY STUDYING THE ACT ITSELF AND ITS MORAL DETERMINANTS
AND HAVING A CLEAR KNOWLEDGE OF THE QUALITY OF
THE MORAL ACT AS GOOD OR EVIL

INDIRECTLY:
BY APPLYING THE REFLEX MORAL PRINCIPLE
WHICH MEANS THAT A DOUBTFUL LAW DOES NOT BIND.