CHAPTER 6 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
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, these are qualities that mechanical device. They are
spiritual qualities that appeal only to reason.
The Norms of Morality

Richard M. Gula defines the norms of "the criteria of judgement about the sorts 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.l)

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 is 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 Eternal Law', the ultimate norm. Thus, there is Only one norm: Eternal
Eternal Law
Etenal 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-Il, 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 Manichewn; Book 22, Ch. 27).
Etemal 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 it 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, We refers to the nature of all created things which is the principle of their
movements and actions: chemical, biological, physiological, or rational. Science-speaks of Natural 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:

The light of natural reason, whereby we discern what is good and what is evil, which is a function
of the natural law, is nothing else than an imprint on us of divine light. It is, therefore, evident that
the natural law is nothing else than the rational creature's participation of the 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).

Paul Tillich elaborates that what we call "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 moral imperative. He writes:

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 Et 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)

It is worth noting that what Tillich describes as the content of natural law is precisely our Filipino concept
of pagpapakatao lwhich 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.

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 principle
of our human nature is norm of morality.
Properties of the Natural Law

We note 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 no exemption, since it is nature itself.
3. It is recognizable. It is imprinted in the human nature 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 Natural Law. Ethical
writers distinguish between formal 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).

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 sons of actions we ought to do. Material norms are the application of the
formal norms to concrete action., such as, speech, killing, making promises, or using contraceptives. they
answer the question: "What should I do?"

Since material norms deal with concrete 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 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. physicalist suggests
that 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).

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 dynamic tendency in the human person to know the truth, to grasp the whole of reality
as it is in. Morality based on reason is a morality based on reality as known to man.

While seemingly opposed, these theories compliment each other. In Christian Ethics, both theories 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 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 direct the order of nature in a way that would be truly human" (ibid.).
The Order of Reason

Man participates in the Etemal 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 la#' (Summa
Theol. I- Il, q. 94, a. 2). Richard M. Gula explains:

In a morality based on the order of reason, the human person is not subject to die God-given order of
nature in the same way the animals are. The human person does not have to conform to natural pattens
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
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 Law in a manner to man belongs to moral conscience.
Conscience

Conscience is the proximate of morality. It is proximate because it is what directly confronts an action as
good or bad. Its function is to exami1E, to judge, 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 Natural Law. Thus, conscience is but an extension of the
Natural Law which guides man to seek the good of his nature.

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. Corrector or True Conscience judges what is good as good what is evil as evil; It is correct conscience
which tells that getting the property of another consent is stealing. It is also correct conscience which
judges that we to pay our debts.

2. Erroneous or False Conscience judges incorrectly that what is good is evil and what is evil is good. It is
erroneous conscience which tells husband to have a mistress, since 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) 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 willfully 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 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 culpable because 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 to be sure of something as good when in fact it is just opposite, vice-versa. It is possible for a
policemen to be sure that killing the suspect is the best alternative under 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 SAY) 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. I, 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 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 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, because conscience depends for help in community and social authority in order to
be informed correctly of its judgments. (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 axe 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 the 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 tum 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).

EXERCISE NO. 9

Identify the following:

1. The norms determining what actions we ought to do in a given situation.

2. God 's design for all his creatures.

3. What requires a for moral judgment.

4. The remote norm of morality.

5. Serves as the immediate nom of conduct.

6. Man's participation in Eternal law.

7. The voice of God.

8. The norms determining what persons we ought to become.

9. What we ought to be rational individuals.

10. what is good or evil act.

11. "written" in the heart of men.

12. The remote norm of morality.

13. The instrument for interpretation of natural law.

14. Indecisive conscience.

15. Quality of natural law applying it to all men without exception.

16. Practical judgment of reason concerning the goodness or evilness of an act.

17. The light of reason enabling man to recognize self-evident truths.

18. Erroneous conscience which is blame worthy.

19. The right to be free from intrusion by unjust authority.

20. The ultimate source of morality.

EXERCISE NO. 10

Answer briefly:

1. What do we mean by "freedom of conscience"?

2. When are we excused for our erroneous conscience?

3. What are the dangers of a lax conscience?

4. Why do we have to follow our conscience all the time?

5. In what sense is our conscience the voice of God.