Chapter I: Introduction: Key Concepts in Ethics

Module 1: Ethics, and Its Key Concepts

 Ethics help give direction to societies and people who think they cannot flourish
without some form of morality.
 Morality is said to be breaking down in society today - juvenile crime, drug
abuse, alcoholism, teenage pregnancies, crime rates - all seem to indicate that
the moral fabric of society is breaking down.
 Moral questions are at the heart of life’s vital issues - including those affected by
the actions above. “Morality is primarily concerned with the questions of right
and wrong, the ability to distinguish between the two, and the justification of
the distinction.
 Montemayor (1994) mentions in his introduction on his book Ethics: The
Philosophy of Life that Ethics is the philosophy of life and that it delves into
the deepest whys and wherefore of human existence, men’s actions, problems
and destiny.
 He further mentions that to live well and happy, we must know what we are
living for. He says this is taught by Ethics that investigates the meaning and
purpose of human life. He mentions that according to Socrates the unexamined
life is not worth living for man.
 Montemayor (1994) also states that Plato one of the greatest philosophers of all
times proclaimed Ethics as the supreme science, the highest in the hierarchy of
human values, as it is Ethics that is concerned with the attainment of life’s
greatest Good and Goal – Happiness.
 Definitions of Ethics
 The book of Montemayor (1994) provides the following definitions of
Ethics:
1. Ethics is the practical science of the morality of human actions.
2. Ethics is the science of human acts with reference to right and
wrong
3. Ethics is the scientific inquiry into the principles of morality.
4. Ethics is the study of the rectitude of human conduct
5. Ethics is the human conduct from the standpoint of morality.
6. Ethics is the science which lays down the principles of right
living
7. Ethics is the practical science that guides us in our actions that
we may live rightly and well.
8. Ethics is normative and practical science, based on reason,
which studies human conduct and provides norm for its natural
integrity and honesty.
9. According to Socrates, ethics is the investigation of life.
 Looking into these definitions we can say that they are similar to each other. The
definitions speak of the field of study of ethics as human conduct; and of the
investigation of such human conduct in terms of its morality. The important
terms that can be seen in them are:
 1. Science-systematic study or a system of scientific conclusions clearly
demonstrated, derived from clearly established principles and duly
coordinated
2. Morality – the quality of human acts as right, wrong or indifferent,
moral immoral or amoral.
3. Human acts –acts done with knowledge, freedom and free will or
consent.
 Importance of Ethics
 Montemayor (1994) proclaims that the importance of the study of ethics follows
immediately from the importance of ethics itself. His idea is manifested in the
following:
1. Ethics means right living and good moral character and it is in good
moral character that man finds his true worth and perfection. All the
great teachers of the ages maintain that the supreme purpose of human
living lies not in the acquisition of material good or bodily pleasures, nor
in the attainment of bodily perfections such as health and strength; nor
even in the development of intellectual skills but in the development of
the moral qualities which lift man far above brute creation.
2. Education is the harmonious development of the whole man-of all ma’s
faculties: the moral, intellectual, and physical powers in man. Now then
highest of man’s power are his reason and will. Hence, the primary
objective of education is the moral development of the will
 Rules benefit social beings in various manners:
1. Rules protect social beings by regulating behaviour. Rules build
boundaries that place limits on behaviour. Rules are usually coupled
with means to impose consequences on those who violate them. One of
the reasons people follow accepted rules is to avoid negative
consequences.
2. Rules help to guarantee each person certain right and freedom. Rules
form frameworks for society. Nations are generally nations of laws and
the governing principles are outlined in what is called constitution.
Because the majority has agreed to follow and consent to be governed by
such a constitution, the freedoms outlined exist.
3. Rules produce a sense of justice among social beings. Rules are needed
in order to keep the strong from dominating the weak that is to prevent
exploitation and domination. Without rules, schemes in which those with
the power control the system, would take over. In effect, rules generate a
stable system that provides justice, in which even the richest and the most
powerful have limitations on what they can do. If they transgress rules
such as laws and ordinances and take advantage of people, there are
consequences both socially and criminally.
4. Rules are essential for a healthy economic system. Without rules
regulating business, power would centralize around monopolies and
threaten the strength and competitiveness of the system. Rules are
 needed to ensure product safety, employee’s safety and product quality.
Copyright and patents help protect people’s intellectual property. Rules
and regulations also keep the banking system stable so as to avoid
depression and the like.
 Moral Standards versus Non-moral Standards (lifted from the book of De
Guzman, (2017) -Ethics: Principles of Ethical Behaviour in Modern Society)
 Moral Standards and their Characteristics
 Moral standards are norms that individuals or groups have about the
kinds of actions believed to be morally right or wrong, as well as the
values placed on what we believed to be morally good or morally bad.
Moral standards normally promote “the good”, that is, the welfare and
well-being of humans as well as animals and the environment. Moral
standards, therefore, prescribe what humans ought to do in terms of rights
and obligations.
 moral standards are the sum of combined norms and values.
 norms are understood as general rules about our actions or behaviors.
 According to many scholars, moral standards have the following
characteristics, namely:
1. Moral standards deal with matters we think can seriously injure or
benefit humans, animals, and the environment, such as child abuse, rape,
and murder;
2. Moral standards are not established or changed by the decisions of
authoritative individuals or bodies. Indeed, moral standards rest on the
adequacy of the reasons that are taken to support and justify them. For
sure, we don’t need a law to back up our moral conviction that killing
innocent people is absolutely wrong;
3. Moral standards are overriding, that is, they take precedence over other
standards and considerations, especially of self-interest;
4. Moral standards are based on impartial considerations. Hence, moral
standards are fair and just;
5. moral standards are associated with special emotions (such as guilt and
shame) and vocabulary (such as right, wrong, good, and bad).

 Non-moral Standards
 Non-moral standards refer to standards by which we judge what is good
or bad and right or wrong in a non-moral way.
 non-moral standards are matters of taste or preference.
 Violation of said standards also does not pose any threat to human well-
being.
 if a moral standard says “Do not harm innocent people” or “Don’t
steal”, a non-moral standard says “Don’t text while driving” or “Don’t
talk while the mouth is full”.
 Dilemma and Moral Dilemma (lifted from the book of De Guzman, (2017) -
Ethics: Principles of Ethical Behaviour in Modern Society)
  The term dilemma refers to a situation in which a tough decision has to
be made between two or more options, especially more or less equally
undesirable ones. Not all dilemmas are moral dilemmas.
 Also called ‘ethical dilemmas’, moral dilemmas are situation in which a
difficult choice has to be made between two courses of action, either of
which entails transgressing a moral principle. At the very least, a moral
dilemma involves conflicts between moral requirements.
 What is common to moral dilemmas is conflict.
 The key features of a moral dilemma are these:
a) the agent is required to do each of two (or more) actions;
b) the agent can do each of the actions; but the agent cannot do both (or all)
of the actions. In a moral dilemma, the agent thus seems condemned to
moral failure no matter what he does, he will do something wrong, or fail
to do something that he ought to do.
 Some ethicists propose that when one of the conflicting moral requirements
overrides the other, the case is not a ‘genuine moral dilemma’.
 Three Levels of Moral Dilemma
Moral Dilemmas can be categorized according to these levels:
1. Personal Dilemmas. Personal Dilemmas are those experienced and
resolved on the personal level. Since many ethical decisions are
personally made, many if not most of moral dilemmas fall under, or boil
down to this level. If a person makes conflicting promises, he faces a
moral conflict. When an individual has to choose between the life of a
child who is about to be delivered and the child’s mother, he faces an
ethical dilemma.
2. Organizational Dilemma. Organizational moral dilemmas refer to ethical
cases encountered and resolves by social organization. This category
includes moral dilemmas in business, medical fields and public sector.
3. Structural Dilemmas. Structural moral dilemmas refer to cases involving
network of institutions and operative theoretical paradigms. As they
usually encompass multi-sectoral institutions and organizations, they may
be larger in scope and extent than organizational dilemmas.
 Only human beings can be Ethical (lifted from the book of De Guzman, (2017) -
Ethics: Principles of Ethical Behaviour in Modern Society)
 Oftentimes we experience something that test our being and often also we
wonder whether we deserve to be the highest form of animal. If we commit
something, we often hear “animal ka”. But we are as Aristotle say “rational
animasl”. We are animals minus the rationality.
 human beings possess some traits that make it possible for them to be moral.
 Only human beings are rational, autonomous, and self-conscious. The qualities
of rationality, autonomy, and self-consciousness are believed to confer a full and
equal moral status to those that possess them as these beings are the only ones
capable of achieving certain moral values.
 Summary
1. As ethics is defined as the science of the morality of human act, it
provides as with set of rules or principles needed so we can be guided in
our actions in society.
2. Rules are important to social beings as they protect the greater good
avoiding exploitations and tyranny in society. Society could function
soundly without rules and regulations.
3. Not all rules are moral rules and not all standards are moral standards
as moral standards are equated by some ethicists to moral values and
moral principles.
4. Moral Dilemmas are situations in which a difficult choice has to be made
between two courses of actions, either which entails transgressing a moral
principles. They involve conflicts between moral requirements and they
can happen in the personal, organizational or structural level.
5. Only human beings can be ethical as only human beings are rational,
autonomous, and self-conscious, can act morally and immorally, and are
part of the moral community.

 Chapter 2: THE AGENT

Module 2: Culture in Moral Behavior and Developing Virtue as a Habit
 Culture in Moral Behavior
 It is commonly said that culture is all around us.
 culture appears to be an actual part of our social life as well as our
personality.
 The term culture is so complex that it not easy to define.
 culture is used to denote that which is related to the arts and humanities.
 In broader sense, culture denotes the practices, beliefs, and perceptions
of a given society.
 The following are other definitions of the term culture:
1. Culture refers to the cumulative deposit of knowledge, experience,
beliefs, values, attitudes, meanings, hierarchies, religions, notion of
time, roles, spatial relations, concepts of the universe, and material
objects and possessions acquired by a group of people in the course of
generations through individual and group striving.
2. Culture consists of patterns, explicit and implicit, of and for behaviour
acquired and transmitted by symbols, constituting the distinctive
achievement of human groups, including their embodiments in artefacts,
the essential core of culture consists of traditional ideas and especially
their attached values, culture systems may, on the one hand, be
considered as products of action on the other hand as conditioning
influence upon further action.
3. Culture is the sum total of the learned behaviour of a group of people
that are generally considered to be the tradition of that people and are
transmitted from generation to generation
 4. Culture in its broadest sense is cultivated behaviour; that is the totality of
a person’s learned, accumulated experience which is socially
transmitted, or more briefly, behaviour through social learning.
5. Culture is symbolic communication. Some of its symbols include a
group’s skills, knowledge, attitudes, values, and motives. The meanings
of the symbols are learned and deliberately perpetuated in a society
through its institutions.
 culture includes all the things individuals learn while growing up among
particular group: attitudes, standards of morality, rules of etiquette,
perceptions of reality, language, notions about the proper way to live, beliefs
about how females and males should interact, ideas about how the world
works and so forth. We call this cultural knowledge.
 Culture’s Role in Moral Behavior
 Culture is learned as children grow up in society and discover how their
parents and others around them interpret the world. In our society, we
learn to evaluate what is (morally) good and bad and to judge when an
unusual action is appropriate or inappropriate (Manebog & Pena, 2016).

 People learn moral and aspects of right or wrong from transmitters of

culture: respective parents, teachers, novels, films, and television.
Observing or watching them, pole develop a set of what is right and
wrong and what is acceptable and what is not.
 The process by which infants and children socially learn the culture
including morality, of those around them is called enculturation or
socialization.
 Moral Standards as Social Convention and the Social Conditioning Theory
 Among the popular notions which attempt to give account for basic
concepts in Ethics, such as the existence of moral rules, the senses of
moral obligation, and the moral accountability, are the so called social
conventions and social conditioning theories. These views are upshot of
the fact that we can learn from morality culturally or through
socialization.
 Theories Explained. The things we regard as moral laws (moral
standards or rules) some purport are nothing but just social
conventions. By convention, they mean those things agreed upon by
people like through their authorities. Convention also refer to the usual
or customary ways through which things are done within a group.
 some believe that moral standards are merely a human invention., like
those other inventions we learn from school or home.
 However, just because something is learned at home or school does not
necessarily mean that it is a social convention.
 The philosopher C.S. Lewis offers two reasons for saying that morality
belongs to the same class as mathematics:
 1. Although there differences between the moral ideas of one time or another
country and those of another, the difference are not really very great.
2. We affirm that the morality of one people is better or worse than that of
another which means that there is a moral standard or rule by which we
measure both moralities and that standard is real.
 Culture Relativism in Ethics
 Cultural Relativism is the most famous and dominant form of moral
relativism. Moral Relativism fundamentally believes that no act is good
or bad objectively. It also submits that different moral principles apply to
different persons or group of individuals.
 Cultural Relativism defines ‘moral’ as what is ‘socially approved’ by the
majority in a particular culture. It maintains that an act is ethical in a
culture that approves of it, but immoral in one that disapproves of it.
Cultural relativists claim the following:
1. Different societies have different moral codes.
2. The moral code of a society determines what is right or wrong within
that society.
3. There are no moral truths that hold for all people at all times.
4. The moral code of our own society has no special status; it is but one
among many.
5. It is arrogant for us to judge other cultures. We should always be
tolerant of them
It is concluded that morality differs in every society as concepts of right and
wrong vary from culture to culture.
 Cultural relativism: an analysis
1. Valuable lessons from ethical relativism
 In proposing that there’s no independent standard in Ethics, moral
relativism does encourage tolerance. Without a doubt, tolerance is
necessary for people of different cultural origins to co-exist and
live peacefully in a society. The theory also teaches us to be open
minded, thereby being more open to discovering truth. Cultural
relativism warns against being judgmental as it reminds us that
some of our beliefs and practices are mere conventional, and thus
not absolutely and exclusively correct.
2. The theory’s ethical faults
 Cultural relativism discourages analytical thinking and
independent decision-making in ethics as it requires unsuspecting
compliance and subscription to social norms. The theory teaches
that to be ethical, folkways and cultural norms should be
followed uncritically.
 Cultural Relativism is inconsistent in promoting tolerance while
teaching that no culture is morally superior or more progressive
than others. The theory is practicable only if people do not belong
 to more than one institution. Moral relativism is fundamentally
self-defeating.
3. Rachels’ evaluation of cultural relativism
Philosophy professor James Rachels (1941-2003) made a compelling
assessment of Cultural Relativism.
 The Cultural Differences Argument
Rachels explained that cultural relativists’ approach is to argue from facts about
the differences between cultural outlooks to a conclusion about the status of
morality.
Thus we are invited to accept reasoning like these:
 The Greeks believed it was wrong to eat the dead, whereas the
Callatians (an Indian Tribe) believed it was right to eat the dead.
Therefore eating dead is neither objectively wrong. It is merely a matter
of opinion, which varies from culture to culture.
 The Eskimos see nothing wrong with infanticide, whereas we believe
infanticide is immoral. Therefore, infanticide is neither objectively right
nor objectively wrong. It is merely a matter of opinion, which varies
from culture to culture.
 Different cultures have different moral codes. Therefore, there is no
objective “truth” in morality. Right and wrong are only matters of
opinion, and opinions vary from culture to culture.
 Rachels call these cultural differences argument. It is nonetheless
unsound because its conclusion does not follow from its premise.
Against cultural differences argument, this counter-argument could be
submitted:
 People in some societies (e.g. Primitive Tribes) believe that the Earth is
flat, whereas Europeans hold that truth that the Earth is spherical. This
argument is obviously unsound because some societies might simply be
wrong in their beliefs
 Cultural Relativism goes wrong in drawing a conclusion about an issue
from the mere fact that people disagree about it.
 The Disagreements among Cultures
 Since the difference in customs may be because of some other aspects of
social life, then it’s wrong to conclude that there is a disagreement about
values and morality just because customs differ. Therefore, there may be
less ethical disagreements that there appears to be (1997, p. 27).
The Case of Eskimos and Callatians
 In sociology and Anthropology, the Eskimos are popular for killing
normal infants, especially girls. This makes them appear to possess
significantly different values from ours.
 An Eskimo will always protect its babies if conditions permit. But they
live in a harsh environment where food is in short supply that “life is
hard, and the margin of safety is small”
  In Eskimo’s very special case, Infanticide is thus a recognition that drastic
measures are sometimes needed to ensure the family’s survival.
 The Bad Consequences of Cultural relativism
1. We could no longer say that the customs of other societies are morally
inferior to our own
2. We could decide whether actions are right or wrong just by consulting
standards of our society.
3. The idea of moral progress is called to doubt.
 ASIAN AND FILIPINO UNDERSTANDING OF MORAL BEHAVIOUR
The Difference Between Western and Eastern Ethics

Western Ethics Eastern Ethics

Focus Finding the Truth Protocol and

Respect
Basis Rational Thought Religious Teachings
Emphasis Logic, Cause, and Effect Respect Towards
Family
Roots in Athens, Rome and Judeo Hinduism,
Christianity Buddhism,
Confucianism and
Taoism
Approach Rational Holistic and
Cultural
Conflict and Good must triumph over Evil Good and Bad,
Harmony Light and Dark all
exist in equilibrium

 Filipino Moral Character: Strength and Weakness

 Filipino cultural morality, especially that which concerns social ethics,
centers on ideally having a ‘smooth interpersonal relationship’ (SIR) with
others.
 The definition of SIR in Philippine culture is principally supported by and
anchored on at least six basic Filipino values.
Six Basic Filipino Values
 1. Pakikisama is having and maintaining good public relation.
2. Hiya is described as a feeling of lowliness, shame or embarrassment, and
inhibition of shyness which is experienced as somewhat distressing.
3. Amor propio has been characterized as the high degree of sensitivity that
makes a person intolerant to criticism and causes him to have an easily
wounded pride.
4. Utang na loob is likewise a fundamental aspects of upholding group
harmony and relationships that demand the balancing of obligation and
depts.
5. Filipino hospitality refers to the innate ability and trait of Filipinos to be
courteous and entertaining to their guest.
6. Respects for Elders. Filipinos are not only respectful to elders, but also
have unique ways of expressing this respect.

 Universal Values
 values generally shared by cultures.
 The existence of the so-called universal values is a strong proof that
cultural relativism is wrong.
 If certain values exist both in Western and Eastern cultures (including
Filipino culture) despite the distance, then cultural relativism’s claim that
culture’s moralities radically differ from each other is mistaken.
 Developing Virtue as A Habit
1. Moral Character and Virtues
 The term “character” is derived from the Greek word “charakter”,
which was initially used as a mark impressed upon a coin. It means
a distinct mark or qualities by which one thing was distinguished
from others.
the Greek philosopher Aristotle tells us that there are two distinct of human
excellences:
1. Excellences of Thought
2. Excellences of Character
 Excellences of Character
 Excellences of character is often translated as ‘moral virtue(s)’ or ‘moral
excellence(s)’. ‘Ethikos’ (ethical) is the adjective cognate with ‘ethos’
(character). So when we speak of ‘virtue’ or excellence of moral character,
the highlight is on the blend of qualities that make a person the sort of
ethically admirable individual that he/she is.
 Moral Character
 Moral character refers to the existence or lack of virtues such as integrity,
courage, fortitude, honesty, and loyalty.
 If one lacks virtue, he/she may have any moral vices, or he/she may be
marked by a condition somewhere in between virtue and vice. Moral
character means that you're a good person and a good citizen with a
sound moral compass.
  Moreover, philosophers usually think that moral character traits, unlike
other personality or psychological traits have an irreducibly evaluative
dimension; that is, they involve a normative judgment.
 The agent is morally responsible for having the moral character trait itself
or for the outcome of that trait. Hence, a certain moral character trait is a
trait for which the agent is morally responsible.
The Circular Relations of acts and character
 There are some ACTS THAT BUILD character and moral character itself.
But not all acts helps to build moral character.
 A person’s actions determine his/her moral character, but moral character
itself generates acts that help in developing either virtue or vice. Habitual
practice of moral and intellectual excellences, or ‘virtues.’
 Moral Characters as Dispositions
 The moral characters that constitute a person’s moral character are
characteristically understood as behavioral and affective dispositions.
 a vice is amoral character trait for which the agent is deserving of a
negative reactive attitude such as resentment or blame.
Six Stages of Moral Development
 The American psychologist Lawrence Kohlberg is best known for his
theory of stages of moral development. In Heinz dilemma, Kohlberg
found a pattern in how people justified whether or not they would steal
the drug as people age. By analyzing the answers from various children,
Kohlberg discovered that the reasons tend to change as the children got
older.
Kohlberg’s Theory consist of 3 levels and 6 stages of Moral Development
Level Age Range Stage

Level 1: Pre- Pre – school children, Stage 1: Obedience and

Conventional Elementary, Some Punishment Orientation
Morality HS students
Stage2: Individualism
and
Exchange
Level 2: Seen in a few older Stage 3: Good
Conventional Elementary and Interpersonal
Morality many high school Relationships
students
Level 2: Seen in a few older Stage 3: Good
Conventional Elementary and Interpersonal
Morality many high school Relationships
students
Stage 4: Maintaining
Social
Order
 Level 3: Rarely seen before Stage 5:
Post - college (Stage 6 is Social Contract and
Conventional extremely rare even Individual rights
Morality in adults)
Stage 6:
Universal
Principles

 Six Stages of Moral Development

Level 1 – Pre-Conventional Morality
Stage 1. Obedience and Punishment Orientation
Stage 2. Individualism and Exchange
Level 2 – Conventional Morality
Stage 3. Good Interpersonal Relationships
Stage 4. Maintaining the Social Order
Level 3 – Post- Conventional Morality
Stage 5. Social Contract and Individual Rights
Stage 6. Universal Principles
 Module 3: The Human Act
Human Act versus Act of Man
The free voluntary acts of man
The acts with knowledge and consent
Acts which are proper to man as man; because, of all animals, he alone has
knowledge and freedom of will.
Acts which, we are conscious are under our control and for which we are
responsible.
Human acts are those which man is master, which he has the power of doing or
doing as he pleases.
 Acts therefore, in order to be truly human, must be done willfully, knowingly
and freely. Without will or consent, knowledge and freedom, there can be no
human act properly so called.
 Only human acts have moral significance.
 Human acts are either elicited or commanded acts.
 Elicited acts are those performed by the will and are not bodily externalized.
Paul Glenn enumerated the following elicited acts:
 Wish is the tendency of the will towards something, whether this this be
realizable or not. The object of wishing may include the impossible, or that
which is remotely possible such as winning the sweepstakes.
 Intention is the tendency of the will towards attainable but without
necessarily committing oneself to attain it. Such is our intention to study
the lesson, to attend a party, or to spend a vacation in Baguio
 Consent is the acceptance of the will of those needed to carry out the
intention. Thus a woman is said to show consent when she consciously
attract attention to herself.
  Election is the selection of the will of those means effective enough to
carry out the intention. A salesman shows election when he opts to visit a
client instead of just writing him a letter.
 Use is the command of the will to make use of those means elected to
carry out the intention. It is this act of the will which moves the salesman
to dress up and take a ride to see his client.
 Fruition is the enjoyment of the will derives from the attainment of the
thing he had desired earlier. The joy of the woman on being
complimented for her attractiveness, or the satisfaction of the salesman in
closing a deal with his client is fruition.
 Commanded acts are those done either by man‘s mental or bodily powers under
the command of the will. Commanded acts are either internal or external actions.
 Examples of internal actions are conscious reasoning, recalling something,
encouraging oneself, controlling aroused emotions and others.
 Examples of external actions are walking, eating, dancing, laughing,
listening, reading and others.
 Some actions are combinations of internal and external actions such as
listening, studying, reading, driving a car, writing a letter or playing
chess.

 Module 4: The Human Act as Knowingly Done

Acts as knowingly Done
  Another essential attribute for human act is knowledge. It means that you
should be sure that you know what you are doing.
 Modifier Of Knowledge: Ignorance
 We are familiar with the saying, “Ignorance of the law excuses no one”.
This implies that one should not act in the state of ignorance and the one
who has done wrong may n0ot claim ignorance as a defense.
 Ignorance is the absence of knowledge which a person ought to possess.
Ignorance is either vincible or invincible.
 Vincible ignorance can easily be reminded through ordinary diligences
and reasonable efforts. The ignorance of a visitor regarding a particular
address in a certain place is vincible, since he can easily ask for
information from a policeman or pedestrian.
 Invincible ignorance is the type which a person without being aware of it,
or having awareness of it, lacks the means to rectify it. The ignorance
regarding missing persons or objects is often invincible. Thus a cook
might be unaware that the food he is cooking is contaminated.
 Under the category of vincible ignorance is affected. This is the type which
a person keeps by positive efforts in order to escape responsibility. It is
affected ignorance when an employee refuses to read a memo precisely so
that he may be exempted from its requirements.
Principles:
1. Invicble ignorance renders an involuntary, A person cannot be held
morally liable if he is not aware of his state of ignorance. A waiter who is
not aware that the food he is serving has been poisoned cannot be held for
murder.

2. Vincible ignorance does not destroy but lessens the voluntariness and the
corresponding accountability over the act. A person who becomes aware
of the state of ignorance he is in has the moral obligation to rectify it by
exercising reasonable diligence in seeking the needed information. To act
with vincble ignorance is to act imprudently. A waiter who suspects that
the food he is serving has been laced with poison has the moral obligation
to ascertain the fact or at least forewarn the guests about the suspicion.

3. Affected ignorance though it decreases voluntariness, increases the

accountability over the resultant act. Insofar as affected ignorance
interferes with the intellect, it decreases voluntariness. But insofar as it
willed to persist, it increases accountability. Certainly, refusing to rectify
ignorance implies malice. And the malice is greater when ignorance is
used as an excuse for not doing the right thing. Thus a child who refuses
to be guided by his parents has only himself to blame for his wrongdoing.
Reason and Impartiality
Impartiality
 It involves the idea that each individual’s interests and point of view are
equally important. It is a principle of justice holding that decisions ought
to be based on objective criteria, rather than on the basis of bias, prejudice
or preferring the benefit to one person over another for improper reason.
 Chapter 3 : THE ACT
Module 5: The Human Act As Willfully Done
Acts as Willfully Done
 One essential attribute of an act to be truly human is the willingness to do
the act
 Modifiers of the Will : Passions and Habits
Passion or concupiscence
 Passion or concupiscence, are either tendencies towards desirable objects
or tendencies away from undesirable or harmful things. The former are
called positive emotions; the latter negative emotions. Passions are psychic
responses. As such they are neither mortal nor immoral. However, man is
bound to regulate his emotions and submit them to the control of reason.
 Passions are either antecedent or consequent. Antecedent passions are
those that precede an act. It may happen that a person is
emotionally aroused to perform an act. Antecedent passions predisposed a
person to act. Thus, love may induce one to make numerous and lengthy
phone calls to his sweetheart or to plot the murder of a rival.
 Principle: Antecedent passions do not always destroy voluntariness but
they diminish accountability for the resultant act. Antecedent passions
weaken the will power of a person without however, completely
obstructing his freedom. Thus the so called “crimes of passion” are
voluntary. But in so far as passions interfere with the freedom of the will
one’s accountability is diminished.
 Consequent passions are those intentionally aroused and kept.
Consequent passions therefore are said to be voluntary in cause, the result
of the will playing the strings of emotions.
 Principle: Consequent passion do not lessen voluntariness, it may even
increase accountability. This is because consequent passions are direct
results of the will which fully consent to them instead of subordinating
them to its control.
 Habit
 Habit as defined by Glenn “is a lasting readiness and faculty, born of
frequently repeated acts, for acting in a certain manner. Habits are
acquired inclinations towards something to be done. They assume the role
of a second nature, moving one who has them to perform acts with
relative ease.
  It requires a strong willed person to correct a habit successfully within a
limited period of time.
 Principle: Action doe by force of habit are voluntary in cause, unless a
reasonable effort is made to counteract the habitual inclination, Habits are
either good or bad,. We speak here of bad habits which lead to immoral
acts.
 Habits are voluntary in cause because they are the result of previously
willed acts done repeatedly as a matter of fact.
 for as long as the habit is not corrected, evil actions done by force of habit
are voluntary and accountable. When a person decides to fight his habit,
and for as long as the effort towards this purpose continues, actions
resulting from such habit may be regarded as acts of man and not
accountable. The reason as pointed out by Glenn is that the cause of such
habit is no longer expressly desired.
Feelings and Moral Decision-Making
 Feelings As Instinctive Response to Moral Dilemmas
 Ethical judgments are highly emotional as people emotionally express
strong approval or disapproval of different acts. Being good involves both
thinking and feeling.
 Feelings as obstacles to Making the Right Decisions
 Feelings/Emotions can become obstacles or impediments to becoming
ethical. Especially when feeling’s roles in ethics are misinterpreted or
exaggerated.
Ethical Subjectivism
 Ethical subjectivism is a meta-ethical theory, It holds that the truth or
falsity of ethical propositions is dependent on the feelings, attitude, or
standards of a person or group of persons.
 It denies that there is objectivity in morality
 Moral judgments are not about objective facts, but are simply about our
personal feelings. Subjectivists hold that there is no such thing as objective
right or real wrong.
Emotivism
 Emotivism is an improved version of Subjectivism; actually the most
popular form of non-cognitivism, the meta-ethical theory that claims that
ethical sentences do not convey authentic propositions.
 based on Logical Positivism that states that all truth claims must be
empirically verifiable. It denies moral truth and knowledge, because of the
absence of scientific or empirical evidence
Subjectivism vs. Emotivism
Subjectivism
= “I disapprove of hazing.”
Seen as a statement of fact about the speaker.
Can be true or false.
 Emotivism
≠ “I disapprove of hazing.”
=“Do not participate in hazing.”
Evaluating Emotivism: Faults
1. It suggests that in ethical disputes, we can only appeal to emotion, not
reason. This situation can bring about anarchy.
2. It is against deliberate discussions about ethical differences.
3. It fails to distinguish moral judgements from expressions of personal
preferences.
4. Personal taste, does not require to be supported by reason. Moral
statements require backing by reasons. In the absence of sensible rationale,
they are merely capricious and ignorable.
5. The theory reduced morality to mere matters of feelings without reasons.
The fact is moral truths are truths of reasons
 Module 6: The Human Act As Freely Done
Act as Freely Done
Freedoms as a Foundation of Morality
 Morality is a question of choice. Morality, practically is choosing ethical
codes, values or standards to guide us in our daily lives. Philosophically,
choosing is impossible without freedom.
 Morality requires and allows choice, which means, the right to choose
even differently from our fellows. In their daily lives, people make the
choice to give to charities, donate time and money to schools, mentor
children, open businesses, or protest against animal cruelty.
 The Modifier Of Freedom: Fear and Violence
Fear
  Fear is the mind of a person who is confronted by an impending danger or
harm himself or loved ones. Distinction is made however between an act
done with fear and act done out or because of fear.
 Fear is an instinct for self-preservation.
 Principles:
1. Acts done with fear are voluntary. A person acting with of fear is acting in
spite of his fear and is in full control of himself.
2. Acts done out of fear, however great is simply voluntary although is
conditionally voluntary. It is simply voluntary because the person remains
in control of his faculties including that of moderating fear. It is also
conditionally involuntary because, if it were not for the presence of
something feared, the person would not act or would act in another way.
3. Acts done because of intense fear or panic are involuntary. Panic
completely obscures the mind. In this mental state, a person is not
expected to think sensibly. Thus a person in a state of panic might jump
from the 12th floor of a building. Such is not considered suicide since it is
done involuntarily. Panic cause a person to lose complete control of
himself.

Intimidating or threatening a person with harm is an unjust act. Legally

speaking, actions done out of fear are invalid acts. Thus contracts entered
into out of fear are voidable, meaning they can later on be annulled. It is
grossly unfair to oblige a person to fulfil a contract obtained by the forced
of a threat.

 Violence
 Violence refers to any physical force exerted on a person by another free
agent for the purpose of compelling said person to act against his will.
Bodily torture, maltreatment, isolation and mutilation are examples of
violence against person.
 Principles:
1. External actions or commanded actions performed by a person subjected
to violence to which reasonable resistance has been offered are
involuntary and are not accountable. Active resistance should always be
offered to an unjust aggressor. However if resistance is impossible, or if
the there is a serious threat to one’s life, a person confronted by violence
can always offer intrinsic resistance by withholding consent that his
enough to save his moral integrity.
2. Elicited acts or those done by the ill alone are not subject to violence and
are therefore voluntary. The will insofar as it is a spiritual faculty is not
within the reach of violence. History carries the story of thousand heroes
who had suffered death instead of surrendering their will to that of their
tormentors. On the contrary, we consider them villains or weakling those
who succumbed and consented to the wishes of tyrants. Burt we may not
 be too harsh on them, since every man has his own limit of endurance.
“Violence of force in any instance if bound with the refined cruelty of
present day methods of psychological torture, can constitute a serious
temptation and often also contribute towards a notable diminution of
inner freedom.
Moral Courage
 We have learned that in morality, over reliance on feelings, to say the least
is disadvantageous in resolving moral dilemmas. We are thus advised to
guide emotions with reason if not tonally suppress them. But reason for
many ethicists is also not enough in carrying out moral decisions. Moral
courage is also important.

The Importance of Will and Moral Courage

 Moral Courage means doing the right thing even at the risk of
inconvenience, ridicule, loss of job or security or social status, etc. It
requires that we rise above the apathy, complacency, hatred, cynicism,
and fear mongering in our political systems, socioeconomic divisions and
cultural/religious differences.
 Will refers to that faculty of the mind which chooses at the moment of
making decision, the strongest desire from among the various desires
present.
 Moral courage and will require us to recognize our responsibilities and be
accountable to the consequences of our own actions.

 Module 7: The Human Act : Its Determinants of Morality
Determinants of the Morality of Human acts
 Morality consists in the conformity and non-conformity of an act with the
norm.
 a given act is morally objectionable or not Human acts relate to the norm
under the following aspects: a) the object in itself, that is the deed or act
itself, b) .in its motive, and in its circumstance.
 These are referred to as the object, the end and the circumstances. These
three aspects are called determinants of morality because they determine
how An act is rendered good, bad or indifferent on the basis of its relation
with the norm.

1. The Object or The Act Itself

 To consider an act in itself is to regard its nature. An act of course is not
simply a mental or bodily activity requiring an expenditure of energy. An
act is a physical tendency towards a definite result. This result is identified
as the end of the act as distinguished from the end of the agent or the end
of the doer of the act.
 In the physical sense, some actions are because they produce such evil as pain,
hunger, or death. In the moral sense, actions are bad because they disturb the
harmony within the acting person. They are unfit to the natural and spiritual
tendencies of the human soul.
 Moral evils also produce physical harm and damage of oneself and others. But
they are moral evils because what they destroy is the innate goodness, the image
of God in our human nature. Thus we say that all moral evils are that those that
go against the natural law.
 2. The Motive or end of the Act.
 End of the act- is the natural termination or completion of an act. It
determines whether an act is intrinsically or extrinsically good or evil.
 an act that is Intrinsically Evil is acts which are contrary to reason.
Extrinsically Good or Evil actions are those which are neutral or
indifferent to the norm of morality; actions that are either good or bad, not
on account of their nature, but because of factors or circumstances
concomitant to them.
 End of the Doer or agent is the purpose or motive which the doer wishes to
accomplish by his actions. Without a motive, an act is accidental or involuntary.
“The END does not justify the MEANS” BUT “The MEANS will always justify
the END”.

Motive and Action: the

correlation between motive and act is defined in the following principle(Glenn: 111-113)

1. An evil act which is done on account of an evil motive is grievously wrong.

2. A good action done on account of an evil motive becomes evil itself.

 3. A good action done on account of a good purpose acquires an additional merit.

4. An evil action done on account of a good motive does not become good in itself.

5. An indifferent act may either become good or bad depending on the motive.

1. Circumstances of the Act

Circumstances of the act re the historical elements surrounding the commission

of an act, such as the status of the doer, the place, the time, or the intensity of an act. The
circumstances are hinted by the interrogative pronouns - who, what, where, with
whom, why, how and when.

The circumstances are hinted by the interrogative pronouns - who, what, where,
with whom, why, how and when.

6 Ws And H

1. WHO

Refers either to the doer of the act or the recipient of the act. It has to do with the
age, status, relation, schooling, social standing, an economic situation of those
involved in an act. In this regard, we note the following:
(a) The moron, insane, senile and children below the age of reason are incapable
of voluntary acts and are not morally accountable.
(b) Educated people have greater accountability than those with less or without
education.
(c) People constituted in authority have accountability for the actions of those
under them.
(d) The legal or blood relation of people involved in act may modify the nature if
such act.
2. WHAT
 Refers to the act itself, or to the quality and quantity of the results of such act.

3. WHERE

Refers to the place where the act is committed

4. WITH WHOM

Refers to the companion or accomplices in an act.

5. WHY
 Refers to the motive of the doer.
6. HOW

Refers to the manner the act is perpetrated.

1. WHEN
Refers to “the time of the act”

1. Circumstance may either increase

or decrease the wrongfulness of
an evil act. e.g .The killing of
innocent people in the case
 of terrorists exploding a bomb in public places constitutes a serious crime against
humanity. On the other hand, killing a tyrant who has long oppressed the
assailant accepts a mitigating factor and, therefore is less evil.

2. Circumstances also may either increase or decrease the merits of good act.

3. Circumstances may alter the nature of the act.

4. Circumstances do
not prove the guilt of the
person.