2 The Human Acts

Man no doubt is creative because he possesses tremendous bodily and spiritual powers.
Every minute of his life, he acts, transforming himself and the world around him. Action
constitutes a person, an individual in control of himself and accountable to himself. What a
person is and what becomes of him depend largely on the type of actions he performs during his
life-time.

Human Acts

Distinction is made between human acts and acts of man. The human acts are those actions
which man performs knowingly, freely, and voluntarily. These actions are the result of
conscious knowledge and are subject to the control of the will. We refer to these actions as
deliberate, intentional, or voluntary.

The acts of man are those actions which happen in man. They are instinctive and are not
within the control of the will. Such actions are the biological and physiological movements in
man such as, metabolism, respiration, fear, anger, love, and jealousy.

Essential Attributes

For an act to be considered a human act, it must possess the following characteristics:

1. It must be performed by a conscious agent who is aware of what he is doing and of its
consequences. Children below the age of reason, the insane, the senile – are considered
incapable of acting knowingly.

2. It must be performed by an agent who is acting freely, that is, by his own volition and
powers. An action done under duress and against one’s will not entirely a free action.

3. It must be performed by an agent who decides willfully to perform the act. This
willfulness is the resolve to perform an act here and now, or in some future time.

Human acts must, therefore, be knowing, free, and willful. The lack of any of these
attributes renders an act defective and less voluntary.

Kinds of Human Acts

Human acts are either elicited acts or commanded acts. Elicited acts are those performed
by the Will and not bodily externalized. Paul Glenn enumerates the following elicited acts:
 1. Wish is the tendency of will towards something, whether this be realizable or not. The
object of wishing may include the impossible, or, that which is remotely possible, such
as winning the sweepstakes.

2. Intention is the tendency of the will towards something 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.

3. 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 attracts attention to herself.

4. 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.

5. 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.

6. Fruition is the enjoyment of the will derived 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.

Some actions are combinations of internal and external movements such as, listening,
studying, reading, driving a car, writing a letter, or playing chess. (Paul Glenn, Ethics, A Class
Manual in Moral Philosophy, Hender Book Co., reprint National Bookstore, Inc., Mla, 1965, pp.
7-8)

Moral Distinctions

Human acts may either be in conformity or not with the dictates of reason. “Dictates of
reason” refers to the shared consciousness of prudent people about the propriety of a certain
action or manner of behavior. It shows what is permissible in a given situation, the best option
as a matter of fact.

“Dictates of Reason” stands for the norm of morality which is the standard by which
actions are judged as to their merits or demerits. On the basis of their relation to the norm of
morality, actions are classified into moral, immoral, or amoral.
 1. Moral actions are those actions which are in conformity with the norm of morality.
They are good actions and are permissible. Working, studying, paying a debt, telling
the truth, loving a friend – are moral actions.

2. Immoral actions are those actions which are not in conformity with the norm of
morality. They are bad or evil and are not permissible. Refusing to help the needy,
committing murder, adultery, stealing, telling lies – are immoral actions.

3. Amoral actions are those actions which stand neutral in relation to the norm of
morality. They are neither good nor bad in themselves. But certain amoral actions may
become good or bad because of the circumstances attendant to them. Playing
basketball is an amoral act, but playing basketball when one is supposed to be attending
a class is wrong. Playing basketball out of sense of duty to the team is good.

Extrinsic and Intrinsic Evil

The relation of actions to the norm of morality is either intrinsic or extrinsic. Something is
intrinsic to a thing when it is integral to the nature of that thing. The sweetness of a mango fruit
is, for example, intrinsic to it. But the appeal of a mango to a particular person is extrinsic to it,
that is, such quality is not an integral element of it as fruit.

Some actions are intrinsically evil because their nature is defective either by excess or by
lack of certain attributes. Such, for example, is the nature of staling which, by nature, manifests
lack of respect for the property of another.

Some other actions are extrinsically evil because certain factors attached to them by way of
circumstances render them opposed to the norm or morality. Drinking liquor is extrinsically evil
when done in excess.

Actions that are intrinsically evil are prohibited at all times and under any circumstance.
Actions that are extrinsically evil may be tolerated provided the circumstance rendering it to be
wrong is first removed. Suicide is intrinsically evil and remains immoral whatever is its
justification. Therapeutic abortion is extrinsically evil when it is resorted to as a necessary
means to safeguard the life of the mother.

Imputability of Human Acts

A human act is done by a person who is in control of his faculties: intellect and will. In
this sense, a person is like the captain of a ship who assumes full responsibility and
accountability for his decisions.

The imputability of a human act means that the person performing the act is liable for such
act. It involves the notion of guilt or innocence. Thus, actions are either praiseworthy or
blameworthy. Actions are attributed to the doer as their principal cause. (Paul Glenn: pp. 121-
123)
Sanctions and Penalties

Imputability implies that the doer is either deserving of reward or punishment. This is a
basic requirement of justice.

The penal laws of our country provide for a system of punishment for crimes, ranging from
simple fines to imprisonment. The capital punishment, that is, death penalty, is reserved for
“heinous crimes”.

Unless also prohibited by the laws of the State, immoralities are not given corresponding
legal punishments such as fines or imprisonment. The Bible, however, speaks of death as the
punishment as “sins”. Though the Old Testament interprets this as death by execution, it refers
more to spiritual death or suffering.

A form of spiritual death is the loss of peace of mind, the only genuine happiness possible
in this life. Medical science and psychiatry also show that many diseases, both mental and
physical, are caused by spiritual disorientation. Indeed, many of the human sufferings we see
and experience are the direct results of immoral situations. For example, an immoral person
risks losing his honor, his job and his family. He also runs the risk of being ostracized. On the
other hand, the world looks up to a man of integrity. Peace, contentment, and honor are but
some of the rewards coming to an upright person.

Voluntariness

Voluntariness comes from the latin word “voluntas”, referring to the Will. Voluntariness is
essential to an act. Without it, an act is a mere act of man. We distinguish between perfect and
imperfect, and conditional and simple voluntariness.

1. Perfect voluntariness is present in a person who fully knows and fully intends an act. A
man who, wanting to get even, takes a gun and shoots his enemy is said to be acting
with perfect voluntariness.

2. Imperfect voluntariness is present in a person who acts without fully realizing what he
means to do, or without fully intending the act. A drunken man might act irrationally
without fully realizing what he is doing; or a woman, in terror might jump out of a
window without fully intending to kill herself.

3. Conditional voluntariness is present in a person who is forced by circumstances beyond

his control to perform an act which he would not do under normal conditions. A child
who is intimidated by his mother to study the lesson is acting with conditional
voluntariness.

4. Simple voluntariness is present in a person doing an act willfully, regardless of whether

he likes to do it or not. It is either positive or negative. It is positive when the act
requires the performance of an activity, such as polishing the floor, paying rent, or
playing tennis. It is negative when an act requires the omission of activity, such as not
 taking prohibited drugs, remaining quiet, or not listening to the radio. (Paul Glenn: 13-
18)

Types of Voluntariness

We distinguish further between direct, and indirect voluntariness.

1. Direct voluntariness accompanies an act which is primarily intended by the doer,
either as an end in itself or as a means to achieve something else. Eating lunch is
carried on with direct voluntariness. The same directness accompanies many of our
daily activities such as, going to school, inviting a friend to a movie, reading a book
or writing a note.

2. Indirect voluntariness accompanies an act or situation which is the mere result of a

directly willed act. Getting a failing mask is indirectly voluntary on the part of the
student who has willingly neglected to study.

Indirectly Voluntary

A person is accountable for his actions and their consequences. But is he also
accountable for results not directly intended?
Generally speaking, a person is liable for the results which are foreseeable by an ordinary
act of prudence. The prankster who shouts “fire” inside a crowded place has certainly some
inkling that his joke might cause fear, panic, stampede and injury to people.
Paul Glenn considers a person accountable for indirectly voluntary results of his acts
when:

1. The doer is able to foresee the evil result or effect, at least, in a general way;

2. The doer is free to refrain from doing that which would produce the foreseen evil;

3. The doer has moral obligation not to do that which produces an evil effect (Ibid. 18-
19).

Alfredo Panizo cites these principles: (Ibid. 38-39).

1. A person is held morally responsible for any evil effect which flows from the action
itself directly and necessarily as a natural consequence, through the evil effect is not directly
willed or intended.

2. The good effect must not come from the evil effect. To do evil in order to achieve
something good is not justified.

3. The motive of the doer must be towards the attainment of the good. The evil effect is
permitted only as an incidental result.
 4. The good effect must outweigh the evil result in its importance.

This principles and conditions find application in the so called “therapeutic abortion”
where the direct intention is the saving of the mother’s life with the incidental result of aborting
the fetus.
3 The Modifiers of Human
Acts

The ideal is for man to act deliberately, that is, with perfect voluntariness. This is not
always possible though. Oftentimes, a certain degree of doubt or reluctance accompanies an act.
At other times, emotions hold sway, propelling action with the swiftness of an impulse.

Factors that influence man’s inner disposition towards certain actions are called
“modifiers” of human acts. They affect the mental or emotional state of a person to the extent
that the voluntariness involved in an act is either increased or decreased. This is significant
because the accountability of the act is correspondingly increased or decreased.

We cite this principle: The greater the knowledge and the freedom, the greater the
voluntariness and the moral responsibility. (Panizo: 38)

The Modifiers

Man does not act in a vacuum. He is an organism responding and reacting to stimulus. His
total make-up is the sum of all experiences. His personal background, education, social
upbringing, political persuasion, religion, and personal aims – contribute largely to his
development and behavioral preferences.
Authors point to the following as modifiers of human acts; (1) Ignorance, (2) Passions, (3)
Fear, (4) Violence, and (5) Habit. There are other modifiers which are worth discussing but for
the limitation of this book, such as, hypnoticism, brainwashing, mental conditioning, and cultural
imposition.

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 that one who has done wrong may not claim
ignorance as a defense.

Ignorance is the absence of knowledge which a person ought to possess. A lawyer is

expected to know his law; the doctor, his medicine; and the manager, his business operations. In
the realm of morals, everyone of age and reason is expected to know at least the general norms
of good behavior.
 Ignorance is either vincible or invincible. Vincible ignorance can easily be reminded
through ordinary diligence 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 possesses 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. Sometimes, too, a person acts without realizing certain facts. Thus, a
cook might be unaware that the food he is serving is contaminated.

Under the category of vincible ignorance is the affected ignorance. This is the type which a
person keeps by positive efforts in order to escape responsibility or blame. It is affected
ignorance when an employee refuses to read a memo precisely so that he may be exempted from
its requirement. (Glenn: 26-27)

Principles:

1. Invincible ignorance renders an act 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 (Glenn: 32).

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 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 his suspicion
(Glenn: 33).

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 is 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.

Passions

Passions, 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. The positive emotions include love, desire, delight, hope and bravery. The
negative emotions include hatred, horror, sadness, despair, fear and anger.

Passions are psychic responses. As such, they are neither moral or immoral. However, a
man is bound to regulate his emotions and submit them to the control of reason.
 Passions are either antecedent or consequent. Antecedent are those that precede an act. It
may happen that a person is emotionally aroused to perform an act. Antecedent passions
predispose 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 insofar as passions interfere with the freedom of the will, one’s accountability
is diminished (Panizo: 33).

Consequent passions are those that are intentionally aroused and kept. Consequent
passions, therefore, are said to be voluntary in cause, the result of the will playing the strings of
emotions. Thus, a young man may deliberately arouse himself sexually by reading pornographic
magazines. Or a victim of injustice may intentionally nurse his resentment towards his
tormentor. The young man who commits lasciviousness after arousing himself sexually and the
fellow who commits vengeance due to his cultivated resentment – are both morally accountable.

Principle: Consequent passions do not lessen voluntariness, but may even increase
accountability. This is because consequent passions are the direct results of the will which fully
consents to them instead of subordinating them to its control (Ibid).

Fear

Fear is the disturbance of the mind of a person who is confronted by an impending danger
or harm to himself or loved ones. Distinction is made however between an act done with fear
and an act done out or because of fear.

Certain actions which by nature are dangerous or risky are done with varying degree of
fear. Climbing a cliff, flying an airplane through a storm, diving for pearls, or arresting a
notorious killer – are examples of acts performed with fear. In these cases, fear is a normal
response to danger. Such actions are voluntary, because the doer is in full control of his faculties
and acts inspite of his fear.

Fear is an instinct for self-preservation. We even fear new experiences or situations such
as, embarking on a long journey, being left alone in a strange place, or being asked to speak
before a group of people. But doing something out of fear, or because of it, is entirely different.
Here, fear because a positive force compelling a person to act without careful deliberation.

The child reads his book out of fear of the mother, the employee volunteers to work over-
time out of fear of being fired by the boss; a friend stops smoking out of fear of contracting
cancer. These examples show how actions are done because of fear. Fear modifies the freedom
of the doer, inducing him to act in certain predetermined manner, often without his full consent.

Principles:
 1. Acts done with fear are voluntary. A person acting with fear is acting inspite of his fear
and is in full control of himself.
2. Acts done out of fear, however great, is simply voluntary, although it is also
conditionally voluntary. (Glenn: 41) 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. (Ibid.: 41)

3. Acts done because of intense fear or panic are involuntary. (Ibid.) 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 burning building. Such act is not
considered a suicide, since it is done involuntarily. Panic causes 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 any person to fulfill a contract
obtained by force or threat. (Ibid.: 42)

Violence

Violence refers to any physical force exerted on a person by another free agent for the
purpose of compelling the said person to act against his will. Bodily torture, maltreatment,
isolation, and mutilation – are examples of violence against persons.

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. (Ibid.:
43)

Active resistance should always be offered to an unjust aggressor. However, if resistance is

impossible, or if there is a serious threat to one’s life, a person confronted with violence can always
offer intrinsic resistance by withholding consent; that is enough to save his moral integrity. (Panizo:
37)

2. Elicited acts, or those done by the will alone, are not subject to violence and are
therefore voluntary. (Ibid.)
26 ETHICS AND THE FILIPINO

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 weaklings those whose
succumbed and consented to the wishes of tyrants. But we may not be too harsh on them, since
every man has his own limit of endurance. “Violence of force”, says Bernard Haring, “in any
instance, if bound up 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.” (Haring: 108)

Habits

Habit, as defined by Glenn, “is a lasting readiness and facility, born of frequently repeated
acts, for acting in a certain manner.” (Ibid.: 43) Habits are acquired inclinations towards
something to be done. They assume the role of a second nature, moving one who has them to
perform certain acts with relative ease.

The word “habit-forming” that we use to refer to certain experiences shows how easy it is
for one to acquire a habit. It also implies that a habit is not that easy to overcome or alter. It
requires a strong-willed person to correct a habit successfully within a limited period of time.
Thus, alcoholics and smokers find it almost impossible to reform.

Principles:

Actions done by force of habit are voluntary in cause, unless a reasonable effort is made to
counteract the habitual inclination. (Ibid.: 44)

Habits are either good or bad. We speak here of bad habits which lead to immoral actions.

Habits are voluntary in cause, because they are the result of previously willed acts done
repeatedly as a matter of fact. Thus, every action emanating from habit is said to partake of the
voluntariness of those previous acts. Therefore, for as long as the habit is not corrected, evil
actions done by force of that 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. (Ibid.: 45)

Action and Emotion

Man does not act the way a robot does – without feeling or emotion. In doing his act, man
does not only evoke certain sentiments, but his decision or intention to perform is swayed by his
emotions. One who loves to sing does not only sing with “feelings” but is moved and motivated
to sing when the occasion is there.
 Emotions are generally instinctive in origin. Neither the degree of their intensity, clarity, or
awareness makes them human acts to be judged as good or evil. They became good or evil by
the attitude of the person manifesting them. A person who nourishes his feeling of hostility
towards another is more prone to acquire the motive for inflicting harm on the object of his
hatred. This is not to say that man is helpless in the tide of his emotions and that man’s
responses to action are emotionally motivated. It means simply that man’s thoughts and actions
are colored by his emotions.

The psychological and moral aspects of the inner life of man are expressed positively by the
affections of love, kindness, humility, reverence, justice, and purity. These have a vitalizing,
purifying, enriching effect. Here we have psychic energies which in some manner precede every
decision and influence it. They are an intimate approval of their object, a “purposeless”
confirmation of their worth. The negative dispositions tend toward disdain and denial (as though to
blot out the very existence of the object of hatred, disdain, envy), repudiation, disruption. But it is
possible that the objective goal (perhaps a person) of these dispositions is totally unaffected by
them. Again, they may be brushed aside or overcome. Nevertheless, in every instance, by a kind of
inner compulsion, they exert a direct and immediate influence on the subject himself. The tendency
is ever present to promote, to vitalize, or, is the effect be baneful, to scorn and isolate. And it is
also true that in every instance the effect on the subject is greater. More surely and more
vehemently is the subject of emotions affected than the object which they are directed. Emotions
make up the very heart of man, from which come both good and evil. (Bernard Haring, The Law of
Christ, Vol. I, Mercier Press, Cork, 1960, p. 199).

Refinement of Emotions

Ethics deals with emotions as factors affecting human motivation and behavior. Instead of
repressing them, it calls for their refinement. This means that man is expected to act not only
with his mind and body, but precisely with his heart and soul. Thus, for instance, the Decalogue
does not merely command that we love God, but adds to say “with all your heart and with all
your soul”.

In the purist sense, doing good for another is not a virtue unless it comes from the “love” of
what is good. Any other motive is inadequate regardless of the merits of the assistance offered.
It is possible indeed to extend a loan to a friend and this – grudgingly.

“It is evident”, says Bernard Haring, “that education, through proper discipline and
cultivation of emotional life (in which we include the cultivation of the values of character and
disposition), is in many ways more significant than the tense straining of will power.” (Ibid.)
Indeed, the aim of ethics is not to turn man into an efficient machine to do things. Rather, it
hopes to transform man by inner spiritual conversation.

Moral perfected comes from within. We, Filipinos, refer to it as “kagandahan ng loob”. It
is “loob” because it radiates from within the human personality.

Kagandahan ng Loob
 Kagandahan ng loob refers to attitude. It stands for all that is good, we call “kabaitan”, in
human being. It is the multiplicity of sterling qualities, both natural and acquired, which,
because they proceed from the heart and mind, also greatly influence one’s behavior towards
himself and others.

Kagandahan ng loob includes such moral values as mapagmahal, maunawain, may-

pakikirandam, may-pakikiramay, matulungin, masayahin, and hindi mapagkunwari.

4 The Ends of the Human Act

Man does not act aimlessly. When he acts, it is because he enjoys the action, or, because
he wants to achieve something by that action.

Pablito may play basketball because he enjoys it. Or he may play because he wants to
qualify for the varsity team.

The End of an Act

What we call end is the purpose or goal of an act. It is that which completes or finishes an
act. Distinction is made between end of the act and end of the doer or agent.

The end of the act is the natural termination of an activity (Glenn: 52). The end of the
eating is nourishment; that of reading is comprehension; that of basketball is scoring a goal, and
that of jogging is physical exercise.

The end of the doer is the personal purpose intended by the person performing the act. He
who eats aims to satisfy his hunger, the reader, to relax himself; the basketball player, to win the
game, and the jogger, to maintain physical fitness. The end of the doer is called the motive. The
motive is the reason why a person performs an act. It is the force that sustains the act and brings
to completion. (Ibid.)

Kinds of Ends

The end of the doer is either

1. Proximate or Remote End

2. Intermediate or Ultimate End
 1. The proximate end is the purpose which a doer wishes to accomplish immediately by
his action. The remote end is the purpose which a doer wishers to accomplish in a series of acts.
The proximate end of eating is the satisfaction of hunger. Its remote end is the promotion of
health.

2. The ultimate end is the purpose which is desired for its own sake and not because of
something else. The intermediate end is the purpose which is desired as a means for obtaining
another thing. The attainment of an ultimate end completes an act and stops all further acts. The
attainment of an intermediate end leads either to another intermediate end or to an ultimate end.
(Ibid. 3.52).

A student may assign his graduation as an ultimate end. The intermediate end, in this case,
would consist in all of those activities leading towards graduation, such as attending classes,
taking exams, participating in recitation, and so on.

A series of separate actions finds meaning in their relation to an ultimate end or goal. This
is fundamentally true with life itself. Living consists of all human activities. Viewed in their
entirety, all human activities are tendencies towards the ultimate purpose of life itself. This
ultimate end of life is happiness.

Action and Motivation

Alfredo Panizo gives us the opportunity to cite principles concerning human action
(Panizo: 10):

1. Every agent that performs an action acts for the sake of an end or purpose to be
attained.

Man is a motivated animal. For him to act, he must first find the motive to act. Sometimes
the motive comes instantaneously, as when one stands up to answer the doorbell. Sometimes,
the motive comes out from tedious and well calculated efforts, as a business. Sometimes, the
motive is provoked by selfishness and malice. At other times, it is inspired by love and concern
for others. Whichever way, motives give life to action. Without it, man finds no reason why he
must act at all

2. Every agent acts towards an ultimate end.

The ultimate end is that on account which man decides to act. It is what is desired through
the actions. It is what confers meaning to an activity. The concept of motive implies that there
is something important to be achieved. No sane person would waste his time sitting in a bus
simply because he does not want to go anywhere. When someone takes a bus, we may rightly
assume that he wants to go some place: his ultimate destination. Similarly, and in all his
actions, man seeks an ultimate purpose.
 THE ENDS OF HUMAN ACTS 33

3. Every agent has the power to move himself towards an end which he finds suitable for
him.

The end is the motivation of an act. But only what is good can motivate man to act.
Therefore, the end of an act is something which the doer perceives to be “suitable” to him. Only
what is good can be suitable to man, because it does not belong to man’s nature to desire evil for
its own sake. An end then is synonymous with the concept of “good”.

End as Something Good

Nothing excites the human appetite or rational desire than that which is good. Because
something is good, it becomes the object of desire and, therefore, desirable. Actions are
tendencies towards something good. Thus, what is good and desirable is also the end of the act.
The concept of end coincides with that of good. Accordingly, Aristotle says that “good” means
either of these: good as an end itself and good as a means (intermediate end) to another end.

Apparent Good. Man has a natural aversion to evil. Evil is never desirable for its own
sake. It is naturally repugnant to man. When someone desires evil as an end, it is only because
he views it, subjectively, as something good. Evil viewed as good is called apparent good. It is
evil disguised as good. It is deceptively tempting and many fall for it. A suitor who kills his
rival regards his immoral action as a “good” means to rid himself of a rival for the love of a
woman.

Man is moved by nature – this first and fundamental act of the will is natural and necessary –
toward good in general (object) and beatitude in general (end). By virtue of this movement, man
moves himself toward particular good objects, choosing and determining in what he is to seek his
beatitude. If man is really to satisfy and fulfill his natural cravings and powers (man as patients),
he must, indeed, direct himself (man as
34 ETHICS AND THE FILIPINO agents) toward those values which respond to
his natural and reasonable tendencies.
(Buckely: 102)

Every human activity is intended for the attainment of something good. This good must be
objectively genuine, not merely an apparent good. “Unfortunately,” as a free agent, man is able
to set his choice on mere apparent goods and false values.” (Ibid.)

The Meaning of Good

The word “good” has varied shades of meaning. Aristotle defines it as that which fits a
function. The good of man is that which fits his function as a rational being. And because it is
the soul that which constitutes man’s rational nature, “the good of a man proves to be activity of
soul in conformity with excellence; and if there is more than one excellence, it will be best and
the most complete of these. (Aristotle: 293)

A thinker once wrote that human beings have their needs, while individual humans have
their wants. Needs are those goods which are essential to man as man. Without them, man is
incomplete and underdeveloped. Wants are those goods that an individual requires because of
his particular circumstance in life. Obviously, the needs must first be fulfilled before the wants.

The good that fits man as man are the needs of his rational nature. All other needs, such as
the biological and social, while they are similarly required, are subordinate to the rational needs.

Kinds of Good

1. Essential and Accidental. Those that fit the natural needs of man as man are essential
good. Such good include food, shelter, health, knowledge, virtue, and life. Those that fit the
wants of an individual because of his circumstance are accidental good. Such include money,
car, good name, academic degree, power, and luxury, and many more.

Essential good is also called perfective because they contribute to the integral
perfections of man. Accidental good, on the other hand, are called non-perfective because they
merely contribute to the external worth or appearance of a person.

2. Real and Apparent. A real good is something which has an intrinsic value. Thus, we
call it: Value. It possesses qualities rendering it “fitting” or desirable. Examples of real good
are good acts and habits, parents and parenthood, pleasure and joy, work and leisure, etcetera.
The real good includes both essential and accidental goods.

An apparent good is actually an evil thing but is viewed as “good” under certain
aspects. Examples are diseases, sadness, death, worry, crimes, etcetera.

3. Perfective and Non-perfective good. Perfective good is that which contributes to the
integral perfection of a person, such as: education, virtue, food, exercise, medicine. Non-
perfective good is that which merely contributes to the external appearance or convenience of a
person, such as: clothes, wealth, social status, political power, etcetera.

4. Perfect and Imperfect good. Also called unlimited or limited goods respectively, or
absolute and relative goods.

Perfect good has the fullness of qualities enabling it to fully satisfy human desire.
Imperfect good possesses only certain qualities so that it does not fully satisfy human desire
except in a relative or limited sense. All “earthly” good are imperfect. Only God, in the absolute
sense, is perfect good.

The Greatest Good

In every activity, man seeks that which is good. The greatest good as a matter of fact. This
is evident in our concern for the best in everything: best friends, best parents, best food, best
performance, best job and so forth. In the language of the philosophers, the greatest good is
Summum Bonum.
 For Aristotle, the greatest good is happiness. Happiness is what man aims to achieve in all
his activities. The ultimate purpose of life is the attainment of happiness.

By absolute final, we mean that which is sought for its own sake, and never as a means
to something of that sort. We always pursue that for its intrinsic value, never as a means;
whereas we pursue honor, pleasure, wisdom, and all the virtues, both for their own sakes (we
would want them even if they led to nothing further) and for the sake of happiness, since we
think we shall attain happiness by means of them. But no one wants happiness as a means to
these other things, or indeed as a means to anything else at all (Aristotle: 292).

As a psychological state, happiness is the feeling of contentment arising from the

possession of a good. As a state of being, it is the perfection arising from the possession of the
good. Happiness coming from the possession of the greatest good constitutes man’s perfection.

Now, which is the greatest good? What wonderful thing is there the possession of which
will fully and absolutely satisfy human desire so that nothing more remains to be desired? If the
greatest good does not exist, or if it does but is totally beyond man’s grasp, then human life
would be pointless. Ethics explains the best answers to this one fundamental question of life.

Some errors concerning happiness:

1. Some people give the impression that money or wealth can buy happiness. This is
tragic because money merely feeds the bottomless appetite of greed. Money, besides, is aptly
considered the root of all evils, because it gives a sense of power. The fact is that riches beget
worry, selfish competition, waste, oppression, and all other forms of injustices. If the Bible is to
believed, the avarice of the rich makes it very difficult for him to enter heaven. The camel may
pass easily through the eye of a needle, but not the rich who has grown much bigger because of
pride.

2. Some people equates health with happiness. Of course, health is a prerequisite to a

productive life. But there are the sick who are at the same time happy. The present day
preoccupation with physical fitness may not be wrong. But he who invests happiness in beauty
and agility of the human anatomy might not have much to look forward to when age catches up
with him. It is wonderful to be strong and healthy, but happiness is somewhere else.

3. Sensual people vainly seeks happiness in earthly pleasures. But one may not indulge in
all the pleasures of this world without ending up with pain. Nature shows how overeating, for
instance, causes the stomach to ache. And some people are simply wasting away because of
their imprudent indulgence in liquor, tobacco, or sex. Pleasures of the body are poor copy of the
true lasting happiness that man longs for. Certainly, an animal who has a rational soul deserves a
better fate than AIDS and cancer.

4. Certain people cling to their public image as if God Himself was made after their
illusion. Surrounded by an adoring crowd, these popular personages exhibit the exuberance of
being super “super”: putting themselves above the ordinary folk. And yet, fame and fortune are
fragile as the mirror that reflects their vanity. (Ibid:)
 5. Some dedicate their lives to science and arts. Doubtlessly, the sciences and the arts are
essential to man’s development. They are however the means rather than the end in themselves.
They are precisely instruments leading to the promotion of human well-being. The same can be
said of virtue.

6. Some propose that the final purpose of man is the promotion of the State or
Government. While man is sociable and needs the State to regulate his social, political and
economic relations, the good of the individual comes ahead of that of the State. Thus, the ideal
State does not sacrifice the well-being of its member. Precisely, it is the function of government
to make possible the happiness of its members or citizens.

Natural and Supernatural Happiness

Natural happiness is that which is attainable by man through the use of his natural powers.
Supernatural happiness is that which is attainable by man through the use of his natural powers
as these are informed and aided by God’s infusion of grace. Supernatural Happiness is a study
of belonging properly to Moral Theology. We may mention in passing that supernatural
happiness consists in “beatific vision” of God. (Joseph Buckley, Man’s Last End, London:
Herder Book, Co., 1950, p. 82)

Natural happiness “consists in the perfection that can be attained by man through the
employment of his body and soul and the powers inherent in them: intellect, will, internal and
external sensory powers, the sense appetites, locomotion, nutrition, and growth” (Ibid.: 83)

For Aristotle, it was obvious that natural happiness does not rest on one single good object.
Rather, it consists in the attainment of all those things that are essential to human growth and
development. These goods, however, must be ranked in a hierarchy: from the lowest level to the
highest level. Complete happiness, in the natural order, consists in those goods pertaining to the
soul; “but some of the other goods must necessarily be there, with others, which are by nature
tools, cooperating and of use toward other ends”. (Aristotle; 297)

The highest good, according to Aristotle, belongs to the intellect: the contemplation of
truth. But this fullness of knowledge is attained through virtue:

“Even if happiness is not sent from heaven, but comes about through virtue and learning
or training, it seems that it is one of the most godlike things. The prize and end of virtue
appears to be the best thing, something godlike and blessed. Happiness will also be within the
reach of everyone, since, through learning and exercise, it can be obtained by all who are not
totally corrupted as regards virtue. (Ibid.: 296)

The Ultimate Purpose

Aristotle does not go beyond earthly life in his dissertation on the last or ultimate end of
man. Christian philosophers, notably St. Augustine and St. Thomas Aquinas, teach that man, in
every deliberate action acts toward an end, and ultimately, to an absolutely ultimate end:
happiness. Since man’s desire and tendency towards happiness is unlimited, nothing short of the
Absolutely Perfect Good can satisfy it perfectly. Therefore God, the Infinite Good, is the
greatest good, or “summum bonum”, to be attained as the ultimate end.

Man cannot attain perfect happiness in this life, because God can never be known perfectly
by man’s natural powers. But man can approximate perfect happiness in this life by knowledge
and love of God and by the exercise of virtue. (Paul Glenn: The History of Philosophy, A text
Book of Undergraduates, London: Herder Book, co., 1963, pp. 164-165; 242-243)

5 The Determinants of Morality

Morality consists in the conformity and non-conformity of an act with the norm. But how
does an act relate to the norm? How do we know that a given act is morally objectionable or
not?

Human acts relate to the norm under the following aspects: (a) in itself, that is, as a deed,
(b) in its motive, and (c) in its circumstances. Paul Glenn refers to these aspects as the object, the
end, and the circumstances (Ethics: 102). These three aspects are called the determinants of
morality because they determine how an act is rendered good or bad on the basis of its relation
with the norm.

The Determinants of Morality

Ancient thinkers have given us this axiom: “Bonum ex integra causa, malum ex
quocumque defectu”. This means that a thing is good if it has the fullness of its parts and it is
bad when it is deficient in any of its integral parts.

The human body, if it must be good, must have all its parts and functions. It is defective,
and therefore bad, when it lacks, say, the power or sight or locomotion.
 In moral parlance, a human act is good when it is good in itself, in its motive or purpose,
and in its circumstances. A defect coming from any of these aspects renders an act morally
objectionable. In other words, like the human anatomy, an act must have the perfection of its
parts.

Helping the needy is a good action taken in itself. It may become bad if the motive of the
person doing the act is not honorable, such as
42 ETHICS AND THE FILIPINO that of merely impressing friends that one is
kindhearted. This illustrates how a morally good
action may become morally objectionable on account of the motive of the doer.

I. The Act in 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 we had earlier identified as the end of the act (finis operis) as
distinguished from the end of the agent (finis operantis) which is synonymous with the motive of
the doer.

In the physical sense, some actions are bad because they produce such evils as pain,
hunger, illness, 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 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 those that go against natural law.

Intrinsic and Extrinsic Evil

Moralists distinguish between an intrinsic evil and an extrinsic evil. “Intrinsic” implies a
quality inherent in a thing. Thus, an intrinsic evil act is an act which is evil by its nature.
“Extrinsic” implies quality which is superficially added to a thing in a manner that a coat of paint
covers the surface of a wall without modifying the essentiality of the wood constituting the wall.
An act which in itself is not evil but is made evil nonetheless on account of something else is
called an extrinsic evil. According to Fr. Panizo, an extrinsic evil act is that which, although
good or indifferent in itself, is however prohibited by human law (Ethics: 5)

An example of extrinsic act is that of eating meat by Catholics on the Fridays of Lent, or,
the giving of alms to beggars a prohibited by law in Manila.

An intrinsic evil act is one which by its nature, that is, by its functional purpose, is
wrongful. We have said earlier that natural law is the tendency of man to actualize his potentials
as rational creature: to be a person. Any act which prevents man from realizing his true worth
as a person is intrinsically evil. Murder, robbery, rape, adultery, lies, and slavery are examples
of actions that contradict the demands of reason for justice, unjust harm and sufferings to others,
but above all they dehumanize their perpetrators, reducing them to the level of beasts.

It is extremely difficult to make a list of intrinsic evil acts. But knowing what kind of
persons we ought to be on the basis of our natural and rational tendencies, we can identify with
relative accuracy those actions that are to be avoided as intrinsically harmful. The Decalogue of
Moses and many human laws identify some such actions as blasphemy, stealing, untruthfulness,
murder, and adultery.

In the tradition and culture of all people, there are those actions which are regarded with
horror and great repugnance. This means that in the consciousness of men certain actions are to
be avoided as extremely dangerous poisons. These are the actions that cause misery and physical
afflictions to man.

II. The Motive of the Act

The motive of an act is the purpose which the doer wishes to achieve by such action. It is
what gives direction and motivation to an act. It comes first in the mind as intention and occurs
last in the action as its culmination or fulfillment. Without a motive, an act is meaningless, an
accident.
The assumption is for the motive to be good. But what is a good motive? A good motive
is one which is consistent with the dignity of the human person. A good motive is one which is
in accordance with truth, justice, prudence, and temperance. It is bad motive that which grows
from selfishness because such motive provokes actions detrimental to others. Indeed, while
actions spring from the self seeking its goal, such desire must be moderated by prudence and
fairness. Excessive indulgence of self is a form of personal injustice to oneself, nursing the
greed that destroys others. Thus, in the Old Testament, a good man is called a just man. He acts
rightly out of respect for himself and out of his concern for others.

“The End Does not Justify the Means”

To the doer, an act is a means for achieving an aim or purpose. We, for instance study in
order to acquire knowledge, to pass the course, to receive a degree, and to qualify for a job.

It is, however, wrong to attempt at a good purpose by dubious or evil means. A student
may not cheat in an exam in order to graduate; an employee may not fake his documents in order
to be promoted to a job; the public official may not accept bribe in order to finance a health
center, and an impoverished father may not steal in order to feed his family. The axiom – “the
end (motive) does not justify the means (action)”, means that the worthiness of purpose does not
make an evil act good.

Nothing is more pernicious than for a hoodlum to believe that he is justified in robbing the
rich because he wants to share the loot with the poor.
 Paul Glenn gives us the following insights on the effects of the motive on the action (ibid.:
111-113):

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

youngster who steals from his parents in order to buy “shabu” for himself is committing a
grievous wrong to himself and his parents.

2. A good action done on account of an evil motive becomes evil in itself. The Executive
who gives a job to a lady applicant in order to seduce her later makes his kindness immoral
because of his evil intentions.

3. A good action done on account of a good purpose acquires an additional merit. The
father who foregoes his expensive hobby in order to send his children to school shoes a deeper
concern for the welfare of his love ones.

4. An indifferent act may either become good or bad depending on the motive. Opening
the door of a house is an indifferent act. But the servant who, in connivance with the thieves,
opens the door of the house of his master, does a wrongful act.

On the other hand, opening the door in order to give alms to a beggar is a good act.

III. Circumstances of the Act

An act is an event. It happens in a definite time and place. It is accompanied by certain

elements which contribute to the nature and accountability of such act. In law, we speak of
mitigating or aggravating factors affecting a criminal act. Morality also takes into account the
circumstances surrounding an act. These circumstances are who, what, where, with whom, why,
how and where.

1. Who refers primarily to the doer of the act. At times, it also refers to the receiver of the
act. This circumstance includes the age, status, relation, family background, educational
attainment, health and socio-economic situation of the person or persons involved in an act.

Observation: a) The moron, the insane, the senile and the children below the age of reason
are considered incapable of voluntary acts and, therefore, are exempted from moral
accountability. But actions against these persons are normally regarded most cruel due to their
helplessness in defending themselves.

b) Persons with higher educational attainment are presumed to know “better” than those
with little education. Accordingly, their liability is higher. Indeed, “to whom much is given,
much is expected”.

c) Persons vested with authority have higher accountability than those who merely follow
their order or command. This is the meaning of “command responsibility” which makes a
superior or official accountable for the actuation of those under his authority.
 d) The relationship between people involved in act may modify the nature of such act. In
this sense, adultery is different from fornication and parricide from homicide. At times, the type
of relationship between persons involved makes an evil act more scandalous. Cruelty to one’s
own children, for instance, more wrongful than that done against children of other people.

2. What refers to the act itself and to the quality and quantity of the results of such act.
The graveness of robbery, for instance, is measured by what is stolen and by how much is stolen.
Likewise, the relative importance of a murdered victim determines the seriousness of such crime.

3. Where refers to the circumstance of place where the act is committed. Rape done
inside a church is more scandalous than that
46 ETHICS AND THE FILIPINO which is done in the privacy of a house.
Murder done before a crowd is more heinous
that that which is done in an isolated place.

4. With whom refers to the companion or accomplices in an act perform. This includes the
number and status of the persons involved. The more people are involved in the commission of
an act, the greater and more serious is the crime.

5. Why refers to the motive of the doer. We have discussed this earlier.

6. How refers to the manner how the act is made possible. Was killing accomplished with
deceit? Was it done by the use of torture? How an act is performed contributes to the malice of
an act.

7. When refers to the time of the act. A murder committed when the victim is sleeping is
more offensive than the one done when the victim is wide awake.

Observations

1. Circumstances may either increase or decrease the wrongfulness of an evil act. The
killing of innocent people in the case of terrorists exploding a bomb inside a commercial plane
constitutes a serious crime. On the other hand, by contrast, killing someone who has long
oppressed the assailant is less wrongful. Nonetheless, the act remains evil, because no one may
take the law in his own hands even for purposes of avenging oneself.

2. Circumstances also may either increase or decrease the merits of a good act. Helping
another at the risk of one’s own life is greatly meritorious. Helping another for purpose of
publicity lessens the merits of charity.

3. Some Circumstances may alter the nature of an act. Such is the case with many crimes.
Thus, the act of committing a holdup is different from the simple act of stealing. The holdup
presupposes the use of threat or violence. Whereas stealing implies stealth or deception.

Conclusion
 There is a real distinction between a pile of garbage and a garden of flowers. Garbage
represents what is ugly, dirty and wrong in a surrounding. A garden stands for what is beautiful,
clean and decent in our society. The distinction between a good act and an evil act is as real as
that between garbage and a garden. It is not an illusion of the mind.

There are good actions and there are evil actions. Their realities do not come from out
mind. What is black does not turn itself white because we think of it as white. This is the error
of those who think that

evil is all in the mind.

Ang masama ay gawa-gawa ng tao lamang does not mean that evil is man’s invention.
Rather, it means that man uses his freedom to do wrong. Only man can do something morally
wrong, because only man has the power to choose between what is good and what is wrong.

To be authentic person is to be a responsible person. He knows how to use his freedom

only as an instrument to do good.

Law: its meaning and relevance

Law, according to St. Thomas Aquinas, is an ordinance of reason promulgated for the
common good by one who has charge of society.

Laws are “ordinance of reason” because they are rational deliberations intended to guide
men towards what is good for them and for society. Laws either direct men to perform certain
activities as good and necessary, or to omit certain acts as evil. The objective or purpose of the
laws is the attainment of the common good.

Laws are “promulgated”, that is, they are made known to the people who are bound to
observe them. Indeed, the public must be made aware of what is expected of them. How else do
we expect it to observe the law?

Laws are passed by “one who has charge of society” because they can only be valid if they
are legitimate exercise of authority. Accordingly, only those who have the power and
responsibility to govern have the power to enact law.

Laws are comparable to the signs in the street which guide the traveler towards his
destination. Without the street signs, the traveler is lost. Without laws, man will not wind his
ultimate purpose in life.

Kind of Law
 1. Divine Positive Law are those promulgated, or made known to us, by special command
of God. They are the explicit demands of our essential tendencies as rational beings. They
direct man towards his proper end. The Decalogue of Moses is an example of divine positive
laws.

2. Human Positive Laws are those promulgated by a legitimate human authority. This
authority resides either in the State or in the Church. Human positive laws are intended to
preserve peace and harmony within a society and to direct each member of that society to work
towards the common good. The laws of the State are embodied in the Constitution and in the
Code of Civil Laws. The laws of the Church, the Catholic Church, are found in the Canon Law

Both the divine positive laws and the human positive laws originate from the Eternal Law.
We shall discuss this in detail later. Suffice for the moment to say that the Eternal Law is the
design of God, as Supreme Creator, to direct all created things to their respective proper ends.

Divine and Human Laws are either positive or negative. Positive laws are those that
require the performance of an act, such as, to worship God, to pay taxes, etcetera. Negative laws
are those that require the omission of an act, such as, not to steal, not to kill, etcetera. The
positive laws permits and expects actions to be done. Negative laws prohibits the performance
of an act.

Divine or human Laws are either moral or penal. A moral law binds in conscience, that is,
it is enforced by our personal conviction about what ought to be done as good or to be avoided as
wrong. A penal law binds by virtue of the penalty imposed, that is, enforced by our fear of being
caught and punished.

Moral and Political Laws

Moral laws are those derived from the natural law. They direct man towards the higher
values of his development as a human being. Therefore, moral laws are universal laws binding
all men alike. Moral laws regulate the mind, heart and body of man insofar as he is a man.

The so called natural moral laws are those that are “written”, so to speak, in the hearts of all
men. They are the inherent and essential tendencies of human nature towards the good proper to
it. They are, according to Aristotle, the tendencies of the rational soul.

Political laws, both civil and criminal laws, are those enacted by men to guide their
actuations in society and in relation to one another. They regulate man’s external actions. The
objective of political laws is peace and order and material prosperity. Political laws presuppose
moral laws.

Political laws are simply referred to as human positive laws.

Properties of Human Laws

 1. Human laws must conform with divine laws. This is because all legitimate authority
emanates from God. Therefore, no human authority may willfully contradict God’s will as
manifested in the natural law or in the divine positive laws.

2. Human laws must promote the common good. The common good is the aggregate of
goods, spiritual and material, necessary for the promotion of life. The common good is spelled
out in terms of prosperity, health, peace and order, intellectual and moral growth – for the whole
of society.

3. Human laws must be just and not discriminatory of certain individuals or groups. All
laws must apply proportionately to all members of society so that the needs and requirement of
each are served.

4. Human laws must be practicable. They must provide for easy compliance. Impossible
laws are not just.

5. Human laws regulate external actions only. This is because no human authority has the
power to binds the mind and hearts of men. Therefore, laws are made for men and not men for
the laws. Laws must serve man’s best intentions and not stifle his creativity.

6. Human laws are fallible, because human legislators are liable to commit errors.
Besides, laws must be dynamic, allowing for adjustments in accordance with emergent ideas for
development.

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 a thing is determined. The clock that tells time, the thermometer that indicated
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 appeal
only to reason.

The Norms of Morality

Richard M. Gula defines the norms of morality as “the criteria of judgment 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)

54 ETHICS AND THE FILIPINO 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 or 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 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 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, it 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 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 good “fitting” his rational nature. St. Augustine Aquinas writes:

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 “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)
Therefore, 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)

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.
In the Filipino mind, as well as in the
56 ETHICS AND THE FILIPINO
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 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.

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 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).
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?”.
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 relatively 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 or reason” implies
precisely that we listen to our reason as enlightened by the guidance or 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).
The personalists suggest 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 is. Morality based on reason is a morality based on
reality as known to man (ibid.: 41).
While seemingly opposed, these theories
58 ETHICS AND THE FILIPINO 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 human being. This
participation is through reason. St. Thomas Aquinas calls the order established by reason as the
“specific natural law” (Summa Theol. I-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 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 matter 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 practical judgment because it is an inference leadings 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. 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 incorrectly that what is good is evil and what is
evil is good. It is erroneous conscience which tells the 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) 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 not 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 and inculpable
conscience lies in the distinction between a voluntary error and an involuntary error. It is
culpable precisely because the error 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 vise-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 vacillating conscience, unable to form a definite judgment 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 proof 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. 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 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, 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 losses 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 back 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 eternal) reflected
in man’s own nature (lex naturalis) (Ibid.: 103)