Midterm Ethics PDF

**Voluntariness of Human Act** **Modifiers of Human Acts** **Morality of Human and Its Determinants** **What is Voluntariness?** Voluntariness or volition comes from the **Latin** word "**voluntas**", which means **the Will**. An act which is done **under the control of the will** is considered...

**Voluntariness of Human Act** **Modifiers of Human Acts** **Morality of Human and Its Determinants** **What is Voluntariness?** Voluntariness or volition comes from the **Latin** word "**voluntas**", which means **the Will**. An act which is done **under the control of the will** is considered as voluntary. (Note: the human act has three essential qualities -- **knowledge, freedom, and will/voluntariness**). Voluntariness is either perfect or imperfect, either simple or conditional. 1. **Perfect voluntariness** is present in a person (who is doing the act) with full knowledge and complete freedom. **Ex:** Playing a person's favorite game or when a person is chatting with a friend on fb. 2. **Imperfect voluntariness** is present in a person who acts without full understanding of what he is doing, or without complete freedom. **Ex:** A person, who is under the influence of drug might jump from the roof top without fully intending to kill himself. 3. **Simple voluntariness** is present in a person performing any activity wilfully, regardless of his liking or not liking it. Simple voluntariness is either **positive or negative**. It is **positive** when the act **requires the performance of an activity**, such as going to school, studying the lesson, going to mass, etc. it is **negative** when it **requires the** **omission of an activity**, such as not taking prohibited drugs, not studying the lesson. 4. **Conditional voluntariness** is present in the person who is forced by circumstances to perform an act which he would not do under normal conditions. **Ex:** A student who studies his lesson because of the upcoming examination **What Is the Distinction Between Direct and Indirect Voluntariness?** **Direct voluntariness** is the result of an act which is primarily intended. **Indirect voluntariness** is the result of an act which follows or goes along with the primarily intended act. **Ex:** A student plays "DOTA" to enjoy himself (directly voluntary), but, is so doing, he misses his professional ethic class (indirectly voluntary). **When can a person be accountable or responsible for actions directly or indirectly willed?** A person is accountable for actions directly intended. He is held morally responsible for any evil effect which flows from the action directly willed and as a natural consequence of such action, though such evil effect is not directly willed nor intended. **Is he also accountable for those indirectly willed acts or consequences?** A person is accountable for indirectly voluntary acts when: 1. The agent is able to foresee the evil result or consequence though in a general way. 2. The agent is free to refrain from doing that action which would result in the foreseen evil. 3. The agent has a moral obligation not to do that which would result in something evil. (Glenn, 1965 cited by Agapay, 2008) **What if an act, not evil in itself, has two effects, one good, and one evil?** **Acts with double effects: Alfredo Paniz cites these principles (cited by Agapay, 2008):** A human act with double effect, one good and another evil, is morally permissible under four conditions. A violation of any of these conditions make an act unjustifiable. These conditions are: a. The action which produces double effects must be good in itself, or at least morally indifferent. b. The good effect must not come from the evil effect. It is never justified to do evil in order to attain something good. c. The purpose of the does is the attainment of the good effect, with the evil effect being tolerated as an incidental result. d. The good effect must outweigh in importance the evil result. These principles apply to "therapeutic abortion", a medical process intended directly to save life of the mother with the sad result of aborting the fetus. (Agapay, 2008) What is the significance of Human Acts? Human acts express the thoughts and desires of a person. Since they come from the intellect and the Will, they reveal the person's moral character. Consequently, people are judged by their actions. So, we denounce a person for his evil deed or admire him for doing what is right. (Agapay, 2008) **ON THE MODIFIERS OF HUMAN ACT** **Modifiers of human acts** refers to the factor that influence man 's inner disposition towards certain action. They may affect the mental and emotional state of a person to the extent that the voluntariness involved in an act is either increased or decreased and its accountability. In other words, such modifiers lessen the moral character of the human act, and thus diminish the responsibility of the agent. **What are the modifiers of human act?** The following are the modifiers of human act: 1. Ignorance, 2. Passions, 3. Fear, 4. Violence, and 5. Habit. What is ignorance? Ignorance is the absence of intellectual knowledge in man. A teacher for instance, is expected to know his/her lesson; a lawyer, the law; the doctor, the cure of illness; and so, on and so forth. In the realm of morals, every normal person who has attained the age of reason, approximately seven (7) years old, is expected to know the general norms of proper conduct and behaviour. Ignorance is either vincible or invincible. a\. **Vincible ignorance?** b. **Invincible ignorance?** However, **vincible ignorance** becomes affected ignorance if it is intentionally kept in an effort to escape responsibility. A member of an organization acts with affected ignorance when he/she intentionally misses the organization's meeting so that he/she may be exempted from its demands and may be able to say when taken in violation of order, "I was present during the meeting". This is a good reminder that no one should claim ignorance as a defense if he/she has done wrong. The axiom which states that "Ignorance of the law excuses no one" reminds us to be prudent with our actions. (Agapay, 2008) **Principles:** a. **Invincible ignorance** terminates the voluntariness of an act. If a person is not aware of his state of ignorance, he is not morally liable. A pious Catholic is unaware to the fact the day is Friday of the Lenten Season, eats meat. In so far as the act is an act of eating meat, it may be both voluntary and free; but in so far as the act is an of violation of the law of abstinence, it is neither voluntary nor free. The act of eating meat, is so far as it is a violation of the law of abstinence, comes from invincible ignorance and is therefore not a human act for which the doer is accountable. In this situation, the wrongdoing is regarded as "honest mistakes" (Glenn, 965; Agapay, 2008). b. **Vincible ignorance** does not destroy but lessens the voluntariness and the corresponding accountability over an act. The person should make an effort to remedy once he becomes aware of his state of ignorance. A dentist may be guilty of negligence when he/she extracts the wrong teeth of the patient. c. **Affected ignorance** in one way lessens and, in another way, increases voluntariness. It lessens voluntariness because affected ignorance interferes with the intellect. It increases the accountability because it is kept maliciously. **What is Passion?** Passion or concupiscence are referring to those bodily appetites or tendencies either towards desirable objects (such as love, unity, peace, harmony, or any other positive emotions) or away from undesirable objects (such as fear, terror, despair, hatred, hopelessness, or any other negative emotions). In relation to actions, passions are either antecedent or consequent. An action is: a. **Antecedent passion**, when it comes as natural reaction to an object/stimulus unstimulated by any act of the will. It is called "antecedent" because it precedes any act. The feeling of satisfaction upon watching Paquiao knocking out his opponent, the feeling of amazement upon watching the splendid landscape of the other world on the movies "Avatar", the feeling of anger that rises towards your classmate who is bullying your girlfriend -- all these are examples of antecedent passion. b. **Consequent passion**, when it is stimulated by any act of the will and foster it up. Thus, the passion of anger that arises antecedently towards your classmate becomes consequent when the feeling is deliberately retained. Passions or concupiscence need to be subjected to the control of reason, because they predispose a person to act. (Agapay, 2008) **Principles:** a. **Antecedent passions** do not always destroy voluntariness, but they lessen the accountability over an act. Since antecedent passion is a strong and sudden urge to action, then, it weakens the control of the will. However, it does not destroy the voluntariness of an act, because the agent, although upset and disturbed by strong passion, is still the master of his acts -- he/she knows what he/she is ding and does it freely. b. **Consequent passion**s do not lessen the voluntariness of an act. This is because consequent passions are willed. Thus, the acts that proceed from it have their proper voluntariness, direct or indirect (Gleen 1965). **What is Fear?** To recall, fear is one of the passions. It is given a special mention, because it has the characteristic distinctive among other passions. Of all the passions fear is more common which prompts us to know its relation to the morality of acts. Fear is the disturbance of the mind of a person who is confronted by a danger to himself or loved ones (Agapay,2008; Genn 1965). Some actions are **done with fear**, others are **done out of fear**. What is its difference? Climbing a cliff, bungee jumping, roller coaster riding are examples of acts done with fear. In these cases, fear is a normal response to danger. On the other hand, actions out of fear are often done without the doer's full consent. This child studies out of fear of the mother; the security guard on night duty chooses not to take a nap out of fear for being fired by the manager -- these are examples of actions done out of fear. **Principles:** An action is considered unjust if it threatens or intimidates a person. Actions done out of fear because an unjust situation are, legally and morally, invalid acts. Thus, a contract is to be considered null and void if it is done out of fear. **What is Violence?** Violence is any external force applied on a person by a free agent for the purpose of compelling a person to perform an act against his will. Torture (bodily or psychological torture), starvation, insults, mutilation and the likes are examples of violence. Thus, the martyrs who were forced to abandon their faith by torturing them suffered violence. Principles: a. External or commanded acts, performed by a person subjected to violence, to which reasonable resistance has been offered, are involuntary and not accountable. b. Elicited acts, or those done by the will alone, are not subjected to violence and are therefore voluntary. Active resistance should always be applied to hold off any unjust aggressor. If there is a serious threat wherein resistance to violence is not possible, a person confronted by violence can always off intrinsic resistance by withholding consent; that is enough to save his moral integrity. Active resistance should always be exerted to ward off any unjust aggressor. However, if resistance is impossible, or if there is a serious threat to one's life, a person confronted by violence can always offer internal resistance by withholding consent. This is enough to save one's moral integrity (Panizo, cited by Agapay, 2008). **What is Habit?** Habit is a lasting readiness, born of frequently repeated acts, for acting is a certain manner. An act becomes a habit if it is always repeated over a period of time. They are either good or bad. Thus, a person who has always endeavoured to speak lies finds it easy to falsify the truth when a lie would prove convenient. **Principle:** Actions done by force of habit are voluntary in causa unless a reasonable effort is made to counteract the inclination. Habit does not destroy voluntariness because it is the result of previously willed act done repeatedly over a period of time. However, when a person determines to overcome his/her evil habits, the actions resulting from such habit are regarded as **act of man** and, therefore, not accountable. But the moment a person ceases to be watchful over his/her evil habits and let it continue, the actions resulting from such habit are regarded as human acts and, therefore, accountable. **Is Poverty an excuse for Committing a Crime?** Just as wealth does not justify abuses, poverty is not an excuse for committing a crime. Following Maslow's hierarchy of needs, a person does not desire for higher needs unless the lower or basic needs are met. Hence, a person who is struggling for survival is unlikely to think about his/her morals. Jesus Christ loves the poor but hates poverty for it is in itself evil. Human beings do not deserve poverty. The state should exert more effort in eradicating poverty; negligence to fostering their economic need is an act of injustice. **What of man's Actions and Emotions?** Every human act involves a person emotionally, since he is not devoid of feelings. Thus, we pray fervently, we work earnestly, we play eagerly, we eat heartily, or we live happily. The Decalogue enjoins us to love God "with all our heart and with all our soul" (Agapay, 2008). Emotions can be positive or negative. Positive emotions express approval of what is good and worthy in an object; these are the tendencies of love, kindness, humility, reverence, and justice. On the other hand, negative emotions express disapproval and repudiation of evil as such; these are the tendencies of anger, horror, and hatred. **ON THE MORALITY OF HUMAN ACTS** What is morality? Morality is defined as the goodness and badness of an act; or it is that quality of human act which leads us to call some of them good and some evil. To understand the morality of human acts, i0t is necessary to study first the norms and determinants of morality. **What are the norms of morality?** Norm is defined in Meriam-Webster dictionary as an authoritative standard or model. Applying the term to morality, it means the standard, model, or basis by which human acts are judged as good or bad. There are two norms of morality: Eternal Law and Human Reason (Conscience). Eternal law in the ultimate norm of morality, while human reason, in the form of conscience is the proximate norm of morality. **How the two norms (eternal law and human reason/conscience) guide us to morality?** Eternal Law is God's eternal plan for the ordering or government of all acts and movements in the universe, and that his plan directs things towards their last end. However, man is free to follow God's eternal plan through his actions. Human acts which are in harmony with eternal plan are good, and those which are not are evil. The eternal plan which constitutes the eternal law can only be recognized by the human reason. The judgement of human reason as to the goodness or badness of an action in relation to the eternal law is called conscience hence, we can say that there is actually only one norm of morality for conscience is the judgement of human reason recognizing and applying the eternal law in individual human acts. **Determinants of Morality** **How can we know your action is moral?** The determinants of morality are the points of contract between the human acts and their norms. Within this point of contact, the determinants serve as the measure in determining the good or the evil of the act. In other words, they refer to the morality (goodness or badness) of the human act. The following are the determinants of morality: a) the object (the act itself); b) the end of the agent; and c) the circumstances. a. **The Object of Morality** The object of morality refers to the human act performed, or the deed done chosen by the will. This is the act itself, deliberately willed. The object of morality then is the essence of the act since it refers to the human act itself as performed. (Babor, 2006) If an act as object (i.e. in itself) is good or evil, we say that it has objective morality. If an act, considered abstractly, is indifferent (i.e. neither good or bad), its morality is determined by the end for which it is performed and by the circumstances which affect it. Certain actions are in themselves, or objectively, good, and certain others are objectively evil. This morality is intrinsic, meaning it is in act itself -- that is, resided in the act independently of positive law prescribing or forbidding the act. Example: robbery, murder, larceny, rape are in themselves evil; while charity, respect, honesty, humility are in themselves good. To conclude, there are certain acts that are good or evil objectively without any subjective influence or other factors that one might consider as reason for the morality of an act, such as customs and civil legislation. b. **The End of the Agent** The end of the agent means that the agent (doer of the act) intends or wishes to achieve by his act. It is the end he has in view, his purpose, his motive in performing the act A human act which is good in itself may still be evil by reason of the end for which it is performed. But a human act which is evil I itself cannot be made good by reason of the end for which it is performed. The end of the agent is important since it can influence the object morality of an act. It can make an intrinsically good act evil, however, it cannot make an intrinsically evil good by reason of good intention. ***"The end cannot justify the means."*** **The following are the principles that govern the end of morality:** 1. An objectively good act performed for a good purpose takes on a new goodness from the good end; and the if it has several good ends, it takes on a new goodness from each. Example: A person who returns a lost item may have gained threefold goodness -- peace of mind, honor God, respect for him and his family. 2. An objective evil act performed for an evil purpose takes on a new malice or evil from the end; and if it has several evil effects, it takes on a new malice from each. Example: A man who steals money to buy liquor and cause another person to get drunk in order to smooth his guard and have him sign an unjust contract, performs an act in which there is a threefold malice or evil objectively -- injustice, intemperance, and fraud. 3. An act which is objectively good, but done for an evil end is morally evil. But the act is only partially evil if the evil end is neither gravely ill nor the whole motive of the act. Example: a hotel attendant who befriends tourist and help them with their luggage with the intention of stealing some of their valuables is an entirely evil act. But, to give assistance to fire victims for the purpose of relieving their distress and with intention also of gaining name and prominence is an act partially good and partially evil. 4. An objectively evil act can never become good by reason of a good end. This principle is the variation of the principle: **the end does not justify the means**. Example: stealing money for the purpose of buying medicine for a sick child will not make act good for reason of the end. 5. An act which is indifferent objectively becomes good if done for a good end, and evil if done for an evil end. Example: A hotel manager who acts friendly and courteous towards a female employee is good act. But to be friendly ad courteous in order to seduce the female employee is an evil act. **The Circumstance of Morality** Circumstances are conditions that affect an act by increasing or decreasing the responsibility of the agent. They affect the human act morally although they do not belong to the essences of the act as such. In other words, circumstances are conditions without which the act could exist, but which happen to affect or qualify in its concrete performance. **There are seven circumstances: Who, What, Where, By What Means, How, When, and Why.** a. Who -- this is the circumstance of the person. It refers to the person to whom the act is ascribed and to the person to whom the act has been committed. Example: A hotel manager insulting a janitor is committing a lighter offense. But if he insults a foreign guest is a grave offense. A student who is discovered taking illegal drugs has lesser moral responsibility compared to a politician who is a drug addict. b. What -- this is the circumstance of quantity or quality of the object. What is the extent of the act? Was the injury inflicted serious or slight? Was the amount stolen large or small? Example: Stealing P100 from a poor man is graver that stealing the same amount from a rich man. c. Where -- This is the circumstance of the place where the act is performed. Example: A person who gets drunk and cause trouble inside the house has a lesser responsibility compared to a person who gets drunk inside the office and causes trouble afterwards. d. By what means -- This is the circumstance of the means employed by the agent. Example: An employee who gets promoted by destroying others through machination and taking personal credit in the works of others is evil. Getting the highest core in the exam through cheating is not good. e. How -- This is the circumstance of manner. Was the agent I good faith or bad? Example: A person who inflicts injury to another by reason of self defense cannot be held responsible for the injury. f. When -- This is the circumstance of time. How long did the agent retain an evil thought o intention, for a long period or momentarily? Example: A man who looks at a woman lustfully is passing has lesser responsibility that a man who retain that lustful thought for a long time. g. Why -- this is the circumstance of end of the agent. This refers to the motive that propels the agent to perform the act. The following are the principles that govern the circumstances: 1. An indifferent act becomes good or evil by reason of the circumstance: Example: getting naked in the privacy of your room is an indifferent act. But getting naked in public is morally and legally offensive. 2. A good act may become evil by reason of circumstance. Example: Giving alms to a beggar is good, but giving alms to impress a lady is bad. 3. An intrinsically good or evil may become better or worse by reason of circumstances and may even take on specifically new goodness or malice from its circumstances. Example: Giving assistance to a person in need is good. Not giving assistance to a person in need because of hatred is worse. 4. N evil act can never become good by circumstance. Example: Lying to defend a friend cannot be justified by the end. 5. A circumstance which is gravely evil destroys the entire goodness of an objectively good act. Example: Donating stolen money to charities is evil by reason of the circumstance of means or instruments. 6. A circumstance which is evil, but not gravely so does not entirely destroy the goodness of an objectively good act. Example: Lying in the form of exaggeration for the purpose of entertaining others without injuring someone does not entirely destroy the goodness of the act of bringing joy to others. **PART II** **MORAL STANDARD and MORAL DILEMMAS** **What is the connection between ethics and human values?** A *value* is anything that we cherish or hold dear in life, like our parents, friends, relative, pets or things. It may be anything that satisfies a human need, or which enriches our experience in life, such as friendship, relationship, travel, or education. We may also value occasions and events. Practically, all the things that we value are those things that would make us completely happy. That is why it is essential that our actions should be good in order to ensure happiness and not unhappiness. An action that is evil but disguised as good is called *apparent good*. (Agapay,P. 93) Sometimes, in choosing between two values, subjective choice may define what one may consider as moral. For example, if a person is faced between honesty and friendship but then he chooses friendship as a "good" more important than honesty, the choice is justified as moral for its apparent goodness. The branch of philosophy that studies value is called *Axiology*. There is a clear connection between ethics and values. Ethics acquires significant meaning if accompanied by values, and vice versa. For example, one who values life would act to preserve and protect life. However, there are certain situations when values may not carry any moral significance. For example, food is good, hence you value it for the nourishment of the body, yet it does not make the food moral. **Is there a hierarchy of values?** Yes! Values are ranked from the lowest to the highest. 1. Moral values -- these values correspond to the spiritual development of man. They constitute moral integrity and are necessary for the development of human character. 2. Intellectual values -- these values correspond to our mental growth. The most fundamental value within this category is *truth*. 3. Social values -- these values correspond to the psychological growth of the person. The most fundamental values here are *love*, the basic foundation of family, marriage, companionship, and society. 4. Biological values -- these values correspond to our survival and procreation. The most fundamental value is *self-preservation* and *health.*