The Moral Good of Human Acts PDF

UNIT II. CALLED TO HAPPINESS LESSON B: THE MORAL GOOD OF HUMAN ACTS 1. THE NATURE OF HUMAN ACTS 2. CONSTITUENTS OF HUMAN ACTS 3. SOURCES OF MORALITY 4. IMPEDIMENTS TO MORALITY One day, after attending his first class for the day, Lien sat in one of the benches in front of the Central Library. He wa...

UNIT II. CALLED TO HAPPINESS LESSON B: THE MORAL GOOD OF HUMAN ACTS 1. THE NATURE OF HUMAN ACTS 2. CONSTITUENTS OF HUMAN ACTS 3. SOURCES OF MORALITY 4. IMPEDIMENTS TO MORALITY One day, after attending his first class for the day, Lien sat in one of the benches in front of the Central Library. He was thinking about how he needs money in order to buy that laptop that he badly wants because of the demands of his school works and how he could not ask his mother for money because they are running on a tight budget at home. As he was about to head back to his class, he saw a pouch which contains a sum of money. He thought, this is enough to buy the computer that he needs, and not only would it help him get by his school works, he would also be able to have some to spare that could help ease the financial backlogs at home. But then, Lien is in a quandary because he was thinking about that poor person who lost the money and might be looking for it at that moment. He is thinking whether or not he should keep the money. Is it right that he should use it to satisfy his personal needs or should he turn it over to the security office who could help him look for the real owner?  QUESTION HOW DO I DISTINGUISH GOOD FROM EVIL? Three major moral theories that offer varying solutions, view good differently, and expect people to in certain specific ways. a. Consequentialism/Utilitarianism b. Deontological Ethics c. Virtue Ethics a. Consequentialism Focuses on the results or consequence of our actions and treats intentions as irrelevant because good consequences are equivalent to good actions. Main Proponents 18th century, Jeremy Bentham and John Stuart Mill and much earlier the Greek (341 to 270 B.C.E.) Epicurus, taught that the merits of actions should be gauged in terms of the happiness or pleasure that they produce. Ultimately, we want the things that we want because they give us happiness. Utilitarians agree that a moral theory should be grounded on something intuitive, basically in the primal desire of humans to seek pleasure and avoid pain. Unlike hedonism, utilitarianism is not self-centered as it is other-regarding by thinking that “we should always act so as to produce the greatest good for the greatest number of people even if it means sacrificing your own pleasure.” This is known as the principle of utility, which implies that choosing the greatest good for the greatest number of people. Two Forms of Utilitarianism Act Utilitarianism. Holds that in any given situation, you should choose the action that produces the greatest good for the greatest number of people; Rule Utilitarianism. Teaches that we ought to live by rules that, in general, are likely to lead to the greatest good for the greatest number. Rule utility differs from Act utility by allowing us to refrain from acts that might maximize utilty in the short run and instead follow rules that will maximize utlity for the majority of the time. b. Deontological Ethics 18th century German Philosopher, Immanuel Kant viewed morality in terms of categorical imperatives, i.e., commands that you must follow, regardless of your desires. For Kant, moral obligations are derived from pure reason and it doesn’t matter whether you want to be moral or not because the moral law is binding on all of us. What is right and wrong is totally knowable just by using your intellect. Popular Formulations of Categorical Imperative : Universalizability Principle. “Act only according to that maxim which you can at the same time will that it should become a universal law without contradiction.” Formula of Humanity. “Act so that you treat humanity, whether in your own person or in that of another, always as an end and never as a mere means.” c. Virtue Ethics Aristotle emphasizes the pre-eminence of the individual’s character rather than following a set of rules. This moral theory holds that from being good people, right actions could follow effortlessly. Human beings who have a fixed nature, can flourish according to Aristotle, by adhering to their specific nature. Nature has built in human beings the desire to be virtuous or to have virtues, which entails doing the right thing, at the right time, in the right way, in the right amount, toward right people. Virtue is understood as the midpoint between the extremes of deficiency and excess, which Aristotle calls vices. For Aristotle, character is developed through habituation, i.e., by doing it over and over again, to the extent that eventually becomes part of your character. According to Aristotle, we should become virtuous persons so that we can attain the pinnacle of humanity or achieve what is known as eudamonia, i.e., a life well-lived also known as human flourishing. The kind of person who virtuously lives is the kind of person who will do good things.  Christian morals presuppose following and imitating Jesus Christ, wherein every Christian becomes alter Christus (another Christ). The supernatural virtues of faith and charity transform the natural principle of morality into the basic principle of specific Christian morality: to live for the sake of the Kingdom, in which all things, including man, will find fulfillment in Jesus.” UNIT II. CALLED TO HAPPINESS LESSON B: THE MORAL GOOD OF HUMAN ACTS 1. THE NATURE OF HUMAN ACTS 1. NATURE OF HUMAN ACTS a. Human acts or actus humani are those acts of the human person, which define him/her as human in contrast to the actions of other material created agents more specifically animals. What makes human acts basically human? Human acts are done with sufficient knowledge of the agent and full deliberate consent. According to St. Thomas Aquinas, human acts “are therefore those acts that proceed from a deliberate will.” For Saint Thomas Aquinas, Human Acts are acts: Which we are responsible for. Done with knowledge and love. Done with intellect and will. Freely chosen informed act. Worthy of praise or blame. Has value for good or for evil. b. Acts of Man or Actus Hominis Those actions, which arise without the same amount of knowledge and freedom as human acts are called acts of man or actus hominis. “Acts of man, as opposed to human acts, are actions that man perform without being master of them through his intellect and will. In principle, acts of man are not the concern of morals, since they are not voluntary.”  The natural acts of vegetative and sense faculties: digestion, beating of the heart, growth, corporal reactions, and visual or auditive perceptions. However, these acts become human acts when performed under the direction of the will, as when we look at something, or arouse ourselves. Acts of persons who lack the use of reason. Such is the case with infants or insane persons. Acts of people who are asleep or under the in influence of hypnosis, alcohol, or other drugs. In this case, however, there may still be some degree of control by the will. Also, there is indirect responsibility if the cause of the loss of control is voluntary. Quick, nearly automatic reactions, called primo-primi acts. These are reflex and nearly instantaneous reactions, such as withdrawing one’s hand after suffering an electric shock, in which the will does not have time to intervene. Acts performed under violence or threat of violence. This includes physical or—in some cases—moral violence. UNIT II. CALLED TO HAPPINESS LESSON B: THE MORAL GOOD OF HUMAN ACTS 2. CONSTITUENTS OF HUMAN ACTS 2. CONSTITUENTS OF HUMAN ACTS There are three essential elements that must be present in order for an action to be considered a human act, these are, namely: a. Knowledge b. Voluntariness c. Freedom a. Knowledge The intellectual constituent of the human acts. Those actions that are desired are fruit of knowledge. Those known actions may be judged as moral and immoral. A person’s reason “cannot will without knowing what object he is concerned with, without being master and therefore, conscious of the act he is to perform in order to realize the aim, and without evaluating the action in its concrete nature as a desirable good or undesirable evil, which appraisal also includes the judgment on the moral value of the act.” The prerequisite of choosing to act is the adequate awareness of the agent in what he/she intends to choose. Peschke b. Freedom Freedom is what St. Augustine meant by his phrase: liberum arbitrium, translated as “freedom of choice.” It designates the sort of freedom that exists where an agent has more than one alternative: the alternative of doing this or that, the alternative of doing or not doing a particular action. In any case, the agent is in a situation of alternatives that are really there and really available to her or him. Freedom is an external personal value that all human persons should realize. However, it can also be an intrinsic characteristic or capacity of the will that governs the human person in selecting among different options. Therefore, with the later definition two senses can be derived: freedom depends on the available choices present – to choose among alternative acts; to choose between committing or omitting an act; from the possible choices, the human person decides on what choice to take without external influence forcing him/her to act (or not to act). c. Voluntariness Voluntariness “is a formal quality of human acts whereby any action or omission results from a principle within the agent and from some knowledge which the agent possesses of the end.” When a person “knows the end of his work to the greatest degree and moves towards it, the voluntary character of his actions is present to the greatest degree.” Voluntariness is a characteristic of human act that is not simply chosen but desired or willed. Having sufficient or full knowledge of the act itself as well as the end of the act and having full consent of the will in performing the action qualifies voluntariness.  Therefore, those actions performed without proper knowledge and acted out with internal and external coercion (or not deliberate) cannot be considered voluntary. All voluntary acts are human acts and not the other way around, like a student, who knows cheating is a punishable school offense has chosen to commit the act to get good grades, makes a voluntary act. If a man is not free to choose what he would like according to his insight and will but has to act against his will, his actions is not free and consequently not a human act. E.g. Caius who is absent-minded, sometimes gets his hair cut and goes away without paying. KINDS OF VOLUNTARY ACTS Perfectly Voluntary Act Is an act which is performed with full attention and full consent of the will. Imperfectly Voluntary Act Is an act which is performed with imperfect and partial attention or consent. Directly Voluntary Act If the act is intended as an end in itself or as a means to another end. Indirectly Voluntary Act If an act is not intended but merely permitted as the inevitable result of an object directly willed. Negatively Voluntary Act The will effects something negatively by the voluntary omission of an act which could have altered an evil to another person or helped him secure a good. PRINCIPLE OF DOUBLE OF EFFECT First, The moral object may not be evil in itself. Second, The good and evil effects must proceed at least equally directly from the act. Third, The intention of agent must be good. The agent may not approve intend or approve of the evil effect. Fourth, There must be a proportionately grave reason in order to permit the evil effect. UNIT II. CALLED TO HAPPINESS LESSON B: THE MORAL GOOD OF HUMAN ACTS 3. SOURCES OF MORALITY 3. SOURCES OF MORALITY The Catechism of the Catholic Church highlighted the three sources of morality that help us to determine the moral character of the human act. a. Object of the act itself, b. Intention or the end of the act c. Circumstances of the act. a. Object or action itself (finis operis) The object chosen is a good toward which the will deliberately directs itself. It is the matter of a human act. The object chosen morally specifies the act of the will, insofar as reason recognizes and judges it to be or not to be in conformity with the true good. Objective norms of morality express the rational order of good and evil, attested to by conscience.” The action itself is the material element of the human act or the “substance of the moral act.” The object or action is the one to be judged as moral or good, immoral or evil, or indifferent.  It is important to remember that there are actions which are intrinsically evil, i.e., even when performed with a good intention remain to be evil. Judging the morality of an act does not depend on the act alone. To understand the totality of the morality of a certain act also depends on the intention of the agent and the circumstances that define the action.  b. Intention (finis operantis) The Catechism of the Catholic Church describes intention, thus: In contrast to the object, the intention resides in the acting subject. Because it lies at the voluntary source of an action and determines it by its end, intention is an element essential to the moral evaluation of an action. The end is the first goal of the intention and indicates the purpose pursued in the action. The intention is a movement of the will toward the end: it is concerned with the goal of the activity. It aims at the good anticipated from the action undertaken. Intention is not limited to directing individual actions but can guide several actions toward one and the same purpose; it can orient one's whole life toward its ultimate end. ∙ An indifferent act may become morally good or evil. Indifferent acts cannot be judged as neither good nor evil. Their morality may depend on their intention. Talking, per se, is neither moral nor immoral. However, if the intention of talking is to destroy the reputation of another person, then, it becomes evil. On other hand, talking in order to save an innocent man from a certain crime that he did may be judged as good. If an indifferent act has good intention, the act becomes good, so if otherwise, it will be considered evil. ∙ An objectively good act may become morally evil. An evil intention will make a good act evil. Donating to charitable institution just to show off makes the whole action evil. Praying is an objectively good action. But if you pray for the person to meet a certain misfortune will make the act unacceptable. ∙ An objectively good act may receive more goodness. A good act will become more praiseworthy if it has a good motive. Panizo made use of the example of giving alms to the less fortunate for the greater glory of God. We can express our love to God if we help and love our neighbor. ∙ An objectively evil act can never become good in spite of good motive. The end does not justify the means. Just like the story of Robinhood who steals from the rich to give to the people may sound heroic, however, his good intention will never make his evil action be judged as good. Passing an examination definitely is a worthwhile end, but if you cheat in order to pass will never be deemed praiseworthy. ∙ An objectively evil act may become more evil. An evil act with an evil intention will make the act doubly evil, in the same manner as, a good act with a good intention will be judged doubly good. For example you lie just to intentionally cover up your fault.  c. Circumstance Circumstances, including the consequences, are secondary elements of a moral act. They contribute to increasing or diminishing the moral goodness or evilness of the human acts. Circumstances themselves cannot change the moral quality of acts themselves; they can make neither good nor right an action that is in itself evil.” Circumstances are conditions that affect the morality of the action of an agent. A certain circumstance may aggravate, mitigate or even negate the responsibility of an agent toward his/her actions.  Circumstance of Person (Who). The “subject or the person who does or receives the action.” Circumstance of Place (Where). The setting or place where the agent performs an action. Circumstance of Time (When). The time of the action performed. Circumstance of Manner (How). The way the agent manages to do his act. Circumstance of Means (By what means). “Although man’s intention may be normally good, if the means of attainting the end are illicit or unlawful, his acts are immoral.” Circumstance of Thing. The special quality of the direct object of the act. UNIT II. CALLED TO HAPPINESS LESSON B: THE MORAL GOOD OF HUMAN ACTS 4. IMPEDIMENTS TO MORALITY 4. IMPEDIMENTS TO MORALITY Impediments to human freedom are realities with which ethics and jurisprudence must reckon concerning the morality of the human act: Impairments of required knowledge Ignorance Error Inattention Impairments to free consent Passion Fear and Social Pressure Violence Dispositions and Habits Ignorance is lack of knowledge about a thing in a being capable of knowing. Ignorance is divided as: Invincible: Ignorance which a man is not able to dispel by such reasonable diligence Completely takes away the voluntariness of the malice and hence its responsibility too. Vincible: Ignorance that can be dispelled by simple diligence; Voluntary in cause; provoked by conscious negligence or even bad will Kinds: Simply vincible, Supine, and Affected. Error, False Judgment or conviction. Arises from deficient education, bad company or misleading information. One is not responsible for the consequences of error made in good faith. Inattention Refers to momentary deprivation of insight. If attention is completely lacking, there is no human act. Passion or concupiscence Movement of the sensitive appetite that precedes the free decision of the will; Movement of the sensitive appetite which is moved by the good or evil apprehended by imagination. Fear Mental trepidation due to an impending evil. It is fear of the senses and not intellectual fear which is one of the passions, (e.g., threat of torture) The emotion of fear, which completely darkens the mind or paralyses the will excuses from imputability. Violence Compulsive influence brought to bear upon a one against his will by some extrinsic agent. There is imputability except in so far as the inner will may have consented or external resistance have fallen shortof the degree necessary and possible in the circumstance. Habits Facility and readiness in acting in a certain manner acquired by repeated acts. Deliberately admitted habits, Opposed habits. Case Analysis Determine the Following: 1. Identify the Constituents of Human Acts 2. Determine the Kinds of Voluntariness present 3. Determine the Morality of Actions Case 1: Case 2: Case 3: Case 4: Case 5: Former Nazi The Trolley Ticket without a Organ Trafficking Woman sells and Problem seat Story daughter Holocaust Survivor