Ethics Reviewer PDF

Philosophy is the science of beings in their ultimate reasons, causes, and principles, acquired by the aid of human reason alone. Philosophy is a science. It is not based on mere opinions or theories or hypotheses, but is certain knowledge derived from reasoned demonstrations of causes and reduced t...

Philosophy is the science of beings in their ultimate reasons, causes, and principles, acquired by the aid of human reason alone. Philosophy is a science. It is not based on mere opinions or theories or hypotheses, but is certain knowledge derived from reasoned demonstrations of causes and reduced to a system. Philosophy is a "science of beings," that is, of all things which can be reached by the human mind. This includes man, the world, God; everything that is, or becomes, or is known. Other sciences have as their special field of research some particular province of natural phenomena, but philosophy has as its object the whole universe and the Supreme Being. Philosophy as the 'science of beings in their ultimate reasons, causes, and principles.' A 'reason' is that by means of which a thing is known and can be understood; a 'cause' is that which contributes in some positive manner toward the production of a thing; a 'principle' is that from which something proceeds. The other sciences give the proximate causes of things, while philosophy searches for the ultimate reasons and causes and principles. Thus, physiology treats of the organs and functions of the human body, while philosophy explains the nature of man in his body and soul, in his vital principle and its connection with the body. In other words, philosophy endeavors to understand and explain the fundamental essences of things. Finally, philosophy is the 'science of beings in their ultimate reasons, causes, and principles, acquired by the aid of human reason alone. This means that philosophy does not base its knowledge on authority, but solely on the reasoning power of the human mind. Divine revelation, therefore, is formally excluded as a source of information in philosophy, although it can and should assist the mind of man by pointing out the proper direction for the philosophic solution of a problem along purely natural lines. 7 DEPARTMENTS/ BRANCHES OF PHILOSOPHY 1. Logic is the science of those principles, laws, and methods which the mind of man, in its thinking, must follow for the accurate and secure attainment of truth. 2. Cosmology - the branch of Philosophy dealing with the origin and general structure of the universe, with its parts, elements, and laws, and especially with such of its characteristics as space, time, causality. It deals with the general 3. Psychology - is that branch of Philosophy that deals with living beings, their vital operations, vital powers and the principle of life. 4. Ethics - is the practical science of the morality of human conduct. 5. Ontology or General Metaphysics - philosophical study of being; it is concerned with the study of what is, of the kinds and structures of objects, properties, events, processes, and relations in every area of reality. 6. Theodicy or Special Metaphysics - branch of Philosophy that deals with the first cause of universal contingent reality, its nature and attributes, its influence on creatures.  7. Epistemology or Criteriology - branch of Philosophy that is concerned with the validity of human knowledge; it's the study of the nature, origin, and limits of human knowledge. ETHICS - is the practical science of the morality of human conduct. a. Ethics is a science - a relatively complete and systematically arranged body of connected data together with the causes or reasons by which these data are known to be true. Ethics squares with this definition: it is a complete and systematically arranged body of data which relate to the morality of human conduct. b. Ethics is a practical science - if the data of a science directly imply rules or directions for thought or action. Ethics presents data which directly imply and indicate directions for human conduct. c. Ethics is a science of human conduct. By human conduct we mean only such human activity as deliberate and free. Human act is a deliberate and free act, an act performed with advertence and motive, an act determined (chosen and given existence) by the free will. Ethics treats of human acts; human acts make human conduct. Ethics is therefore a science of human conduct. d. Ethics is the science of the morality of human conduct. Human conduct is free, knowing, deliberate human activity. Such activity is either in agreement or disagreement with the dictates of reason. Now the relation (agreement or disagreement) of human activity with the dictates of reason is called morality. CONSTITUENTS OF HUMAN ACT For a human act to be human, it must possess 3 essential qualities: 1. Knowledge - a human act proceeds from the deliberate will; it requires deliberation. It means advertence, or knowledge in intellect of what one is about and what it means. In Ethics, deliberation means knowledge. Now a human act is by definition a deliberate act; that is, it is a knowing act. No human act is possible without knowledge. 2. Freedom - a human act is an act determined by the will and by nothing else. It is an act, therefore, that is under control of the will, an act that the will can do or leave undone. Such an act is called a free act. Thus, every human act is free. 3. Voluntariness - the Latin word for will is voluntas, and from this word we derive the English terms voluntary and voluntariness. To say therefore that a human act must be voluntary, is simply to say that it must be a will-act. Voluntariness is the formal essential quality of the human act, and for it to be present, there must ordinarily be both knowledge and freedom in the agent. OBJECT Every science has a material object and a formal object. The material object is the subject-matter of the science: the thing, or things, with which the science deals. The material object of ethics is human acts, that is to say, human conduct. The formal object of a science is the special way, aim, or point of view that the science employs in studying or dealing with its material object. Now Ethics studies human acts (its material object) to discover what these might be in order to agree with the dictates of reason. Hence the special aim and point of view of Ethics is the right morality, or rectitude, of human acts. We assert then that the formal object of Ethics is the rectitude of human acts. WHAT IS ETHICS? We face decisions all the time about what to do and what to be, both as individuals and as members of larger groups. Should we stay up late watching movies or should we get some extra sleep? What should we strive for in our lives? In what ways should we respect and care for other people or other living beings? Should we let other species go extinct when we could prevent this from happening? These questions are all ultimately ethics questions. Ethics is the study of what is right and wrong, good and bad, what we should and should not do or be, and related topics. Clearly, ethics is important to many aspects of our lives. But studying ethics can be very challenging, by forcing us to examine, question, and rethink our deeply held notions of how we should live. The purpose of this lesson is to improve your ability to engage in ethical thinking. We say improve your ability because you, as a living, conscious human being, already possess some ability to think ethically. We all do. We might have different thoughts and reach different conclusions about ethics, but the core ability to think ethically is something that unites all humans - and perhaps members of some other species as well. Why Study Ethics? So why study ethics? There are several reasons. First, studying ethics helps US improve our own intuitions. Often, upon closer inspection, we find that some aspects of our intuitions conflict with each other, or have implications that trouble us. After thinking it through, we may want to change our intuitions and our ethical views that rest on them. Since the ethical views that we hold serve as the foundation for what we should be and what we should do, changing our views can lead to very major changes in our lives. Second, studying ethics helps us spot the ethics implicit in what other people say and do. Ethics spotting is an important ability because it enables us to understand why people are making certain arguments, decisions, etc. Quite often, disagreements between people are at heart disagreements about ethics. If we can spot the ethics on different sides of a disagreement, we can understand what the disagreement is really about. ANCIENT GREEKS ETHICS SOCRATES as recorded in Plato's dialogues, is customarily regarded as the father of Western ethics. He asserted that people will naturally do what is good provided that they know what is right, and that evil or bad actions are purely the result of ignorance: "There is only one good, knowledge, and one evil, ignorance". He equated knowledge and wisdom with self-awareness (meaning to be aware of every fact relevant to a person's existence) and virtue and happiness. So, in essence, he considered self-knowledge and self-awareness to be the essential good, because the truly wise (i.e. self-aware) person will know what is right, do what is good, and therefore be happy. ARISTOTLE "Nature does nothing in vain", so it is only when a person acts in accordance with their nature and thereby realizes their full potential, that they will do good and therefore be content in life. He held that self-realization (the awareness of one's nature and the development of one's talents) is the surest path to happiness, which is the ultimate goal, all other things (such as civic life or wealth) being merely means to an end. He encouraged moderation in all things, the extremes being degraded and immoral, (e.g. courage is the moderate virtue between the extremes of cowardice and recklessness), and held that Man should not simply live, but live well with conduct governed by moderate virtue. Virtue, for Aristotle, denotes doing the right thing to the right person at the right time to the proper extent in the correct fashion and for the right reason - something of a tall order. CYNICISM an ancient doctrine best exemplified by the Greek philosopher Diogenes of Sinope, who lived in a tub on the streets of Athens. He taught that a life lived according to Nature was better than one that conformed to convention, and that a simple life is essential to virtue and happiness. As a moral teacher, Diogenes emphasized detachment from many of those things conventionally considered "good". HEDONISM posits that the principal ethic is maximizing pleasure and minimizing pain. This may range from those advocating self-gratification regardless of the pain and expense to others and with no thought for the future (Cyrenaic Hedonism), to those who believe that the most ethical pursuit maximizes pleasure and happiness for the most people. Somewhere in the middle of this continuum, Epicureanism observed that indiscriminate indulgence sometimes results in negative consequences, such as pain and fear, which are to be avoided. STOIC PHILOSOPHER (Epictetus) posited that the greatest good was contentment, serenity and peace of mind, which can be achieved by self-mastery over one's desires and emotions, and freedom from material attachments. In particular, sex and sexual desire are to be avoided as the greatest threat to the integrity and equilibrium of a man's mind. According to Epictetus, difficult problems in life should not be avoided, but rather embraced as spiritual exercises needed for the health of the spirit. PYRRHONIAN SKEPTICISM Pyrrho, the founding figure of Pyrrhonian Skepticism, taught that one cannot rationally decide between what is good and what is bad although, generally speaking, self-interest is the primary motive of human behavior, and he was disinclined to rely upon sincerity, virtue or Altruism as motivations. HUMANISM with its emphasis on the dignity and worth of all people and their ability to determine right and wrong purely by appeal to universal human qualities (especially rationality), can be traced back to Thales, Xenophanes of Colophon (570-480 B.C.), Anaxagoras, Pericles (c. 495 429 B.C.), Protagoras,  Democritus and the historian Thucydides (c. 460 375 B.C.). These early Greek thinkers were all instrumental in the move away from a spiritual morality based on the supernatural, and the development of a more humanistic freethought (the view that beliefs should be formed on the basis of science and logic, and not be influenced by emotion, authority, tradition or dogma). St. Thomas Aquinas on Virtue Thomas' broad account of virtues as excellences or perfections of the various human powers formally echoes Aristotle, both with regard to the nature of a virtue and many specific virtues. The moral philosophy of St. Thomas Aquinas (1225-1274) involves a merger of at least two apparently disparate traditions: Aristotelian eudaimonism and Christian theology. Aquinas follows Aristotle in thinking that an act is good or bad depending on whether it contributes to or deters us from our proper human end - the telos or final goal at which all human actions aim. That telos is eudaimonia, or happiness, where 'happiness' is understood in terms of completion, perfection, or well-being. Achieving happiness, however, requires a range of intellectual and moral virtues that enable us to understand the nature of happiness and motivate us to seek it in reliable and consistent way. On the other hand, Aquinas believe that we can never achieve complete or final happiness in this life. For him, final happiness consists in beatitude, or supernatural union with God. Such an end lies far beyond what we thought our natural human capacities can attain. For this reason, we not only need the virtues, we also need God to transform our nature - to perfect or 'deify' it – so that we might be suited to participate in divine beatitude. PERSONHOOD AND PERSONALITY Personhood is what makes a person a person Personality is what makes a person unique as he/she is. Personhood 1. Consciousness-capacity to feel pain 2. Reasoning - capacity to solve complex problems 3. Self-motivated activity - capacity to do activities that are relatively independent of control 4. Capacity for communication - capacity to relay messages of various types  5. Self-awareness - the presence of self-concepts Moreover, the human person has intellect and will The Intellect understands the nature of things (proposes) The Will is the rational appetite that desires intelligible goods (disposes). THE HUMAN ACT A human act is an act which proceeds from the deliberate free will of man. In a wide sense, the term human act means any sort of activity, internal or external, bodily or spiritual, performed by a human being. Ethics, however, employs the term in a stricter sense, and calls human only those who acts that are proper to man as man. Man is an animal, and he has many activities in common with brutes. Thus, man feels, hears, sees, employs the senses of taste and smell, is influenced by bodily tendencies or appetites. 'But man is more than animal; he is rational, that is to say, he has understanding and freewill. Hence the human proceeds from the knowing to a freely willing human being that has the full character of doing a human act. Such an act alone is proper to man as man. Ethics understands by human act: only those acts that proceed from deliberate (e.i. advertent, knowing) and freely willing human being. Essential Elements of Human Act 1. Knowledge; a human act proceeds from the deliberate will; it requires deliberation. "deliberation" does not mean quiet, slow, painstaking action. It means merely advertence or knowledge in intellect of what one is about and what this means 2. Freedom;  A human act is an act determined (elicited or commanded) by the will and by nothing else. It is an act that the will can do or leave undone. Such act is called free act. Thus, every human act must be free. 3. Voluntariness The latin word for will is voluntas and from this word we derive the English terms voluntary and voluntariness. To say therefore, that a human act must be voluntary, or must have voluntariness, is simply to say that it must be a will-act. Voluntariness is the formal essential quality of the human act, and for it to be present, there must ordinarily both knowledge and freedom in the agent. What is a moral act? Moral theology distinguishes between human acts (acti humani) and acts of man (acti hominis) Human act - any voluntary, deliberate, and conscious act freely committed by the person. Hence de facto also moral act. Acts of man- anything done by virtue of our nature or specific to our species like walking two legs or speaking. The physical act of walking is an act of man. But if a married man chooses to walk to a house of another married woman whose husband just left for work to commit adultery, then that is a human act and consequently, a moral act - which can be sinful. The physical act of learning to swim is an act of man. Jumping into a lake to save a drowning person is a human act because the person had to freely choose to swim out and rescue the person The physical act of eating is an act of man. But eating a lot more than you should is already a human act. Things done during asleep are not human acts. Animals act on instinct, so when they attack out of fear or when they mate while in heat, it is nothing more than animal nature at work. When human beings have sex, it is not because they are compelled to from instinct. It is a voluntary and deliberate choice to engage in that activity. Therefore, it is a human act and a moral act. THE NORMS OF HUMAN ACTS Let us view man as a traveler standing at a point where many roads converge. The traveler wishes to reach the City of Limitless Good. This city is the goal toward which the traveler tends by a connatural and inevitable bent of his will. Now, the tendency of the traveler will remain the same, even if he should choose a wrong road. In other words, man, the traveler, will choose a road for the purpose of reaching the City of Limitless Good, even if, as a fact, the chosen road leads away from his goal. It is obvious, then, that the traveler needs guidance; he needs direction, lest perverse and mistaken judgment thwart his purpose and render impossible the attainment of his goal. In a word, the traveler needs a map. More: he requires ability to read the map, and to interpret it rightly. Now, the map, the guiding direction, is supplied to man, the traveler, by law; and the application of law in individual acts - the reading and interpreting of the map at particular curves and corners - is achieved by conscience. Human acts are directed to their true end by law, and law is applied by conscience. Hence law and conscience are the directives or norms of human acts. LAW Law is defined as an ordinance of reason, promulgated for the common good by one who has charge of a society. A law is an ordinance, i.e., an active and authoritative ordering or directing of human acts in reference to an end to be attained by them. A law is an ordinance of reason, and not an arbitrary or whimsical decree of the legislator's will.  A law is promulgated, i.e., made known to those bound by it, and these are called its subjects. A law is promulgated for the common good. This is the purpose of law, to promote its subjects' good, and hence to protect and promote true liberty among them. A law is promulgated in a society. A law is promulgated by one who has charge of a society (a single person and/or persons). CONSCIENCE - the practical judgment of reason upon an individual act as good and to be performed, or as evil and to be avoided. It is a judgment of reason, that is, it is a reasoned conclusion. It is a practical judgment. This means that it has reference to something to be done, i.e., either the performance or the omission of an act. It is a judgment upon an individual act, here and now, in these present circumstances, to be performed or omitted. Before action, conscience judges an act as good and to be performed, or as evil and to be omitted. After action, conscience is a judgment of approval or disapproval. THE ENDS OF HUMAN ACTS A human act is always performed for an end. And end is both a termination and a goal. In other words, an end is that which completes or finishes a thing, and it is that for which the thing is finished. A sculptor has reached the end of his work on a statue when the last bit of marble has been chipped away; and he has reached the end in another sense, in as much as the finished statue is the goal he set out to attain when he started the work. By an end we mean the end of an activity - it is the termination and goal of activity. Every activity tends towards an end. A tree tends to grow to full stature, maturity, and fruitfulness: and this is the end of its activity of growth. Fire tends to burn, bodies tend to fall toward the center of the earth, bodies at rest tend to remain at rest, etc. In Ethics, we speak of the ends of human acts. Here, then, the end is that which is apprehended as good, as desirable, and which attracts the human agent to the performance of the act. It is the agent's motive and reason for acting. It causes the agent to act, and,in so far, the end is the final cause of a human act. No human act can exist without a final cause, that is to say, without an end apprehended by the agent as desirable or good enough to attract the agent to action and to serve as his motive in the act. Man seeks happiness. Whether he seeks it in riches, in pleasures, in power, in prominence, in honors attained, or even in sin, the fact remains that what he is seeking is that which will please him, that which will satisfy his wants and desires, that, in one word, which will make him happy. The absolutely ultimate end of human acts, considered with reference to the person who strives to possess it, is the perfect happiness which consists in the possession of the limitless good. In a word, the absolutely ultimate subjective end of human acts is happiness. When may one perform an act, not evil in itself, from which flow two effects, one good, one evil? 1. The evil effect must not precede the good effect. If the evil effect comes ahead of the good effect, then it is a means of achieving the good effect, and is directly willed as such a means. Now it is a fundamental principle of Ethics - a clear dictate of sound reason - that evil may never be willed directly, whether it be a means or an end to be achieved. We cannot do evil that good may come of it. The end does not justify the means. There is no good, however great, that can justify the direct willing of evil. 2. There must be a reason sufficiently grave calling for the act in its good effect. If this condition be not fulfilled, there is no adequate reason for the act at all, and the act is prohibited in view of its evil effect. The sufficiency of the reason must be determined by the nature, circumstances, and importance of the act in question, and by the proportion this reason bears to the gravity of the evil effect. 3. The intention of the agent must be honest. If the agent really wills the evil effect, there is no possibility of the act being permissible. Direct willing of evil is always against reason, and hence against the principle of Ethics. The agent needs to directly will the good effect.  What is REASON? Reason is the capacity for consciously making sense of things, establishing and verifying facts, applying logic, and changing or justifying practices, institutions, and beliefs based on new or existing information. It is closely associated with such characteristically human activities as philosophy, science, language, mathematics, and art and is normally considered to be a distinguishing ability possessed by humans. Reason, or an aspect of it, is sometimes referred to as rationality. Reasoning is associated with thinking, cognition, and intellect. The philosophical field of logic studies ways in which humans reason formally through argument. Reason is a declaration made to explain or justify action, decision, or conviction. The proper role of ethical reasoning is to highlight acts of two kinds: those which enhance the well-being of others - that warrant our praise – and those that harm or diminish the well-being of others - and thus warrant our criticism. Developing one's ethical reasoning abilities is crucial because there is in human nature a strong tendency toward egotism, prejudice, self-justification, and self-deception. These tendencies are exacerbated by powerful sociocentric cultural influences that shape our lives - not least of which is the mass media. These tendencies can be actively opposed only through the systematic cultivation of fair mindedness, honesty, integrity, self-knowledge, and deep concern for the welfare of others. We can never eliminate our egocentric tendencies absolutely and with finality. But we can actively fight them as we learn to develop as ethical persons. How moral standards are influenced... There are some moral standards that many of us share in our conduct in society. These moral standards are influenced by a variety of factors such as – the moral principles we accept as part of our upbringing, values passed on to us through heritage and legacy, the religious values that we have imbibed from childhood, the values that were showcased during the period of our education, the behavior pattern of those who are around us,  the explicit and implicit standards of our culture, our life experiences and more importantly, our critical reflections on these experiences. Moral standards concern behavior which is very closely linked to human well-being. Morality vs other Rules And then there is the question of what distinguishes a moral problem from a non-moral one. If morality is about one's relation (duty/rule) to others, what makes this different from other rules in our lives? The following are other rules in our lives that are non-moral. 1. Etiquette - good or bad manners dictated by a socio-economic elite. A person cannot be said to be immoral when they do not conform to whether the spoon and the fork are properly ordered when eating,or properly dressed and poised in an event. Etiquette does not directly imply morality. 2. Legal - right and wrong lawful judgments. A person cannot be said to be moral or immoral based on a legal judgment or a jury's decision. Some legal problems are not necessarily moral and some moral problems are not necessarily legal. Winning a case in court even when a person has committed the crime but was proven not guilty does not make the person moral. Legality does not directly imply morality. 3. Language - grammatically right or wrong. A person who writes an essay with some syntax or grammar errors cannot be said to be immoral. In the religious link to morality, a person for instance cannot go to heaven or hell just because they have misspelled a word in an ethics exam. Language does not directly imply morality. 4. Aesthetics - criteria of what is beautiful. A person cannot be judged to be moral or immoral by the beauty of their face. Whether they have pimples or not does not make them moral or immoral. A beautiful face is not necessarily the face of a moral person. And an ugly person is not necessarily immoral. Some shows portray the villains as  ugly, but some beautifully faced persons are also immoral. Aesthetics does not directly imply morality. 5. Athletic - good or bad games or strategies.A person who lost a chess game or a table tennis round is not necessarily moral or immoral. Winning a game does not make one moral. Athleticism does not directly imply morality. Moral vs Non-Moral Problems 1. Moral standards deal with matters that can seriously injure or benefit human beings. E.g. theft, rape, fraud, slander, murder 2. Moral standards rest on the adequacy of reasons to support or justify them, not on decisions of majority or authoritative bodies. 3. Moral standards are to be preferred to other values, including self-interest. E.g. honesty is to be preferred than cheating, although cheating can make me graduate. 4. Moral standards are based on impartial considerations or or taking the point of view of an 'ideal observer Impartiality means that: Every stakeholder's interest is equally important One must not be arbitrary Every person should be treated the same unless there is good reason to do so. 5. Moral standards are associated with special emotions such as guilt, shame, praise, indignation. Moral standards then include, based on the five mentioned above, the consideration of the “other.”  PRINCIPLES OF ETHICS Respect for Persons/Autonomy. The principle of Respect for Persons means the acknowledgment of a person's right to make choices, to hold views, and to take actions based on personal values and beliefs Justice. The principle of Justice means that we treat others equitably, distribute benefits/burdens fairly. Nonmaleficence (do no harm). The principle of Nonmaleficence is the obligation not to inflict harm intentionally; In medical ethics, the physician's guiding maxim is "First, do no harm.” Beneficence (do good). The principle of Beneficence provides benefits to person contributes to their welfare and refers to an action done for the benefit of others Ignorance Ignorance in its object Ignorance the mere absence of knowledge Of law Of facts Of penalty Of law - ignorance of the existence of a duty, rule, or regulation Example: A motorist drives at the rate of 100 kilometers an hour, not knowing that the local speed-limit is 60 kilometers an hour. Of fact- ignorance of the nature or circumstances of an act as forbidden. Example: A motorist knows the speed-limit, but unknowingly violates it because of an inaccurate speedometer. Thus ignorance of fact is lack of knowledge that what one is actually doing comes under the prohibition of a known law. Of penalty - ignorance of the knowledge of the precise sanction affixed to the law Example: A motorist knowingly violates the speed law, not knowing that, in that particular locality, the set punishment for such an offense is a short prison term, in which no amount of money will be accepted. Ignorance in its subject Vincible Ignorance - conquerable ignorance; ignorance that can and should be supplanted by knowledge; ignorance by the use of ordinary diligence. Example: Knowledge for a certain subject (say, ethics), can be conquered by simply studying  Invincible Ignorance - ignorance that ordinary and proper diligence cannot dispel; non-voluntary. Example: Knowledge that is impossible for us to know (UU); ignorant that you are ignorant; pagans who died without the Church. How does ignorance modify the voluntariness of the act? Vincible Ignorance does not destroy but only lessens the voluntariness of the act because there could have been something you can do. Example: You are not excused from cheating even if you don't know it is bad because you could have done something to ask or read the handbook if it is. Invincible Ignorance destroys the voluntariness of the act because you wouldn't know otherwise. Example: a man with Alzheimer's is excused from cheating because he wouldn't even remember taking test anyway. Ignorance in its result Antecedent Ignorance - is that which precedes all acts will. Example: You spot someone beautiful and you thought she has no lover. (No act involved) Concomitant (Related) Ignorance - ignorance that accompanies the act that would not have been performed if the ignorance does not exist Example: You spot someone beautiful and decided to chat with her immediately but you wouldn't, had you known that she already has a lover. Consequent Ignorance - ignorance that follows upon an act of the will Example: You spot someone beautiful and decided to chat with her even if you don't know if he has a lover but knows this later. Fear  ❖ Refers to the shrinking back of the mind from danger. Actions may be done from fear or with fear. How does fear modify voluntariness? An act done from fear, however great, is simply voluntary (you decided from it), although it is regularly also conditionally involuntary (e.g. phobia, intense fear or panic from serious danger) Violence ❖ Refers to an external force applied by a free cause to compel a person to perform an act against his will. Concupiscence ❖ Refers to the bodily appetites which are called passions. 1. Antecedent concupiscence - is a passion that precedes the placing of an action. Example: the passion of sexual arousal in spite of the passion for study. 2. Consequent concupiscence - is the passion that is acted when the will approves it. Example: the passion of sexual arousal led to the act of sexual activity instead of praying How does concupiscence modify the voluntariness of the act? ❖ Antecedent concupiscence lessens the voluntariness of the act. Example: the passion of sexual arousal does not destroy bu only lessens the gravity of an act done instead of the passion for study and prayer. ❖ Consequent concupiscence however great does not lessen the voluntariness of an act. Example: the passion of sexual arousal, no matter how great, which led to the act of sexual activity is still unlawful. Types of Violence Perfect Violence - resistance is futile or at the cost of one's life. Imperfect violence - resistance can be done. How does violence modify the voluntariness of the act? Actions done by force of habit are voluntary in cause unless a reasonable effort is made to counteract the habitual inclination. How does violence modify the voluntariness of the act? External actions or directly commanded actions, performed by a person subjected to violence (under duress), to which reasonable resistance has been offered, are involuntary and are not accountable. Imperfect violence lessens the moral responsibility but is not taken away completely. Habit Refers to the lasting readiness and facility, born of frequently repeated acts, for acting in a certain manner; sometimes called "second nature" Bad habits lead to vices Good habits lead to virtue