The Moral Good of Human Acts-Revised-2021-2022 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.” Christian Moral Living Christian morality is based on the teachings of Jesus and his Church through: The teachings of the Magisterium (Pope, bishops). The essence of Jesus’ teaching is love. Christian Moral Living Jesus summarized the way we are to live when he taught: “You Shall love the Lord, Your God, with all your soul, and your neighbor as yourself.” - Matthew 22: 37-39 Question? Why is loving our neighbor as important as loving God? Christian Moral Living Jesus’ teachings about love have two dimensions: 1. Vertical = pointing to God 2. Horizontal = pointing to others Faith in God alone is not enough in order to live a good life. We must also love our neighbor. UNIT II. CALLED TO HAPPINESS LESSON B: THE MORAL GOOD OF HUMAN ACTS 1. THE NATURE OF HUMAN ACTS DYNAMICS OF HUMAN ACTIONS ACTS OF MAN (Actus Hominis) THEY COMPRISE ALL SPONTANEOUS BIOLOGICAL AND SENSUAL PROCESSES LIKE NUTRITION, BREATHING, SENSUAL IMPRESSIONS; ALL ACTS PERFORMED BY THOSE WHO HAVE NOT THE USE OF REASON LIKE PEOPLE ASLEEP, LUNATICS, DRUNKEN PEOPLE; ALL SPONTANEOUS REACTIONS WHICH PRECEDE THE ACTIVITY OF THE WILL AND INTELLECT, LIKE FIRST REACTIONS OF ANGER.  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. HUMAN ACTS (actus humani) THEY ARE ACTIONS WHICH PROCEED FROM INSIGHT AND FREE WILL. THEY ARE TO BE DISTINGUISHED FROM THE ACTS OF MAN WHICH ARE PERFORMED WITHOUT INTERVENTION OF INTELLECT AND FREE 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. FORCED ACTS ACTS, THOUGH EFFECTED WITH SOME INSIGHTS AND COOPERATION OF THE INTELLECT, ARE CARRIED OUT AGAINST A MAN’S PERSONAL DECISION AND WILL. HENRY PESCHKE S.V.D., DUBLIN: C. GOODLIFFE NEALE, 1975, P.185. UNIT II. CALLED TO HAPPINESS LESSON B: THE MORAL GOOD OF HUMAN ACTS 2. CONSTITUENTS OF HUMAN ACTS  CONSTITUENT ELEMENTS TRADITIONAL CONCEPT TRADITIONALLY A HUMAN ACT IS SUCH BASED ON THE FF: KNOWLEDGE A HUMAN ACT PROCEEDS FROM A DELIBERATE WILL WHICH REQUIRES DELIBERATION. NO HUMAN ACT IS POSSIBLE WITHOUT KNOWLEDGE. TRADITIONAL CONCEPTS FREEDOM THE ABILITY TO AFFIRM ONE’S OWN BEING IN SPITE OF ALL INTERNAL IMPULSE AND EXTERNAL PRESSURES. VOLUNTARINESS AN ACT WHICH PROCEEDS FROM FREE WILL ACTING IN THE LIGHT OF KNOWLEDGE. SINCE EVERY HUMAN ACT IS A FREE WILL ACT, EVERY HUMAN ACT IS VOLUNTARY.  KINDS OF VOLUNTARY ACT  PERFECT – done with full knowledge and full consent of the agent  IMPERFECT – done with some defect in the knowledge or consent or both  DIRECT – intended in itself by the agent  INDIRECT – not intended by the agent but is the result or effect of another act directly intended DIRECT AND INDIRECT VOLUNTARINESS DIRECT VOLUNTARINESS DIRECT VOLUNTARINESS IS PRESENT IN A HUMAN ACT WHERE THE FORESEEN RESULT OF ANOTHER ACT IS DIRECTLY WILLED BY THE PERSON. INDIRECT VOLUNTARINESS WHEN IS THE AGENT RESPONSIBLE FOR THE EVIL EFFECT OF A CAUSE DIRECTLY WILLED? ONE IS RESPONSIBLE WHEN THREE CONDITIONS ARE FULFILLED UNDER THE PRINCIPLE OF INDIRECT VOLUNTARY ACT, NAMELY: PRINCIPLE OF INDIRECT VOLUNTARY ACT THE AGENT MUST BE ABLE TO FORESEE THE EVIL EFFECT AT LEAST IN A GENERAL WAY THE AGENT MUST BE FREE TO REFRAIN FROM DOING THAT WHICH IS THE CAUSE OF THE EVIL EFFECT THE AGENT MUST BE MORALLY BOUND NOT TO DO THAT WHICH IS THE CAUSE OF THE EVIL EFFECT. PRINCIPLE OF DOUBLE-EFFECT ❖ The act must be good in itself or at least morally indifferent. ❖ The evil effect must not precede the good effect. At least, they should happen simultaneously. ❖ There must be sufficient reason for doing the act. The good effect is more important or at least equally important with the bad effect. The act is the only means of achieving the good effect. ❖ The intention of the agent must be honest. UNIT II. CALLED TO HAPPINESS LESSON B: THE MORAL GOOD OF HUMAN ACTS 3. SOURCES OF MORALITY Determinants of Morality Sources  Questions? What makes something wrong? What makes something right?  The Sources of Morality Because we have free will and reason, we are responsible for our acts and our failures to act. (sin of omission)  The Sources of Morality We can judge whether our actions are good or bad by reflecting on three traditional sources of morality: A. The object B. The intentions C. The Circumstances  The Sources of Morality A. The object Chosen (What I choose to do). B. The intention (Why I choose to do something). C. The circumstances (The what, where, when, how of my actions).  What is the Object Chosen? In morality the Object chosen is what we choose to do, the act itself. The act can have good matter, bad matter, or just be neutral. An example of a good act could be helping an old woman carry her heavy basket.  Object (finis operis) The object is the primary determinant of morality. Thus, there are objects that are good in themselves, objects that are evil in themselves and indifferent in the ideal.  What is the Object Chosen? Bad matter automatically makes an act evil. Ex: Gossiping about a classmate is consider bad matter. Spreading half truths about someone is always wrong.  Questions? What is one thing you would consider bad in itself ? What is one thing you would consider good in itself ?  The Intention (finis operantis) What is the intention? A. The motive B. The purpose C. The end for which we choose to do something.  The Intention MOTIVE It is that which the agent, doer, performer of an 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.  The Intention Our intentions answer why we acted in a certain way. Intentions can be good, bad, or mixed. Intentions determine whether our acts are morally right or wrong.  Intentions An example of a good intention: You tutor a friend because you want him or her to do well on the upcoming test. In this example, what you choose to do, the Object, and why you choose to do it are both good. The act is good.  Intentions Our intentions may also be mixed. Example: You can give money to a charity for two reasons: First, you wish to help the poor. Second, you want to be praised for your generosity.  Intentions A good intention can never turn something that is bad (the object) into something good. Ex: Robbing a bank in order to help the poor.  Intentions Good intentions can never justify choosing something that is by its nature wrong. Example: cheating to get higher grades so you can get into a good college.  Intentions Wanting to go to a good College is a worthy motive; however, cheating is a bad action. A good intention cannot make something that is bad into something good. The opposite is true.  Intentions A bad intention can turn something that is good into something bad. For instance: complementing someone just to get a letter of recommendation. In this case, one is insincere and deceitful using a person to get something you want or need. Intentions  Object and Intention Indifferent + Good GOOD = Indifferent + Evil = EVIL Good + Good = GOOD Good + Evil = EVIL Evil + Good = Evil + Evil = EVIL  Circumstances Circumstances are the how, who, when, and where of an act. It includes the act’s consequences. Circumstances can lessen or increase our responsibility for an act.  CIRCUMSTANCES Particulars of the concrete human act which are not necessarily connected with its object. They are conditions that affect an act – and may affect it morally – although they do not belong to the essence of the act itself.  CIRCUMSTANCE a condition, detail, part, or attribute, with respect to time, place, manner, agent, etc., that accompanies, determines, or modifies a fact or event; a modifying or influencing factor.  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.  Circumstances They generally answer the question who, what, where, with what means, why, how, when. They can be also classified into: Aggravating Mitigating Liberating Justifying  Circumstances Ignorance, fear, psychological, and social factors can lessen and in certain cases cancel out our responsibility for our actions.  Summary For an act to be morally good and acceptable, the object, the intention, and the circumstances must all be good. A person also has to have full knowledge of his or her actions. And free consent of the will (permission to act in a certain way). UNIT II. CALLED TO HAPPINESS LESSON B: THE MORAL GOOD OF HUMAN ACTS 4. IMPEDIMENTS TO MORALITY Impediments to human freedom are realities with which ethics and jurisprudence must reckon concerning the morality of the human act:  OBSTACLES TO VOLUNTARINESS Impairments of required knowledge IGNORANCE ERROR INATTENTION  IGNORANCE LACK OF REQUIRED KNOWLEDGE IN MAN. THE SAME IGNORANCE CAN BE: VINCIBLE - IGNORANCE THAT CAN BE DISPELLED BY REASONABLE DILIGENCE OR DUE TO CIRCUMSTANCES. - IT DOES NOT TAKE AWAY THE VOLUNTARINESS OF THE HUMAN ACT OR ITS OMISSION.  IGNORANCE INVINCIBLE THE IGNORANCE THAT MAN IS NOT ABLE TO DISPEL BY REASONABLE DILIGENCE OR DUE TO CIRCUMSTANCES. - IT PREVENTS THE HUMAN ACT FROM BEING VOLUNTARY IN REGARD TO THAT WHICH IS NOT KNOWN. THUS, THE PERSON IS INCULPABLE IN THE PERFORMANCE OF HIS ACTION.  IGNORANCE AFFECTED IGNORANCE THAT CAN EASILY BE DISPELLED BY DILIGENCE AND YET THE AGENT IS NOT MAKING SERIOUS EFFORT TO REMOVE SUCH IGNORANCE. AFFECTED IGNORANCE INCREASES THE RESPONSIBILITY OF THE PERSON.  ERROR HABITUAL PRIVATION OF KNOWLEDGE AND INSIGHT THAT IS CAUSED BY DEFICIENT EDUCATION, BAD COMPANY INFLUENCE, READING OF MISLEADING BOOKS AND PAPERS, ETC. MAN IS CHALLENGED TO OVERCOME THE ERRORS BY PERSONAL SEARCH FOR THE TRUTH SO AS TO PREVENT NEGATIVE AND MISGUIDING VIEWS.  INATTENTION AN ACTUAL, MOMENTARY PRIVATION OF KNOWLEDGE. A PERFECT HUMAN ACT IS ONLY PERFORMED WHEN FULL ATTENTION IS HAD OF WHAT ONE IS DOING. THE SAME PRIVATION DOES NOT REMOVE RESPONSIBILITY.  OBSTACLES TO FREE CONSENT Impairments to free consent PASSION OR EMOTIONS FEAR VIOLENCE HABITS OR DISPOSITIONS INFLUENCE OF UNCONSCIOUS MOTIVATION  EMOTIONS MOVEMENT OF THE SENSITIVE APPETITE WHICH IS PRODUCED BY GOOD OR EVIL AS APPREHENDED BY THE IMAGINATION. IN THIS SENSE, IT HAS NO CONNOTATION OF EVIL. EMOTIONS BECOME DESTRUCTIVE AND EVIL WHEN ITS FORCE IS NOT CONTROLLED BY REASON.  KINDS OF EMOTION ANTECEDENT EMOTIONS THAT PRECEDE THE ACTION OF THE WILL AND AT THE SAME TIME INDUCES THE WILL TO CONSENT. THIS TAKES PLACES IN INVOLUNTARY MOVEMENTS. ANTECEDENT EMOTIONS ALWAYS LESSENS VOLUNTARINESS AND SOMETIMES PRECLUDES IT COMPLETELY.  KINDS OF EMOTION CONSEQUENT FOLLOWS THE FREE DETERMINATION OF THE WILL AND IS EITHER FREELY ADMITTED AND CONSENTED TO OR DELIBERATELY AROUSED. CONSEQUENT EMOTIONS DOES NOT LESSEN VOLUNTARINESS. IT IS EITHER GOOD OR BAD. IT IS FREELY ACCEPTED OR EVEN DELIBERATELY AROUSED.  FEAR IT IS THE SHRINKING BACK OF THE MIND ON ACCOUNT OF AN IMPENDING EVIL. INASMUCH AS IT IS CAUSED BY A GRAVE EVIL WHICH ONE CANNOT ESCAPE OR BY A SLIGHT EVIL ONE CAN EASILY AVOID IT IS EITHER SLIGHT OR GRAVE. FEAR DOES NOT DESTROY VOLUNTARINESS OF ACTION; IT USUALLY LESSENS ITS GUILT AS WELL AS ITS MERITS.  VIOLENCE IT IS A COMPULSIVE INFLUENCE BY SOME EXTRINSIC AGENT COMPELLING ONE TO DO SOMETHING AGAINST HIS WILL. IT IS NOT CAUSED BY MORAL FORCE BUT ONLY BY THE COMPULSIVE FORCE OF SOME PSYCHIC OR PHYSICAL AGENT. IT CANNOT REACH THE WILL DIRECTLY. IT FORCES BODILY ACTION.  KINDS OF VIOLENCE ABSOLUTE IF THE WILL DISSENTS TOTALLY AND RESISTS AS BEST AS IT CAN. ABSOLUTE VIOLENCE EXCLUDES ANY VOLUNTARINESS FROM THE FORCED ACTIONS. THE REASON IS THAT LACK OF CONSENT PRECLUDES HUMAN ACT AND CONSEQUENTLY IMPUTABILITY.  KINDS OF VIOLENCE RELATIVE THE WILL DISSENTS ONLY PARTIALLY OR WEAKLY AND IS PERHAPS DEFICIENT IN ITS EXTERNAL RESISTANCE. RELATIVE VIOLENCE DOES NOT IMPAIR VOLUNTARINESS COMPLETELY BUT LESSENS IT. VOLUNTARINESS IS NOT COMPLETELY TAKEN AWAY SINCE THERE IS PARTIAL CONSENT OF THE WILL.  HABITS AND DISPOSITIONS THE FACILITY AND READINESS OF ACTING ON A CERTAIN MANNER ACQUIRED BY REPEATED ACTS. MAN IS NOT WITHOUT RESPONSIBILITY FOR THE DEVELOPMENT AND RETENTION OF HIS HABITS. A DELIBERATELY ADMITTED HABIT DOES NOT LESSEN VOLUNTARINESS AND ACTIONS RESULTING THEREFROM ARE VOLUNTARY AT LEAST IN CAUSE.  UNCONSCIOUS MOTIVATION THE DYNAMIC UNCONSCIOUS CAN LEAVE BEHIND LASTING ANXIETY, INHIBITIONS AND DEFENSE REACTIONS. THE BALANCED TENSION BETWEEN THE INSTINCTIVE IMPULSES AND THE “SUPER- EGO” CAN BE UPSET BY THE PERMISSIVENESS OR RIGIDITY IN UPBRINGING. SUDDEN SHOCKING EVENTS MAY EVEN MAY AFFECT OR EVEN PARALYZE GROWTH.  UNCONSCIOUS MOTIVATION DELIBERATE ACTS OF THE WILL MAY BE INFLUENCED BY THE UNCONSCIOUS. BUT TO INFLUENCE IS NOT TO COMPEL. IT EXERTS ITS PRESSURE ON THE HUMAN WILL WITHOUT NECESSARILY FORCING IT. ON THE OTHER HAND, ALLOWANCE SHOULD BE MADE FOR THE FUNCTIONING OF UNCONSCIOUS PSYCHIC MECHANISMS THAT MAY REDUCE RESPONSIBILITY.  Catholic Faith A. The Catholic Faith teaches that “wrong is wrong, even if everyone is doing it.” B. And that “right is right, even though no one else is doing it.” Catholic Faith God is going to judge us: on our COURAGE to choose what is good in ALL circumstances. 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 and The Trolley Ticket without a Organ Trafficking Woman sells Holocaust Problem seat Story daughter Survivor