PHILOSOPHY 200: ETHICS

I. MORALITY OF HUMAN ACT AND MORAL ACCOUNTABILITY

Definition of Human Act

refers to “actions that proceeds from insight into the nature and purpose of
one’s doing and from the consent of free will”(Peschke 1985:247). This actions are done
with KNOWLEDGE, FREEDOM AND CONSENT. Paul Glenn defines Human acts as
“an act that proceeds from the deliberate freewill of man”. Here, the person decides and
thinks for himself or herself. How can we distinguish Human acts from Acts of Man? Acts
of man are actions that comes “naturally” even without one’s awareness while doing the
action. These actions (act of man) are done without deliberation, reflection and consent.
Thus, Acts of man are the ones we share with animals, for example, breathing, beating
of the heart, etc.

Thus, it can be rightful to say that all human acts are acts of man but not all acts
of man are human acts.

Basic Elements of Human act

1. The Act must be deliberate. It must be performed by a conscious agent who is

very much aware of what she/he is doing and of its consequences. Thus, children
who are below the age of reason, the insane, people under the heavy influence of
drugs and alcohol are said to be incapable of acting knowingly and with sufficient
knowledge.
2. The Act must be performed in freedom. It must be done by an agent who is
acting freely, with his/her own freewill. An action taken against freewill cannot be
considered as free and voluntary action. The person performing the action must
be free from any force beyond his/her control, or from any powerful influence from
outside.
3. The Act must be done voluntarily. It must be performed by an agent who decides
willfully to perform the act. The act, to be truly voluntary, must come from the core
of persons being.
Major Determinants of the Morality of Human Acts

1. The Act itself – refers to that action that is done or performed by an agent or
simply what the person does. It answers to the question, WHAT the person does.
From this standpoint there are action that can be considered, taken as they are,
as OBECTIVELY GOOD, OBJECTIVELY BAD ACTIONS. By their very nature,
rape, killing, torture, cheating, etc. are objectively bad actions. While respect,
honesty, generosity, etc. are objectively bad actions. On the other hand we have
also Indifferent actions, that necessitates motive for us to know the morality of
the act.
2. The Motive or Intention—The motive is the purpose that for the sake of which
something is done. The reason behind our acting. It answers to the question,
WHY the person performs the action?

Principles under Motive

2.1 An indifferent act can become morally good or morally evil depending
upon the intention of the person doing the action.

Talking/speaking is neither good or bad. If a person speaks to destroy

someone’s reputation, for the sake of destroying it, then it becomes bad. But
if the purpose is to let the truth be known in order to change lives for the
better, then it becomes good.

2.2 An objectively good act becomes morally evil due to a wrong motive.

The act of helping those in need, especially during this pandemic, is

objectively good, but if it is performed to be known as a charitable person to
advance personal interest, the action turns into immoral.

2.3 An objectively good act can receive added goodness, if it is done with
noble intention or motive.

The act of praying is a good act in itself. It receives added goodness when
there is the sense of gratitude from the one who performs the action.
 2.4 An objectively bad action can never become good even if it is done with
good intention

Cheating in all forms is objectively bad action, no amount of reason can

adequately justify evil actions. Let us be aware that “the end does not justify
the means”.

3. The Circumstances

Circumstances refer to the various conditions outside of the act, they are
not, strictly speaking, part and parcel of the act itself. Circumstances are
conditions that influence, to a lesser or greater degree, the morality of
Human Acts.

Four types of Circumstances

Mitigating Circumstance- Diminish the degree of moral good or evil of

the Act. Suppose to kill an innocent person is murder. But if the action is not
pre-meditated and later the doer of the action admits its guilt it diminishes the
badness of his action. In an objectively good act can be mitigated when a
person opts to tell the truth in an unlikely situation. Like telling your best
friend that her boyfriend is a cheater during their anniversary or after she
failed from an exam.

Aggravating Circumstance - increase the moral good or evil in an act

without adding a distinct species of moral good and bad. Giving food packs
during calamities is a good action. Goodness is aggravated when the doer of
the action takes the money from his personal and not from extra. The same
killing is aggravated when it is done at night and by a superior aggressor.

Justifying Circumstance- shows adequate reason for some acts done.

Principle #4 of motive provides us an understanding that an objectively bad
action can never be justified, except for killing through self-defense.

Specifying Circumstance- give a new and distinct species of moral god or

evil of the act. This circumstance deals with the relationship of the doer of
the action with the receiver of the action. E.g. the victim is younger,
classmate, father, son etc.
Modifiers of Human Actions

Modifiers of Human acts are factors and conditions that affect to a considerable
extent man’s inner disposition towards certain actions. They influence the mental or
emotional state of a person concerned to the point that the voluntariness involved in an
act is either increased or diminished.

Ignorance - The absence of necessary knowledge of the person who performs the
action. Ignorance is either vincible or invincible. Vincible Ignorance can easily be
remedied through ordinary diligence and reasonable effort on the part of the person who
is in this particular mental state. This type of ignorance is correctible. Ignorance of a
student from a given assignment is vincible since the student can easily ask from
his/her classmates. Invincible ignorance is the kind of ignorance where an
individual may have no awareness or knowledge and lacks the necessary means to
correct it. This type of ignorance is uncorrectable. A waiter in a restaurant might be
totally un aware that the food he is serving to the costumer contains harmful bacteria.

Principle governing Ignorance

a. Invincible ignorance renders an act involuntary

b. Vincible ignorance does not destroy, but lessens, the voluntariness and the
corresponding accountability over the act.

Passion-is a strong or powerful feeling or emotion like love, hatred, sadness, anger
and the like. Passions are either classified as Antecedent or consequent. Antecedent
are those that precedes the act. It may happen that a person is emotionally aroused to
perform an act. Consequent passion is the direct result of the will which fully consents
them instead of subordinating them to it(Panizo 1964:33).

Principle concerning Passion

Antecedent passion does not always destroy voluntariness but diminish accountability
for the resultant act. Thus, “crimes of passion” are voluntary but in so far as passion
interfere with the freedom of the will, one’s accountability is diminished.

Consequent passion does not lessen voluntariness, but even may increase
accountability.

Fear- is defined as “the disturbance of the mind of a person who is confronted by an

impending danger or harm to himself or herself” (Agapay 2008:36). Fear as an action
can be classified as act done with fear and acts done out of fear.
Principles governing Fear

Acts done with fear are voluntary. This is so because the person acting with fear is
acting in spite of fear. Thus, deemed voluntary.

Acts done “because of” intense fear or panic are simply involuntary. A person
performing the action under extreme fear is not morally accountable.

Violence- refers to “any physical force exerted on a person by another free agent for
the purpose of compelling the person to perform an action against his/her will(Agapay
1991:24). Violence can be Absolute or relative.

Principle that govern Violence

Any action resulting from violence is simply involuntary. When a person experiences so
much fear in the face if an unjust aggressor wo armed and extremely dangerous, he
/she is not morally responsible for his/her action.
Absolute violence excludes any voluntariness from the forced action.
Relative violence does not impair voluntariness but lessens it.

Habit- refers to the “constant and easy way of doing this acquired by the repetition of
the same act”(Panizo1964:37).

Principles concerning habit

Actions done by force of Habit is voluntary. A deliberate admitted habit does not lessen
voluntariness. Good habit of charity, for example must be pursued and try to correct the
bad ones.