ARTICLE 2.

DUTIES

a) DEFINITION OF DUTY

A duty considered objectively, i. e., as an object or thing, is anything one is obliged to do or to omit. Thus, we speak of our
daily work as our duty. Thus, too, we say, "It is your duty to do this," "It is one's duty to avoid evil companionship:" "My
duties are very numerous."

Ethics takes the term duty subjectively, i. e., as affecting the subject bound by it, and so considered duty is defined as a
moral obligation incumbent upon a person of doing or omitting (avoiding) something.

Duty is a moral obligation, i. e, an obligation resting as a requirement upon a free will. Hence, the subject of a duty is a
person, and only a person. Brute animals do not have duties. We distinguish moral obligation from physical obligation. A
person is morally obliged to assist at religious services; he is, however, not bound and carried to the service by force. A
moral obligation binds the will; and, as we say in General Ethics (Ch. 1. Art. 3, d), the will is not subject to physical
compulsion.

A duty is the correlative of a right. A right in one imposes a duty on all others of respecting it, of not violating it. Duty, like
right, is based on law.

b) DIVISION OF DUTY

1. A duty imposed by the natural law is natural; a duty which comes from positive law is positive. The duty of worshipping
God is a natural duty; as also is the duty of preserving one's life. The latter example shows us that an inalienable right is
also a duty. The duty of hearing Mass on certain feast days is a positive duty, as is the duty of paying taxes.

ii. A duty which requires the performance of an act is affirmative; a duty which requires the omission or avoidance of
something is negative. The primary requirement of the natural law, "Do good; avoid evil" gives us, in a single example, an
instance of both positive and negative duty. Again, we have the matter exampled in the Decalogue: "Honor thy father and
thy mother" is an affirmative law enjoining an affirmative duty; while negative duty is enjoined by the law, "Thou shalt not
kill." true. It

duy is iii. A duty which obliges in strict justice, and so corresponds to a perfect right, is a perfect or juridical duty. A duty
which does not obligate according to justice, but according to charity or some other virtue, and so corresponds to a
nonjuridical right, is a nonjuridical, and imperfect, or moral duty. The obligation of paying to an employee the wage agreed
upon is a perfect duty, while the duty of giving alms to the needy is a moral duty.

iv. There are greater and lesser duties, and where these seem to conflict, the lesser ceases to be a duty, and the greater
prevails. That is the greater duty (in an apparent collision) which comes from the higher power, the higher law. Thus,
duties towards God come before duties towards men, and if a parent forbids his child to hear Mass on Sunday, the duty
of obeying parent ceases, in this instance, to bind the child, while the duty towards God prevails. Similarly, if a superior
commands his subject to steal, the subject has not, in this instance, the duty of obedience, for the duty which comes from
the natural law the duty of justice prevails. stance fence, when extr grave nec sity

Again: where there is an apparent conflict of duties, that which is concerned with the graver matter prevails, while the
other ceases to be a duty. ill-gotten money to th

Finally: when there is an apparent conflict of duties, that duty prevails - the other ceasing to be a duty - which arises out
of the more solid title or claim.
To sum up: In an apparent conflict of duties the greater prevails and the lesser ceases to be a duty; and that is the greater
duty which comes from the higher law, or is concerned with the graver matter, or is grounded upon the more solid title
or claim. of cardships and in full. I Bowever

c) EXEMPTION FROM DUTY

me poverty

Duty is founded upon law. Now there is an old saying that "Necessity knows no law." What of the value of this saying in
moral matters? When there is an imminent evil that cannot be avoided except by a violation of duty, is one exempted
from the duty? In other words, does necessity exempt from duty?

We shall presently state principles which answer these questions. But first we must distinguish grades or degrees of
necessity, and we must recall a principle enunciated in General Ethics about the binding force of different laws.

There are THREE DEGREES OF NECESSITY. By necessity we mean the conflict of a duty and a danger; or, more accurately,
we mean the state in which one finds oneself when the performing a duty means enduring an evil. Now, since there are
degrees of evil to be endured, there are degrees of necessity. Thus, we distinguish extreme necessity, grave necessity, and
common or ordinary necessity.

One is in EXTREME NECESSITY when one's choice lies between duty and death, or between duty and an evil fairly
comparable with death. Thus, the Christians taken prisoner by the early persecutors, and faced with the alternative of
death or denial of their faith, were in extreme necessity. -

One is in GRAVE NECESSITY when one's choice lies between duty and a notable evil less than death, such as loss of health,
good name, or very valuable property. Thus, a man who will be considered an embezzler unless he secretly and unlawfully
employs a fund which he holds in trust for another, is in grave necessity.-

One is in COMMON or ORDINARY NECESSITY when one's choice lies between duty and the enduring or ordinary evils or
common hardships. Thus, a man of sound health who must disregard the Lenten fast or endure some weakness and
occasional headaches, is in common or ordinary necessity.

We learned that a negative law of the natural order binds always and at every moment, i. e., admits of no exception in
any circumstances whatever. We also learned that an affirmative law binds always, but not at every moment, i. e., its
prescription is to be fulfilled, but not in all circumstances; such fulfillment may, in certain circumstances, be postponed till
the adverse circumstances are changed.

We come now to the PRINCIPLES CONCERNING THE EXEMPTING FORCE OF NECESSITY

i. Common or ordinary necessity never exempts from duty. This principle needs no proof. It is evidently true. If it were
otherwise, there would be no such thing as duty at all. For duty is obligation, and obligation ordinarily involves some
measure of difficulty or selfdenial. If common necessity exempted one from duty, one might escape every duty, for it is
quite the easiest thing in the world to find a difficulty or an inconvenience in anything one does not feel inclined to do.

ii. No necessity exempts from a negative natural duty. A negative natural duty is a duty that comes from a negative law of
the natural order. It is a basic principle of Ethics, a primal demand of reason, that what is intrinsically evil may never, under
any circumstances, be lawfully done.

iii. Extreme or grave necessity exempts from a natural affirmative duty, provided there is no involved violation of a
negative precept of the natural law. The affirmative prescriptions of the natural law require definite acts of virtue as means
to man's last end. But the achieving of man's end does not require precisely this positive act of virtue at this exact moment
of time or in these precise circumstances. Hence, when extreme or grave necessity presses, man may defer the act of
virtue until the circumstance of necessity has been changed.

Thus, a man is required by the natural law to restore ill-gotten money. But if the original money has been spent and
present restitution would mean extreme or grave evil; if for example, it would mean extreme poverty for the man and his
family, loss of social position, and loss of good name, the restitution might be deferred until happier times, or, at least,
full payment might be so deferred while the man is question does all that he can to make partial payments and to prepare
himself, even at the continuous cost of common hardships and sacrifices, to make restitution in full. If, however, the
deferring of restitution would put the person to whom it is due in extreme poverty, then the withholding of payment
would be itself a violation of the negative law that forbids us to injure others, and in this case restitution, even at the
greatest cost, would have to be made.

iv. Extreme or grave necessity exempts from duty imposed by human positive law, provided there is no involved violation
of negative natural law. This is quite obvious in view of the principle just explained. For certainly that which is sufficient to
exempt from a prescription of the natural law, is a fortiori sufficient to exempt from human positive law. (Argumentum a
fortiori (pron. L'a: fo:rti'ouri:/: Latin: "from a/the stronger [thing]") is a form of argumentation which draws upon existing
confidence in a proposition to argue in favor of a second proposition that is held to be implicit in the first. The second
proposition may be considered "weaker," and therefore the arguer adduces a "stronger" proposition to support it.

PART II SPECIAL ETHICS

The following sentences should be memorized,

1. Man, as individual person, has right and duties which affect and determine his proper conduct with reference to God,
to himself, and to his fellowemen.

2. Man, as a member of human society, has rights and duties which affect him in the family, in civil, professional, and
religious society, and in international relations.

BOOK 1

INDIVIDUAL ETHICS CHAPTER 1

RIGHTS AND DUTIES ARTICLE 1. RIGHTS

a) DEFINITION OF RIGHTS

Taking the word "right" as a substantive, we may view it objectively, or as a thing, as when we say, "This is my right." "That
is his right." "The wise man will see that he gets his rights." In this sense, right is defined as that which is owed or that
which is due. Again, we may view the term right subjectively, i. e., as residing in the one who possesses it (its subject), and
thus considered, it is a moral power residing in a person, a power which all others are bound to respect- of doing,
possessing, or requiring something. It is in this subjective sense that we use the term right in Ethics.

Right is founded upon law. For the existence of a right in one person involves an obligation is all others of not impeding or
violating the right. Now, it is only law that can impose such an obligation. And whether this law, upon which right is based,
be the natural law or positive law, it is (as all true law) founded ultimately upon the Eternal Law. Hence, the ultimate basis
of right is the Eternal Law.

b) DIVISION OF RIGHT

ded upon

i. Right is natural or positive according as it is founded upon the natural law or positive law. Again, as positive law is both
divine and human, we distinguish divine right and human right. Further, according to the division of human law, we have
ecclesiastical right and civil right. The right to preserve one's life is a natural right; the right of the Church to teach is a
divine right; the rights established by Canon Law are Ecclesiastical rights/ the right of citizens to vote is a civil right. mean
the
ii. Right is also distinguished as right of property (or possession) and right of jurisdiction. The right of property is the power
one has of disposing of a thing possessed according to one's own wish or benefit: to sell, to keep, to lend, to change, to
give away. The right of property is called a right in property or possession when goods are owned, but not in hand. Thus,
my right to my books bought and paid for, but not yet delivered to me, is a right to property. - The right of jurisdiction is
the lawful power of a duly constituted superior to make laws and to govern his subjects. animals? Such treatment is
morally bad, nor be

iii. Right is alienable when its subject (i. e., its possessor) may lawfully cede or renounce it. Thus, I may renounce my right
of eating meat on a nonabstinence day; thus, too, I may renounce my right in property by giving it away. - Right is
inalienable when its subject is not free to renounce, but must retain it. Such is my right to life. operation on live

iv. Right is juridical (or perfect) when it is a legal right, a right strictly enjoined by law, natural or positive. In other words,
it is a right which must be respected, allowed, fulfilled, as a matter of strict justice. Thus, the right of my grocer to the
amount I owe him is a perfect or juridical right; so also is the right of parents to the respect of their children. - Right is
nonjuridical (or imperfect), or moral, or "a claim") when it is founded on a virtue other than justice. Such a right is very
often founded upon the virtue of charity. Thus, the right of a benefactor to gratitude, or the right of a poor man to alms,
is an imperfect or moral right, or a claim. The things that are required by seemliness or the fitness of things are the object
of imperfect right. Thus, it is seemly and fitting that we be liberal and kindly in our dealings with others: and we say that
others have an imperfect right, a claim, to such conduct on our part.

c) PROPERTIES OF RIGHT

Since right is an inviolable moral power by its very definition - for we have defined right as moral power which all are
bound to respect - we do not list inviolability as one of the properties of right. Inviolability belongs to the essence of right
as such. We list three properties of right, as follows: coaction, limitation, collision.

1. Coaction is the power which right enjoys of forcefully preventing its violation. Ordinarily the moral power call coaction
must be exercised through process of law. Between man and man (not between man and society) coaction may be
exercised by personal force or violence only when all other means have failed.

ii. Limitation is the natural terminus of right, beyond which it cannot be exercised without violating the right of another.
A right ceases to be a right at the point where it impinges injuriously upon another's right. If I wish to remove my old house
and to build a better one in its place, I may not burn my present house, though that would be the easiest way to get rid of
old and useless lumber; such an action would endanger the houses of my neighbors, that is, such an action would violate
my neighbors' right to the secure and unmenaced possession of their property.

iii. Collision is the apparent conflict of two rights in such wise that one cannot be exercised without violation of the other.
We say it is an "apparent" conflict; for a real conflict of rights cannot exist; when rights collide, the greater prevails and
the lesser ceases to be a right. All right is founded on law; all law is an ordinance of reason (when it is strictly and truly
law); and there can be no conflict between the ordinances of reason, for "it would not be reasonable for reason to
contradict itself." In apparent collision of rights, that is the prevailing right, to which the other cedes (or in face of which
the other disappears), which: (1) belongs to the more universal order; or (2) is concerned with the graver matter; or (3) is
founded upon the stronger title or claim. Thus, a soldier may place the welfare of his country ahead of his private right to
life; thus, the right to life which belongs to a man trespassing on my grounds is a greater right than my right to privacy,
and I may not take his life for the act of trespass; thus, the claim upon my charity possessed by poor relatives is stronger
than the claim possessed by other poor persons.
d) THE SUBJECT OF RIGHT

By the subject of right we mean the person who possess right.

The subject of right is a person. It is not an irrational creature. For right is a moral power, and belongs only to those that
can exercise moral acts. Therefore, brute animals have no rights. Again, we may argue, creatures that have right have
obligations; and no creature can have rights which is incapable of assuming and discharging obligations. But animals have
no capacity of assuming or discharging obligations (i. e., moral obligations, duties). Therefore, animals have no rights.

What of cruel treatment of animals? Such treatment is morally bad, not because it violates any rights that animals may
have, but because it outrages reason. Cruelty to animals does not square with the right reasonable order of things which
reason (and ultimately the moral law) demands. For this reason, cruelty to animals is morally evil.

What of vivisection (noun the practice of performing operations on live animals for the purpose of experimentation or
scientific research (used only by people who are opposed to such work)? Animals are created to man's use. Now it is a
most valuable use of animals to employ them for the furtherance of biological knowledge. Hence, vivisection is not illicit
in itself. But to inflict injury or pain upon animals where no necessity or use is served, is not reasonable; nay, it is contrary
to reason; and hence is evil.

As to sentiment about animals, especially pet animals, it is to be said that the sane treatment of them, the treatment
required by reason, is ordinary care for their needs; and with this may be associated a certain extremes are unreasonable
and hence evil: the extreme of cruelty on the one hand, and the extreme of excessive care or consideration for animals,
on the other.

The subject of rights must be capable of assuming and discharging obligations, i. e., duties. God's rational creatures have
rights and duties; and His rational creatures are men and angels. But in Ethics, the science of human acts, we consider
man as the person who is the subject of rights; and, indirectly, we must consider God as the subject of rights when we
come to consider man as having duties towards God.

CHAPTER III

MAN'S PERSONAL OFFICE

By office we mean duty or system of duties. By personal in our title we mean that which is done by and to the acting
person, the human agent. In a word, man's duties towards himself. These duties are concerned with matters of soul and
of body.

ARTICLE 1.

DUTIES OF MAN TOWARDS HIS SOUL

The soul of man has two faculties or powers or capacities for action, viz., the knowing faculty or intellect, and the choosing
faculty or will. Duties are obligations, things to be done. Hence, man's duties of soul consist in things to be done by intellect
and will.

a) DUTIES OF THE INTELLECT

Man is bound to use his faculties for the achievement of his last end; this is the law of nature; for this purpose were
faculties given, as is evident from their nature and function. Hence, man has the duty of exercising his intellect and of
perfecting it. The intellect is perfected by knowledge of truth. Some truths must be known if man is to achieve his last end
as a rational being, and some truths are not of this necessary character. Thus, we distinguish necessary knowledge, and
free or nonnecessary knowledge.
Man must, of necessity, know the truths that related to the last end and the means of achieving it. Man did not establish
this last end; he is not free to change it. The end is there to be achieved; man exists to achieve it; hence, it is distinctly "up
to man" to discover this last end and the means of reaching it. Now, the last end of man is God; and the means of reaching
God and eternal happiness in the possession of God are morally good human acts. Therefore, man must know God, and
must know what makes human acts morally good, and he must know how he himself is to maintain such goodness in his
acts. This is the body of necessary knowledge that man is bound to acquire. Hence, man must know God and the basic
prescriptions of the natural law, and his intellect must be equipped with the virtues of wisdom and prudence. Further,
man must know the special duties of his state of life and the bearing these have upon his actions towards others - for all
this is required by the general ethic in the matter, viz., "man must know what makes human acts morally good, and how
to maintain such goodness in his own acts."

Matter of free knowledge, matters in which, absolutely considered, man has no natural obligation, are history, science,
letters, and "book-learning" in general. Still, reason counsels (but does not command) the acquiring of such knowledge,
for it is rational to perfect one's faculties in every possible way. Thus, all studies of a speculative or practical nature which
have no direct bearing upon the achievement of man's end, are matters of free knowledge. Excessive devotion to such
studies, however, a devotion that would divert man from acquiring the essential and necessary knowledge which is
pertinent to the achieving of his last end, is forbidden by the natural law. In all this we are speaking absolutely, i. e.,
without taking conditions or related considerations into account. When such considerations are brought to bear, we see
that certain matters of free-knowledge become obligatory. Thus, a boy who would refuse to learn his letters or to go to
school would violate the natural law which requires obedience to parents. Again, a man who would refuse to learn a trade,
business, profession, or even the manner of performing acts of common labor, would violate the natural law which
requires him to take ordinary care of bodily life and health in himself and in his dependents, and hence, to have some
means of gaining a livelihood.

b) DUTIES OF THE WILL

As the intellect is perfected by the knowledge of truth, so the will is perfected by the quest of that which is good. Now,
the foremost good is the good of the last end. This good is,

will is to tend towards the achieving of happiness in the possession of God, and therefore, the will must tend towards or
love of God as the Supreme Good.

To attain the last end, the will must follow the rule of right reason, and must acquire a readiness in this matter. Such
readiness is acquired in the moral virtues of prudence, justice, fortitude, and temperance. These virtues are necessary to
keep the will prompt in its choice of good, and in its repression of the sudden impulses of inordinate passion which would
thwart the achievement of the limitless good and happiness.

a) LIFE

ARTICLE 2. DUTIES OF MAN TOWARDS HIS BODY

With regard to bodily life man has a twofold duty, viz., the duty of conserving it in integrity, and the duty of avoiding death,
mutilation, and needless danger. These two duties are really only two views - one positive and the other negative - of the
same duty.

Man does not own his body. God owns it. God alone has the right to dispose of it and of its life and health. Life and health
have been given to man as great blessings, as goods to be conserved and used. Like all true goods that man may possess,
life and health, and all that pertains directly to these goods, are to be used for the achievement of man's last end.
Therefore, absolutely speaking, man is bound to exercise ordinary care for the conservation of life and health. Thus, he is
obliged to maintain the integrity and perfection of his members, to take such nourishment as is required for the proper
development or maintenance of bodily life, to observe the requirements of reason in matters of cleanliness and proper
dress, to keep the senses strictly under control. These are man's positive duties with regard to his body.

Man's negative duties with regard to bodily life and health oblige him to avoid suicide, the needless mutilation of his
members, intemperance, and all unreasonable use of objects or practices that could be harmful to life or limb or bodily
health.

Suicide is self-murder. It is the direct taking of one's own life upon one's own authority. Suicide can never, under any
circumstances, be permitted. Suicide, clearly regarded as simple and direct self-murder, is absolutely contrary to the
natural law, and is never permitted. Suicide is an injury done to God, to society, and to the person committing it.

b) OTHER GOODS

Besides the goods of soul and body there are others, such as prosperity, good name, honor, external liberty, etc. These
are usually required, in greater or less measure, for the full perfection of bodily life. They are also required by the man
who has dependents. Hence, a man must have employment or some means of livelihood. He must take care of those
dependent upon him and provide for their future. He must earn a good name and achieve an honest place in the
estimation of his fellows. Thus, ordinarily, a man must exert himself to obtain a sufficiency of the good of this world.

But, apart from the necessity imposed by the duties of one's state of life, man is quite free to neglect the matter of worldly
prosperity, nay, he may find it much to his advantage to do so. For the absence of care about worldly possessions ordinarily
favors one's progress in virtue, and removes many obstacles from the path in which one must walk to attain one's last
end. Of course, it does not follow that the pursuit of honest prosperity, good name, etc., is wrong. As long as both the
matter and the manner of such a quest are kept within the moral law, they are quite licit. Goods of fortune, fame, honor,
liberty, etc., are gifts of God, though they are not gifts of the first rank. As long as they are used according to reason, and
not abused, they can be made to serve man's purpose in attaining his least end, notwithstanding the fact that they are
likely to be abused and to be a hindrance to man's true work rather than a help.