FUNDAMENTAL CONCEPTS

OF ETHICS
 HUMAN ACT
• Act of man versus human act
• Human acts are those of which a man is master, which he has the power of doing or
not doing as he pleases.
• Human acts are those acts which proceed from man as a rational being, for example
observing prescribed diets, tutoring the slow learners and preparing for board exams.
• Likewise, actions which merely happen in the body or through the body without the
awareness of the mind or the control of the will are not human acts but merely acts of
man
• Examples of acts of man are breathing, blinking of eyes, dilation of pupil of the eye,
perspiring and jerking of the knee.
 THE DETERMINANTS OF THE MORALITY OF
HUMAN ACT
• In the book or rev. Coppems, s.J says that to know whether an individual
human act is morally good, three things are considered. These are called the
determinants of morality, namely, (a) the object pf the act, (b) the end, or
purpose, and ©its circumstances.
• For an act to be morally good, all three determinants must be without flaw,
according to the received axiom: “bonum ex integra causa, malum ex
quocumque defectu” which means a thing to be good must be wholly so: it
is not vitiated by any defect. ”
• The object of an act is the thing done. In reality, it is not distinct from the act
itself; for we cannot act without doing something, and that thing that is done
is the object of the act; say, of going, eating, praising, etc. The act or object
may be viewed as containing a further specification e. G., Going to church,
praising god, eating meat. Now, an act thus specified may, when considered
in itself, be good, bad, or indifferent; thus, to praise god is good in itself, to
blaspheme is bad in itself, and to eat meat is in itself an indifferent act. But
for an individual human act to be good, its object, whether considered in
itself or as further specified, must be free from all defect; it must be good, or
at least indifferent.
• The end, or purpose intended by the agent is the second determinant of an
act's morality. The end here spoken of is not the end of the work, for that
pertains to the object, but the end of the workman or agent. No matter how
good the object of an act may be, if the end intended is bad, the act is
thereby vitiated, spoiled or impaired. Thus, to praise god is good in itself,
but, if in so acting the intention would be to play the hypocrite, the act is
morally bad. This holds true whether the vicious end is the nearest, remote or
last end; whether it be actually or only virtually intended. On the other hand,
a good end, though ever so elevated, cannot justify a bad act; in other words,
we are never allowed to do evil that good may result from there. Robin hood
robbed the rich and distributed the money to the poor. No matter how noble
robin hood's intention was for robbing the rich, his act of robbing the rich is
not morally acceptable.
• THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF TIME, PLACE AND PERSONS
HAVE THEIR PART IN DETERMINING THE MORALITY OF AN
INDIVIDUAL ACT. THE MORAL CHARACTER OF AN ACT
MAY BE SO AFFECTED BY ATTENDANT CIRCUMSTANCES,
THAT AN ACT GOOD IN ITSELF MAY BE EVIL WHEN
ACCOMPANIED BY CERTAIN CIRCUMSTANCES; FOR
INSTANCE, IT IS GOOD TO GIVE DRINK TO THE THIRSTY,
BUT IF THE THIRSTY MAN IS MORALLY WEAK, AND THE
DRINK IS INTOXICATING, THE ACT MAY BE EVIL.
(COPPENS, 2017)
 ACCOUNTABILITY OF MORAL ACTS
• BASES OF MORAL ACCOUNTABILITY

Says fr. Coppens (2017): when I perform a free act one which I am
able to do or not to do, as I choose -- the act is evidently imputable to me: if
the thing is blameworthy, the blame belongs to me; if it is praiseworthy, I
am entitled to the praise. Every human act therefore, since it is a free act, is
imputable to him who performs it
• There are three bases for moral accountability, namely: knowledge, freedom
and voluntariness. These are the necessary conditions for the accountability of
actions. First, a human act must be done knowingly; second, it must be done
freely and third, it must be done voluntarily (intentional or negligent). To be
credited for a good act or held morally liable or responsible for an evil act, a
person must have done it knowingly, willingly and voluntarily. Determining
moral liability is analogous to determining criminal liability. In criminal law,
for instance, for you to be liable you must have done the criminal act
knowingly, freely and willingly. So similarly, in ethics, for you to be morally
liable, you must have done the unethical act knowingly, freely and willingly or
voluntarily.
• In other words, for you to be morally responsible for your set, you must,
first, have knowledge, that is, you are in possession of a normal mind; you
are not insane or totally ignorant, sleep-walking due to somnambulism.
Knowledge is "the awareness of or familiarity with a fact, situation, or
truth, unveiled through experience or disclosed in dialogue or encounter
with persons or things." Knowledge that stealing is wrong is the awareness
of what stealing is all about, that is, taking the property of another without
consent, as well as the awareness of violating property rights, and all other
unpleasant consequences of violating other's rights. Knowledge that stealing
is wrong is the awareness of what makes stealing wrong
• Secondly, the act is freely done. This happens when you can
exercise your power of choice. If the act you intend to do is a
choice between stealing or not stealing, then you must have the
freedom to choose which to do. Your freedom should not be
impaired by an irresistible force or uncontrollable fear. If the act
you intend to choose is testifying as to your personal
knowledge, what you saw, heard, etc, you should be free to do
so, without being subjected to an uncontrollable fear of being
silenced by death.
• Thirdly, the act must be voluntary, that is, the act is either
intentional or negligent. An act is voluntarily intended when it
is done with the aim, purpose, or goal of attaining a result. An
act is negligent when it is done voluntarily, but with out care or
precaution in avoiding the happening of a foreseeable event.
You can be morally liable either by intentional act or negligent
failure to exercise care or precaution.
 MODIFIERS OF HUMAN ACT
• There are various factors which either increase or decrease
accountability. They are called modifiers of human acts. These are
analogous to exempting, mitigating, aggravating and justifying
circumstances in criminal law. "They affect the mental or emotional
state of a person to the extent that the voluntariness involved in an
act is either increased or decreased." They are as follows: 1)
ignorance, 2) passions, 3) fear, and 4) violence. (Panizo, 1964)
• Ignorance is the "absence of knowledge." There are various degrees of
ignorance. Traditional ethics classifies them as vincible, invincible, affected,
and supine or gross ignorance. "Ignorance, whether of the law or of the facts, is
either vincible or invincible. When it cannot be overcome by the due amount of
diligence, it is invincible; otherwise, it is vincible. The latter is said to be gross
or supine when scarcely an effort has been made to remove it; and if a person
deliberately avoids enlightenment in order to sin more freely, his ignorance is
affected." The basic rule is invincible ignorance, one that is beyond one's ability
to overcome, is entirely involuntary, and hence removes moral responsibility,
vincible ignorance does not free us from responsibility
• Passion refers to positive emotions like love, desire, delight, hope,
and bravery and negative emotions like hatred, horror, sadness,
despair, fear and anger. "Antecedent passions those that precede the
act, do not always destroy voluntariness, but they diminish
accountability for the resultant act. In criminal law, the commission of
a criminal act "with passion and obfuscation" means the perpetrator is
blinded by his emotions lessening his accountability from maximum
to medium or from medium to minimum. Consequent passions are
those that are intentionally aroused and kept. They do not lessen
voluntariness, but may increase accountability." (Panizo, 1964).
• Fear is the disturbance of the mind of a person due to an impending
danger or harm to himself or loved ones. Acts done with fear is
voluntary, but acts done because of intense or uncontrollable fear or
panic are involuntary.
• Violence refers to any physical force exerted on a person by another
free agent for the purpose of compelling said person to act against his
will. Actions performed by person subjected to violence or irresistible
force are involuntary and not accountable.