CHAPTER 3: HUMAN ACT

Lesson 1: The Meaning of Human Act

ABSTRACTION
Act of Man vs Human Act
After studying the nature of the moral agent, the next step is to understand the nature of human
act itself.
According to Fr. Coppens (2017):
“Human acts are those of which a man is master, which he has the power of doing or not doing as he
pleases.”
According to Panizo (1964):
“Human acts are those acts which proceed from man as a rational being.”
Examples of Human Acts:
 Observing prescribed diet
 Tutoring slow learners
 Preparing for board exams
➡ These are acts done with reason and free will. They are performed by a moral agent (a person
who knows and chooses).

Definition Summary
Human acts are actions:
 Done freely
 Done knowingly
 Done with control of the will
 Performed by a rational being

Acts of Man (Not Human Acts)

These are actions that are:
 Not under full control of reason or will
 Done without awareness or responsibility
Examples of Acts of Man:
 Breathing
 Blinking of the eyes
 Dilation of the pupil
 Perspiring
 Jerking of the knee
Also NOT Human Acts:
 Actions of unconscious persons
 Actions of insane persons
 Actions of infants
 Actions done under physical force
➡ These are not morally accountable because there is no free will or full awareness.

DETERMINANTS OF THE MORALITY OF HUMAN ACT

To determine if a human act is morally good or bad, three factors are considered:
1. Object of the Act
2. End (Purpose)
3. Circumstances

Moral Principle (Axiom)

“Bonum ex integra causa, malum ex quocumque defectu”
➡ A thing is good only if it is entirely good; any defect makes it bad.

1. OBJECT OF THE ACT

The object is the thing being done (the act itself).
Examples:
 Going to church
 Eating meat
  Praising God
Moral Classification of Object:
 Good (e.g., praising God)
 Bad (e.g., blasphemy)
 Indifferent (e.g., eating meat)
➡ But for an act to be morally good, the object must be:
 Good OR at least indifferent
 Free from moral defect
Important Idea:
You cannot separate the act from its object because every action involves something being done.

2. END OR PURPOSE (INTENTION)

The end is the intention of the person doing the act.
➡ It is NOT the purpose of the action itself, but the purpose of the doer.
Key Rule:
A good act becomes bad if the intention is bad.
Examples:
 Praising God to show off → Bad (hypocrisy)
 Helping a neighbor out of love for God → Good

Important Moral Principle:

The end does NOT justify the means.
Example (Robin Hood):
 Stealing from the rich to give to the poor
 Intention: good (help the poor)
 Action: bad (stealing)
➡ Therefore, the act is STILL immoral

Types of Ends:
 Nearest end
 Remote end
 Last end
 Actual intention
 Virtual intention
➡ Any bad intention corrupts the act.

3. CIRCUMSTANCES
Circumstances refer to:
 Time
 Place
 Person
 Conditions surrounding the act
Effect of Circumstances:
They can:
 Increase moral goodness
 Decrease moral goodness
 Increase moral evil
 Change the moral quality of the act

Example:
 Giving water to someone is good
 BUT giving alcohol to a weak person may become bad

SUMMARY OF MORALITY
A human act is morally good ONLY if:
✔ Object is good or indifferent
✔ End (intention) is good
✔ Circumstances are appropriate
➡ If ANY ONE is bad, the act becomes morally wrong.

ADDITIONAL KEY IDEAS

Examples of Moral Objects:
 Using God’s name respectfully
 Praying sincerely
 Honoring parents
 Attending Mass
 Respecting rights and property
 Telling the truth
 Being faithful in marriage
 Having pure thoughts

Examples of Bad Intention:

 Helping someone just to boast
 Praying to be seen by others
 Fasting for show

Final Moral Rule:

A morally good act requires goodness in ALL three: object, intention, and circumstances.

Lesson 2: Accountability of Moral Act

ABSTRACTION
BASES OF MORAL ACCOUNTABILITY
According to 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
imputable to me: if blameworthy, the blame belongs to me; if praiseworthy, I am entitled to the
praise.”
Key Idea:
 Every human act is a free act
 Therefore, it is imputable (can be credited or blamed) to the person who performs it

Definition of Accountability
A person is accountable when:
 The act is free
 The act is done with knowledge
 The act is done with voluntariness
 The act proceeds from the will

Example: Judas Iscariot

Judas is morally accountable because:
 He knew what he was doing
 Jesus already said: “One of you will betray me”
 He freely chose to betray Jesus
 He was tempted by 30 pieces of silver
 He intentionally led soldiers to Jesus
 He kissed Jesus as a sign for arrest

Example Explanation
 Stealing is immoral if:
o You know it is wrong
o You do it freely (not forced)
o You intend to do it
 Example of negligence:
o Driving under the influence causing death
o Texting while driving
o Driving without license
 Accident example:
o Dropping a gun accidentally (no negligence) → not accountable
o BUT if careless with gun → accountable
 Criminal negligence:
o Firing gun during New Year causing death → immoral and punishable

IMPORTANT PRINCIPLE
Moral accountability depends on the degree of:
 Knowledge
 Freedom
 Voluntariness

Addiction Note
 Addiction (drugs, sex, power, money, etc.) weakens:
o Knowledge
o Freedom
o Voluntariness
➡ Should be treated with compassion
➡ BUT does NOT justify wrongdoing

MODIFIERS OF HUMAN ACT

These are factors that increase or decrease accountability.
They are similar to:
  Mitigating circumstances
 Aggravating circumstances
 Exempting circumstances
 Justifying circumstances in law

MAIN MODIFIERS:
1. Ignorance
2. Passions
3. Fear
4. Violence

1. IGNORANCE
Ignorance = absence of knowledge

Types of Ignorance:
1. Vincible Ignorance
 Can be overcome with effort
 Does NOT remove responsibility
2. Invincible Ignorance
 Cannot be overcome even with effort
 Removes moral responsibility

3. Affected Ignorance
 Person deliberately avoids learning truth
 Done to sin freely
 Still morally responsible

4. Supine or Gross Ignorance

 Very little or no effort to know truth
 Still responsible

Key Rule:
 Invincible ignorance → NO moral responsibility
 Vincible ignorance → STILL responsible

2. PASSIONS
Passions = emotions that affect behavior

Types of Passions:
1. Antecedent Passions
 Occur BEFORE the act
 Diminish accountability
 Example: acting out of anger or emotional disturbance
➡ Known in law as “passion and obfuscation”

2. Consequent Passions
 Intentionally aroused or maintained
 Do NOT reduce voluntariness
 May INCREASE accountability

Key Idea:
 Emotions can reduce or increase responsibility depending on control

3. FEAR
Fear = mental disturbance due to danger or harm

Types of Fear:
 Mild fear → act is still voluntary
  Intense/uncontrollable fear → act becomes involuntary

Key Idea:
 Acts done with fear = still voluntary
 Acts done under panic/extreme fear = involuntary

4. VIOLENCE
Violence = physical force used to compel someone

Key Rule:
 Acts done under irresistible force:
o Are NOT voluntary
o Person is NOT accountable

MORAL ACCOUNTABILITY FOR OMISSION

Sin of Omission
 Failing to do something that should be done
 Intentional neglect of duty

Examples:
 Not helping when you should (Good Samaritan case)
 Pilate not freeing Jesus despite knowing He was innocent
 Withholding information that could prevent harm

Key Idea:
Failure to act when you should act is morally blameworthy

KEY TAKEAWAYS
Three Bases of Moral Accountability:
1. Knowledge
2. Freedom
3. Voluntariness

General Rule:
A human act must be:
 Known
 Free
 Voluntary

Modifiers of Human Act:

 Affect accountability (increase or decrease)
 Include:
1. Ignorance
2. Passion
3. Fear
4. Violence

Important Principles:
Ignorance
 Invincible → no responsibility
 Vincible → still responsible
Passion
 Antecedent → decreases responsibility
 Consequent → may increase responsibility
Fear
 Mild fear → voluntary act
 Extreme fear → involuntary act
Violence
  Irresistible force → no accountability

FINAL SUMMARY
A person is morally accountable only when:
 They know what they are doing
 They are free to choose
 They voluntarily commit the act
Modifiers can either reduce or increase responsibility depending on the situation.

Lesson 3: Feeling as a Modifier of Moral Decision-Making

RESEARCH INSIGHT
Studies show that:
 Emotional states influence moral reasoning
 Emotions affect moral judgment
Key Findings:
 Feelings can have positive effects on decision-making
 Emotional decisions can also have negative effects

FEELINGS IN DECISION-MAKING
Definition of Feeling
Feeling is an emotional state or reaction such as:
 Joy
 Warmth
 Love
 Affection
 Tenderness

Key Idea
Up to 90% of decisions are based on emotion
We use logic mainly to justify decisions already made emotionally

Research Conclusion
 Emotional states influence:
o Moral reasoning
o Moral judgment

ROLE OF FEELINGS IN DECISION-MAKING

Feelings are:
 Instinctive responses
 Learned responses
 Reactions to moral dilemmas
They can:
✔ Help decision-making
✔ Obstruct decision-making

ADVANTAGES OF EMOTIONAL DECISION-MAKING

1. Fast Decision-Making
 Emotional decisions are quick
 Useful in emergencies or urgent situations
 Works for simple or low-risk decisions

2. Experience-Based Response
 Emotions store experiences
 Helps quick “gut feeling” decisions
 Experts often rely on intuition with high accuracy

3. Helps Final Decision

 Logic may not be enough
 Emotions help choose between equal options

4. Motivational Direction
 Emotions guide actions even against self-interest

NEGATIVES OF EMOTIONAL DECISION-MAKING

1. Justifying Wrong Decisions
 People make emotional choices first
 Then use logic to defend them

2. Overpowering Reason
 Strong emotions can override rational thinking

3. Bias and Errors

  Emotions distort judgment
 Can lead to reckless or wrong actions

4. Misleading Future Expectations

 People mispredict future feelings
 Leads to wrong decisions (projected emotions)

MORAL STATEMENTS AND EMOTIONS

Emotivism Theory
Some philosophers (emotivists) say:
 Moral statements are NOT facts
 They are expressions of emotion

Example:
“Stealing is wrong”
Emotivist interpretation:
 Means: “I dislike stealing”
 OR: “I want you not to steal”

Key Idea of Emotivism

 Moral statements are NOT verifiable like facts
 They express feelings, not truth

Example Comparison:
 “Pedro stole my cat” → factual (verifiable)
 “Pedro’s act is wrong” → emotional (not verifiable)

Philosophers of Emotivism:
 A. J. Ayer (1936 – Language, Truth and Logic)
 Charles Stevenson (1945 – Ethics and Language)

Important Principle
Emotional expressions are not true or false statements
They are like:
 Personal taste
 Preference

Latin Principle:
“De gustibus non disputandum est”
➡ There is no arguing about taste

CRITIQUE / COUNTER-ARGUMENT
Some argue:
 Moral rules CAN be tested in real situations
 Example: Theft can be proven legally
Legal Example:
To prove stealing:
 Property belongs to another person
 Taken without consent
 Evidence confirms action
➡ Therefore:
 The act is verifiable in law
BUT emotivists argue:
 This only proves “an act of stealing occurred”
 NOT that “stealing is wrong” as a universal truth

MANAGING FEELINGS
Aristotle’s Idea (Nicomachean Ethics, Book II):
“Anyone can get angry—that is easy. But to be angry with the right person, at the right time, for the
right reason, and in the right way—that is not easy.”

Key Insight:
 Anger and emotions must be:
o Properly directed
o Properly controlled
➡ Moral person = someone who manages emotions well

APPLICATION
1. Teaching and Affectivity
 Can teaching succeed without feelings?
➡ No, emotions are essential in affective learning

2. Memory and Emotion

 We remember lessons better when they:
o Touch our feelings
o Create emotional impact
➡ Emotion strengthens learning

3. Appeal to Pity Fallacy

 “Argumentum ad misericordiam” = appeal to pity
Meaning:
 Using emotion instead of logic in arguments
➡ Shows that:
 Reason and emotion must be balanced in moral decisions

KEY TAKEAWAYS
✔ Feelings can help or hinder moral decisions
✔ Properly managed feelings improve decision-making
✔ Moral decisions involve BOTH reason and emotion
✔ Effective teaching connects to emotions
✔ Ethical behavior requires emotional control

FINAL SUMMARY
Feelings are powerful in moral decision-making. They can guide us toward good choices or lead us
to mistakes. A morally responsible person is someone who balances reason and emotion and
manages feelings wisely.

Lesson 4: Reason and Impartiality as Minimum Requirements for

Morality

ABSTRACTION

MINIMUM REQUIREMENTS OF MORALITY

The minimum requirements of morality are:
✔ Reason
✔ Impartiality
KEY IDEA
Moral judgments must be supported by good reason and impartiality.

MEANING OF REASON AND IMPARTIALITY

Reason
 Mental process of thinking logically
 Based on consistency
 Avoids contradiction
 Derives conclusions from valid premises
 Avoids deception and fallacies

Impartiality
 Fairness in judgment
 Considers all individuals equally
 Avoids bias and prejudice
 Everyone’s perspective must be heard

IMPORTANT PRINCIPLE
Moral reasoning must be logical, consistent, and fair.

LOGICAL REQUIREMENTS IN MORAL REASONING

Reason avoids:
 ❌ Ad hominem (attacking the person instead of idea)
 ❌ Ad misericordiam (appeal to pity)
 ❌ Ad verecundiam (appeal to authority)
 ❌ Equivocation
 ❌ Circular reasoning
 ❌ Amphibology

KEY IDEA
Good reasoning must be:
 Consistent
 Coherent
 Objective
 Free from fallacies

IMPARTIALITY IN MORAL JUDGMENT

 Everyone’s perspective must be considered
 No monopoly of truth
 Biases and prejudices must be suspended
 All voices must be heard

KEY IDEA
Moral issues must be viewed from multiple perspectives.

7 STEPS OF SOCIAL REASONING

1. Gather facts and information
2. Determine ethical issue
3. Identify principles involved
4. List alternatives
5. Compare alternatives with virtues
6. Consider consequences
7. Make a decision

SCOTT RAE’S 7 STEPS OF MORAL REASONING

1. Gather Facts
  Clarify all information
 Ask: What do we know? What do we need to know?

2. Determine Ethical Issues

 Identify conflicting values
 Moral dilemma exists when values/virtues conflict

3. Identify Principles
 Determine relevant moral principles
 Consider sources:
o Constitution
o Culture
o Natural law
o Religion
 Compare importance of principles

4. List Alternatives
 Identify possible actions
 Include all options (even unlikely ones)
 Encourages creativity

5. Compare Alternatives with Principles

 Evaluate options using moral principles
 Eliminate unacceptable options
 Weigh values carefully

6. Consider Consequences
 Predict outcomes of each option
 Example consequences:
o Emotional impact on family
o Cultural issues
o Trust issues
o Patient outcomes

Decision Tests (Davis, 1999)

 Harm Test → Which option causes less harm?
 Publicity Test → Would I be okay if this was public?
 Defensibility Test → Can I defend this decision?
 Reversibility Test → Would I agree if I were affected?
 Colleague Test → What do others think?
 Professional Test → What would ethics board say?
 Organization Test → What would institution say?

7. Make a Decision
 Choose best possible option
 May not be perfect
 Choose least harmful outcome

KEY IDEA
Ethical decisions are often difficult and may involve sacrifice or discomfort.

VALUES CLARIFICATION
Values clarification helps determine what a person truly values.

7 QUESTIONS OF VALUES CLARIFICATION

1. Choosing Freely
 Did you choose without pressure?
2. Choosing from Alternatives
 Were there other options?

3. Choosing with Thought

 Did you think carefully about consequences?

4. Prizing the Choice

 Are you happy with your decision?

5. Public Affirmation
 Would you publicly support your choice?

6. Acting on Choice
 Are you applying your decision in real life?

7. Repeating the Action

 Do you consistently act on your choice?

RESULT
If ALL answers are YES:
➡ The choice is a product of reason

3 BIG SUMMARY QUESTIONS

1. Did you choose freely after considering alternatives and consequences?
2. Do you value and publicly support your choice?
3. Do you consistently act on your choice?

CREATIVE RESPONSIBILITY (Fr. Gorospe, 1974)

CHARACTERISTICS
1. Positive Action
 Moral response involves action

2. Creation of Response
 Response must be discovered and created

3. Choice Among Alternatives

 Many possible solutions exist

4. Community Dialogue
 Moral decisions involve society and culture
 Responsibility is both individual and collective

KEY IDEA
Moral responsibility is creative, not mechanical.

PHENOMENOLOGICAL METHOD
 Suspend judgment
 Remove biases and prejudice
 Let reality show itself

KEY TAKEAWAYS
✔ Reason and impartiality are minimum requirements for morality
✔ Moral reasoning must be logical, consistent, and fair
✔ Fallacies must be avoided
✔ Moral decisions require considering all perspectives
✔ Values clarification reveals true personal values
✔ Ethical decisions involve creativity and responsibility
✔ Moral reasoning includes both individual and social responsibility

FINAL SUMMARY
Morality requires clear thinking and fairness. A person must use reason to think logically and
impartiality to ensure fairness. Ethical decision-making involves structured reasoning, evaluation
of consequences, and awareness of personal values. True moral judgment is both rational and
responsible.

Lesson 5: The Difference Between Reason and Will

Question:
1. In what sense is an indecisive person considered a driftwood?
➡ An indecisive person is like a driftwood because:
 They do not choose or decide for themselves
 They are carried by circumstances or others’ decisions
 They lack control over direction in life

ABSTRACTION
THE MORAL PERSON
A moral person has:
 Intellect (Reason)
  Will

RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN REASON AND WILL

“The will disposes what the intellect proposes.”
Meaning:
 Reason = thinks, analyzes, gathers information
 Will = decides, chooses, acts

1. REASON
Reason is the mental faculty that:
 Conducts study
 Performs research
 Does investigation
 Gathers facts
 Uses logic and consistency
 Avoids fallacies

Output of Reason:
 Organized facts
 Evaluated information
 Logical conclusions
➡ Reason does NOT decide
➡ Reason only presents options

2. WILL
The will is the faculty responsible for:
 Decision-making
 Choosing YES or NO
 Making final judgment

Key Idea
The will is what decides what to accept or reject from what reason presents.

DECISION-MAKING AND DEVELOPMENT OF WILL

 The will develops through practice
 Even children should be trained to make choices
Examples:
 Eat or not eat
 Rice or bread
 Coffee or tea

IMPORTANT IDEA
 A “culture of choice” develops strong will
 A “spoon-feeding culture” weakens the will
 “Banking education” (memorization-only learning) does NOT develop critical thinking or
willpower

JEAN-PAUL SARTRE’S VIEW

Jean-Paul Sartre (existentialist philosopher) said:
A person is nothing until he/she makes decisions.
Key Idea:
 A person is defined by choices
 Identity = “bundle of decisions”
 Human essence is built through decisions

FREE WILL
Definition:
Free will is:
  The ability to choose among alternatives
 Unimpeded decision-making
 Self-determination

Key Idea
Freedom exists when there is power to choose and act.

HORNEDO’S VIEW OF FREEDOM (1972)

Freedom is NOT just absence of obstacles.
Instead, freedom is:
 Energy
 Strength
 Power in different dimensions

Types of Freedom:
 Physical freedom → physical strength
 Economic freedom → financial strength
 Moral freedom → moral strength

IMPORTANT IDEA
A person is NOT truly free just because there are no barriers.
➡ Freedom requires:
 Ability
 Capacity
 Strength

Example:
 Open door but no strength to walk → not truly free
 No money for bus fare → cannot exercise freedom

KEY PRINCIPLE
Freedom is an active power, not just absence of obstacles.

MORAL FREEDOM
 Moral strength = moral freedom
 Strong moral persons resist injustice
Jose Rizal Idea:
“There can be no tyrants where there can be no slaves.”

COURAGE (THE COURAGE TO BE)

Søren Kierkegaard
“Purity of heart is to will one thing.”
➡ But to will requires courage

PAUL TILLICH (1952)

Courage is:
Self-affirmation “in spite of…”
Meaning:
 Accepting yourself despite flaws
 Accepting life despite suffering

KEY IDEA
Courage = affirmation of being despite non-being (problems, suffering, limits)

EXAMPLES OF COURAGE
 Continuing life despite addiction problems
 Rising after failure
  Not giving up after setbacks
 Accepting imperfect people and society
 Working for good despite difficulties

POLITICAL COURAGE
 Promoting common good despite selfishness or corruption
 Continuing service despite opposition

DESIDERATA IDEA
“With all its sham, drudgery, and broken dreams, it is still a beautiful world.”

KEY DIFFERENCE: REASON vs WILL

REASON WILL
Thinks Decides
Gathers facts Chooses action
Uses logic Uses choice
Analyzes Commits
Proposes options Disposes (selects)

KEY TAKEAWAYS
✔ Reason and will are both essential in moral life
✔ Reason gathers and organizes truth
✔ Will makes decisions and choices
✔ A person is defined by decisions
✔ Freedom is power, not just absence of obstacles
✔ Moral strength = true freedom
✔ Courage is needed to sustain will
✔ Life requires affirmation despite difficulties

FINAL SUMMARY
Reason and will work together in moral decision-making. Reason provides understanding, while
will provides action and choice. A moral person is one who thinks clearly and decides firmly. True
freedom is not just the absence of obstacles but the presence of strength to act. Courage strengthens
the will to continue choosing good despite difficulties in life.