OUR LADY OF LOURDES COLLEGE FOUNDATION

Vinzons Ave., Daet, Camarines Norte, 4600 Philippines

COLLEGE OF ARTS AND SCIENCES

SECOND SEMESTER
S.Y. 2020-2021

Module in Flexible Learning

Pre-final: March 29 – April 30, 2021
GE 8 – ETHICS
LESSON 8
DEONTOLOGY (KANTIAN ETHICS)

Introduction:

Kantian Ethics is the most important theory under non-consequentialist ethics. To hold a moral conviction
means believing that it is one’s duty to do the right thing. What is duty? Why does one choose to follow
her duty even if doing otherwise may bring her more benefits?

Overview:

This lesson tackles the most influential non-consequentialist theory, The Kantian Ethics. it emphasizes the
moral role of a person which is rooted on his/her very duty as a human being.

Learning Objectives:

At the end of this module, the students are expected to:

1. understand the basic principles of deontology;

2. apply the concepts of agency and autonomy to one’s moral experience; and
3. evaluate actions using universalizability test.

PRELIMINARY TEST

REACTION PAPER: Kantian Morality: Morally desirable or not? Minimum of 3 paragraphs.

Lesson Proper:

KANTIAN ETHICS

The most important non-consequentialist o deontological ethical theory is Kantian Ethics. Deontology
comes from the Greek word deon which means “being necessary.” Hence, deontology refers to the study
of duty and obligation. The main proponent of deontology is Immanuel Kant, a German Enlightenment
philosopher who wrote the most important works on moral philosophy, Groundwork towards a
Metaphysics of Morals (1785).

For Kant, morality is a system of absolute commands to act in certain ways, that is, morality is a system
of categorical imperatives or unyielding rules of human conduct. If performing an act is a matter of duty,
then we should do it regardless of the consequences. If, on the other hand, we are prohibited by duty to
perform a certain act, then we should never do it, again, regardless of the consequences.

One of the important aspects of Kantian Ethics is its notion of MORAL WORTH. Moral worth refers to
the moral value of an act, something that makes an act morally praiseworthy. What gives acts their moral
worth? For Kant, it lies in the motive of the moral agent who performs the moral act.
Ethics – Pre-Final Modules | 1
THE MOTIVE OF THE ACT

For Kant, not all acts are equally praiseworthy. The action of a moral agent has moral value only if his
motive for acting is out of a sense of duty. (Herman: 2002, pp. 69-70). The phrase “sense of duty” simply
means the awareness of a moral agent that the act he performs is done because it is the right thing to do.
Thus, what makes two apparently dutiful acts different lies in their motive. Motive roughly means the
reason why a moral agent chooses to perform a particular course of action (for instance, my reason why I
choose to lie rather than tell the truth, or the reason why I decide to attend my classes rather than be
absent, etc.).

If an act is performed not primarily out of one’s sense of duty, but out of inclination or feeling, even if the
act is good, it is still void of any moral worth (in other words, the act even though good, is still not
praiseworthy). For example, if I help an elderly man cross the street primarily because I have a
compassion for elderly people, I am, in Kant’s view, not necessarily acting morally because I have acted
on mere inclination and out of sense of duty to help. But if, for instance, I help an elderly man because I
think it is my duty to help anyone in distress, then, my act of helping has moral worth. Hence, for Kant,
the motive of an action is far more important than the action itself and its consequences. It is not enough
to know that I helped an elderly man or I told the truth. I might have been acting out of inclination or self
interest. What matters most is when I did the right thing with the right motive: that is, I acted primarily
out of my sense of duty to help others and my duty to tell the truth.

However, it does not mean that compassion or inclination is morally undesirable. There is nothing wrong
about feeling good when we help, or when we are moved by compassion to help, as long as the “good
feeling” or the sense of compassion is not our primary reason for acting morally. What is required is to
perform an act primarily (take note, not “purely”) out of our sense of duty. For Kant, natural inclinations
such as good feelings and compassion are not stable enough to be firm grounds for morality. For instance,
if I help because it feels good to help others, helping in this case is a mere accident. I am fortunate to feel
good when I help, thus, I find it easy to help. But if helping others no longer feels good, will I continue
helping?

For Kant, we may perform a dutiful act out of sense of duty combined with inclinations and other
emotions and still preserve its moral worth, as long as the sense of duty is our primary motivation for
acting dutifully.

One reason why Kant concentrated so much on motives rather than on consequences was that he believed
that we can only be held reasonably responsible for things over which we have some control. For
instance, if, acting from me sense of duty, I attempt to save a drowning child, but accidentally drown the
child, my action can be considered moral since my motives were of the right kind: the consequences of
my actions are, in this case, unfortunate, but irrelevant to the moral worth of what I did.

KANTIAN MAXIMS

Kant says that we can only discuss the motive of a moral agent when the moral agent presents a maxim.
Our motive for acting is a very personal one, no one can access it aside from ourselves. For instance, if I
help Mr. X, I’m the only one who knows the reason why I’m helping. Others can only guess my reasons
for helping Mr. X, but any discussions would only be speculative. But if I state my reason in a clear and
understandable manner why I’m helping Mr. X, only then can people appropriately discuss my motives.
We can therefore say that maxims are the verbal expressions of a moral agent’s reasons for acting.

Ethics – Pre-Final Modules | 2

However, Kantian maxims are not the same as our usually constructed ones like, “I’m helping Mr. X
because I expect him to pay me in return for my services,” rather, they are reason presented in a particular
way. Maxims usually take the form of, “to always do action A when in circumstance B.” so for instance,
if I propose to help Mr. X because I expect some financial reward, the maxim of my action has this form:
“to always help when you expect to be financially rewarded for your troubles.” If I want to help Mr. X
because helping others makes me feel good, then my other possible maxim for helping Mr. X would be,
“to always help those in need when helping feels good.” But if I desire my act of helping Mr. X to have a
moral worth, that is, for my helping act to be praiseworthy, I may propose this maxim: “to always help
those in need because it is a duty to do so.”

The Kantian Maxim is a subjective principle underlying the actions of a moral agent.

THE CATEGORICAL IMPERATIVE

Kant believed that as rational human beings, we have certain duties. These duties are categorical, in other
words, they are absolute and unconditional – duties such as “you ought always to tell the truth” or “you
ought never to kill anyone.” They apply whatever consequences might follow from obeying them. If
stealing, for instance, is wrong, then one should never steal regardless of the gravity of the need that
pushes one to steal.

Although Kantian imperatives (or moral rules) are absolute, they are not arbitrary. They are laws
discovered by reason. Kant contrasts categorical duties (duties we ought to do unconditionally) with
hypothetical ones. Hypothetical duties tell you what you ought or ought not to do if you want to achieve a
certain goal. A hypothetical duty is therefore merely conditional duty.

For example, “if I want more customers, then I ought to be more honest in my dealings with them,” or “if
I want to be trusted, then I ought to tell the truth.” But for Kant, moral duties are never hypothetical. “I
ought to be honest and I ought to be truthful because it is the right thing to do, or, it is my duty to be so.”
But how do we precisely know if an act is our duty or not? Kantian ethics provides two principles or
formulas to guide us in determining our categorical duties.

THE PRINCIPLE OF UNIVERSALIZABILITY

The principle of universalizability says: “act only according to that maxims whereby you can at the same
time will that it should become a universal law.” This principle declares that we have a duty to do only
those actions whose maxims we are willing to let other people use to justify the same proposed actions in
similar circumstances. To make the presentation of this principle as simple as possible, and I think, we
can do this by employing two simple tests: Contradiction in Conception Test and The Reversalizability
Test.

Contradiction in Conception Test. This test requires that the maxim of a proposed action should
not contradict itself once it is conceived as a universal law of conduct. Once we cannot will, or if we
don’t like to, the maxim underlying our proposed action to be a universal law of conduct, we are bound
by duty not to perform it regardless of the consequences. This test follows four simple steps:

1. Determine the maxim of your proposed course of action. Remember that a “maxim” refers to the
reason underlying an act which is presented in law-like form;
2. Imagine a hypothetical world where all people perform the maxim all the same time;
3. Decide if the result is desirable. In other words, if you would like the imagined state of affairs
actually happening in the real world.

Ethics – Pre-Final Modules | 3

 4. If your answer in step three is yes, then it would be fine to do your proposed action. If the answer
is no, then it is your categorical duty never to perform ir regardless of the consequences.

The Reversalizability Test. It evaluates a proposed action through the reversalizability test. This
test asks one simple question: “Would I want other people do my proposed action to me?” if we like the
idea of other people doing the act, then it would be fine to do it, but if we don’t, then it is our duty not to
do it. The test tells us to imagine reversing the situation.

THE PRINCIPLE OF HUMANITY

Kant, in his well-known work, Groundwork to any future Metaphysics, says that man is a rational being
whose existence has in itself an absolute worth – something that exists as an end in himself and not
merely as a means to be arbitrarily used by anyone. This is the basis upon which he formulated his
famous version of the categorical imperative, the Principle of Humanity:

“Act in such a way that you treat humanity whether in your person or in the person of
another, always at the same time as an end and never merely as a means.”

Our sense of self-worth or our sense of dignity demands that we should always be treated with respect. As
one of the foundations of Kantian Ethics, this principle is expectedly unconditional, that is, regardless of
the goodness of the purpose or of the consequences, any act that degrades the dignity of human beings (or
treats them merely as a means to an end), is always wrong. It is in this context where the expression, “the
end does not justify the means” make sense.

KANT AND HUMAN EMOTION

Kant rightly warns us that what we feel to be right is sometimes not necessarily the right thing to do.
Feelings or emotions are not sure guides for morality. Our emotions and passions, or our sense of
involvement, most often blur the objectivity and soundness of our moral judgments. Sometimes what
deters us from doing the right thing is our fear of the perceived unpleasant consequences of doing the
right thing. But mistakes are mostly done at the height of human emotions, and acts are mostly regretted
when sadness, excitement, anger, or joy deserts our hearts.

By removing the element of emotion and temporarily removing personal interests from our minds, no
doubt, we can conclude that unethical acts must be avoided. For Kant, such strengthening of one’s moral
character is only possible if we train our will to listen to human reason, and not to the passing desires of
human emotions.

STRENGTHS OF KANTIAN ETHICS

The strongest and the single most important contribution of Kantian Ethics is its emphasis on the
unconditional respect for human rights and dignity. Regardless of the nobility of the actual or perceived
end of an act, if it violates the rights and dignity of man, that is, if it exploits human beings as a mere
means to an end, the act is unethical. Our sense of dignity cannot be bargained for anything for any
reason.

The significance of Kantian ethics also lies in its teaching about the dangers of relying too much on our
emotions when making moral judgments. It tells us to control our passions by making our will listen to
the dictates of good reason. It advises us to develop a strong and determined will to be unfaltering in our
adherence to our duty to do the right thing at all times, regardless of the consequences.

Ethics – Pre-Final Modules | 4

CRITICISM OF KANTIAN ETHICS

A major criticism is that Kantian Ethics provides unrealistic or unachievable rules of conduct. Unrealistic
because its cold objectivity or its indifference to human emotions detaches it from everyday realities.
Unachievable because it sets a very high standard of morality which accepts no exemptions. It is unfairly
asks for moral perfection from an imperfect man. Few seriously expect that we can really convince a
desperate mother not to steal by invoking the principle of universalizability. Kant downplays the role of
human sentiments or emotions, which in the real world of real people exert the most powerful motivation
for action.

Kantian theory apparently fails to appropriately provide a solution to moral cases where duties come in
conflict with each other. For instance, if we are asked to tell the truth, but in so doing it will endanger the
life of a friend, what should we treat as a moral duty, to tell the truth or to save human life?

LEARNING ASSESSMENT:

Case Analysis: Try to work the case below.

BABY JANE

The year is 1864, and hundreds of Indians raid a frontier village in Louisiana. Several
members of the village fearfully hide. One woman, named Mrs. Smith, has by her side her
three young children, and in her arms, her baby daughter, Jane. As some Indians draw close,
baby Jane begins crying. Mrs. Smith, fearing for the lives of her other children and the lives of
several other people hiding with them, thinks of choking baby Jane rather than risk giving
away their hiding place and thereby ensuring death for them all. With time running out, should
Mrs. Smith do her proposed course of actions?

Questions:

1. What is the possible maxim underlying the action of Mrs. Smith?

2. Using the contradiction in conception test, was the act of Mrs. Smith planning to choke baby
Jane moral or immoral? Follow the four simple steps.
3. Using the reversalizability test, was the act of Mrs. Smith moral or immoral? Provide a clear
and detailed assessment showing how you derived your answer. Employ clearly the
reversalizability test.
4. If you were Mrs. Smith. Would you do what she is planning? Why? Provide reasons.

LESSON 9
UTILITARIANISM

Introduction:

Utilitarian Ethics is the most important theory under consequentialist and the bitterest opponent of
Kantian Ethics. this moral theory holds that the greatest number of people is the test of right and wrong.

Overview:

This lesson tackles the most influential consequentialist theory. It measure the morality of the action
based solely on its consequence.

Ethics – Pre-Final Modules | 5

Learning Objectives:

At the end of this module, the students are expected to:

1. discuss the concept underlying Utilitarian theory;

2. acknowledge the concept of utilitarian happiness; and
3. evaluate moral situations using Utilitarian theory.

PRELIMINARY TEST

REACTION PAPER: The Utilitarian Morality: Morally desirable or not? Minimum of 3 paragraphs.

Lesson Proper:

UTILITARIAN ETHICS

Utilitarian ethics was first introduced by Jeremy Bentham and James Mill in 18 th century and was later
popularized by John Stuart Mill. This theory of morality argues that what makes an act right is its
consequences. If the act has resulted good consequences, then it is moral, if not, then it is immoral.

THE INSIGNIFICANCE OF MOTIVES

If Kantian ethics accentuates the importance of motives and completely ignores the significance of the
consequences, Utilitarian ethics, on the other hand, emphasizes the significance of the consequences of an
act and completely disregards the role of motives. Utilitarianism judges actions to be right or wrong
solely according to their consequences, regardless of the intention.

The reason why utilitarianism underscores the importance of motives lies in its conviction that motives
are known only by the person who has them. If motives alone make human acts good or bad, right or
wrong, then it would be difficult, if not impossible for other people to praise or to blame a moral agent for
his/her action.

The other serious problem associated with putting too much emphasis on moral motives is the unstable
foundation of determining moral responsibility or accountability of moral agents. Motives are difficult or
impossible to know with a ‘comfortable’ degree of certainty. Unlike in the case of motives, identifying
consequences of an act is not guesswork. If an act causes injury, we immediately see that something was
wrong and that someone must be held responsible for it.

UTILITARIAN ‘HAPPINESS’

John Stuart Mill claims that human beings naturally pursue happiness and avoid pain or suffering.
Because man naturally seeks happiness and avoids pain, he concluded that happiness is what constitutes
the moral good, while pain constitutes the moral evil. Hence any act that promotes happiness is moral,
while those that cause pain is immoral.

Utilitarian happiness is not simply the happiness of one person, but rather, the general or cumulative
happiness of the greater number of people. The reason is quite simple: the greater the number of people
becoming happy, the greater the amount of happiness becomes. If happiness is good, then the greater its
amount, the more desirable it becomes. A utilitarian moral analysis of acts therefore involves the
calculation of consequences: “act only if it promotes the greatest amount of happiness for the greatest
number of persons.”

THE PRINCIPLE OF UTILITY

Like Kantian Ethics, Utilitarian ethics also prescribes a categorical or unyielding rule for human conduct:
Ethics – Pre-Final Modules | 6
 “Always perform only those acts that best promote the most happiness for the greatest
number of people.”

Utilitarian philosophers call this moral rule the Principle of Utility or Greatest Happiness Principle. This
simply means that when we are faced with a moral dilemma, we are advised to do only those actions that
most probably will result in the greatest amount of happiness for the greatest number of people. This
principle puts emphasis on the happiness not necessarily of the agent deciding on what to do, but rather,
the greatest possible amount of happiness for all those who will be directly affected by the decision. This
means that even the happiness of the agent or the doer of the moral act must be sacrificed if it is contrary
to the happiness of the greatest number of persons.

STRENGTHS OF UTILITARIAN ETHICS

Though many would disagree with the major ideas of Utilitarian ethics, it is undeniable that its
application could lead to some positive results. In democratic societies, Utilitarian ethics provides a very
strong justification for people’s popular demands like the demands for better standards of living, better
government services, a better peace and order situation, etc.

Utilitarian morality can also be a philosophical tool in challenging the ethics of economic realities of
society. For instance, it generally criticizes why the wealthy few are the ones who enjoy a better life,
while the poor suffer in subhuman conditions.

CRITICISMS ON UTILITARIAN ETHICS

While the strengths lie in its emphasis on the general welfare of human beings, it is also the cause of its
own major weakness. Utilitarian theory treats everything as conditional and subservient to utility:
unethical acts like lying, stealing, or breaking a promise become morally good if these promote, the
utilitarian end. Utilitarian ethics causes moral agents to lose a very important aspect of human relations;
personal integrity.

LEARNING ASSESSMENT:

Make your answers brief and direct. You may use bond paper or yellow pad for your answer.

1. Do you agree with the Utilitarian idea that the measure of morality is the number of people?
2. Using Utilitarian Ethics in the case of Mrs. Smith (See Learning Assessment in Lesson 8), is the
plan of choking baby Jane morally good or not? Explain your answer.
3. Cite a concrete situation wherein Utilitarian Ethics is being used in assessing moral case.

LESSON 10
NATURAL LAW

Introduction:

Another interesting moral theory that made an influence in the field of Ethics is the Natural Law
conceptualized by a medieval philosopher, St. Thomas Aquinas. It has to be recognized, however, that
this natural law theory is part of a larger discussion, which is his moral theory taken as a whole. This
theory is part of a larger project, which is Aquinas’ vision of the Christian faith.

Overview:

In this lesson, we will discuss another interesting ethical theory, Natural Law, that would prescribe us on
how to act morally.

Ethics – Pre-Final Modules | 7

Learning Objectives:

At the end of this module, the students are expected to:

1. identify the natural law in distinction from the other types of laws;
2. acknowledge the concept of Natural Law in everyday living; and
3. evaluate moral situations using Natural Law.

PRELIMINARY TEST

REACTION PAPER: Aquinas’s Natural Law: Morally desirable or not? Minimum of 3 paragraphs.

Lesson Proper:

THOMAS AQUINAS (1225-1274)

Hailed as a doctor of the Roman Catholic Church, Thomas Aquinas was a Dominican friar who was the
preeminent intellectual figure of the scholastic period of the Middle Ages, contributing to the doctrine of
the faith more than any other figure of his time. His Summa Theologiae, Aquinas’ magnum opus, is a
voluminous work that comprehensively discusses many significant points in Christian theology. He was
canonized in 1323.

THE CONTEXT OF THE CHRISTIAN STORY

The fundamental truth maintained and elaborated by Aquinas in all his works is the promise right at the
center of the Christian faith: that we are created by God in order to ultimately return to Him. The structure
of his magnum opus Summa Theologiae follows the trajectory of this story.

There are three parts to the Summa Theologiae, a voluminous work of Aquinas:

1. Aquinas speaks of God, and although we acknowledge that our limited human intellect cannot
fully grasp Him, we nevertheless are able to say something concerning His goodness, His might,
and His creative power.
2. Deals with man or the dynamic of human life.
3. Focuses on Jesus as our Savior.

Given that our concern here is question of ethics, it would seem clear that what would be of greatest
interest to us is the second part or the section of this story that centers on human life and its striving
toward God.

THE CONTEXT OF AQUINAS’S ETHICS

A full consideration of Aquinas’s ethics would require us to explore his discussion of other matters, such
as how, in our pursuit of happiness, we direct our actions toward specific ends. We might explore how
emotions – “the passions” – are involved in this process, and therefore a proper order if they are to
properly contribute to a good life. We might explore how our actions are related to certain dispositions
(often referred to as “habits”) in a dynamic way since our actions both arise from our habits and at the
same time reinforce them. We might explore his discussion of how we develop either good or bad habits
with a good disposition leading us toward making moral choices, thereby contributing to our moral virtue,
and a bad disposition inclining us toward making immoral choices, bringing us to vice. The Christian life,
therefore, is about developing the capacities given to us by God into a disposition of virtue inclined
toward the good.
Ethics – Pre-Final Modules | 8
Aquinas also puts forward that there is within us a conscience that directs our moral thinking. This does
not refer to some simple intuition or gut feeling. For Aquinas, there is a sense of right and wrong in us
that we are obliged to obey. However, he also adds that this sense of right and wrong must be informed,
guided, and ultimately grounded in an objective basis for morality.

So, we are called to heed the voice of conscience and enjoyed to develop and maintain a life of virtue.
However, these both require content, so we need something more. We need a basis for our conscience to
be properly informed, and we need a clearer guidepost on whether certain decisions we make us lead
toward virtue or vice. Being told that one should heed one’s conscience or that one should try to be
virtuous, does very little to guide people as to what specifically should be done in a given situation. Thus,
there is a need for a clearer basis of ethics, aground that will more concretely direct our sense of what is
right and wrong. For Aquinas, this would be the Natural Law.

We can recall how the ethical approach called the divine command theory urges a person toward
unthinking obedience to religious precepts. Given problems of this simplistic approach to ethics, we can
contrast how the moral theory of Aquinas requires the judicious use of reason. In doing so, one’s sense of
right and wrong would be grounded on something stable: human nature itself.

We will start by exploring how Aquinas restates the Christian message, making use of a philosophical
vocabulary appropriated from the ancient Greeks. We then look at how Aquinas speaks of the essence and
also the varieties of law. For there, we will be able to explore the precepts of the natural law.

THE GREEK HERITAGE

NEOPLATONIC GOOD

God creates. This does not only mean that He brings about beings, but it also means that He cares for, and
thus governs, the activity of the universe and of every creature. This central belief of the Christian faith,
while inspired by divine revelation, has been shaped and defined by an idea stated in the work of the
ancient Greek philosopher Plato, which had been put forward a thousand years before Aquinas. He is
credited for giving the subsequent history of philosophy in one of its most compelling and enduring ideas:
the notion of a supreme and absolutely transcendent good.

In his work The Republic, Plato was trying to answer questions such as, “Why should I bother trying to be
good?” and “Why cannot ‘good’ be just whatever I say it is?” His answer, placed in the mouth of the
main character Socrates, is that the good is real and not something that one can pretend to make up or
ignore. Socrates, in discussing this, elevates the notion of the good to unprecedented heights:

The Idea of the Good

excerpt from The Republic
Plato

“In like manner the good may be said to be not only the author of knowledge to all things known,
but of their being and essence, and yet the good is not essence, but far exceeds essence in dignity
and power.”

Readers of The Republic have long been baffled by this enigmatic passage and are still trying to figure out
how exactly to interpret it. Rather than be dismissed, this idea of the good – a good which is prior to all
being and is even the cause of all being – will become a source of fascination and inspiration to later
thinkers even to this day.

Ethics – Pre-Final Modules | 9

In the hands of Neoplatonists, Plato’s idea of good, which is the source of all beings, becomes identified
with the One and the Beautiful. This is the ultimate reality, which is the oneness that will give rise to the
multiplicity of everything else in the cosmos. All these beings have a single goal, which is to return to that
reality.

The Good and the One

Excerpt from the Enneads
Plotinus

“Now it is clear that we cannot possess ourselves of the power of this principle in its concentrated
fullness: so to do one must be identical with it: but some partial attainment is within our reach.”

ARISTOTELIAN BEING AND BECOMING

In Aristotle’s exploration of how to discuss beings, he proposes four concepts which provide a way of
understanding any particular being under consideration. Any being, according to Aristotle, can be said to
have four causes.

1. Material Cause. We recognize that any being we can see around is corporeal, possessed of a
certain materiality or physical “stuff”. A being is individuated – it becomes the unique, individual
being that is – because it is made up of this particular stuff.
2. Formal Cause. We also realize that this material takes on a particular shape: so a bird is different
from a cat, which is different from a man. The “shape” that makes a being a particular kind can
be called its form.
3. Efficient Cause. We also realize that a being does not simply “pop up” from nothing, but comes
from another being which is prior to it. Parents beget a child. A mango tree used to be a seed that
itself came from an older tree. A chair is built as the product of a carpenter.
4. Final Cause. Being has an apparent end or goal, a chair to be sat on, a pen for writing, a seed to
become a tree, or a child to become an adult.

Identifying these four causes gives a way to understand any being.

In addition to describing a being, Aristotle also has to explain to us the process of becoming or the
possibility of change that takes place in a being: The Potency and Actuality. A being may carry within
itself certain potentials, but these require being actualized. A puppy is not yet a full-grown dog. These
potencies are latent in the puppy and are actualized as the puppy grows up and achieves what it is
supposed to be. The process of becoming – or change – can thus be explained in this way.

SYNTHESIS

The idea of transcendent good prior to all being resurfaces in Aquinas in the form of the good and loving
God, who is Himself the fullness of being and of goodness; as Aquinas puts it, God is that which
essentially is and is essentially good. So, we recognize that all beings are only possible as participating in
the first being.

Insofar as God is that from which all beings come, it is possible for us to speak of Him as the first
efficient cause. Insofar as God is that toward which all beings seek to return, it is possible for us to speak
of Him as the final cause.

However, while beings are good because they are created by God, the goodness possessed by being
remains imperfect. “For Aquinas, only God is perfect; all other beings are participating in this goodness,

Ethics – Pre-Final Modules | 10

and are good to that extent, but are imperfect since they are limited in their participation.” God did not
create us to simply be imperfect and to stay that way as He leaves us alone. Instead, God directs how we
are to arrive at our perfection.

The unique way that we have been created can be called our nature. Coming from God, it is good, but in
its limitations, it has yet to be perfected. This perfection means fulfilling our nature the best we can, thus
realizing the potencies that are already present in our nature. Given that we are beings with capacity for
reason, our way of reaching God is by knowing and loving him.

ESSENCE OF THE LAW

As rational beings, we have free will. Through our capacity for reason, we are able to judge between
possibilities and to choose to direct our actions in one way or the other. There are many possible desirable
ends or goods. However, just because we think that a certain end is good and is desirable does not
necessarily mean it is good. Acts are rightly directed toward their ends by reason. But this does not
simply mean that through reason we can figure out how to pursue something that we already had.

Aquinas reminds us that this will not do; we cannot simply act in pursuit of our own ends or good without
any regard for other people’s ends or good. We are not isolated beings, but beings who belong to a
community. Since we belong to a community, we have to consider what is good for the community as
well as our own good. This can be called the common good.

What exactly the common good might not always be easy to determine as there are many variables to
consider. It is good for us to not simply be free to act in whatever way we like. We should recognize the
proper measure or the limits in our actions. The determination of the proper measure of our acts can be
referred to as law.

Using a simple example, we can think of traffic rules. A motorist cannot just drive in any way he likes,
but must respect traffic rules. These rules seem to measure or place a limit on his driving. Such a limit or
such rule is something good, for both him and for others as it helps prevent motor accidents.

A law, therefore, is concerned with the common good.

Now, in thinking about a community, what if we thought more grandly, not just a small group or country?
Is there someone in charge of this community, guiding all toward their common good and directing all
with His wisdom?

VARIETIES OF LAW

1. Eternal Law – refers to what God wills for creation, how each participant in it is intended to return to
Him. We must recognize that we are part of eternal law and we participate in it in a special way.
2. Natural Law – the human being participates more fully and perfectly in the law given the capacity
for reason. It refers to our natural inclination to our proper act and end: and this participation of the
eternal law in the rational creature.
3. Human Law – refers to all instances wherein human beings construct and enforce laws in their
communities.
4. Divine Law – refers specifically to the instances where we have precepts or instructions that come
from divine revelation. For example the Ten Commandments.

Ethics – Pre-Final Modules | 11

 NATURAL LAW

We may now turn to the specifics concerning the natural law.

Three Natural Inclinations of Man:

1. In Common with Other Beings. We have to consider how we are both unique and at the same time
participating in the community of the rest of creation. Aquinas identifies first that there is in our
nature, common with all other beings, a desire to preserve one’s own being. A makahiya leaf folds
inward and protects itself when touched. A dog tries to run away when it feels threatened. Similarly,
human beings have that natural inclination to preserve human life. We can thus say that it would be a
violation of the natural law, and therefore unethical to take the life of another. Murder would be a clear
example of a violation of the natural law. Taking one’s own life would be unacceptable, even in the
form of physician-assisted suicide.
2. In Common with Other Animals. Aquinas then goes on to say that there is in our nature, common
with other animals, a desire that has to do with sexual intercourse and the care of one’s offspring or
emergence of new life. An ethical issue that is hotly contested in some parts of the world is whether
abortion is acceptable. For the stance of natural law, the act of preventing the emergence of new life
would be considered unacceptable. Not so controversial, perhaps, would be the claims that they are
properly fed, sheltered, and educated. On the other hand, it is bad to abuse the young, to force children
into hard labor or to deprive them of basic needs or otherwise abuse them in physical or emotional
way.
With regard to the sexual act, the moral judgments get more volatile/changeable. This argument seems
to provide ground for rejecting various forms of contraception since these allow the sexual act to take
place, but inhibit procreation. This also seems to justify the claim that any form of the sexual act that
could not lead to offspring must be considered deviant. One of these is the homosexual act.
To explain, Aquinas writes “. . . certain special sins are said to be against nature; thus contrary to
sexual intercourse, which is natural to all animals, is unisexual lust, which has received the special
name of the unnatural crime.”
3. Uniquely Human. It states that we have an inclination to good according to the nature of our reason.
With this, we have a natural inclination to know the truth about God and to live in society.

LEARNING ASSESSMENT:

Make your answers brief and direct. You may use bond paper or yellow pad for your answer.

1. Cite one specific law that clearly cares for common good. Give concrete example related to that law.
2. Go online and look for the news or moral issue that clearly violates Natural Law of Aquinas. Cut out
and paste the said news/moral issue. Cite your reference.
3. What are the reasons why the news or moral issue violates Natural Law?
4. Does using contraceptive violate natural law or not? Explain.

LESSON 11
VIRTUE ETHICS

Introduction:

Previous lessons emphasized different aspects of ethics: consequences of an act for utilitarianism, natural
inclinations for natural law, and motives of the act for deontology. Another important theory that can

Ethics – Pre-Final Modules | 12

possibly provide a comprehensive understanding of how an individual can develop moral character is
Virtue Ethics.

Overview:

In this lesson, we will discuss another interesting theory, Virtue Ethics, which focuses on the
development of virtues towards the development of moral character.

Learning Objectives:

At the end of this module, the students are expected to:

1. discuss the meaning and basic principles of virtue ethics;

2. distinguish virtuous acts from non-virtuous acts; and
3. apply Aristotle’s ethics in understanding the Filipino character.

PRELIMINARY TEST

REACTION PAPER: Aristotle’s Virtue Ethics: Morally desirable or not? Minimum of 3 paragraphs.

Lesson Proper:

ARISTOTLE (384-322 BCE)

Aristotle was born in Macedonia and studied philosophy under Plato in Athens. He was considered to be
the brightest among Plato’s students in the former’s school, the Academy. He later founded his own
school, Lyceum, where he became a very productive intellectual, having written numerous works on
different topics such as the theoretical and practical sciences and logic. He was also known to be the tutor
of Alexander the Great who tried to conquer the world. Aristotle’s Nicomachean Ethics is his major work
in moral philosophy.

VIRTUE ETHICS

Virtue ethics is the ethical framework that is concerned with understanding the good as a matter of
developing the virtuous character of a person. If focuses on the formation of one’s character brought
about by determining and doing virtuous acts.

HAPPINESS AND ULTIMATE PURPOSE

Aristotle begins his discussion of ethics by showing that every act that a person does is directed toward a
particular purpose, aim, or what the Greeks called telos. There is a purpose why one does something, and
for Aristotle, a person’s action manifests a good that she aspires for. A person will not do anything which
is not beneficial to her. For Aristotle, the good is considered to be the telos or purpose for which all acts
seek to achieve.

There are hierarchy of teloi (plural form of telos), but Aristotle asks about the highest purpose, which is
the ultimate good of a human being. Aristotle discusses the general criteria in order for one to recognize
the highest good of man. First, the highest good of a person must be final. As a final end, it is no longer
utilized for the sake of arriving at a much higher end. Second, the ultimate telos of a person must be self-
sufficient. Satisfaction in life is arrived at once this highest good is attained. Nothing else is sought after
and desired, once this self-sufficient goal is achieved, since this is already considered as the best possible
good in life.

Ethics – Pre-Final Modules | 13

So, what is the highest good for Aristotle? What goal is both final and self-sufficient? According to
Aristotle, the ultimate goal of man is happiness or Eudaimonia for the Greeks.

One can therefore say that happiness seems to fit the first criterion of being the final end of a human
being. For it is clear that conditions for having wealth, power, and pleasures are not chosen for
themselves but for the sake of being a means to achieve happiness. Happiness is self-sufficient end. It is
the only self-sufficient aim that one can aspire for. No amount of wealth or power can be more fulfilling
that having achieved the condition of happiness.

VIRTUE AS EXCELLENCE

Achieving the highest purpose of a human person concerns the ability to function according to reason and
to perform an activity well or excellently. This excellent way of doing things is called virtue or arête by
the Greeks. Aristotle is quick to add that virtue is something that one strives for in time. One does not
become an excellent person overnight. Being virtuous cannot be accomplished by a single act.

A morally virtuous man for Aristotle is someone who habitually determines the good and does the right
actions. Moral virtue is acquired through habit. Being morally good is a process of getting used to doing
the proper act. The saying “practice makes perfect” can be applied to this aspect of a person.

Therefore, for Aristotle, a person is not initially good by nature. Any craft that one does can be perfected
by habitually doing the right action necessary to be good in a particular craft.

The same is true with moral virtue. A moral person habitually chooses the good and consistently does
good deeds. It is in this constant act of choosing and doing the good that a person is able to form her
character. It is through one’s character that others know a person.

MORAL VIRTUE AND MESOTES

Based on Aristotle, a morally virtuous person is concerned with achieving her appropriate action in a
manner that is neither excessive nor deficient. In other words, virtue is the middle or the intermediary
point in between extremes.

A morally virtuous person targets the mesotes. For Aristotle, the task of targeting the mean is always
difficult because every situation is different from one another. Thus, the mesotes is constantly moving
depending on the circumstance where she is. The mean is not the same for all individuals. As pointed out
by Aristotle, the mean is simply an arithmetical proposition. Therefore, the task of being moral involves
seriously looking into and understanding a situation and assessing properly every particular detail relevant
to the determination of the mean.

Mesotes determines whether the act applied is not excessive or deficient. Aristotle provides examples of
particular virtues and the corresponding excesses and deficiencies of these. This table shows some of the
virtues and their vices:

Excess Middle/Mean Deficiency

Impulsiveness Self-control Indecisiveness
Recklessness Courage Cowardice
Prodigality Liberty Meanness

Ethics – Pre-Final Modules | 14

In the tables, Aristotle identifies the virtue of courage as the middle, in between the vices of being coward
or reckless. It is only through the middle that a person is able to manifest her feelings, passions, and
actions virtuously. For Aristotle, being superfluous with regard to manifesting a virtue is no longer an
ethical act because one has gone beyond the middle. Being overly courageous for instance does not make
someone more virtuous because precisely in this condition, she has gone beyond the middle and therefore
has “moved out” from the state that is virtuous. Virtue Ethics is concerned primarily with the task of
developing a good character.

To sum up, moral value, according to Aristotle, is a “state of character” which habitually acts according
to the middle measure that practical wisdom identifies as the moral choice that should be acted upon,
given the concrete situation that presents to the person. The goal of virtue ethics is to promote the
maturity of the character of the person. Building a good character is a task and responsibility of every
person.

LEARNING ASSESSMENT:

Make your answers brief and direct. You may use bond paper or yellow pad for your answer.

1. Identify at least five Filipino traits and categorize each as virtue (middle) or vices (excess or
deficiency). Place them in a table.
2. How is a person’s character formed according to Aristotle?
3. “Practice makes perfect”. Explain.

LESSON 12
DETERMINING MORAL RESPONSIBILITY
Introduction:

Making moral decisions is difficult but it is an integral part of everyday life. Sometimes we ponder on our
choices and perform the act that may best carry out our motives, but sometimes we also act without fully
considering our alternatives. In a world where nothing is certain, one thing is indisputable: we are morally
responsible for every move and decision we make.

Overview:

In this lesson, we will discuss how every moral agent differs in their moral responsibility. Considering the
elements of moral responsibility may lead us to better understand the extent of moral agent’s moral
responsibility.

Learning Objectives:

At the end of this module, the students are expected to:

1. discuss the two determinants of moral responsibility;

2. appreciate the value of knowing one’s moral responsibility; and
3. apply the two determinants in identifying the moral responsibility of a person.

PRELIMINARY TEST

REACTION PAPER: Are we always morally responsible for all our actions? Minimum of 3 paragraphs.

Ethics – Pre-Final Modules | 15

Lesson Proper:

DETERMINING MORAL RESPONSIBILITY

When we say that an act is wrong, or when we judge a person to be guilty of something, we usually base
our judgment on some criteria or rules. These criteria are the conditions that should be considered before
any reasonable judgment can be made. Without any consistent criteria, any judgment we make would be
arbitrary.

Moral responsibility, according to Kantian Ethics, is measured according to the goodness of the agent’s
motive for acting regardless of the consequence, while Utilitarian ethics determines moral responsibility
according to the consequences regardless of the motive. For example, if my motive is to return a
borrowed clock on the day I promised, but as I went to see the owner I accidentally broke it. As far as
Kantian ethics is concerned, I am innocent of any wrongdoing. Utilitarian ethics, on the other hand,
makes a different assessment wherein I am morally responsible for breaking the clock, though I did not
intend to. Which therefore should be used to determine moral responsibility?

This problem is solved if we realize that each theory has an important thing to say about guilt and
innocence. It is wise to think that both motive and consequence are properly accounted for in determining
moral responsibility. A good standard for moral responsibility is that which takes into account both
motive and consequence.

Motive and consequence lead us to the basic assumptions of moral philosophy: human rationality and
freedom. By looking at rationality and freedom as important elements of moral responsibility, we
necessarily account for the motives and consequences of actions.

ELEMENTS OF MORAL RESPONSIBILITY

There is a well-known maxim in jurisprudence (philosophy of law) Actus non facit reum, nisi mens sit
rea, meaning, “a crime is not committed if the mind of the person performing the act complains of being
innocent.” Determining the extent of moral responsibility follows the same line. In order for someone to
be held responsible for his action, he must have done it with deliberate intent. We can therefore propose
this rule for determining moral responsibility:

“Before any person could be held morally responsible for his act he must have acted knowingly and
freely.”

KNOWLEDGE AS AN ELEMENT OF MORAL RESPONSIBILITY

Reason allows us to act with purpose. It allows us to distinguish good from bad, right from wrong. When
person lacks power or ability to know the wrongness of an act, he is therefore incapable of distinguishing
right from wrong. Awareness and ability to know are two aspects of knowledge as determinants of moral
responsibility. We can think of many cases when persons who lack knowledge of the wrongness of their
act cannot be held morally responsible. Consider the case bellow:

His Father’s Killer

Sgt. Abu Jihad Sabaybunot, was having his regular day-off from law enforcement. His wife and
three-year-old son were off to market that day so he thought of cleaning his two service firearms.

Ethics – Pre-Final Modules | 16

 But he was only half-finished when he felt tired and sleepy. Since he expected his wife and son to
be back late in the afternoon, he decided to leave his guns in the open while he slept on the
couch. That was the last good sleep he ever had because he never woke up: his son played with
his gun when they arrived and he playfully pulled the trigger, shooting his father in the face.

Can we hold the son morally responsible for his act? Hardly. The child was too young to know what he
did to his father, and too young to understand that what he did was wrong. A person cannot be held
responsible for his action and its consequences, if he acts without knowledge of the wrongness of an act,
or when he has no sufficient ability to know what the act he commits is wrong.

FREEDOM AS AN ELEMENT OF MORAL RESPONSIBILITY

Freedom means the power to act, speak or think without externally imposed constraints. Because personal
freedom ties man to his acts, it is important that he act voluntarily in performing a wrongful act before he
could be held morally responsible for his action. Thus man is not morally responsible for his wrongful
action if he is forced to commit it. Freedom refers to the agent’s ability to choose or not from alternatives
without external pressure or control. Freedom therefore has two important elements: ability and choice.

Freedom as the Ability to be Free

Ability is the possession of the means required to do something or get something. It is the element of
freedom that permits the accomplishment of something. The ‘ability’ element is what connects freedom to
the first determinant of moral responsibility (rationality or knowledge). For instance, if I don’t know that
something is wrong, it would be impossible for me to choose not to do; or, if I am a child who does not
fully understand what he is doing, I could not possibly choose not to do what I have done. But, if I know
that what I am doing is wrong, that I have the ability to know that my act is wrong, and I know that I can
choose not to do it, yet I still opt to do it, then I am performing the wrongful act freely. ‘Ability’ also
implies a condition that makes a person feel he has acted freely. Let’s distinguish ‘feeling free’ from
‘being free’.

‘Feeling free’ expresses the mental or psychological aspect of freedom. Its key element is free consent.
For instance, a man may feel free even when he gets himself locked up in a room by his own choice,
though he may not feel so in case he is inadvertently locked in a room by another person. If a person
freely consents to do what others want him to do, he becomes a part of the act, that is, the person’s end
becomes his personal end.

‘Being free’ expresses not only the mental aspect of freedom but also its physical aspect. Being free also
means being able to be free, or being able to use one’s option without impediment. There is a difference
between ‘being free to do something’ and ‘being able to do something.’ We may be free to do something
we want to do, but sometimes, there are factors that affect our ability to do what we can freely do. For
example, I may be free to tell you the truth, but I may not be able to do so because I am threatened with
death (by another) if I tell you the truth.

Without the ability to be free, there is a condition of “unfreedom”. If this condition exists, a person is not
wholly the cause of his actions. Without the ability to be free, a person who commits a wrongful act is
therefore nor morally responsible.

Freedom and Choice

Ethics – Pre-Final Modules | 17

Choice, the second element of freedom, implies that in a freely-performed act there are two or more
mutually-exclusive possibilities. Freedom implies the existence of other self-determined alternative acts
aside from the one being performed. A person is free if he acts based on the choice determined by his own
free will. The determination of choice is bound to man’s rationality.

Man recognizes his alternatives when he makes moral decisions. And he is free if he pursues these
alternatives without undue impediments. Thus, if one denies a person the opportunity to determine his
choices, then his freedom to genuinely choose is denied. If man has freedom, his responsibility for his
actions and decisions therefore rests squarely on his shoulders.
Greater Lesser
Knowledge and Freedom Knowledge and Freedom

Greater Lesser
Moral Responsibility Moral Responsibility
This diagram shows how knowledge and freedom determine the extent of a person’s moral responsibility.
The greater the amount of knowledge and freedom, the greater his moral responsibility.

CLASSIFICATIONS OF MORAL RESPONSIBILITY

Using the presence or lack of knowledge and freedom as a basis, we can determine the extent of a
person’s moral responsibility. The following are classifications of moral responsibility of a person for his
act and its consequences.

1. Perfect or Aggravated

Moral responsibility is perfect when the person who commits the wrongful act has complete knowledge
of the moral wrongness of his action and performs the wrongful act according to his will or choice. When
the wrongful act is intentional, voluntary and is a product of deliberation, the moral responsibility is
perfect or aggravated.

2. Imperfect of Mitigated

Moral responsibility is imperfect or mitigated when a person who commits the act has incomplete
knowledge of the moral wrongness of his action, or when the person has been coerced to perform a
wrongful act. When a person’s moral responsibility is imperfect, it does not mean that the person is
exempted from moral culpability. It simply means that the elements of knowledge and freedom are
insufficient, which in fairness, should reduce or lessen, the degree of the person’s moral culpability. The
person is still at fault but has lesser liability. Consider the case below:

PO3 Gatilyo

PO3 Gatilyo got this instruction from Colonel Tatrat: To torture Boy Singhot, a notorious drug user. “Do it hard so
he will tell you the name of his supplier,” the tough colonel ordered PO3 Gatilyo. PO3 Gatilyo knows that torture
violates human rights. Buts he is trained to follow orders, and besides, he tells himself, “I might be reassigned to an
Abu Sayaf-infested area in Mindanao if I refuse to follow orders.” So he does what he has been commanded to do:
torture Boy Singhot.

Is PO3 Gatilyo morally responsible for his wrongful act? Clearly, the answer is yes. Gatilyo has a solemn
duty to protect and enforce the law. The coercion was not sufficient to deny him the chance to act

Ethics – Pre-Final Modules | 18

otherwise. The perceived threat was not so grave as to exempt him from moral culpability. Even the
excuse that PO3 Gatilyo was only following orders is not acceptable. One should only obey rightful
orders. If the order is unlawful or immoral, obedience ceases to be a rightful duty. However, since PO3
was coerced to act wrongly, he, in some sense acted unfreely hence, his moral responsibility is imperfect.

3. Diminished or Exempted

Moral responsibility is diminished or exempted if the wrongful act is performed under any of the
following conditions:

o When the person who commits a wrongful act is acting in complete ignorance of the moral wrongness
of the act;
o When the wrongful consequence of an act is expected but unintended effect of a rightful act;
o When the wrongful consequence is a result of an accident;
o When the wrongful act is brought about by coercion or by other factors that are sufficient to interfere
with the rationality and freedom of the person who commits it;
o When the person who commits the wrongful act has no ability to discern the moral wrongness of his
action.

Acting in Complete Ignorance. Ignorance means the lack or absence of necessary information, state of
deficiency of knowledge concerning the moral wrongness of a particular act. The general rule is that a
person cannot excuse himself for committing a wrongful act on the grounds of ignorance. Our rationality
allows as to correct our lack of information by searching, inquiring, etc. However, there are cases where it
is impossible for a person to correct his ignorance. In these cases, a person is said to be acting in complete
ignorance. (Ignorance together with certain types of human emotions like fear and anger are called moral
qualifiers).

Concerning actions performed with complete ignorance, we can introduce the idea of Paul Glenn
concerning the determination of moral responsibility of persons whose actions produce unintended
results. A person is morally responsible only for the unintended result of his act when:

1. He is able to foresee the evil result or effect, at least, in a general way;

2. He is free to refrain from doing that which would produce the foreseen evil;
3. The doer has a moral obligation not to do that which produces an evil effect.

Acts with Double Effects. In cases where the act performed produces two different consequences, one
good, and the other evil, the act is said to have a double effect. Actions with double effects are not the
same as actions performed in complete ignorance. Although both types of actions involve unintended
wrongful consequences, they differ in one essential aspect: actions performed with complete ignorance,
the wrongful consequences is completely unexpected and unintended, while in actions with double
effects, the wrongful consequence is expected and it can either be unintended or intended. A person,
whose act results in an evil effect, has diminished moral responsibility over the wrongful consequence if:

1. The act that brings about the double effects is in itself good or morally indifferent;
2. The attainment of the good effect is the intended effect;
3. The evil effect is not perceived as a means to bring about the good effect.

However, it should be noted that actions with double effects stand on a slippery line between perfect or
aggravated and diminished or exempted moral responsibility.

Ethics – Pre-Final Modules | 19

LEARNING ASSESSMENT:

Make your answers brief and direct. You may use bond paper or yellow pad for your answer.

1. Do you agree that we are morally responsible for our own freely-determined actions? Explain.
2. Explain the difference between actions performed with complete ignorance and accidentally-
performed actions.
3. Cite concrete example of acts with double effects.

CASE ANALYSIS: Try to work the case below:

Peter’s Help

The intention of Peter was to help his sick friend, Parker, when he gave the latter a dose of antipyretic
medication. Unfortunately, Parker began to convulse and later he died of a drug overdose. At Parkers’
wake, people were discussing if Peter’s act (of helping a friend) was right.

1. Is Peter morally responsible or not?

2. Basing your answer on item 1, the moral responsibility of Peter is:
a. Perfect or Aggravated
b. Imperfect or Mitigated
c. Diminished or Exempted
3. Explain your answer in item 2.

LESSON 13
QUALIFIERS OF MORAL RESPONSIBILITY
Introduction:

Man is full control of his acts because he is rational and free. However, in the real world, this is not
always the case. There are factors that limit the ability of man to be in full control of his rationality and
freedom. Because these factors influence the attributes of an act they necessarily affect the degree of a
person’s moral responsibility. These qualifiers will help us analyze actions that would qualify to have
moral responsibility.

Overview:

In this lesson, we will discuss the different qualifiers of moral responsibility that would help us analyze
the degree of moral responsibility in every action we perform.

Learning Objectives:

At the end of this module, the students are expected to:

1. assess factors that influence the voluntariness of human actions;

2. understand how qualifiers affect the degree of moral responsibility; and
3. appraise the significant role of human emotions in our journey to goodness.

PRELIMINARY TEST
Ethics – Pre-Final Modules | 20
REACTION PAPER: “Emotion makes up the very heart of man, from which come both good and evil.”
Minimum of 3 paragraphs.

Lesson Proper:

IGNORANCE AND MORALITY

Ignorance means lack of knowledge concerning the moral wrongness of an act, or a condition wherein a
person, lacks the necessary information. As a general rule, a person who performs a wrongful act can
seldom use his ignorance to excuse himself from moral responsibility. However, there are rare cases when
ignorance may exempt a person from moral responsibility. In this section, we will study how ignorance
can possibly aggravate a person’s moral responsibility. There are two types of ignorance:

1. Perceptible or incomplete ignorance

Perceptible ignorance is simple. It is a state of deficiency of the intellect due to the absence of a particular
information (which should have been considered by the person in choosing his alternative act), which can
be gathered through ordinary diligence and persistence. It is called incomplete because the person is not
completely unaware of his condition. The rule says that perceptible ignorance does not eliminate moral
responsibility. Perceptible ignorance generally lessens or mitigates moral responsibility.

Perceptible Ignorance as False Ignorance. If the moral responsibility of a person acting with perceptible
ignorance is mitigated in some cases, there are some instances when moral responsibility is aggravated.
This happens when a person, after having known his ignorance, deliberately or willfully keeps himself
ignorant. False Ignorance is the type of ignorance to deliberately keep oneself ignorant in order to escape
responsibility, to refrain from doing the right thing, or to use it as a means for justifying a wrongful act. In
this case, person who commits false ignorance aggravates his moral responsibility.

2. Imperceptible or Complete Ignorance

Complete ignorance is a state of deficiency of the intellect characterized by a total lack of knowledge
concerning the wrongness of an act. The person is completely unaware of his ignorance, and there is no
way he can remedy it. There is no way he can possibly know the moral wrongness of his act. Hence,
person who acts with complete ignorance is exempted from moral responsibility

FEAR AND MORALITY

Fear is an emotional response to something that is perceived to be dangerous or life threatening. Fear,
compels a person to fight or flight, and is a human instinct of self-preservation. Fear manifests two
significant forms: Alarm and Terror.

1. Alarm

Alarm suggests fear arising from a troubling condition where the threat to one’s safety is uncertain. The
threat exists, but the object of fear is not yet real or existing at this stage. A person acting in alarm
remains in control of his faculties because the fear is insufficient to interfere with his rationality and
freedom. The feeling of fear is controllable when its object is not real; it does not cause temporary
disorder of the intellect. If the wrongful act is voluntary, the doer remains morally responsible for his act
and its consequences.

2. Terror

Ethics – Pre-Final Modules | 21

Terror refers to an overwhelming fear because of a clear threat to one’s safety. Unlike alarm, fear in the
case of terror is real, clear and present. It causes excessive excitement, a temporary disorder of the
intellect, and enfeebles the condition of the will and the person’s moral sense. Because it completely
obscures the mind, making correct thinking and deliberation impossible, the moral responsibility of a
person acting in terror is therefore diminished or exempted.

Acting out of Fear and Acting with Fear. There is a significant difference between acting out of fear and
acting with fear. A person who acts out of fear implies that the cause of the action is fear. The moral
responsibility of the person acting out of fear may either be complete/aggravated or incomplete/mitigated
depending on the intensity and object of his fear.

On the other hand, a person who acts with fear is not necessarily acting out of fear. The cause of the
action may be factors other than fear. An act done with fear is a deliberate act, regardless of how fearful
the doer might be. The doer assumes full responsibility for his wrongful action and its consequences.

ANGER AND MORALITY

Anger is a form of passion, a strong negative emotion that denotes a feeling of intense displeasure
directed against something, which is believed to be the cause of an assumed wrong or injury.

Two forms of Anger

1. Unelicited Anger

Unelicited anger is a form of anger that is not intentionally kept and subjectively aroused. The cause of
the anger is usually unexpected and the anger itself is unanticipated. The object of unelicited anger is
usually a person who is believed to be the cause of an assumed wrong or injury.

The moral responsibility of a person who commits a wrongful act out of unelicited anger, may either be
imperfect/mitigated or diminished/exempted depending of the intensity of anger. If anger does not cause a
temporary disorder of the intellect, the person who commits a wrongful act is not exempted from moral
responsibility.

In cases where anger is of such intensity that it causes a temporary disorder of the intellect, the moral
responsibility is diminished or exempted. In this case, the wrongful act was both unpremeditated and
completely instinctive.

2. Elicited Anger

Elicited anger is willfully maintained and aroused. Elicited anger is self-induced. It is the consequence of
the will stirring and inciting to passionate reaction. Because a person who performs a wrongful act out of
elicited anger, willfully or deliberately causes his own anger, he performs a wrongful act with malicious
and wrongful intent. Therefore, the moral responsibility of the doer is perfect or aggravated, regardless of
the intensity of his anger.

HUMAN EMOTION AND MORALITY

Qualifiers clearly demonstrate the significant role of emotions in determining the extent to which a person
deserves blame and punishment. As this lesson has shown, emotion precedes every decision and
influences it. As such, emotion could diminish, mitigate, or aggravate moral accountability. It qualifies
guilt and innocence. As one philosopher succinctly declares:

Ethics – Pre-Final Modules | 22

 “Emotion makes up the very heart of man, from which come both good and evil.”

It is through perseverance, proper reasoning and strengthening of the human will, that emotions will bring
man, more good than evil.

LEARNING ASSESSMENT:

Make your answers brief and direct. You may use bond paper or yellow pad for your answer.

1. Does ignorance exempt a person from any moral responsibility? Explain.

2. Cite concrete example of acting out of fear.
3. Do you always or most of the time follow your emotions in making moral judgments? Explain.
4. Cite concrete example when you let your emotions control your moral judgment.

ASSESSMENT /EVALUATION RUBRICS

Grades Rubrics Points Rating Scale for Module Output
A+ Shows complete understanding of the question. Very informative and well organized. Can able to relate the topic to his/her
(96-100%) personality with ease.
A Shows substantial understanding of the question. Good solid response with clear explanation with some minor yet non-trivial gaps in
(92-95%) their reasoning ability.
B+
Response shows some understanding of the question. Meet the requirements of the problem.
(87-90%)
B Shows unclear yet related answer to the problem. Student may have starter out correctly, but gone on a main concept or not finished
(84-86%) the problem.
C+
Shows incomplete answer to the problem.
(80-83%)
C
Misses key points.
(75-79%)
D No answer at all

PREFINAL AND FINAL PROJECT

SHORT VIDEO STORY: CREATE A SHORT STORY ON HOW YOU ENCOUNTER AND
SOLVE MORAL DILEMMA RELATED TO YOUR FUTURE PROFESSION.
Things to consider:

 Must be related to your future profession.

 Maximum of 10 minutes.
 With moral lesson.
 To be submitted via flash drive or CD.
 It may be by group or individual (depending on the student if he/she wants to).

*List of groupings: to be announced.

DATE OF SUBMISSION: MAY 14, 2021/FRIDAY

References:

Ethics: Foundations of Moral Valuation by Oscar G. Bulaong Jr., et. al. (2018)
Moral Philosophy: An Introduction by A. C. Articulo (2004)

Prepared by: JOHN REY R. BUAN

Ethics – Pre-Final Modules | 23
CAS-INSTRUCTOR

Ethics – Pre-Final Modules | 24