Chapter III

How does human act differ from act of man?

What are three bases of moral accountability?
Which can modify moral accountability?
How can feeling be a modifier in moral decision-
making?
What is meant by reason and impartiality as
minimum requirements for morality?
 Chapter III
How does human act differ from act of man?
What are three bases of moral accountability?
Which can modify moral accountability?
How can feeling be a modifier in moral decision-
making?
What is meant by reason and impartiality as
minimum requirements for morality?
Lesson 1 –
The Meaning of Human Act
Not all acts of the human
person as a moral agent are
considered human act. Some
may be classified as acts of
man.
 Activity: Classify the items either
as human act or act of man.
1. Breathing
2. Blinking of the eyes
3. Observing Diet
4. Dilation of the pupils of the eyes
5. Perspiring
6. Tutoring the slow learners
7. Preparing for board exams
8. Jerking of the Knee
Act of Man Vs. Human Act
After studying the nature of
the moral agent, the next
thing to do is to study the
nature of human act itself.
Act of Man Vs. Human Act
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.
Act of Man Vs. Human Act
Panizo, 1964
Human acts are those acts
which proceeds from man as
a rational being.
Human Acts
1. Breathing
2. Blinking of the eyes
3. Observing Diet
4. Dilation of the pupils of the eyes
5. Perspiring
6. Tutoring the slow learners
7. Preparing for board exams
8. Jerking of the Knee
Human Acts
Human Acts are the acts of a moral
agent. Hence, actions committed
by unconscious and insane
persons, infants or by those who
are physically forced to do
something are not considered as
human acts but acts of man.
Human Acts

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.
Acts of Man
1. Breathing
2. Blinking of the eyes
3. Observing Diet
4. Dilation of the pupils of the eyes
5. Perspiring
6. Tutoring the slow learners
7. Preparing for board exams
8. Jerking of the Knee
The Determinants
of the Morality of Human Act
To Know, whether an
individual human act is
morally good, three things are
considered. These are called
the Determinants of Morality.
Determinants of Morality

•The object of the act

•The End or purpose
•Its circumstances
Determinants of Morality
For an act to be morally good, all three
determinants must be without a flaw,
according to the received axiom:
Bonum ex integra causa, malum ex
quocumque defectu – A thing to be good
must be wholly so; it is not vitiated by
any defect.
Determinants of Morality
The object of the 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
act; say, of going, eating, praising,
etc.
Determinants of Morality
The act of 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.
Determinants of Morality

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.
Determinants of Morality
The end or purpose intended by the agent is the
second 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 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.
Determinants of Morality
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 is not morally acceptable.
Determinants of Morality
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, that act may be evil.
Coppens 2017
Determinants of Morality
A morally good act requires the
goodness of the object, of the end,
and of the circumstances together.

An evil end corrupts the action,

even if the object is good in itself.
Key Takeaways
•A human act is an action that is considered
to be carried out voluntarily, whereas an act
of man is an involuntary action.
•A morally good act requires the goodness of
the object, of the end, and of the
circumstances together. An evil end
corrupts the action, even if the object is
good in itself.
Lesson 2 – Accountability of Moral Act

What is the moral agent’s accountability

over his/her act? On what does his/her
accountability depend?
Lesson 2 – Accountability of Moral Act

Read the story of Judas’ Betrayal of Jesus in

Luke 22:1-53

Could Judas be held answerable/ accountable for

having betrayed Jesus?
On what factors (at least three) would you base
Judas accountability?
Bases of Moral Accountabilty
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.
Three Bases of Moral Accountabilty
Knowledge, Freedom, 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.

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.
Three Bases of Moral Accountabilty
Knowledge – You are in a possession of a normal mind; you
are not insane or totally ignorant.
Knowledge is the awareness of or familiarity with a fact,
situation or truth, unveiled through experience or disclosed
in dialogue or encounter with person or things.
Freedom – Exercising the power of your choice. Your freedom
should not be impaired by an irresistible force or
uncontrollable fear.
Voluntary – an act is voluntarily intended when it is done
with the aim, purpose or goal attaining a result.
Three Bases of Moral Accountabilty

Your degree of moral accountability depends

on the degree or extent of knowledge,
freedom, and voluntariness.
Modifiers of Human Act

These are various factors 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.
Modifiers of Human Act
They affect the mental or emotional state of
a person to the extent that the voluntariness
involved an act is either increased or
decreased.

They are as follows: Ignorance, Passions,

Fear and Violence (Panizo 1964)
Modifiers of Human Act
Ignorance – absence of knowledge

Classified as: Vincible, Invincible, Affected, 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.

Supine or Gross ignorance 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.
Modifiers of Human Act
Passion – refers to positive emotions like love, desire, delight, hope, bravery
and negative emotions like hatred, horror, sadness, despair, fear and anger.
In criminal law, the commission of a criminal act with passion means the
perpetrator is blinded by his emotions.

Fear – 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 extended 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.
Moral Accountability for What Could Have Been

Sin of Omission – Whatever one fails to do but which should

have been done is also imputable him. It is intentionally not
doing the same thing when one should have done it. Pilate
had the case of Jesus Christ investigated and found Him
innocent. He could have set Jesus free but He did not.
Withholding an information could have prevented a disaster.
 Chapter III
How does human act differ from act of man?
What are three bases of moral accountability?
Which can modify moral accountability?
How can feeling be a modifier in moral decision-
making?
What is meant by reason and impartiality as
minimum requirements for morality?
Lesson 3
Feeling as a Modifier of
Moral Decision - Making
Activity:
One sticker in a truck says:
“If it feels good do it.”

What does this mean? Is this

always right?
Filipina OFW in the USA
I will never be able to forgive myself if
I won’t fly home to be with my family
in my father’s death. I may not be able
to talk to him anymore; you may find it
impractical and unreasonable but I
have to fly home. If I don’t, I will not
feel whole at all.
How do they affect moral decision-
making?

Several studies conclude that up

to 90% of the decisions we made
are based on emotion.
How do they affect moral decision-
making?

Researches also show that

“actual emotional states can
influence the process of moral
reasoning and determine moral
judgement.”
Feelings in Decision-Making

Feeling, in general, is an
emotional state or reaction,
experience or physical sensation,
like feeling of joy, warmth, love,
affection, etc.
Feelings in Decision-Making

Feelings are instinctive and

trained response to moral
dilemma. They can be obstacles
to making right decisions but
they can also help in making the
right decisions.
Positive Effects on Decision Making

• A totally emotional decision is

very fast in comparison to a
rational decision. This is reactive
and can be useful when faced with
immediate danger, or in decisions
of minimal significance.
Positive Effects on Decision Making

• Emotions may provide a way for

coding and compacting experience,
enabling fast response selection.
This may point to why expert’s gut
level decisions have high accuracy
rates.
Positive Effects on Decision Making

• Decisions that start with logic

may need emotions to enable
the final selection, particularly
when confronted with near
equal options.
Positive Effects on Decision Making

• Emotions often drive us in

directions conflicting with self-
interest.
Negative Effects on Decision Making

• We make quick decisions

without knowing why, and then
create rational reasons to
justify a poor emotional
decision.
Negative Effects on Decision Making

• Intensity of emotions can

override rational decision-
making in cases where it is
clearly needed.
Negative Effects on Decision Making

• Immediate and unrelated

emotions can create mistakes
by distorting and creating bias
in judgements. In some cases,
this can lead to unexpected and
reckless action.
Negative Effects on Decision Making

• Projected emotions can lead to

error because people are subject
to systematic inaccuracy about
how they will feel in the future.
Moral statements as expressions of feelings

Emotivism – the view that moral

judgments do not function as
statements of fact but rather as
expressions of the speaker’s or
writer’s feelings.
Moral statements as expressions of feelings

Ethical statements being

emotional expressions are not
verifiable. Emotional expressions
are not assertions of what is true
or false. They are like expressions
of taste. There is no dispute on
matters of taste.
Managing Feelings

Aristotle wrote: Anyone can get angry

– that is easy – but to do this to the
right person, to the right extent, at the
right time with the right motive, and
in the right way, that is not for
everyone, nor it is easy. In other
words, your anger should not be
displaced.
Key Takeaways

Feelings can be obstacles to

making the right decision but
they can also help in making the
right decisions.
Key Takeaways

Feelings can help persons in

making the right decisions if
they are reasonably managed.
Key Takeaways

Acting on one’s conviction imply

involvement of both reason and
feeling.
Key Takeaways

To be an ethical person, one

must manage his/her feelings
well.
Lesson 4

Reason and Impartiality as

Minimum Requirements for
Morality
Lesson 4

Activity
Reason and Impartiality as Minimum
Requirements for Morality

Reason and impartiality refer to

a mental activity following the
basic principle of consistency,
lack of contradiction between
one idea and another.
Reason and Impartiality as Minimum
Requirements for Morality

The minimum requirements of

morality are reason and
impartiality.
Reason and Impartiality as Minimum
Requirements for Morality

It is a process of deriving necessary

conclusion from premises, avoiding all
forms of deception or fallacy of
reasoning.
It avoids ad hominem, by not
attacking the personality of the
opponent and instead directing one’s
argument against his idea.
Reason and Impartiality as Minimum
Requirements for Morality

Ex of argumentum ad hominem are # 1,

4, 6, 7 . Reason avoids ad misericordiam,
appeal to pity since appearing miserable
does not improve an argument. Reason
does not resort to ad verecundiam, appeal
to authority, one’s power and influence
cannot make a wrong right. Ex. are 2, 5,
8. In other words, good reasons include
consistent and coherent reasons.
Reason and Impartiality as Minimum
Requirements for Morality

A logical, impartial, objective

reason avoids ambiguities like
equivocation, circular reasoning,
amphibology, etc. Coherent
reasoning is needed to establish
truth and meaningfulness of moral
judgement.
Reason and Impartiality as Minimum
Requirements for Morality

Morality requires impartial

consideration of each
individual’s interest. In arriving
at a sound moral judgment, you
must listen to everyone trying to
speak.
Reason and Impartiality as Minimum
Requirements for Morality

Biases and prejudices must be

placed between brackets,
suspended. Everyone’s message,
silent or verbal, should be
allowed to be unveiled. No one
has the monopoly of truth.
Reason and Impartiality as Minimum
Requirements for Morality

A moral subject must be seen

from various perspectives and
standpoints.
Scott Rae’s 7 Steps of Moral Reasoning

1. Gather the facts, information

Scott Rae’s 7 Steps of Moral Reasoning

2. Determine the ethical issues,

similar to statement of the
problem
Scott Rae’s 7 Steps of Moral Reasoning

3. Determine what
virtues/principles have a bearing
on the case
Scott Rae’s 7 Steps of Moral Reasoning

4. List alternatives or develop a

list of options
Scott Rae’s 7 Steps of Moral Reasoning

5. Compare the alternatives

with the virtues/principles
Scott Rae’s 7 Steps of Moral Reasoning

6. Consider the consequences or

test the options
Test the Options (Davis, 1999)

Harm test: Does this option do less harm

than alternatives?
Publicity test: Would I want my choice of
this option be published in the newspaper?
Defensibility test: Could I defend my choice
of this option before a congressional
committee or committee of peers?
Test the Options (Davis, 1999)

Reversibility test: Would I still think this

option was a good choice if I were adversely
affected by it?
Colleague Test: What do my colleagues say
when I described my problem and suggest
this option as my solution?
Test the Options (Davis, 1999)

Professional test: What might my

profession’s governing body for ethics say
about this option?
Organization test: What does my
company’s ethics officer or legal counsel
say about this?
Scott Rae’s 7 Steps of Moral Reasoning

7. Make a decision
Values Clarification

Moral reasoning either arrives

at what is right or wrong, good
or bad, valuable or not valuable.
The moral reasoning process
may thus follow a model called
values clarification.
Values Clarification

Values clarification method as a

part of the moral reasoning model
consists of a series of questions
which one may ask himself or
others in order to arrive at one’s
true values, values that he really
possesses and acts upon.
Steps of the Values Clarification Model

1. Choosing Freely
2. Choosing from Alternatives
3. Choosing after thoughtful
consideration
4. Prizing and being happy with
the choice
Steps of the Values Clarification Model

5. Prizing and willing to affirm

the choice publicly
6. Acting on the choice
7. Acting repeatedly in some
pattern of life
Steps of the Values Clarification Model

5. Prizing and willing to affirm

the choice publicly
6. Acting on the choice
7. Acting repeatedly in some
pattern of life
7 Questions in 3 big clarifying questions

1. Did you choose your action

freely from among alternatives
after thoughtfully considering
the consequences of each
alternative;
7 Questions in 3 big clarifying questions

2. Do you prize or cherish your

choice by publicly affirming it
and campaigning for others to
choose it?
7 Questions in 3 big clarifying questions

3. Do you act on your choice

repeatedly and consistently?
Lesson 5

The Difference between

Reason and Will
In what sense is an indecisive person
considered a driftwood?

The moral person is endowed

with an intellect and will.
Will – disposes what the
intellect proposes
In what sense is an indecisive person
considered a driftwood?

The will is the faculty of the

mind that is associated with
decision making. It’s the one
that says yes or no.
In what sense is an indecisive person
considered a driftwood?

A culture of spoon feeding does not

develop the will. Banking education, a
method of teaching whether the teacher
simply deposits facts and concepts and
withdraw the same periodically during
quizzes and tests without encouraging
the students to think and reflect, does not
promote development of the will.
In what sense is an indecisive person
considered a driftwood?

Reason conducts the study,

research, fact-finding,
investigation, by using logic, to
arrive at a correct proposition.