CFED PRELIM REVIEWER

Prelim Week 1
Basic Assumptions on Christian Morality
  Formation in Morality is at the forefront of the development of the faith of a Christian. To live a moral life entails that
Christians conform to the life and teachings of Jesus. However, for them to live a moral life, it is crucial that they
understand what morality is and to unlearn all sorts of misconceptions. For a clear understanding of morality, one is
able to ascertain what action is appropriate and necessary for a certain circumstance. With this, the concept of
morality must be very clear to the human person since this will be his/her very guide for his/her day to day living.
 
          Before going to the unique or specified Christian sources of morality this lesson will first present the basic
concepts on how Christians arrived with their different general moral norms so that we will be able to connect the
different concepts or norms of morality laid for the human person.
 
         The Descriptive title of our course is Christian Morality in Our Times. First and foremost, we have to ask what is
Morality? Basically, Morality is connected with norms. So, the next step is to ask if what is a norm?
 
          Norm is a fundamental concept in the social sciences. It is commonly defined as rules or standards that are
socially enforced. In the ancient times, when there were no formal social structures such as government and the
Church; or when the different religions were not yet as organized as they are now, norms often come in the forms
of customs, rituals, and traditions. This was so since people would easily follow these standards if it becomes part of
their life-styles until it becomes part of their way of living. In the Philippine context, respecting one’s parents would be
taught by saying “po” or “opo” to them, or by the practice of “pagmamano”. Norms would only come in the forms of
rules, regulations, or technically called law when society became more socially organized in their government
systems. When different societies mature or develop, their moral standards would also become more organized,
more so when they realized how important is the laying out of the rules to govern human actions for the sustenance
of the peace and order in society which will pave the way for more social progress and further developments. So,
what is “Morality” in a more technical definition?
 
       Morality is a science that deals with the “quality” (goodness or badness) of human acts/actions.  “science”
generally means a field of study.  So, Morality will judge whether a certain act or action is good or bad. How does
morality judge human acts/actions? Morality needs basis/bases which are the rules or standards or technically called
Law. In general, these rules or standards or laws are called Norms.    
            
       Our next question is, how did morality arrive with these norms? If the human person came up with these norms
or found these norms by thinking deeply/ reflecting or so, called philosophizing, then the process or the science is
called Moral Philosophy. In other situations, if the norms or rules were given or revealed by God or the Divine being,
the science is called Moral Theology.  What is the difference between the two? Moral Philosophy found out the
norms or rules by using purely human reasoning or called philosophizing, while in Moral Theology, these rules or
norms were given or revealed by God. An example of norms in Moral Theology is the Ten Commandments. So Moral
Philosophy relies on pure reasoning/deeply thinking while Moral Theology would depend on God’s revelation and
faith. Aside from Philosophizing and God’s revelation, let us try to find out how others come up with norms for the
human person   .
 
Sources of Norms:
 
Three Bases in coming up with a good/right norm for human act/ human life: Knowing the Origin, Nature and the
End/Destiny of the human person.
The concepts of the Origin, Nature, and the Destiny of the Human Person and their serious implications in coming up
with moral norms.
1. The Concept of the Origin of the Human Person and all things that surround him/her.
 
                      →   God (man is a creature of God)
    Origin:
                       →  Apes (man came from apes)
 
            Most if not all religions would strongly believe that all creation and the human person came from a creator
which we call “God” whether you call that God YHWH, Allah, Brahman, Bathala, Kabuniyan or what so ever term
which would indicate being all-powerful and other traits expected of a supreme being.
           Outside the realm of beliefs, some would strongly propose other theories for the origin of the human person
such as the theories that the human person evolved from other creatures or animals or even product of purely
natural happenings.
          
Serious Implications to Morality:
 
         If you believe that the human person originated from a supreme being called “God”, then it follows that your
moral norms/laws will depend on the characteristics of that “God”; or that “God” will be the one to command or give
norms to the human person. An example of this is the 10 Commandments in the case of Judaism or Christianity. The
moral laws will greatly respect the dignity of that “God” and the human person whom He also created. There is what
you call “fear of the Lord” as pat of your moral norms.
 
         For the second concept of the origin of the human person which suggests that we evolved from other animals
or just product of purely natural events, its moral norms will just depend on the nature of the human person which will
just be purely animal. With this, there will be no higher dignity for the person to be respected and there will also be no
fear or respect for a higher being or higher authority which is called “God”. So, you can just do whatever you want
such as easily manipulating others even to the point of killing fellow human persons since you may think that man is
the highest authority on earth.
 
2. Human Nature / Natural law (since man is part of the whole nature or Creation)
           The same with the concept of the origin of the human person, one’s concept/view of the nature of the human
person will also dictate what set of moral norms is being set to be followed or lived by us humans.
 
Serious Implications to Morality:
 
          As being explained above in the concept of the origin of all things, if you believe that we are both bodily and
spiritual beings since we are creations of God, then our moral norms will flow from such concept, and if you just
believe that we are purely animals, then our moral norms will also flow from such view like treating us as purely
animals.
 
3. Destiny / End / or the Ultimate Goal of human life
 
          Different religions commonly believe that as we were created by a higher being or called supreme being, we
also have a good destiny prepared for us. We commonly believe that there is a life after the death of our physical
aspect. This is called “heaven” in Christianity, and other religions have also their own terms for such a destiny for the
human person.
 
          On the other way around, other people who do not believe in beings that are higher than the human person
will just say that there is no such thing as life after death. Death is the ultimate end of the human persons.
 
Serious Implications to Morality:
 
        The same with the case of the concept of the origin of all, the view for the end/destiny of the human person will
also dictate what set of moral norms is being laid for us. If you strongly believe in the life after death and going there
at the end of life requires good moral life, then we have to do good in our lives to be able to attained such destiny. On
the other hand, if there is no noble end/destiny for the human person, then there are no such thing as moral norms.
There will be norms but they will greatly depend on the concept of the people who can manipulate the others.
      
           With the presentation of the different sources of moral norms, I hope it now clear to us why there are norms or
laws which we find not compatible what we believe especially with our views on the origin and the destiny for the
human person. There are also norms/laws which we find not compatible with our basic nature as human persons.
These norms which we strongly believe as not good for us are what we call misconceptions on morality. So, coming
up with “wrong” norms is a product of one’s misconceptions of morality. The misconceptions on morality are just
product of the “wrong” concept of the origin, nature, and the destiny for the human person.  
 
           Summarizing what is being discussed above, morality is centered on norms use to judge human acts/actions
or other practices of society whether they are good or bad. The nearest and best basis to come up with moral norms
is the nature of the human person and his/her surroundings/environment since for some people, the origin and
destiny for the human person is still unclear or for them others’ belief on those matters is unacceptable.
 
           As stated in the beginning of this discussion, for us Christians, the two basic ways on how we arrived with our
moral norms are Philosophy (Moral Philosophy) and Theology (Moral Theology). Formally defining the two will be as
follows: Moral Philosophy studies the goodness and badness of human actions in the light of the highest principles
based on human reason alone while Moral Theology studies the goodness and badness of human actions in the
light of revelation (in the light of Christian faith to attain his final goal).
          Our course Christian Morality is based on both Moral Philosophy and Moral Theology. Christian Norms are
product of these two fields of science.

Prelim Week 2
HUMAN NATURE/THE HUMAN PERSON
At the end of this module, you are expected to:

1.        Describe the holistic nature of the human person;

2.        Explain how the moral norms flow from the nature and the end of the human person;
3.        Trace the source of the wrong principles of morality;
4.        Explain the serious moral implications of the different ultimate goals for the human person
by some philosophies and beliefs; and
5.        Cite some probable things that will happen if the wrong principles of morality are correct.
          In our discussion last week, we mentioned the three bases on how morality came up with the norms for the
human person which are: the origin of all things, nature, and the destiny of all. Among these three bases, the closes
or nearest from which morality derived norms for the human person is Nature. Nature in its totality refers to our
environment as a whole, and since we are living on earth or specifically since we have a body (physical part) which is
connected to mother nature/earth, we are essentially part of nature. With this, we will discuss first the characteristics
of the nature of the human person based on nature, after which is his/her traits in a theological view and the last part
will present some views about his/her ultimate end/destiny. 
Human Nature/The Human Person
 
Who or what is the Human person based on Nature?
 
Since the actions of the human person flows from what he/she is, we need to discuss his/her nature by enumerating
its essential characteristics.   
o Rational being - The human person has intellect/mind/reason. He/she discovers things by reason,
and he/she is the only animal who knows that he/she knows. He/she thinks, rationalize, reflect and other
activities of the intellect.
o  Free-will. The human person is free/ has freedom which means he/she has two or more options
or choices and also has will which is the power to act or not to act on his/her choices. Will is the power
to do or not to do or to act or not to act.                                                                                                        
o Conscience. – is the practical judgment of the intellect on what is good or what is bad, and is prompting
the person to always do/follow what is good.                  
o Loving being – Aside from the love between opposite sex which is designed for the continuity of
the human species, generally, loving means desiring the good of others.                                                         
o Body - Person – We have a flesh (physical part), which connects us to the material world. Our
bodies(physical part) is dependent on nature/earth. Our bodies use the elements of the earth. The death
of mother earth will also be the death of our bodies.                                                                                        
o Sexual – refers to being male or female which is intended for companionship and pro-creation.                   
o Unique though Social: - We are individuals and need independence but we are also social being: live with
others. These two are inseparable. We are individuals and need independence but we also need the
presence of others to complete ourselves.                                                                                                
o Historical: We have a continuity with the past.                                                                                                      
o Transcendental: We always aim higher, to surpass our achievements, since we are longing for
completeness or total satisfaction/contentment. This also means that the human person has. . .                 
o   Metaphysical (meta = beyond) aspects such as intellect, emotion, conscience and others.
 
          What is the Implication of the Human Nature to Morality? Going direct to the point, what does your nature has
to say to your actions? As we have stated above, our actions flow from our nature. Example, if you are historical
beings, then you must learn from your past experiences; if you are a loving being, you must always desire what is
good for others; if you are a rational being, then think before you act; if you are transcendental, then you are not
satisfied with your present achievements, or it will lead us to ask and reflect that if we are transcendental, are we
heading to a certain destiny?; if we are body persons, do we need to take care of mother earth? and the likes.
Among these traits of the nature of the human person, which should regulate the others and his/her human
actions/decisions?
          Among the nine traits stated above, the one which should always regulate the others or human actions
which proceed from the other traits is Conscience. This is because using the other traits like intellect or freewill
alone without the intervention of Conscience can lead to misuse, or abuse of human actions. Example is thinking, if
you are problematic, you can think of some bad actions as a solution to your problems which in the end is not the
case, but it will just add or complicate your problem.   
           
        Since we are Christians who strongly believe in the existence of a Creator (Theos or God) as the origin of all
and the proper destiny which this Creator prepared for us, we also need to look at the other traits of the human
person based on this perspective.
Who/What is the human person in a Theological Perspective/View?
 Masterpiece of God (God’s Image and likeness): If we are the image and likeness of God, means we
reflect some of the important characteristics of this God such as goodness, loving, just, compassionate
and many  others. So, if God is good, then basically we are also good; if God is just, we are also basically
just, and others.                                                                                                                     
 Fundamentally/innately good or moral being: No human person is bad or evil, only our wrong actions are
bad or evil and not the human person.                                                                                                                   
 God’s partner / “co-creators” of God. God created the world and us as “incomplete” or imperfect so our
mission is to develop or bring ourselves and our world to perfection. This is why we are called stewards
of God’s creation. Part of our being “co-creators” of God is our being sexual (male or female) which is
designed for      pro-creation.                                                                                                                                 
 Rational being– has intellect or reasoning or mind.
 Freewill – has freedom and will which he/she can use to act or not to act.                                                       
 Brother’s keeper (social, and communal): we need to take care of others aside from ourselves.                   
 Weak / has fallen nature/ “brokenness”: This is called original sin in Theology. In other terms we may call
this being “incomplete”, or “unfinished”. From this being incomplete comes your mission which is to
finish or complete yourselves. Point for reflection: What if God created us as perfect beings, what will you
do?                                                                                                                                               
 Graced: this means we are aided/being assisted by God in our journey of bringing ourselves to
perfection. In the Catholic Church, God’s grace will come to us through the Seven Sacraments and our
other ways of  connecting with our Creator.                                                                                                         
 Transcendental: this pushes us to look for the ultimate meaning of life and ultimately to our God.               
  Children/family of God. We belong to the family of God, formally through Baptism.         
 Destined for the Kingdom. We have our destiny which we commonly call “heaven” or “paradise” or in
Jesus’ words called the Kingdom of God.
            Basically, most of these traits of the human person in this Theological respective are the same with those traits
based on Nature since these are parts of the basic nature of the human person. There are just other traits which are
rooted in our connectedness with our Creator. So, for its relevance to Morality, we have to ask the same question,  what
do these traits of the human person in the Theological view say on how he/she should act or live?  The same answer, that
these traits of the human person should strongly influence how he/she acts or live his/her life. In the  formulation of
specific norms for the human person, these traits should be strongly considered since these are the ones which will help
direct the human person to perfection/completeness or to his/her proper destiny which we call the Kingdom of God. The
same clarification also that why do we need to formulate norms/rules/laws for the human person if his/her nature should
influence his/her actions?  Well, there are many people who abuse their other faculties like mind/intellect, freedom and
others, and they also ignore the very basic and immediate norm which is Conscience. This is why there are many norms
or set of norms laid for the good of the human person and one of the very basic set of norms is the Ten Commandments.
          With this, we hope that the sources of the norms of Morality is now very clear to us. For a kind of widening of
horizon, let us look on the other views on the destiny for the human person since we also said earlier that the concept of
the destiny is also one of the sources of the norms of morality.
Some views on the Ultimate End/Destiny of the Human Person
         Most if not all of these other views or concept of the destiny for the human person are just product of philosophizing
(Philosophy).
Hedonism
            For this Philosophy, the ultimate goal for the human person is Happiness, and this happiness is found in pleasure
(“sarap)”. So, “kung saan ang masarap’ dun ang kasiyahan”. This pleasure is sensual. Therefore, for this certain
philosophy, the norm for human action is to look for pleasure/pleasurable things.
Marxism:
              A philosophy by Karl Marx which looks at the human person as purely material being or from mater and there are
no such things as metaphysical aspects such as soul and also God. This view just focused on the way of governance
since it was more of a reaction to the abuses of the democratic and other forms of governing people. For Marxism,
the ultimate goal of people is to have a Classless Society (no rich, no poor). This was achieved in a communistic form of
government. Development or progress must always be for the common  good / not individualistic.
 Norm: Do everything for the common good. Never mind individual goals or individual progress, set aside ourselves. “all
for one, one for all”.
Nihilism:
           For this philosophy, the human person and his/her life has no ultimate meaning, no ultimate value. If the human
person and life is meaningless or no value at all, what is your norm for life and for your action?  Aside from having no
definite norm, you reflect on the danger of this kind of philosophy.
Christian view:
           For Christianity, the ultimate goal/destiny for the human person is to enter the Kingdom or to have e ternal
union/happiness with God.          
          Norm: Follow the teachings of God such as the Ten Commandments and others.
          As you may have noticed in our discussion, the view of the nature of the human person and his/her ultimate destiny
plays a very crucial role in laying out norms for human actions or for his/her way of living. As we have said in our past
discussions, “wrong” concept of the nature and the destiny for the human person cause a lot of misconceptions about
morality and produces a lot of wrong principles or norms. Examples of these wrong principles/norms of morality are the
following:

1. Morality is a matter of opinion. This means that moral norms are subjective; depends on the person.
2. All opinions about morality are equal and correct. Therefore, all opinions should be followed.
3. Morality is outside the world of practical people. Whatever impractical is not good.
4. Morality develops guilt and moral obligation which makes life unhappy. So, we need to set aside moral norms.
Point for reflection: What are the possible or even probable things that will happen to people and to society if all these
wrong principles about morality are correct?    
           After discussing all the sources of norms for the human person and their serious implications if there
are misconceptions, our next question is, what should we really judge as good or bad? Is it the human
person or his/her qualities or traits or his/her actions?

Prelim Week 3
Basic Concepts in Morality
           Morality is an encompassing concept that serves as the underlying force for every action of an individual and
of a society. Morality takes the crucial role of formulating, establishing and setting ethical norms of conduct that
govern behaviors and actions of an individual or group of individuals in order to achieve harmony, unity, and order
within a society.
 
Purposes of Morality:
        Why do we need to follow certain standards or set of norms? In our past discussions, we answered this by saying
that we need norms since some of the faculties of the human person like freedom and is/her passions can be exercised in
an abusive manner or even destructive to the person himself/herself and to others. Going deeper, why do we need to use
our faculties in a wise or good way? Will it lead us to a higher end? This will tell us that there are noble reasons why we
need to follow set of norms which are the following below:
1.          For the Fullness of Freedom ---- for the human person to be totally free.
 God created the human person as a rational being, conferring him/her the dignity of an individual who can initiate
and control his/her actions. God willed that man/woman should be ‘left in the hand of his/her own counsel’ so that
she/he will, of his/her own accord, seek his/her Creator and freely attain his/her full blessed perfection.
Man/Woman is “rational and, therefore, like God. He/She is created with free will and is master over his/her acts.”
So, norms are not prohibitions or imprisonment for the human person but are guide for him/her to be totally free.
To clarify this, what will happen to you if you do whatever you want? This is the youngs’ perception of freedom. If I
will do whatever I want, like I will just steal others’ property or even kill someone, what will happen to me? It is
either I will end up in the prison cell or I will go hiding. Doing whatever I want will make me unfree.
So, freedom does not mean I will do whatever I want, but I will always do anything so long as it is good for
me and for others. Freedom is aimed at the perfection of the human person.
2.          A guide to the Fullness of Human Development
 Moral development is part of human development. Moral development is the process through which children
develop proper attitudes and behaviors toward other people in society, based on social and cultural norms, rules, and
laws.
 Moral development is a concern for every parent. Teaching a child to distinguish right from wrong and to behave
accordingly is a goal of parenting.
 Moral development is a complex issue that—since the beginning of human civilization—has been a topic of
discussion among some of the world's most distinguished psychologists, theologians, and culture theorists.
 Material progress which does not follow moral norms and which others still consider as development  is not really
so. Examples of this are the jets fighters, bombs, and others. These are not really developments but are aimed for
destruction; destruction of human lives or destruction of things, and nature.
So, developments whether scientific, social, economic and others should always follow norms of morality or else, they are
aimed for destruction of many things as mentioned above.
 3.         A Guide towards Reality (truth of things, life)
 Morality is a guide for the human person to discover reality or the truth of things, and of life. This will lead the
human person to discover the hierarchy of values until the ultimate value of life and of all things. So, this will help
the human person to set his/her priorities in life until her/his attainment of the ultimate goal which is the eternal
union and happiness with his/her Creator
4.          A Guide towards Meaning of Life
 As mentioned above, morality or always doing good will allow the human person to discover the real value of
things and life which at the end will let him/her experience the true meaning of life. 
5.          The Entrance of Eternal Life into the Life of the Human Person
 After following the moral norms, discovering the truth and real value of all things, and bringing himself/herself to
perfection, the human person will be able to reach his/her final destiny which is to enter the kingdom of
God. Morality reveals and leads the human person to his/her ultimate end/destiny.
After finding out the Purposes of Morality, let us go back to the causes why there is morality. Although, these were implied
in the discussions above, we will enumerate and briefly explain them for clarification purpose.
MORALITY PRESUPPOSES the following:

1. The existence of God

            Morality points us to the existence of the Creator of all things who is totally good and perfect and whom we call
“God”. Since this Creator is totally good or perfect, He/She also gave us a guide to attain total goodness or perfection.

2. Intellect and Free Will

            Intellect, freedom, will, and passions needs moral norms so for them not to be abuse, misuse or overuse.

3. Ultimate Destiny
            As discussed above, moral nOrms are guides for the human person to attain his/her ultimate destiny which is the
Kingdom of God or eternal happiness with God.

4. Accountability to an Ultimate value

            Morality tells us that there are ultimate values or ends that we will be accountable (responsible) or we will face the
consequence later if we do not follow the norms. This ultimate value is our final destiny which is the Kingdom of God.  
OBJECT OF MORALITY
          We have been talking about norms, rules, standards or laws of which is being use by morality to judge our actions.
To clarify this, what does morality judge as good or bad?  Is it the human person or his actions? It is the action of the
human person. To be very specific, what kind of action needs to be judge as good or bad? There are two kinds of acts
which are the so-called human acts and acts of man. Which of these two should be moralized? While human acts and
acts of man both pertain to the actions or behaviors of an individual or group of individuals, they must be clearly
delineated in order to discern which brings moral responsibility.
            Human Acts are actions that are proper to humans, thus the crucial element of willful consent and knowledge of
the action must be present. One must freely use his/her intellect and freewill when acting. Human acts reveal the value of
responsibility or accountability. Eating healthy foods, reading notes in preparation for an exam, and saying no to drugs are
just few examples.
            Acts of Man are the actions that do not reflect the person as a rational being. The actions are
performed without conscious deliberation or knowledge and with the absence of freewill. Acts of man constitute
unconscious and involuntary actions. Examples are one’s way of sleeping, suddenly catching a falling object, one’s way of
walking, reacting instinctively when touching a very hot surface, and the likes. These are done without the use of freewill
and reason. Some of these just happen naturally as automatic responses to the situations.        

HUMAN ACTS ACTS OF MAN

Deliberate Indeliberate

Free Not free

Voluntary Involuntary

Conscious “Unconscious”

Willful Unwillful

Known “Unknown”

Aware “Unaware”

CONSTITUENTS OF HUMAN ACTS

1. Human acts are known and deliberate. An individual, as the moral agent, has full knowledge in doing a
certain action. There is a prior knowledge and a deliberate evaluation whether to do an action or not.
2. Human acts are free. An individual as the moral agent is free from any external factors as well as internal
pressure to do the act. He/She is neither forced nor intimidated to do or not to do something.
3. Human acts are voluntary. The action proceeds from the willingness of an individual to perform action with a
perceived knowledge of the end.
With the given distinction above, it is now very clear that we cannot moralize acts of man but the Human Acts
Morality therefore covers human acts and not acts of man.

Prelim Week 4
Determinants of Morality
At the end of this module, you are expected to:
 Explicate the Determinants of Morality;
 come up with a morally sound judgement of the different acts that you do;
 and differentiate the different kinds of voluntary acts.
     Last week, we made it clear that what we moralize or judge as good or bad is the human act and not the acts of man
nor the person who is the doer of the action. In the ancient time when there were no formulated norms yet which we now
call law/s, what were their bases or norms to judge people’s actions or practices?
 Let us first look at the etymology of the word morality or moral. The word “moral” originated from the Latin word “mores”
which means manner or custom/s which are widely used within a particular society or culture. So, the norms for people at
that time were the established practices called customs. Example in the Philippine context, people do not state the rule
such as “honor your parents/elders” but they teach us the customs on how to do such like saying “po or opo” or
“pagmamano” and others. Even in ways of dressing, our elders had their customs on how to do it to be respectful and
others. So, it is now clear to us that the customs set by our elders before were the norms for people to live a good life and
to have a good relationship with one another.  From its etymology, moral means good, if you put a prefix “im”, immoral
means bad. There are actions which are generally not judge as good nor bad, this is called amoral or indifferent
act. Amoral or indifferent acts are the same with the acts of man. Therefore, if you follow the norms of society which in the
ancient time were customs, traditions, and other practices, then your action is good, if not then what you are doing is bad.
           What is lacking on the norms set by our elders during their time? They are just general guidelines on how people
should live a good life and how to sustain good relationship with each other. There is no criteria on how are we going to
moralize or judge very specific human actions to see if they are really good or bad. Even most of our laws today are still
too general as bases to moralize human actions. They cannot give an exact judgment or exact amount or degree of
reward or penalty which corresponds to the action committed. With this, we need specific criteria. 
ELEMENTS IN DETERMINING THE MORALITY OF HUMAN ACTS
 There are three determinants of morality for us to assess the quality of human actions.

1.  The Act (The Object)   

         There are actions that the act itself will reveal if it is good or bad. There is no need for norms or rules to base on to
see their quality. Examples: Killing, stealing, cheating.; these acts are clearly or obviously bad. Praying, attending the Holy
Mass; these actions are obviously good.

2. Purpose or Intention (The End of the act) –WHY?

           A lot of our action is done with an intention or purpose – the reason behind the act. Although generally we do
things with a good intention, there are also instances where some will really do an action with a bad intention. Example:
helping is generally good, but some people will help a poor girl with the intention of seducing her; then, helping which was
supposed to be a good action became bad in that instance. Studying is also good; but how about studying how to make a
bomb to kill people whom you envy? This is how crucial the intention is as part of the criteria in moralizing human acts.

3. Circumstance (involves: place, time, person, manner)

          This refers to the persons involved, the time, place, and occasion that surround the act. In other words, it answers
the questions: ‘WHO’, ‘WHEN’, ‘WHERE’ and ‘HOW’. This can change or completely alter the moral quality of a human
act. Circumstance is a condition modifying human actions, either by increasing or diminishing the moral responsibility. It
plays an important role in affecting the morality of an action because human acts are performed at a definite time and
place, in a particular manner, for a certain reason, etc. All of which, in one way or another, increase or diminish the
responsibility of the action. Circumstance can make a good action evil, as when a guard on duty goes to sleep. It can
increase or minimize the guilt of the individual as when a student lies to his/her teacher when he/she cheats. Since all
human actions occur at a certain time and place, the circumstance must always be considered in evaluating the moral
quality of any human act.
Principles for Judging the Morality of Human Acts (application of the three criteria above)

1.  An act is morally good if the 3 (Act, Purpose and Circumstance) are substantially good.
       Examples: Helping, Studying, working, etc.

2. If one of the three is evil, the act is evil.

       Helping one to steal, studying how to easily kill someone (what is evil here is the intention)

3. Circumstance may create, mitigate or aggravate sin/culpability

       Circumstance can create, lessen or increase or even remove one’s culpability (guilt, penalty)
       Example: walking on a newly cemented area is bad since alam na this, how about if the one who walked on
       that area is a two years old girl? Will you moralize her action? Of course not.

4. For amoral act or indifferent act, its morality will be judge by its purpose and circumstance.
       ex:  throwing a stone, walking, etc. how about if one intentionally stepped on the newly cemented area?
       Obviously, such action is bad.

5. An act which is intrinsically evil is not morally allowed regardless of any circumstance.
     ex:  killing, suicide, adultery, rape, and the likes.
Other Moral Principles Based on the Three Criteria of Morality
o A good act done for a bad end becomes bad.
Example:  Politicians who gave relief goods to people who were greatly affected by the mass flooding taking advantage of
the situation to campaign for the election.
o A bad act done for a good end does not become good
Example:  When a father put the justice into his hands and kills the murderer of his daughter to take revenge for her death.
o The end does not justify the means. (The end or purpose does not justify the means or manner) This is almost
the same with letter b. No matter how good the purpose is if the manner or way or act is bad then it is not morally
allowed.
Example:   A student cheats during examination to pass and obtain scholarship in a university. Recall also the Robinhood
story.       
 o An indifferent act may become morally good or bad. (depending on the purpose/intention)
Example:  To study law is in itself an indifferent action. It becomes good when inspired by the thought of alleviating human
sufferings or making a decent living. It becomes bad if it is intended to perform illegal or immoral actions.
An elder brother who puts hot sauce on a cake before giving it to a begging younger brother, so that the younger brother
will not ask for more, and the elder can have the cake all to himself.
o  Choose the lesser evil (if no other options or it is the last resort)
            This is only allowed if there are no other options and the situation is a matter of life and death where you need to
decide at that very moment.
o Why not give the same punishment for the same crimes?
          Aside from the purpose and circumstance which can lessen or increase the culpability of a bad action, there are
also other factors which affect the manner or the reason why a person committed such an act. Not all acts are done
perfectly by the doer/agent. There are the so-called kinds of human act or specifically called kinds of voluntary act
KINDS OF VOLUNTARY ACT

1.        Perfect Voluntary act - the is act done with full knowledge and full consent.

2.        Imperfect V.A. – the act is done with some defect in the knowledge or consent.

3.        Simple A.- the act is done by the agent because he/she simply likes doing it.

4.        Conditional A – the act is done with a condition. “if”      

5.        Direct A - the act is intended by the agent.

6.        Indirect A - the act is not intended by the agent but an effect or result of the act which is
directly intended. Example: I intentionally threw a stone to the window but it bounced back and hit my playmates.

7.        Actual A – the act is spontaneous; an act is a result of an intention done here and now.

8.        Virtual A – an act done is a result of a previous intention (which may have been forgotten) – it is like  the act
is planned.

9.        Habitual A – the act done is a result of habit.

10.        Interpretative A. - an act influenced by an intention which is presumed (interpreted) to be present in an
agent who lacks the ability to express his actual intention. Example: A mute person is asking you something
through sign language, and you are the one who will interpret what he/she is asking and you did or gave it. These
kinds of voluntary act are great factors which will affect the judgement of a certain action.
    Point for Reflection: Which of these kinds of Voluntary Act is the most culpable if the act committed is bad? 

          Ash Wednesday is the beginning of the Lenten Season in the Catholic Liturgical Calendar (calendar of worship
celebrations). Lent is 40 days. As we discussed in CFED  1013, 40 days in the Old Testament symbolizes time
for purification. It is time for us to purify ourselves and undergo conversion and return to the Lord if we have not been
doing good in our past days. It is time for repentance and metanoia. Ash is a symbol of mortality, and people in the Old
Testament use it when they ask for forgiveness from the Lord.  Aside from using ash, there are also two things that we
(Catholics) do during Ash Wednesday and Good Friday. Fasting and Abstinence.  Fasting does not mean you will not
eat the whole day. It means take one full meal a day.
Out of your three meals, you should get full only once, and take little food for the other two meals. Aside from
purification, fasting also means sacrifice, that we share in the sacrifice of Christ who suffered for our
sins. Abstinence. This means do not eat meat. Point to ponder: If you go to a so called “burol ng patay” and they will
offer you food with a meat as your “ulam”. How do you feel? In line with this, we also respect the body of Christ which
suffered and died for our sins. As Catholics, we are expected to practice these two. Anyway, we are only required to do
these during Ash Wednesday and Good Friday.  Two days only, while other sects do not eat blood for the whole of their
lives. Fasting and abstinence also means abstain from doing other pleasurable things or from joyous moments during
these days. “ Nagfasting ka nga ng food pero naglaro ka naman ng favorite mong games the whole day, e nawala,na
yung essence ng pagfasting mo! These two days are the official days for us to practice fasting and abstinence. Other
Fridays of the year is just recommended but not obligatory. Why Friday? Because Jesus died on a Friday. For your
assignment, research on the exemptions or who are exempted from doing fasting and abstinence.
 

Prelim Week 5
IMPEDIMENTS TO HUMAN ACTS, PRINCIPLE OF DOUBLE EFFECT, STOP PRINCIPLE
IMPEDIMENTS TO HUMAN ACTS
            Human actions, though naturally a product of will and reason, are sometimes influenced by many factors. These
factors can intervene and bar one’s actions from being human or contribute to the reduction of the quality of a certain
action. Since they can bar one’s faculties like the mind in performing a human act, these are called impediments to human
acts. These impediments reduce the quality of human acts and so affects the judgement or morality of human acts.

1. Ignorance – pertains to the lack of pertinent information as to the nature, circumstances and effect of a certain

action. Either in commission or omission, the willful lack of initiative to properly understand the whole picture of
the circumstance affects the moral quality of an action.
Ignorance takes place when an individual consciously proceeds to act on a certain matter without due consideration of
the relevant o necessary information related to it. Usually, this takes place when someone unconsciously violates certain
rules and regulations. When asked to be made responsible for the action committed, one asserts that he/she must not be
held accountable since he/she was unaware that such was a violation. This example is a clear manifestation on how
ignorance directly alters the moral quality of an action.
Ignorance is classified into:
           A. Invincible Ignorance – This refers to a total ignorance of the person about the circumstance and other factors
surrounding the action that she/he committed. This total ignorance is unintentional.
          B. Vincible Ignorance – This is an ignorance that can be dispelled/removed or learned through ordinary efforts,
conscientiousness and proper diligence. There are two forms of vincible ignorance:
                       - Crass Ignorance (lack of effort) – happens when a person exerts little effort to dispel his ignorance.
                      - Affected Ignorance –  is a willful act of asserting one’s ignorance in order to plead innocence to a charge
of guilt in doing or not doing an act.  The act is pretended. An example is a student who pretends not to know the school’s
policy on proper haircut when confronted by the guards.
Morality of Actions done under Ignorance: 
        Wrong actions done under Invincible ignorance is not culpable; because of one’s unintentional total
ignorance.
Example: A person who does not know how to read and write caught for jaywalking. You cannot penalize him/her since
he/she is totally ignorant about the norm.
      Wrong action done under Crass Ignorance is culpable but the culpability can be lessened. This is so,
since the person exerted little effort to dispel his/her ignorance despite the opportunities to do so.
       Bad action done under Affected Ignorance is totally culpable. In fact, the culpability could increase
since the person just pretended his/her ignorance 
2. Concupiscence:
Happens when inordinate passion hinders one to exercise correct reasoning.
Passions are the emotional elements such as pride, anger, love, joy, and the likes. Concupiscence happens when
these passions push the person in doing a certain act without the intervention of reasoning or mind.

Examples: Suddenly punching someone out of wrath, destroying someone’s image out of envy, having pre-Marital sex
with someone due to being in loved, etc.
 
Two kinds of Concupiscence: (ante = before, consequent = after)

1. Antecedent Concupiscence – A spontaneous inordinate passion influences an action before it is controlled by

the will. The act abruptly or suddenly happens. This is called “gavva lang” in Ibanag                                               
For example, Juan was allegedly running late for his class. When he entered the school campus, the guard
confiscated his ID for no apparent reason. Out of anger, he cursed the guard.                                                 
2. Consequent Concupiscence – happens when the intellect is aware of the inordinate passion and the will still
choses to arouse the said passion and proceed with the act. So, it is pre-meditated. Example: you got angry with
your classmates and after many hours or even a day, you did not calm your anger and still wanted to punch your
classmates and you did it.
 
Morality of Actions done under Concupiscence:
       Bad actions done under Antecedent Concupiscence are still culpable but the
culpability can be lessened or can even be negated. This is so since the action was abrupt
and so not intentional.
        Bad actions done under Consequent Concupiscence are totally culpable.
3. FearHappens when the individual is threatened by impending danger. The existence of danger or threats can limit
one’s ability to use the will and reason and merely acts base on the instinct to survive or overcome the situation. There
are two kinds of Fear:
 Light Fear: The impending danger or threat is light or somewhat like remote. Example is, your classmate tells you
that he will slap you if you will not give in to his demand.
 Grave Fear: The impending danger or threat is so serious like a matter of life and death choices. Example is
when your classmate demands something from you with his gun pointed at your head.
Morality of Actions done under Fear:
Bad action done with light or grave fear are both culpable. This is because, despite the presence of the threat, one can
still choose to do what he/she prefers to do, although the consequence can really affect the decision.
Point to ponder: Which is more culpable? Bad action done under light fear or under grave fear?  Which
culpability can be lessened? Bad action done under light fear or under grave fear? 
4. Violence (physical attack)-is the application of physical force upon a resisting person to compel him/her to do or not to
do an act like protecting oneself and others. There are two persons involve here, the one who attacks and the one who
defends her/himself. What we judge here is the reaction of the one being attacked since the act of the one who attacks is
understood as bad.
Self-defense is a classic example for violence. With the presence of fear, one has to protect himself/herself against
his/her perpetrator. Self-defense means, there is no intention to kill one’s perpetrator but only to defend oneself.
Morality of actions done under violence
   If you are on the act of defending yourself against your perpetrator like a rapist or killer or kidnapper and
unintentionally, you killed him/her, are you culpable?  Of course not, but if you intended to kill your perpetrator while
defending yourself, then you are culpable although your culpability can be lessened.
5. Habit – Firm and stable behavior pattern of acting. An individual naturally and consciously, although most often
unconsciously performs an action, as a result of its repetitive performance through time. With the presence of habit, an
individual act based on his/her repeated responses to situations.
Good habits are called virtues while bad habits are vices. Obviously, we only moralize bad habits and not the good ones.
Examples of your habits is speaking bad words as a reaction to situations, like “ko diablo” or “diablo ka ko” or “pesti”, or
always causing trouble in a party when drunk, etc.
Morality of actions done under bad habit
Bad actions done because of habit are culpable. The culpability is lessened only when the person exerts utmost effort to
free himself/herself from a vicious habit.
The S-T-O-P Principle
There is one good practice which is very helpful in dealing with passions and dilemmas or problems in life. This is called
the STOP principle.
S – Search for the fact/s. Study what is the issue behind one’s problems or dilemmas and other related situations.
T – Think for alternatives. This is necessary if your proposed action is not clear or not sure. 
O – Others are to be considered for advice. Ask others’ advice or suggestions if you are hard up.
P – Pray for guidance and wisdom. Pray to God for enlightenment about the issue or problem.
*One should apply STOP if one is doubting, confused, emotionally disturbed, things are unclear etc.
General Moral Principle:
One should not act nor decide if one is doubting, confused, emotionally disturbed, problematic, things are unclear and
other same circumstances.
Point to ponder: What will happen or what could be the probable result if one acts immediately when he/she is still
confused, problematic or controlled by passions? What is the worst thing that one can do if he will act under these
circumstances?
DOUBLE EFFECT – There are actions which have two effects (good and bad)
Question: When are you allowed to proceed with an action with these two effects?  
Principles of Double Effect
            One is allowed to do an act with two effects (good and bad) under the following conditions.

1. The act must be good or at least morally indifferent.

2. The evil effect must not precede the good effect or at least they should happen simultaneously.
So, the good effect must come first before the bad one if ever.

3. There must be a sufficient reason to do the act.

Sufficient to do the act means like helping one to escape death or escape danger and the likes.

4. The intention of the agent is honest.

 There should be no other intention than to do good like the ones mentioned as sufficient reasons above.
An example of this is a physician/doctor operating a pregnant woman with the expected effects if ever like the mother
might die in the process or the baby in her womb might die or even the two might die.
Point to ponder: What should be the intention of the physician in proceeding with the operation? Should he/she intend to
save only the mother, or the baby, or both, or kill both or what?