MORALITY OF HUMAN ACTS & MORAL ACCOUNTABILITY 7 Specific kinds

a. Who- doer/receiver of action (How would person’s status affect act’s morality”
Human Act (actus humani)
b. Where- geographical location/nature of place (How does place affect morality”
- proceed from insight into nature & purpose of one’s doing & from
c. By what means
consent of free will (Peschke)
d. Why- intention/motive that moves agent to an action
- result of one’s conscious knowledge, freedom, & voluntariness/consent
e. How- manner; condition/modality (voluntariness, consent, violence, ignorance
- performed knowingly, freely, voluntarily (Agapay)
f. When- time
- proceeds from deliberate free will of man (Paul Glenn) g. To Whom- recipient
- performed in a situation when one decides & thinks for themselves
classified as good/bad, right/wrong; thus, subject to morality & its norms Modifiers of Human Act
(Baldameca, et al) - factors/conditions affecting man’s inner disposition towards actions
- influence person’s mental/emotional state to the point that voluntariness &
Basic Elements moral accountability is increased/diminished
1. KNOWLEDGE (Act must be deliberate) - affect acts in terms of knowledge, freedom, voluntariness, making them less
- by conscious agent who’s aware of he’s doing & its consequences perfectly human
(good/evil)
1. Ignorance- absence of knowledge person is ought to have
2. FREEDOM (Act must be performed in freedom)
3 types
- done w/ his volition & powers
a. Invincible I.- person may have w/o awareness/knowledge of it
3. VOLUNTARINESS/CONSENT (Act must be done voluntarily) - lacks necessary means to correct & solve it; not correctible
- decided willfully
b. Vincible I.- correctible by ordinary diligence & reasonable efforts
Human act- free & conscious; done by humans & proper to humans alone c. Affected I.- vincible i. which person keeps by positive efforts to escape
- make human “truly human” blame & accountability
- person concerned becomes morally accountable of such act Governing principles
Acts of Man- happen “naturally” even w/o awareness while doing it a. Invincible ignorance renders act involuntary
- w/o deliberation, reflection, consent; done instinctively b. Vincible ignorance doesn’t destroy but lessen voluntariness & accountability
- physiological process; spontaneously happening during c. Affected/pretended ignorance doesn’t excuse person from bad acts but
person’s impulsive, unconscious, instinctive movement increases their malice
- shared w/animals; emanate from purely sensual nature
2. Passion/Concupiscence- strong emotion/sentiment; bodily appetites/tendency
 “All human acts are acts of man, but not all acts of man are human acts” - inclination towards desirable objects
a. Antecedent passion doesn’t always destroy voluntariness but diminish
Major Determinants of Human Acts’ Morality accountability for resultant act
- allow us to identify concretely if act is good/bad, right/wrong, b. Consequent passion doesn’t lessen voluntariness but increase accountability
moral/immoral in reference to objective norm of morality
- sources defining goodness/rightness; badness/wrongness of human act 3. Fear- disturbance in mind when confronted by impending danger/harm
- act done w/fear; act done out/because of fear
1. Act itself / Object of the Act
a. Acts done w/ fear are voluntary
- done by an agent; simply what person does
b. Acts done because of intense fear/panic are involuntary
- natural act termination/completion which determines whether act is
intrinsically/extrinsically good/evil 4. Violence- physical force inflicted to another for recipient to act against will
- “substance of moral act” a. Action resulting from violence is involuntary (person confronted by violence
2. Motive / Intention must always offer intrinsic resistance by withholding consent)
- purpose/reason behind act; WHY person does what he does b. Absolute violence excludes any voluntariness from forced action
a. Indifferent act becomes morally good/evil depending on person’s intention (relative violence doesn’t impair voluntariness completely but lessens it)
b. Objectively good act becomes morally evil due to wrong/bad motive 5. Habit- constant/easy way of doing acts
c. Intrinsically/Objectively morally good act can receive added goodness if - readiness born of frequently repeated act for acting in certain manner
done w/equally noble intention a. Deliberately admitted habit doesn’t lessen voluntariness & actions
d. Intrinsically evil act never become morally good even if it’s w/good motive therefrom are voluntary atleast in their cause
b. Opposed habit lessens voluntariness & precludes it completely
3. Circumstances
- conditions outside act; influence to lesser/greater degree human act’s
moral quality
- affect act by increasing/lessening its voluntariness
- change & modify specific moral character of human act
a. Circumstance may exempt temporarily someone from doing required act
b. “ don’t prove person’s guilt (Presence in crime doesn’t prove his criminality)
4 types:
a. Mitigating/Extenuating C.- diminish degree of moral good/evil
b. Aggravating C- increase degree of moral good/evil w/o adding new &
distinct species of moral good/evil
c. Justifying C.- show adequate reason
d. Specifying C.- give new & distinct species of moral good/evil
 PHILOSOPHY
Doing Philosophy:
Arguments- argue in logical manner
Questions- raise valid and intelligent questions
Reflection- reflect meditatively
a. UNDEFINABLE
As a Philosophy of life
- process of personal reflection of meaning of human life/existence
- quest for personal outlook/lifestyle concerned w/wholeness of society
- endless process, it has begun but undoubtedly have no end
As Love of Wisdom
- not to be defined but to be inquired into
- not to be defined but a reality to be lived in
- no limits like human mind in its search for explanation of reality & himself
As Discipline of Questioning
Dynamic- unending series of questions & answers
Personal- philosophical concepts are not immutable doctrines
b. DEFINABLE – De-Fenire (Latin, “limit”)
Etymological Definitions
Greek: Philo (love) & Sophia (wisdom) = “Love of Wisdom”
 To philosophize is to be in a quest/have desire to live acc to truth
Chinese: Zhe/Che (wisdom) & Xue/Shue (study) = “Study of Wisdom”
 Inseparability between words & actions
 theory application into praxis; challenge to live on what He says
Hindi: “Seeing” (Darsana)
 seeing through totality of being
 Seeing whole reality through total advertence & involvement off looker
Essential Definition
Philosophy- science that investigates all things in their ultimate causes,
reasons, & principles through use of human reason
ETHICS
CHED: “The fundamental purpose of higher education is not only to develop
knowledgeable & competent graduates in certain field but also well-
rounded individuals who appreciate knowledge, are open minded because 8. Study of ethics is an instrumental value & valuable in its own right
of it, secure in their identities & as Filipinos, & cognizant of their role in life
of nation & larger community”
Ethics- introduce to ethical dimension of human existence through personal,
societal, environmental, cultural levels
Ethics: A Philosophy of Action
- arms person w/ theoretical knowledge of human act morality
- knowing what’s right doesn’t mean doing what’s right
- “farthest distance for person to cross is distance between head & heart”
Ethics: A Practical Discipline
- not just an academic study but a “way of life”
- discipline w/initimate connection w/ person’s daily lives
- knowing what’s right w/o changing behavior morally is useless knowledge Ethics - very foundation of laws; Morality precedes/goes beyond legality
ETHICS vs MORALITY
Etymology: Ethics (Greek, “ethos”) Morality (Latin, “mos”/”mores”) = SAME
 Both deal w/ goodness/badness, rightness/wrongness  Because of ethics, we have laws; we need ethics to refine & perfect legal system
Difference:
- Ethics specifically study Morality
Ethics (theory)- provides principles/ guidelines as to what’s good/bad,
right/wrong in human conduct
Course Ethics
- principles of ethical behavior in modern society in level of person,
society, & interaction w/ env & shared resources
- teach to make moral decisions by using dominant moral frameworks
(ethical theories) & applying 7-step moral reasoning model to analyse &
solve moral dilemmas
Morality (praxis)- actualizes theory; gives ethics perspective/rectitude of act
- provide w/quality that determines/distinguishes right from wrong conduct
- standards of right & wrong person originally picks up from community
 Ethics outlines theories of right/wrong; Morality translates these into action
Importance of Ethics
1. Ethics is area of knowledge indispensable in living life which is “truly human”
- Without moral perception, man is only an animal.
- w/o morality, man as a rational & free being is a failure.
2. Concerned w/ living of “good life” (man’s most noble & enduring pursuits)
- what kind of life person ought to live has preoccupied some of greatest
minds in history
3. Ethics & morality served as very foundation of human society
- idea of right & wrong is dominant theme in human civilization
- w/o ethics & morality, society would naturally & expectedly deteriorate
4. Ethics as practical science is a study of choices we make
- we become good/bad persons through decisions we make
5. Can provide moral paradigms/perspectives guides us in determining what’s
right & wrong when confronted w/ moral dilemmas
6. Enables us to reason out our moral beliefs & why we hold them
- critically examine ground/foundation of valid & invalid moral beliefs/claims
7. Aid us to widen our horizon as to what is good & bad
- appreciation of ethics complexity is valuable in counteracting our natural
tendency toward inflexibility & tribalism where we stubbornly adhere to
values of our own specific groups.
- doing good is better than just knowing good
9. Deepen our reflection on ultimate questions of life
- value in itself; what life is worth living?
ETHICS vs LAW
“What is moral is not always legal; what is legal is not always moral”
“What is right is right even though no one’s doing it; wrong is wrong even if
everybody is doing it”
Ethics ≠ Law
Law- concerned only w/ public actions that harmed those around us,
detrimental to common good of general public
- goes beyond concern & parameters of law; includes human
motivations in its investigations; private actions
- includes thoughts & feelings & subject persons to moral analysis & eval.
ETHICS vs RELIGION Characteristics of Moral Principles
- both are normative disciplines & concerned w/ right & wrong behavior 1. Reasonability- moral adjustments must be backed up by good reasons
Ethics- relies on natural reason, logic & experience; justification & validation 2. Impartiality – neutral in questioning who are recipients; apply moral principles
of theories & principles concerning good & bad 3. Prescriptivity- practical/action-guiding nature of morality; commanding aspect
Religion- relies on supernatural reason (divine revelation/divine authority)
4. Overridingness- moral standards must have hegemony (reign supreme over
Ethics: A Definition other standards of valuation like morality over legality, morality
- practical science of human act morality & good life over technicality)
- branch of Philosophy dealing w/ how we ought to live, w/pursuit of the good 5.
& Autonomous from Arbitrary Authority- stand on own logic independent from
concept as right &wrong arbitrariness of majority
- investigate & examines critically & systematically by using natural reason, 6. Publicity- moral principles must be public to serve as guidelines to our actions
principles, codes of right/wrong, good/bad 7. Practicability- shouldn’t be impossible to achieve
- use human reason & experience alone (no supernatural reason/divine revelation)
8. Universalizability- moral rule/principle must be applicable to everyone w/o
exception provided that all people are in similar situation/context
Ethics: Moral Philosophy
Questions: What constitutes good life for humans?
What’s basis by which actions can be judged as good/bad, right/wrong?
How man ought to behave so as to live life that’s truly human?

Objects of Ethics
Material- conscious & deliberate conduct/act; one is held morally responsible
- specific subject which science deals w/ in its study
Formal- morality/moral rectitude of human act/conduct
- special way & viewpoint science employs in dealing w/ a specific subject

ETHICS vs OTHER SCIENCES

Ethics- critical normative & prescriptive discipline
Other Sciences- simply descriptive

Division of Ethics
General- human act morality (major elements/constituents & modifiers),
norms of morality (law & conscience)
determinants of morality (major sources of morality)
Special (Applied)– applies General Ethics’ specific & fundamental norms & principles in
specific areas of human life & activity in individual & social domain (Individual
ethics & Social Ethics)
- family, state, church, societal issues (rights/duties, ecology/ environment, labor &
work ethics, sex & marriage, bioethics, politics)

Types of Norms
Norm- standard; measures morality of act
- criteria about kind of person we ought to be & kind of actions we ought to perform
a. Technical–techniques of how certain things should be done
- community prescribes proper ways of working & doing things
b. Aesthetic- perceptual (color, shape, space, movement, sound, emotion, touch,
texture, taste, scent, odor)
- considered by community as ‘ennobling’, ‘cathartic’, “heighten man’s existence”,
‘beautiful’; represent free play & celebration of human spirit
c. Societal- manners/behavior/etiquette recommended for community & strengthening
d. Ethical- ideal vision of a person, ideal stage/perfection of being; ultimate goal & norm
- “non-negotiables”; all other norm types are subordinated here

First Position- A-morality; morality occupies just 1 area in human life

Second P.- all of human life is subjected to morality
Third P./ Middle ground- morality covers where focus of human experience is moral
obligation/value, when we concentrate on what should be done
- morality can also be more in background as a horizon/context that guides us
- our existence is too rich & complex to confine ourselves to 1/ few dimensions
 ETHICAL RELATIVISM
Moral view/framework/philosophy:
“MORALITY is mainly, if not totally, dependent on one’s CULTURE”
CLAIMS
a. Ethical values & beliefs (as to what’s right/good, wrong/bad) are relative
to time, place, person, situations
b. No universally valid moral principles
c. All moral values are valid relative to culture/individual choice
d. Act rightness/wrongness depends on society’s moral norms/person’s
moral commitment; no absolute standard exists by which differing
rules/commitments can be judged
e. No values cut across cultural boundaries & people
f. Morality depends on social/cultural circumstance (tradition/custom)
g. Morally right/wrong vary fundamentally between person & culture
h. What’s basically right for person may be wrong for another
i. Act may be right & wrong simultaneously (right in 1 culture; wrong in
Moral Skepticism- no valid moral principle at all/we can’t know if there’s any
≠ Ethical Relativism- no universal moral principles
Moral Nihilism- nothing is morally right/wrong
≠ Ethical Relativism- right/wrong depends on factors
ARGUMENTS
1. CULTURAL DIFFERENCES ARGUMENT
“Morality depends on specific social/cultural circumstance”
Reasons: Diff societies have different moral codes
People in diff society have diff custom/idea on right/wrong
No transcultural consensus on what acts are right/wrong even
though there’s overlapping
Study on cultural practices of diff people supports that what is/isn’t
behaviorally normal is culturally determined (Ruth Benedict)
Acquaintance w/diverse moral beliefs leads to denial that there’s
only 1 correct moral code that applies to & binds all societies
 Ethical Relativism = Cultural Diversity
2. ARGUMENT FROM RESPECT
“What’s morally right/wrong varies fundamentally from person/culture”
Reason: People shouldn’t judge others basing on their own moral standards
Moral code of one’s culture has no special status compared w/rest
No culture has right to impose its own ethical views on others
Promote tolerance & respect for different moral standpoints
Entails “intercultural tolerance”
Tolerance is virtue; taking superior stance is height of arrogance &
narrow mindedness
We should be accepting of others’ radically diff moralities
 Ethical Relativism = Tolerance & Respect
3. PSYCHOLOGICAL ARGUMENT
“Ethical values & beliefs are relative to time, place, situations”
Reason: Moral values are result of how we’re conditioned/trained through
parental rearing
We acquire moral beliefs through psychological conditioning
We are un/consciously subjected to psychic manipulation by
“significant others”
Moral truth is relative to one’s psychological upbringing
 Ethical Relativism = Psychological Upbringing
4. CONFORMITY ARGUMENT
“Whether act is right/wrong depends on society’s normal
norms/individual’s moral commitments”
Reason: Whatever a society believes to be right is right for them
“Good” is what majority of society approves/acknowledges
Morality is dependent of what majority wants/decides
What’s good/bad is reducible to kind of social contract/matter of
group consensus
We must conform & embrace ethical code of respective cultures
It’s natural to affiliate & conform to accepted ethical standards of
particular group where they belong
We should be accepting of own societal norms; their beliefs is good
basis for common morality within culture
 Ethical Relativism = Conformity to Group’s Accepted Ethical Standards
5. PROVABILITY ARGUMENT
Reasons: There’s moral dispute between groups
There’s difficulty in knowing what’s right to do in a situation
We can’t prove which moral opinions are true/false
Ethical disputes are far from resolved (euthanasia, abortion, divorce)
Morality can never be proved
 Ethical Relativism = No Objective Truth in Ethics
Critical Evaluation of Ethical Relativism
1. on Cultural Diversity
- sociological & anthropological fact; neutral to making value/moral judgment
- doesn’t categorically say what culture is superior
- doesn’t deny moral values’ objectivity
- product of culture express objective truth, so moral code can be product of culture
yet still express objective truth about how we ought to live
2. on Argument from Respect
- Melvill Herskovits: ethical relativism entails intercultural tolerance”
- if people think ethical relativism is true, they will tolerate moral differences
- tolerance is not always good/always a virtue
3. on Psychological Argument
- guilty of genetic fallacy: just because something comes from dubious source,
one’s belief doesn’t follow that it’s false/erroneous
 how one believes doesn’t undermine its truthfulness/validity
- guilty of misinterpretation fallacy: overstates its case
 deceives us that matter of social conditioning is in person’s moral/ethical dev’t.
fails to consider other powerful factors:
Exercise of freedom of choice/free will
- morality is primary function of free volition; one is a result of decision-making
- moral dev’t is entirely a matter of decision, not condition
- fallacy of oversimplification: disregard specific role of early psychological
upbringing in moral dev’t & behavior
4. on Argument from Conformity
- morality is dependent of what majority decides. What’s good/bad is reducible to
social contract/group consensus
- makes majority as only true & legitimate voice, reducing minority to falsehood
- ignored subgroup problem where people can belong to overlapping/conflicting
societies
5. on Provability Argument
- “morality can never be proved” is a logical necessity since we try to prove one’s
ethical viewpoint to another to find out how difficult & frustrating it is
- some truths may be forever hidden from ordinary/limited mortals
- very act of discussion whether it’s possible to resolve disputes is “proof” itself &
“answer” exists: in the first place, there’s moral disagreements to resolve
- if there’s moral disagreements, then there’s something independent that serves as
basis that makes these agreements possible
- objective theory “allows us to account for strong feeling that there’s genuine
disputes about moral matters”
ETHICAL RELATIVISM & AMBIVALENCE OF FILIPINO VALUES
- negative aspects are used as excuse for our “weak character” (Emerita Quito, 1st
Filipina who obtained PhD abroad)
HIYA (Shame)
Neg: inhibits action; reduces one to smallness/morality of slaves, congealing soul &
emasculating it, making it timid, meek, & weak
Pos: contributes to peace of mind & lack of stress
NINGAS-COGON (Procrastination)
Neg: begins ardently & dies down as soon as it begins; renders one inactive/
unable to initiate/persevere
Pos: makes one nonchalant, detached, indifferent should anything go wrong,
conducive to peace & tranquility
PAKIKISAMA (Group Loyalty)
Neg: ignore evils to conserve peace & harmony at expense of one’s comfort
Pos: one lives for others; constant goal: peace/lack of dissension
PATIGASAN (Test of Strength)
Neg: stubborn, resists efforts at reconciliation; makes us childish, vindictive,
irrational
Pos: sign that we know our rights & not easily cow to submission; occidental in
spirit, keeping “will to power”
BAHALA NA (Resignation)
Neg: entrusts anything in Divine providence; laziness disguised in religious garb - built into nature of life itself, thus enable us to discover what’s right & wrong
Pos: one relies to superior; humility, modesty, lack of arrogance
KASI (Because, Scapegoat)
Neg: one disowns responsibility & makes scapegoat out of someone; one
remains lily white & has ready alibi for failure
Pos: one can see both sides of argument & know where it failed; never suffer
from guilt/self-recrimination
SAVING FACE
Neg: closely related to hiya; shirk responsibility; one is never accountable for
anything
Pos: one’s psyche is saved from embarrassment; saves from accountability/
responsibility; enables graceful exit from guilt
SAKOP (Inclusion)
Neg: one never learns to be one’s own; stunts growth; parasitism; consider
world as comfort room
Pos: one cares for family; stands/falls w/them; concern for family
MAÑANA/MAMAYA NA (Procrastination)
Neg: constant postpone of action & accomplishes nothing; arise from indolent
mentality that problem goes away by itself
Pos: one is w/o stress & tension; take what comes naturally; makes one live
naturally & w/o artificiality
UTANG NA LOOB (Indebtedness)
Neg: overlooks moral principles when one is indebted to person; another
person will do anything to please him that by doing so he’s able to repay
debt; condones what other does & never censure him for wrongdoing
Pos: recognize indebtedness; “he who doesn’t know how to look to past will
never reach his destination”
KANYA-KANYA (Self-Centeredness)
Neg: no regard for others
Pos: takes care of oneself & family blood is thicker than water)
 we can see positive side of character through appropriation & putting
cultural vale in proper perspective
 there’s nothing “absolute”/”objective” in specific trait
 every trait is relative; depend on how it’s used in context
NATURAL LAW OF ETHICS
NATURAL LAW THEORY
- moral rules/principles are objective, absolute, & universal truths discovered in nature
of things & structure of life through reasoned reflection
- dominated in Medieval Period by St. Thomas Aquinas (Angelic Doctor of Catholic
Church), where his religious interpretation & appropriation of secular & humanistic
Aristotelian nature concept has influenced in a way that Catholic teachings are
framed throughout history, esp sexual morality
- different from “natural law”: morality w/modern science; descriptive generalizations
& not broken/defied; immutably govern how natural
world performs (law of gravity)
- to understand its demands, we must look to human nature & ask what it demands
from humans gifted w/knowledge & free will (nothing mysterious)
- accessible to human reason (natural reflection) & experience; reason & common
sense determines what we ought/not do
- applies universally to all humans regardless of social & cultural differences
- we just have to follow reason’s dictates to discover moral truths of existence
Stoic’s Interpretation of Natural Law
- belief that ethics/morality is grounded on nature: oldest in philosophical thought
- natural law first appeared among Stoics (1st cent BC)
- Stoics views life & world w/calmness (stoic: serenity/ indifference on anything)
- believed that “humans have divine spark (logos spermatikos: rational seed/sperm)
that help discover essential eternal laws governing whole cosmos
- equated nature w/law & reason; taught that it’s important to live life acc to nature
(wisdom): everything happens acc to law; wise person knows that things must be as
they are & achieves happiness & purpose by learning to accept necessities
- fatalism: things can’t be changed as they are bc it’s what they are, nothing more/less
- whole of universe governed by immutable laws exhibiting rationality. Nothing
happens by chance; it has its own purpose for its own being
Aristotelian Conception
4 basic ideas: 1. Everything in nature has purpose
2. “ “ “ has essential nature (features constituting its defining features)
3. “ “ “ has its proper good
4. Natural purpose, essential nature, proper good are intimately related
- Aristotle (384-322 BC): everything that exists in nature serves specific purpose & we
can never fully understand anything until we understand what it’s purpose. Natural
law appears mysterious only if we forget that everything has a law built into nature
- applies to inanimate nature: process of how thing develops from potentiality to
actuality is possible bc of its nature: natural law is story of how things work
- every substance has intrinsic nature/principle of operation (dynamic, theological,
specific); purpose of any fully-developed entity is to be itself
Self-actualization/realization: very reason for our being
- essence of thing is activity; essential characteristic is what it does uniquely/better
- growth & reproduction are shared by humans w/other living beings; sensual
perceptions are shared/animals/brutes
Thinking capacity- distincts human from other creatures
- exercising intelligence is our purpose & reason what’s to be human
- doing what’s natural acc to nature as rational is what’s good/right
Reasonability- act acc to nature  Rationality – being good in action/conduct
Morality- exercise capacity to reason/deliberate on what we ought to do
- not allow lower faculties to dominate decision/action
Follow nature  follow reason  way to be good  what we ought to be 
purpose/reason of being (goal of human existence)
MORAL LAW
- governing nature/action of all animate/inanimate beings
- constant way of acting/reacting, any directive rule of activity
- rule of conduct governing/regulate/directs free acts of man as rational beings
Thomistic Influence on Natural Law
Law as defined by St. Thomas
- ordinance of reason (command/directive from legitimate authority) for
common good, promulgated by one w/care to community
- binding upon subjects to obey; request & command
- differs from plea/advice since it requires obedience/obligation, rendering it w/force & 4. Natural laws are universal & unchangeable; basis to judge individual cultures &
power—law is imposition which necessitates obedience
- be in good accord w/human reason where reasonable human can agree with
- product of reason
Essential elements for Law to be Reasonable
1. Just- promote inherent rights & dignity
2. Honest- shouldn’t contradict higher law; consistent within itself
3. Possible of fulfillment- can be followed
4. Relatively permanent- continues to be binding on subjects unless
repealed/amended w/good reason by legitimate authority
5. Promulgated- publicized
6. Directed to common good- promote general welfare
7. Promulgated by one w/care to community- by competent/legit authority
Attributes of Natural Law
1. Obligatory- declares moral duty; speaks voice of authority
2. Universal- applied to all despite differences
3. Proper Sanction
4. Recognizable- knowable; open to all rational beings
5. Immutable- unchangeable
Contents of Natural Law
Formal norm- relate to character/what kind of person we ought to be
- absolute principle; unchangeable
Knowledge on Natural Law
- men have capacity to know law’s contents
- under normal circumstances, law’s principles can’t be forgotten/banished
- passion/emotion may prevent clear thinking & proper understanding
- since law is grounded in human nature, it cant be ignored
- law should be confirmed by positive divine law
Basic & Universal Natural Human Inclination
- purposely put in human nature to aid us in attaining final & ultimate goal: eternal
happiness w/God
1. Self-Preservation/Survival- preserve in existence
2. Propagation- unite sexually to continue generation
3. Live in Peace & Harmony w/others- fair dealings
4. Seek Truth & Knowledge of Good- use will & intellect
Natural Law & Church’s Teaching
on CONTRACEPTION
- baby conception is natural purpose of sexual act which strengthens relationship
- anything that deliberately/willfully frustrates natural outcome is ethically wrong.
Every sexual act must be open to possibility of conceiving
- sexual intercourse that doesn’t lead to pregnancy (homosexuality, masturbation,
anal/oral) are sexual perversions
on PREMARITAL SEX
- conceiving outside marriage is immoral as it deprives children of stable env
(Declaration on Certain Questions Concerning Sexual Ethics, Article VII)
- premarital sex on longterm relationships can’t ensure interpersonal
relationship/protect relationship from whims & caprices
- Church: every genital act must be within marriage. Pleasure can be enjoyed only after
marital vows; sex is for procreation, not recreation
on HOMOSEXUALITY
- homo relations are acts that lacks essential & indispensable finality
- unnatural & evil; worthy of moral condemnation
on MASTURBATION
- grave moral disorder called into doubt/expressly denied today
- intrinsically & seriously disordered act
- use of sexual organ outside normal conjugal/marital relations contradicts finality of
faculty
Summary of Natural Law Theory
1. Everything in world has its own purpose/reason that’s true to humans
2. Humanity as essential rational nature
3. Morality is governed by law built into human nature as laws of nature also govern
things
societies acc to norms & practices
5. Man through reason can know what’s good
5. Moral laws, based from natural law, have objective validity
6. First self-evident of natural law: Do good & avoid evil
Ethical Principles under Natural Law Theory
Principle of DOUBLE EFFECT
- morality can’t be categorized into definite & simple labeling of good/bad; good & bad
effects are present & unavoidable
- neat algorithm for solving moral disputes where act has 2 effects; applied to situation
where good & evil effects result from act w/good cause
- finds concrete relevance in medical context
- act w/good & bad effects is morally justified as long as:
1. Act is good/morally indifferent/neutral
- one may never do evil to achieve good
2. Evil effect isn’t directly intended but morally allowed as regrettable side issue
- negative effect must not be primary reason for acting
3. Evil effect is not means by which good effect is achieved
- “end doesn’t justify means”
4. Good effect must outweigh evil effect/proportional
Principle of INVIOLABILITY OF LIFE
- human life is of infinite value as it’s sacred gift; outweighs everything
- equal worth & dignity to every life (criminal’s = baby); weighing life against other is wrong
- applies to every human life from conception to subsequent stages
- intention & direct termination of life (euthanasia, abortion) of medical practitioners is
immoral  TO HEAL & NOT TO KILL
- only competent, qualified persons (hospital ethic committee) are authorized to undergo
decision-making in hard medical situations
Principle of FORFEITURE
- morally permissible to defend oneself even if it involves killing
- aggressor’s human inclination to self-preservation/survival is forfeited in your favor
- differentiates killing (act; to non-innocent) & murder (crime; unjust; to innocent)
- in complicated pregnancy, fetus, though subjectively innocent must be removed as it’s
objectively an aggressor to mother’s life
Principle of TOTALITY
- part of human body exists for good of whole
- only infectious organ can be removed for preservation of whole body
- involves ethical & religious principle that persons aren’t owners of bodies but given task
of administration
Principle of STEWARDSHIP
- we aren’t owner of our body; only God has dominion over life & bodies
- suicide & euthanasia are immoral; one must seek medical aid
- moral duty to preserve & protect environment
JUST WAR THEORY
- related principle & application of principle of forfeiture, where defending whole country
from unjust aggressor is justified
- only justified when:
1. Lawful Authority- renounces aggressive war than defensive war
- defined by Constitution; must have mandate over whole community
2. Just Cause- if it’s waged to protect innocents from harm
- war to invade & subjugate nation is morally wrong & unjustified
3. Last Resort- war never be first & primary option; all peaceful/legal means must be used
4. Good Intention- good faith in war to promote common good, peace, etc
5. Reasonable Chances of Success- has reasonable chance of attaining goal
- going to war w/zero virtual success is immoral (unwinnable war is immoral)
6. Right Use of Means- no weapons of mass destruction (chemical/biological)
- inhumane means even w/ just cause & honest intention is immoral
7. Proportional Response- violent response is directly proportional to act of provocation/
aggression; must only repel attack, no overkill
 war must cease once it has met its intended purpose/peace is declared
Justified Rebellion/Revolution
War- condition of armed & active hostility between nations
Act of Rebellion- unlawful uprising against government
- coup d’ etat (mutiny to lawfully constituted authority)
- CBCP: violent means to overthrow authority is opposed & condemned as immoral as - actions don’t have intrinsic moral value
it’s tantamount to unjust usurpation of power, except when:
1. There’s clear & manifest long-standing tyranny & oppression
- basic & fundamental rights are already trampled, gov has become substantially evil
& pursues its own self-interest
2. All peaceful & legal means to resolve conflict are exhausted
3. There’s reasonable probability that revolve is success
4. Good to be achieved is well-proportionate to damage inflicted
5. Decision to wage violent revolt against gov must come from majority
- war must be of, for, & by the people
Critical Assessment of Natural Law Ethics
STRENGTHS
1. Affirms basic belief that in infinite/inherent worth & value of life
2. Gives purposive direction & coherent explanation to all realities
3. Offers clear & comprehensive guideline of what ought/not to do
4. Grounds morality in human nature discoverable by reason
5. Emphasize human inclinations as good & must be promoted/enhanced
6. Grounds morality on universal human values of life, truth, goodness
7. Integrates role of conscience in knowing what’s right & wrong
8. Explains why nature are the way they are & their implication to moral act
9. Provides religious dimension to morality
10. Rejects relativism & subjectivism in for valid moral principle to govern actions
11. Reason justification on why some are good/bad
12. Clear & logical guidelines in complex situations
13. Definite assessment as to morality of popular actions (contraception, etc)
14. Philosophical alternative to Divine Command Theory of ethics
15. Consistent w/own intuition about objectivity of morality
CRITICISMS
1. Can way things are by nature provide basis for knowing how they ought to be?
- factual matters can’t be subjected to evaluation (facts are facts)
2. If natural law is discoverable by human reason & since reason is true to all, why is it
difficult to know what it is?
3. In what sense is natural law a law?
- men being governed by nature is figurative expression of how human nature
is a lawgiver
4. Popular scientific theory of evolution may also present challenge to traditional
natural law thinking
- things came to be due to natural selection & mutations, thus nature isn’t purposive 1. Intensity- how strong pleasure is; one is morally bound to do act that offers stronger
5. Is human nature fixed?
- invalidated by modern science; humans are dynamic, not static
6. Is human nature inherently good or bad?
- we must truly know what nature truly is
7. What about negative human tendencies?
- man has good & bad inclinations
8. St. Thomas’ idea that human nature originally comes from God is problematic
9. What’s natural for one may not be natural for another
- diff people have diff interpretation
10. Is conscience always right?
- conscience is subjective & conditioned by env & upbringing
ETHICS OF UTILITARIANISM
Utilitarianism belongs to theory in morality called Consequentialist
- effects that an act brings than agent’s motive; deed’s result, not deed itself
- “What good will come from doing this?”
“What benefit can one get in performing act?”
“What harm comes if action is done?”
“Who’ll stand to gain if act is performed?”
 concerned w/possible/projected act’s consequences, which differentiates
utilitarianism from Natural Law & Deontological ethics theories
UTILITARIANISM
- disregards act itself as basis of morality
- no action in itself is good/bad apart from its outcome/end
- there’s nothing we can say in act’s moral worth that’s independent to its consequence
CONSEQUENTIALIST ETHICAL THEORY
- utilitarianism: acts are morally significant/valuable in as much as they produce what’s
desired/expected from then
- act is instrument to achieve something
- morality only has instrumental value, a means to an end; not end in itself (unlike
deontologist/nonconsequentialist theories where morality is good for its own sake)
Ethical Hedonism
- hedonistic (pleasure-oriented); abhors pain/unhappiness as effects in performing actions
- if act results to unhappiness, pain, & harm, it has to be rejected/avoided
- right/wrong depends on pleasure/pain act brings (pleasure=right; pain=wrong)
- primary reason for living is to seek pleasure & avoid pain/suffering
- good life is spent for pursuit of bodily pleasures (goodness=pleasure of sensual nature)
“Nature placed man under governance of 2 sovereign masters: pain & pleasure. It’s for
them to know what ought to do & shall do. One hand is standard of right & wrong; on
other is chain of causes. They govern in all we think & do: every effort we can make to
throw off subjection, will serve but to demonstrate & confirm it”(Bentham, Intro to
Principles of Morals & Legislation)
Principle of Utility
- by Jeremy Bentham & John Stuart Mill
- utility/usefulness (value): determining element of rightness/wrongness; to bring about
desirable results (pleasure/happiness)
“By utility is that property in any object, where it tends to produce benefit,
advantage, pleasure, or prevent mischief, pain, evil, or unhappiness to
party, whose interest is considered”(Bentham, 1976)
- utility=pleasure/happiness=only moral principle/objective moral standard
- utilitarianism: “happiness theory”
 measures act’s happiness over unhappiness
 aims at good consequences everybody wants (happiness/pleasure)
Bentham’s Hedonic Calculus (Cost-Benefit Analysis)
- hedons (Greek, “pleasure”); calculus (science of calculation)
- to arrive at definite basis of when to say act is right/wrong
- main goal: help lawmakers/legislators decide what to be done in any circumstance
- what matters is pleasure maximization & pain minimization/total eradication
- determine morality by measuring exact amount of pleasure & pain/un & happiness
degree of contentment
2. Duration- how long it is; must perform acts that give longer pleasure experience
3. Certainty- how likely it could be; act where expected pleasures are more probable
4. Propinquity- when it can arrive; act must bring immediate pleasure
5. Fecundity- if it causes further pleasure; act must lead to series of pleasures
6. Purity- how free from pain it is; act must not be tainted w/pain/discomfort
7. Extent- how many people are affected; act must make many happy
 if we’re faced w/act, proper ethical approach is to calculate pleasure & pain amount
 puts Bentham under level of psychological hedonist (greatest happiness of greatest
number = top priority)
Cost-benefit Analysis- cost= pain/suffering; benefits=pleasure/happiness
Greatest Good for Greatest Number
- by Scottish philosopher Francis Hutcheson; controversial utilitarian phrase
- morality’s social dimension
- presupposed by Greeks Epicurus & Aristippus (their schools emphasize pursuit of pleasure
as central meaning & reason of human existence)
2 types of Pleasures: QUANTITY & QUALITY (Mill)
pleasures of mind & spirit > pleasures of flesh & body
“It’s better to be a human being dissatisfied than a pig satisfied: better to be Socrates
dissatisfied than a fool satisfied)
- we must seek higher pleasure than lower kind associated w/sensual satisfaction
- must feed mind & soul & not just to satisfy bodily need/physical cravings
 “A life w/only bodily pleasures isn’t as good as one w/pleasures of mind &
spirit. Pleasure from love, knowledge, being morally good, freedom makes life
more worthy living than life that wallows in bodily pleasures”(Wall, 2003)
- focus: pleasure type (QUALITY) from act than pleasure amount (QUANTITY)
- we belong to higher level of creatures whose concerns aren’t limited to pursuit of brute
satisfaction but also capacity to think pleasure kind worthy of our dignity

Critical Assessment of Utilitarian Ethics

STRENGTHS
1. Transcends view that only confirms itself to person’s interest (Ethical Egoism);
altruistic attitude makes it admirable
2. Grounded on science than speculative/abstract & religious assumption
3. Universally applied; w/ absolute moral principle w/answer for every situation
4. Puts pleasure as center of its concerns; categorization to higher/lower
(quantitative/qualitative)
5. Hedonic Calculus focus on what act gives more pleasure; allows to see/discover how
moral decisions are derived in actual/real life setting
6. Consequence consideration as sole basis of morality affirms that all acts have
consequences that matter
7. Provides us practical, simple, clear procedure for making ethical decisions
8. Flexible & sensitive to circumstance around act; doesn’t judge any act immediately
9. Finds practical/specific applications in many areas/fields
10. Considers well-being of equal value w/everyone

WEAKNESSES
1. Difficulty in knowing exact consequence of act
2. Justifies intrinsically wrong act (murder/stealing) as long as it has positive effect
3. Impractical application since we don’t have time to weigh pleasure/pain
4. Principle of greatest good of greatest number doesn’t justify minority rights as it
adheres to tyranny of numbers
5. Ignores role of motive/intention which can alter radically overall minority (guilty of
simplistic reductionism)
6. Rejects all forms of moral duties (duty to tell truth, help those in need, protect
innocent), making universe devoid of moral duties & ruins human value
7. Makes goodness matter of individual taste & personal preference leading to
subjectivism, resulting to moral chaos in society
8. Fell under relativism (antithesis of belief in absolute morality)
9. “Heartless” philosophy: no place for live as motive of acting in assessing moral worth
10. Assumption that all actions are purposive is based on false psychology; actual
experience testifies that acts are driven by impulse/instinct w/o conscious definite goal