LESSON 8

Human Act

Learning Outcomes
At the end of this unit, you should be able to:
(1) Identify human act
(2) Explain the meaning of human act, the morality and accountability of human act
(3) Discuss the three bases of moral accountability
(4) Explain the role of feelings in moral decision making.

 
Act of Man versus Human Act
After analyzing the characteristics of the moral agent, the next step is to analyze the nature
of the human act itself. According to Fr. Coppens (2017), "(h)uman acts are those of which a
man is master, which he has the power of doing or not doing as he pleases." According to
Panizo (1964), "(h)uman acts are those acts which proceed from man as a rational being."
Human acts, in other words, are the actions of a moral agent.As a result, "actions committed
by unconscious and insane persons, infants, or those who are physically forced to do
something are not considered human acts but acts of man." Similarly, "actions which merely
happen in the body or through the body without the awareness of the mind or the control of
the will are not human acts but acts of man."
The Determinants of the Morality of Human Act
In the previously mentioned, Rev. Coppens, S.J. Three factors are considered to determine
whether an individual human act is morally good. These are known as moral determinants,
and they are as follows: a) the object of the act, b) the end, or purpose, and c) its
circumstances.
For an act to be morally good, all three determinants must be without a flaw, according to the
received axiom: "Bonum ex integra causa, malum ex quocumquedefectu" -- "A thing to be
good must be wholly so; it is not vitiated by any defect."
A. The Object of the Act
The object of an act is the thing done. In reality, it is not distinct from the act itself; for we
cannot act without doing something, and that something done is the object of the act; for
example, going, eating, praising, and so on. The act or object may be viewed as having an
additional specification - e.g. For example, going to church, praising God, and eating meat.
An act thus specified may be good, bad, or indifferent when considered in isolation; thus,
praising God is good in itself, blasphemy is bad in itself, and eating meat is an indifferent
act.However, in order for an individual human act to be good, its object, whether considered
in isolation or as further specified, must be free of all defect; it must be good, or at the very
least indifferent.
The object of the act is the act itself. Using God's name with reverence; sincerely invoking
God's name or the names of saints (the evil object is using God's and saints' names in vain),
honoring one's parent, going to mass on days of obligation, saving human life, respecting
others' rights and property, having pure acts and thoughts, being true to marital
commitments, telling the truth, and so on are examples.
B. The end or Purpose
The second determinant of an act's morality is the agent's end or purpose. The end in
question here is not the end of the work, which belongs to the object, but the end of the
workman or agent. No matter how good the object of an act is, if the end result is bad, the
act is tainted, ruined, or impaired. Thus, praising God is good in and of itself; however, if the
intention is to play the hypocrite, the act is morally wrong.This is true whether the vicious end
is near, far, or far away; whether it is actually or only virtually intended. On the other hand, a
good end, no matter how lofty, cannot justify a bad act; in other words, we are never
permitted to do evil in the hope that good will follow. Robin Hood robbed the wealthy and
gave the proceeds to the poor. Whatever Robin Hood's noble intention for robbing the rich,
his act of robbing the rich is not morally acceptable.
Furthermore, the end, or purpose, is the acting subject's intention, or what inspires the acting
subject. For example, providing a neighbor with free services with the intent of bragging
about it. Or helping a neighbor motivated by God's love. The first is immoral, whereas the
second is moral. The guiding principle is that the end justifies the means. It is never justified
to help a neighbor, say by giving food, by stealing food from another neighbor. This is
exactly what Robin Hood did. He stole from the wealthy and gave it to the needy. Of course,
no matter how good his intention was, i.e. to help the poor, his stealing does not make it
right.

C. It’s Circumstances
Time, place, and people all play a role in determining the morality of an individual act. The
moral character of an act can be so influenced by its surroundings that an act that is good in
and of itself can be evil when accompanied by certain circumstances; for example, it is good
to give drink to the thirsty, but if the thirsty man is morally weak and the drink is intoxicating,
the act may be evil. (2017, Coppens)
The circumstances, including the consequences, refer to the time, place, person, and
conditions surrounding the moral act. They either increase or diminish the moral goodness
or evil of human acts.
A morally good act requires the goodness of the object, of the end, and of the circumstances
together. An evil end corrupts the action, even if the object is good in itself (such as praying
and fasting "in order to be seen by men").
Accountability of Moral Act
Bases of Moral Accountability
Says Fr. Coppens (2017):
When I perform a free act -- one which I am able to do or not to do, as I choose -- the act is
evidently imputable to me: if the thing is blameworthy, the blame belongs to me; if it is
praiseworthy, I am entitled to the praise. Every human act therefore, since it is a free act, is
imputable to him who performs it.
Who are we responsible to? People are held directly and indirectly accountable to the
government for breaking government laws. What about moral standards violations? Because
God is regarded as the author of the law in Christian natural law ethics, violators are held
accountable to God. Violators are only accountable to themselves in non-theistic morality.
There are three bases for moral accountability, namely: knowledge, freedom and
voluntariness. These are the necessary conditions for the accountability of actions. First, a
human act must be done knowingly; second, it must be done freely and third, it must be
done voluntarily (intentional or negligent). A person must have done something knowingly,
willingly, and voluntarily to be credited for a good act or held morally liable or responsible for
an evil act. The determination of moral liability is analogous to the determination of criminal
liability. In criminal law, for example, you must have committed the criminal act knowingly,
freely, and willingly. Similarly, in ethics, you must have committed the unethical act
knowingly, freely and willingly, or voluntarily.
In other words, in order to be morally responsible for your actions, you must first have
knowledge, which means you have a normal mind and are not insane or completely
ignorant, sleep-walking due to somnambulism. Knowledge is defined as "the awareness of
or familiarity with a fact, situation, or truth, revealed through experience or disclosed in
dialogue or encounter with persons or things." Knowledge that stealing is wrong is the
awareness of what stealing is all about, that is, taking another's property without consent, as
well as the awareness of violating property rights and all other unpleasant consequences of
violating other people's rights. Knowing that stealing is wrong means being aware of what
makes stealing wrong.To have genuine knowledge, your mind must be normal and
unimpaired by mental illness or ignorance.
Second, the act is performed freely. This occurs when you have the ability to exercise your
power of choice. If the act you intend to commit is a choice between stealing and not
stealing, you must be free to choose. An irresistible force or uncontrollable fear should not
limit your freedom. If the act you intend to perform is to testify about your personal
knowledge, what you saw, heard, etc., you should be free to do so without fear of being
silenced by death.
Third, the act must be voluntary, which means it must be either intentional or negligent.
When an act is voluntarily intended, it is done with the intention, purpose, or goal of
achieving a result. When an act is negligent, it is done voluntarily but without care or
precaution in order to avoid the occurrence of a foreseeable event. You can be held morally
responsible for an intentional act or a negligent failure to exercise care and caution. "A
voluntary act proceeds from the will and is dependent on the will for its performance." When
something happens by chance, it is referred to as a fortuitous event or an act of God.
Judas bore moral responsibility for betraying Jesus. He was knowledgeable. He was well
aware of what he was doing. "One of you will betray me," Jesus said, and he freely chose to
betray Jesus when tempted by the thought of 30 pieces of silver. He did it voluntarily and on
purpose. He led the soldiers to the Garden of Gethsemane and kissed Jesus to show the
soldiers that he would be arrested.
Stealing, for example, is unethical. To be held liable for this immoral act, you must do it
knowing it is immoral, freely, that is, without being forced or coerced, and voluntarily, that is,
with the intent to do it. Sideswiping a pedestrian and killing him is immoral if the incident
occurs as a result of your negligence, such as driving under the influence of alcohol, texting
while driving, or driving without a license. Unless you were negligently playing with the gun,
dropping a gun and causing it to fire and hit and kill someone will not hold anyone
accountable. Indiscriminate gunfire during New Year's celebrations that results in the death
of someone is criminal negligence and immoral.
Finally, your level of moral accountability is determined by your level of knowledge, freedom,
and voluntariness. Addictions of any kind, such as drugs, sex, power, money, or property,
erode all three foundations: knowledge, freedom, and voluntariness, so instead of
eliminating them "like dregs of civilization," they should be treated with compassion while not
condoning their actions.
Modifiers of Human Act
There are various factors which either increase or decrease accountability. They are called
modifiers of human acts. These are analogous to exempting, mitigating, aggravating and
justifying circumstances in criminal law. "They affect the mental or emotional state of a
person to the extent that the voluntariness involved in an act is either increased or
decreased." They are as follows: 1) ignorance, 2) passions, 3) fear, and 4) violence.
Ignorance is defined as the "absence of knowledge," and there are different levels of
ignorance. They are classified as vincible, invincible, affected, and supine or grossly ignorant
in traditional ethics. "Ignorance, whether of the law or of the facts, is either vincible or
invincible. When it cannot be overcome by the due amount of diligence, it is invincible;
otherwise, it is vincible. The latter is said to be gross or supine when scarcely an effort has
been made to remove it; and if a person deliberately avoids enlightenment in order to sin
more freely, his ignorance is affected."The basic rule is invincible ignorance, one that is
beyond one's ability to overcome, is entirely involuntary, and hence removes moral
responsibility; vincible ignorance does not free us from responsibility.
Positive emotions such as love, desire, delight, hope, and bravery are examples of passion,
as are negative emotions such as hatred, horror, sadness, despair, fear, and anger.
"Antecedent passions, those that precede the act, do not always destroy voluntariness, but
they diminish accountability for the resultant act. In criminal law, the commission of a
criminal act "with passion and obfuscation" means the perpetrator is blinded by his emotions,
reducing his accountability from maximum to medium or from medium to minimum.
Fear is a mental disturbance caused by an impending danger or harm to oneself or one's
loved ones. Acts performed in response to fear are voluntary, but acts performed in
response to intense or uncontrollable fear or panic are involuntary.
Violence is defined as any physical force applied to a person by another free agent in order
to compel that person to act against his will. Actions taken by someone who is subjected to
violence or irresistible force are involuntary and unaccountable.
Moral Accountability for What Could Have Been
It is known as the sin of omission. Whatever one does not do but should have done is also
imputable to him. This is distinct from negligence or a lack of foresight in that it refers to
failure to act despite knowledge of being free. It is not doing the same thing when one should
have done it. It is failing to be a Good Samaritan when one should have been. Pilate
investigated Jesus Christ's case and found Him to be innocent. He had the opportunity to set
Jesus free, but he did not. A disaster could have been avoided if information had been
withheld. Negative outcomes could have been avoided.

Feeling as a Modifier of Moral Decision-Making

Feelings in Decision-making
In general, feeling is an emotional state or reaction, as well as the experience of physical
sensations such as joy, warmth, love, affection, tenderness, and so on. What effect do they
have on moral decision-making? "Several studies conclude that up to 90% of our decisions
are based on emotion, and we use logic to justify our actions to ourselves and others."
Research also indicates that "actual emotional states can influence the process of moral
reasoning and determine moral judgment."
Feelings are an instinctive and learned response to moral quandaries. They can be
impediments to making good decisions, but they can also assist in making good decisions.
Are there advantages of emotional decision making? According to recent research, feelings
or emotions have positive effects on decision making. Some are identified as follows:
• A totally emotional decision is very fast in comparison to a rational decision. This is
reactive (and largely subconscious) and can be useful when faced with immediate danger, or
in decisions of minimal significance.
• Emotions may provide a way for coding and compacting experience, enabling fast
response selection. This may point to why expert's "gut" level decisions have high accuracy
rates.
• Decisions that start with logic may need emotions to enable the final selection,
particularly when confronted with near equal options.
• Emotions often drive us in directions conflicting with self-interest.Emotional decision
making can also come with a number of negatives.
• We make quick decisions without knowing why, and then create rational reasons to
justify a poor emotional decision.
• Intensity of emotions can override rational decision-making in cases where it is
clearly needed.
• Immediate and unrelated emotions can create mistakes by distorting and creating
bias in judgments. In some cases this can lead to unexpected and reckless action.
• Projected emotions can lead to errors because people are subject to systemic
inaccuracy about how they will feel in the future." (Source: DecisionInnovation
(file://Users/macos/Downloads/Emotional20Decsion20Making.htmlaccessed, 2-3-2018)
Moral statements as expressions of feelings
Are moral statements or values mere expressions of feelings or emotions as claimed by the
linguistic philosophers? According to some linguistic philosophers, called (emotivists) the
statement "stealing is wrong" is not a statement of fact, it is an expression of a desire or
emotion. The ruleor maxim "Stealing is wrong" means "I desire that you do not steal." An
emotional statement is not verifiable like factual statement. "Pedro stole my cat" is verifiable,
can be established by evidence. But "Pedro's act of stealing my cat is morally wrong" which
is equivalent to "I desire that Pedro should not steal" is not verifiable. The following explains
this ethical theory:
Emotivism ,.. is the view that moral judgments do not function as statements of fact but
rather as expressions of the speaker's or writer's feelings. According to the emotivist, when
we say "You acted wrongly in stealing that money,' we are not expressing any fact beyond
that stated by "You stole that money. " It is, however, as if we had stated this fact with a
special tone of abhorrence, for in saying that something is wrong, we are expressing our
feelings of disapproval toward it. Emotivism was expounded by A. J. Ayer in Language,
Truth and Logic (1936) and developed by Charles Stevenson inEthics and Language (1945)
The emotivist thus goes further by saying that ethical statements being emotional
expressions are not verifiable. Emotional expressions are not assertions of what is true or
false. They are like expressions of taste. There is no dispute or there can be no dispute on
matters of taste. "De gustibus non disputandum est." One cannot argue with one's taste,
emotion.
It may be said that an analogy between legal and moral statement may be made to show
that moral statements may treated like a factual statement. In criminal law, the allegation that
"Juan's act of stealing is wrong" may be established by evaluating the act in the light of the
elements of the crime of stealing under the law. For instance, the law provides that stealing
is taking the property of another without the latter's consent. So if there is an evidence that
Juan has taken a property, that the property belongs to someone else, that the taking is
without consent, then it can be decided that a crime of theft is committed; in other words, the
statement has been verified.
What then would prevent one in applying the same procedure in establishing the truth or
falsehood of a moral statement. For instance, the moral principle or rule is "stealing is
wrong" that it is explained by moral or ethics teachers that the statement is meant to be
referring to an act of taking someone else property without the owner's consent. May
notsomeone's act of stealing be verified by finding out if the actor has indeed taken
someone's property with the latter's consent? And that, therefore, his act may be judged as
wrong?
The emotivist will still argue that such argument only proves that a certain individual act has
characteristic that can be described as stealing. It does not make the statement "stealing is
wrong" as a factual statement, which is correct, since all maxims or rules are non-factual and
only the particular instances evaluated on the basis of these rules would be considered as
factual.
Managing Feelings
Aristotle wrote:"Anyone can get angry --- that is easy --- but to do this to the right person, to
the right extent, at the right time with the right motive, and in the right way, that is not for
everyone, nor is it easy. (Book II, Nicomachean Ethics). In other words your anger should
not be displaced. The moral person manages his/her feelings well.
 
 

WEEK 8
 ACTIVITY SHEET NO. 8
Human Act

Name: __________________________________
Date: ______________________
Year and Section: _________________________
Instructor: _________________

A. Direction: Classify the following items as human act or act of man. Write A for human
act and B for act of man. Write your answer on the space provided before each number.
_____ 1. Breathing
_____ 2. Blinking of the eyes
_____ 3. Observing diet
_____ 4. Dilation of the pupils of the eyes
_____ 5. Perspiring
_____ 6. Tutoring the slow learners
_____ 7. Preparing for board exam
_____ 8. Jerking of the knee
_____ 9. Helping the less fortunate
_____ 10. Sneezing
_____ 11. Deliberate
_____ 12. Happen naturally
_____ 13. Without reflection
_____ 14. Freely chosen
_____ 15. Automatic
_____ 16. Performed in freedom
_____ 17. Done voluntarily
_____ 18. Without consent
_____ 19. Thought out
_____ 20. Judgment of conscience

B. Direction: Read the following items and explain your answer.

1. “The end does not justify the means.” – what does this mean?

2. “If it feels good, do it.” What does this mean? Is this always right?
3. A nurse unknowingly gave a patient an overdose of medicine. Is the nurse
accountable for her action? Explain your answer.

4. When do feelings work against moral decision making? Explain your answer.