CHAPTER 3

THE OBJECTS OF
ETHICS

General Objectives
After this Chapter, students will be able to:
1. Appraise Material and Non-Material Object of Ethics.
2. Evaluate Human Acts as Formal Object of Ethics
3. Gain basic information about the nature of Human Acts

Specific Objectives
After this Chapter, students will be able to:
1. Differentiate Non-material and Material Object of Ethics
2. Discuss the formal object of Ethics
3. Differentiate Acts of Man from Human Acts.
4. Discuss forms of Human acts
5. Explain the four components of Human Act
6. Explain the relationship of the Human Act to the Human Will.

INTRODUCTION

We usually think that the person who does a moral act is the principal cause of
that moral act. So, when a person tries to steal, the act of stealing is usually attributed to
the person who performed it. This is because the person is the one causing his own
actions – he or she acts from his own volition – or motives. To take another example, a
moral agent’s desire to quench his thirst, will lead him to look for water and to drink.
This shows that he causes himself to act or to perform certain things to satisfy his
intention or purpose for acting. And because a person causes his own action, it follows
that he is aware about the morality of his action. He is assumed to have knowledge of
some rules of morality and assumed to be aware if he is acting in observance or in
violation of them. In short, we commonly look at persons as the sole object of Ethical
study. If Pedro lied, Pedro is thought to be immoral. But what really is immoral: Is it
Pedro (the person) who lied, or is it the act of lying which Pedro performed? This
question points to the fact that though we are the causes of our actions, we (as causes) –
are distinct from actions which we cause, that is, there is a distinction between the doer of
the act (e.g. Pedro) and the act done by the doer (e.g. stealing). The doer and the act done
are two special objects of Ethics. We can see that looking solely at persons as the object
of Ethics is putting the matter simply and it is inadequate in identifying the formal objects
of Ethics. Our goal in this chapter is to provide an adequate account of what constitutes
the object of Ethics. We will hope to discuss the different objects of Ethics and we will
try to discuss the nature of the formal object of Ethical study.
MATERIAL AND NON-MATERIAL OBJECTS OF ETHICS

BEST FRIEND’S SECRET

Juana and Maria are childhood best friends. They are studying in the same
school, staying in the same dormitory, and are both graduating students. As
best friends, they also share the same room, the same bed and share
personal secrets. One day Juana tearfully confided to Maria that she is two-
months pregnant. She is afraid to inform the School about it because she
might not be allowed to graduate. After telling to Maria all her
misadventures with her boyfriend, Juana asked Maria not to tell anyone,
especially her (Juana’s) parents, about their secret. Maria solemnly
promised to keep her best friend’s secret to herself. But the following day,
Maria went to see Juana’s parents and excitingly informed them that their
daughter is in big trouble – Juana, Maria told them, is about to give birth to
a healthy baby girl and is contemplating of hanging herself because she
cannot pay her graduation fee.

Funny story isn’t it? But we have surely a moral case here. Maria didn’t only
break her promise but also reported an exaggerated lie (she could be a successful The
Buzz anchor). However, we will not be interested in determining whether Maria’s action
is right or wrong. Rather, we will simply try to identify what are the objects of Ethics that
we could find in the case. Let us first take note that there are two objects of Ethics: The
material and the non-material objects. For us to understand the formal object of Ethics, it
is important to understand the difference between the two.

The physical doer of an act is the material object of Ethics. The material object of
Ethics is also called a “moral agent”. The material object of Ethics is usually a human
being who is endowed with reason and freedom, thus, a being who acts freely and
purposefully. As the doer of moral acts, the material object of Ethics is said to be the
cause of his or her actions. Going back to our case example above, the material objects
are Maria (who broke her promise and who lied) and Juana (who got pregnant).

It is also important to note that the material object of Ethics does not only refer to
a person or to a human being but also to an institution or organization that perform
rational activities (for instance, decision-making). Hence, material object of Ethics, aside
from persons, may include social institutions such as the government (the sovereign that
governs the entire civil society or as the maker, executioner and the interpreter of the
law), business firms (which, as a single-unitary entity, performs business activities and
interacts to the general public and to the government), and other forms of social
organization. Thus, the other material object in our case example is Juana and Maria’s
School (which assume the responsibility for the formal education of students, and
perform other activities such as community extension services, etc.)
 The non-material object of Ethics on the other hand refers to the action done or
actions performed by a moral agent. It is called non-material because actions are not
physical entities (for instance a person) that we could directly perceive (what we could
perceive directly are moral agents behaving in a particular way). We could think of many
specific examples of non-material object of Ethics many of which we usually perform
everyday – one example is the act of telling the truth (or lying) or keeping a promise (or
breaking it). Other examples include the act of helping others in distress (or ignoring
other’s call for help), respecting rightful authorities (or disrespecting them), obeying the
law (or violating it), etc. So it is clear that moral agents (material objects of Ethics)
perform moral acts (Non-Material Objects of Ethics). Thus, the non-material objects in
our case example are the acts of Maria i.e. breaking a promise and telling a lie. We can
also include the act of Juana in confiding a secret to Maria and Juana’s act of acting
irresponsibly (which resulted to her being impregnated). Now the question: which
between the two objects constitutes the formal object of Ethics? We can easily realize this
if we try to understand the nature of Ethics as a form of study. Recall that Ethics is
essentially the study of what makes a particular action better than the other – it concerns
the study of human conduct. Because its primary concern is the study of moral acts, it is
easy to understand that the non-material object of Ethics, or the acts, not the doer of acts,
is considered to be the formal object of Ethics. However, not all non-material objects of
Ethics are considered formal object of Ethics – because not all acts are of value to ethical
analysis. This will be the subject matter of the next section.

For clarity, let us review what we have identified in the case we presented at the
start of this section, we have Maria, Juana and Juana’s parents as the Material Objects of
Ethics (though strictly speaking we should only consider Maria as the main subject of the
moral case) and the act of Maria (Breaking a promise, or Reporting a faulty account, or
simply lying - whichever) as the Non-Material or the Formal Object of Ethics.

KEY TERMS AND CONCEPTS

Material object of Ethics – The physical doer of a Human act; also called the moral
agent; Material object of ethics does not only include Persons or Human
Beings, but also social organizations and business institutions which have
a legal, social or political personality like the government, religious
churches, business corporations, etc.

Non-material object of Ethics – The act performed by the physical doer (or the moral
agent), for instance telling the truth, lying, helping, etc.
 WORK SHEET
NO. 3

Name: _____________________________________ Score: ______________

Course & Year: _____________________________ Date: _______________

A. Identify if the items below are Material or Non-Material Objects of Ethics. Put a
check mark in the column MO if you think that the item is a material object of
Ethics and put a check mark in column NMO if you think that it is a Non-Material
Object of Ethics.

Objects of Ethics MO NMO

Abu Sayyaf

Keeping a promise

Ignoring call for help

City Government of
Tuguegarao
Pres.Rodrigo Roa Duterte

Republic of the Philippines

Helping a stranger

Cagayan State University

Eating egg and hotdog for

breakfast
Joining strikes and rallies

B. Try working on the case below. What are the Material and Non-Material object of
Ethics present in the case? What is the formal object?

JOHN Q

John Q desperately needed money for his son’s expensive heart transplantation.
After doing everything, he still failed to raise the necessary amount for the
operation. “I’m sorry John, the surgeon told him when he tried to beg, it’s the policy.
No cash or no insurance policy, no operation.” With his son dying everyday, John Q
was left with no option. He got his gun and seized the hospital where his son was
confined. “My son dies, you all die. He lives, you can all go home”, John Q
desperately announced to the horror-stricken doctors. “Now, doctor, fix my son’s
heart..”
HUMAN ACTS AND THE ACTS OF MAN

It should be clear by now that the formal object of Ethics is the Non-Material
object of Ethics or the acts performed by the moral agent. However, this needs some
clarifications. Does it mean that all acts are to be considered formal object of Ethics? Let
us consider some Non-Material object of Ethics presented in the table below which are
usually performed by moral agents:

ACTIONS X ACTIONS Y
Talking Telling the Truth
Chewing Food Helping
Hearing Eaves-dropping
Speaking Slandering
Snoring Forgiving

If we compare the list of actions in the first column (Actions X) with the list of
actions in the second column (Actions Y), it will become clear to us that not all Non-
Material objects of Ethics are to be considered formal objects of Ethics. This is because
not all acts have value (or import) for the purpose of Ethical analysis. Actions X are
natural acts and as such, they cannot be judged to be ethical or unethical (how, for
instance, can the act of chewing be unethical if one is eating?) while Actions Y are acts
that are purposive (or performed with moral intent) and they could either be ethical or
unethical. Let us consider talking and compare it with slandering (accusing another
person with false or malicious allegations) to elucidate our point. Talking or speaking per
se is a natural or instinctive act that proceeds from man’s natural power of speech, that is,
if a person is capable of speech it is natural for him to talk or to speak – thus it is neither
unethical nor ethical. But Slandering is an act that has a moral value; it involves the
question whether the act is in conformity or non-conformity with the norm of morality.
Hence, acts such as slandering are either ethical or unethical.

This shows that there are certain acts that are of some value to Ethics (i.e. those
acts which are either ethical/moral or unethical/immoral) while some are expendable for
the purpose of ethical analysis (i.e. those acts which are neither ethical/moral nor
unethical/immoral). And those acts that have some import to Ethics are the only ones to
be considered as formal object of Ethics. But what exactly are these morally significant
acts as formal objects of ethical investigations? Considering this question will necessarily
require the discussion of the two general types of acts, the Human acts and the Acts of
Man.

Human Acts are actions that are conscious, deliberate, intentional and voluntary
(Actions Y of the table presented above fall under this type of acts). These actions are
products of rationality and freedom of choice like telling the truth, helping others in
distress, caring the sick, fulfilling a promise, forgiving other’s trespasses, humility, and
including ethically dubious deeds such as murder, stealing, lying, etc. In short, Human
Acts are acts that we could judge to be either ethical or unethical, but not morally
indifferent (an act is morally indifferent when it is not possible to judge them as ethical or
unethical).

Acts of Man, on the other hand, refers to certain types of actions that are naturally
exhibited by man; as such they are morally indifferent (or neutral) because we can neither
judge them to be ethical nor unethical (Actions X in the table fall under this type of acts).
Acts of Man are natural acts that we usually perform by virtue of our nature as animal
beings. For clarity and convenience, let us group these natural acts into two categories:
Natural-involuntary acts and Natural-voluntary acts.

1) Natural-involuntary acts are forms of Acts of Man that are performed

intuitively or involuntarily (acts that man naturally exhibit but beyond his will
to control). Examples include blinking of the eye (try stopping it for one hour),
beating of the heart (can you tell your heart to stop beating for one minute?),
sneezing (try not to sneeze when you suffer from colds), yawning (consider
staying awake till 3:00 in the morning), etc. While you are reading this item, it
is certain that your heart is beating and your eyes blinking without you
constantly aware of it.

2) Natural-voluntary acts are natural acts that man is naturally required to

perform but within his will to control at least for some short period of time.
Some examples include breathing (we can choose to stop breathing
momentarily, but we simply cannot stop breathing indefinitely without killing
ourselves!) sleeping (we can decide when to sleep or whether to sleep or not
during the night, but we cannot stay awake for the rest of our lives!), eating
(we can choose whether or not to take our breakfast, but we cannot possibly
survive without eating for many weeks), and drinking (even when we are
thirsty we can still choose when to drink, but we cannot choose never to drink
while we are still alive). Another good example is urinating, we can decide
when and where to urinate – but definitely we have no power to decide never
to urinate for the rest of our lives (without dying in the next few days).

It is clear that Acts of Man are integral for the survival of human beings as a
biological organism. Without these acts man will fail to survive. It is because of their
naturalness or their being a biological necessity that makes them void of any moral worth
(it does not mean however that they are morally insignificant). Remember that before any
act is to be viewed to be of some moral import, the act should be a product of rationality
and freedom – something that the one performing it could be made responsible for the
act. And since Acts of Man do not require rationality and or freedom (they either occur
naturally or needed to be performed voluntarily to stay alive), it explains why they do not
possess any moral value.

However, it is important to take note that there are special circumstances

where some Acts of Man, particularly the natural-voluntary acts, could become
Human Acts – that is, they could possess, in some cases, a moral value. Hence, they
could be judged, in some cases, to be either moral or immoral. This happens when
natural-voluntary acts are performed beyond their natural purpose and tend to violate
some rules of good conduct. Let us consider a specific case to elucidate this point.
Sleeping, as we have previously claimed, is a natural-voluntary act – everybody sleeps
because we all naturally need some rest to rejuvenate ourselves. But when a teacher
sleeps during her class or when a security guard sleeps in his night-shift duty could
hardly be judged as someone who just performs a natural act. Sleeping in this case is
grossly immoral and unethical.

KEY TERMS AND CONCEPTS

Human Acts - are acts we performed knowingly and freely and which we could judge to
be either ethical or unethical, but not morally indifferent. Examples of
these acts include telling the truth, helping others in distress, caring the
sick, fulfilling a promise, forgiving other’s trespasses, humility, and even
ethically dubious deeds such as murder, stealing, lying, etc.

Acts of Man - refers to certain type of actions that are naturally exhibited by man which
are morally indifferent (or neutral) because we can neither judge them to
be ethical nor unethical. It is either natural-voluntary (like sleeping,
breathing, eating, sexual intercourse, taking a bath, etc.) or natural-
involuntary (like blinking of the eye, beating of the heart, etc.). Some
natural-voluntary act can become Human Acts once they are performed
outside their natural purpose (for instance, sleeping in times of one’s duty
to work).
 WORK SHEET
NO. 4

Name: _____________________________________ Score: ______________

Course & Year: _____________________________ Date: _______________

A. Identify if the items below are Human Acts or Acts of Man. Put a check mark in the
column X if you think that the item is a Human Act and put a check mark in column
Y if you think that it is an instance of Acts of Man.

Acts X Y
Stealing

Fulfilling a promise

Taking a bath

Smoking

Urinating

Yawning

Dancing

Helping others

Praying

Cooking

B. ESSAY. In your own words try to answer concisely the following:

1. In your own words, differentiate Human Acts and Acts of Man. Which is the
formal object of Ethics? Explain your answer.

2. Why do you think Acts of Man have no moral value?

3. What are the two elements present in Human Acts which make them valuable for
Ethical Analysis?

4. Differentiate the two types of Acts of Man.

5. Provide special cases where Acts of Man could become Human Acts.
FORMS OF HUMAN ACTS

Our goal to make our knowledge about the nature of Human Acts, as the formal
object of Ethics, adequate will require us to proceed further. It is important for us to
understand that Human Acts are not always the usual acts we observe everyday. There
are acts which we could perceive without any difficulty like the act of a person looking at
his neighbor’s wife (we simply see the person to be looking)– but there are also some acts
which we could not directly observe (the content of other people’s thinking) their
occurrence or existence in other people is a matter of inference or deductions (for we
can’t know for sure what’s inside other people minds). For instance, the adulterous
thought of the person (who is looking at his neighbor’s wife) is something we can’t
directly observe.

Our above example shows that moral acts could either be external or internal.
External Acts are acts that are bodily externalized or manifested. It is also sometimes
called elicited acts (Agapay: 1991. p. 12). These acts are overt and thus physically
observable by others. Examples of External Acts include talking or speaking, laughing,
crying, smiling, looking or watching, reading, climbing, cleaning, etc.

Internal Acts on the other hand are acts that are not bodily manifested. These acts
are subjective or personal. As such, it is very difficult, if not impossible, for other persons
to know it (unless the person performing the internal act reports it to another). Examples
of internal acts includes motivating oneself; self-reflection; controlling or deliberately
arousing passions such as anger, fear and lust; wishing; reminiscing past memories;
fantasizing or day-dreaming, etc.

Everyday moral agents usually perform acts that are combinations of internal and
external acts such as the following:

1. Telling the truth (which implies the internal act of recalling something
which is personally believed to be the truth and the external act of reporting it
to others);

2. Making a False or Deceptive Promise (which involves the internal act of

being aware that we cannot perform something we think of promising to do
and the external act of verbally assuring others to do something we know we
cannot and we are not interested of doing).

3. Fulfilling a Promise (which involves the internal act of thinking about

what we promised to do and the external act of performing an act in
fulfillment of what we promised).
 4. Breaking a Promise (which involves the internal act of thinking about
what we promised to do and the external act of avoiding the fulfillment of
what we promised).

INTERNAL ACTS AND PERSONAL ETHICS

What makes our study of the forms of Human Acts important is the fact that not
all acts are possible to be judged by simply viewing them from the outside. What the eyes
cannot see is sometimes worthy for moral praise or blame. But this is a domain for a very
personal or subjective moral assessment. We alone, for instance, can judge the content of
our thoughts about others to be ethically appropriate or not – because we alone knows
what we are thinking about them.

Thus, the internal act of a convicted criminal trying to motivate himself to be

good is as praiseworthy as a free person who is observed to be doing good (for instance,
giving to charity). And the internal act of a married woman trying to fight temptation in
her thoughts (for instance, when thinking about a proposed date with another man)
equally deserves praise accorded to the action of another married woman who actually
refuses to accept an invitation for an intimate date from another man. But the honest act
of two businessmen (say Pedro and Juan) as observed externally is different, if, for
instance, Pedro thinks of honesty as nothing but a means to promote better patronage
among his customers while Juan thinks of honesty as duty he simply ought to perform. In
this case, Juan is more praiseworthy than Pedro although they are both observed to have
acted honestly. The understanding that internal acts have their own moral worth is the
basis for the development of Personal Ethics.

Sometimes it is important to see morality in this light – because it is more

desirable to have persons who remain morally upright even in moments where they are
alone and no one is present to admonish them for acting immorally.

KEY TERMS AND CONCEPTS

External Acts –acts that are bodily externalized or manifested, as such, they are
physically observable by others. Examples of External Acts include
talking or speaking, laughing, crying, smiling, looking or watching,
reading, climbing, cleaning, etc.

Internal Acts – acts that are not bodily manifested. These acts are subjective or personal.
They include self-reflection, wishful thinking, etc.
 WORK SHEET
NO. 5

Name: _____________________________________ Score: ______________

Course & Year: _____________________________ Date: _______________
A. ESSAY. Answer the following questions concisely:

1. Differentiate External from Internal Acts. What acts are observable? What acts
are said to be subjective or personal?

2. What form of Human Acts includes stealing, breaking a promise, and telling a lie
as examples? Explain your answer why.

3. In your own words explain the importance of studying the forms of Human Acts.
Provide specific examples.

B. Can you think of other acts that involve internal and external acts? Give
examples which you regularly perform at home or at school. Indicate the
internal and external acts involved.

Act Internal Act External Act

Involved Involved
For Example: Thinking what to cook Heating the stove,
Cooking and thinking about its preparing the
ingredients
ingredients; Stirring,
etc.
CLASSIFICATIONS OF HUMAN ACTS

Our discussion on the Forms of Human Acts necessarily involves discussion on

the classifications of Human Acts. Human Acts are usually judged as to their moral worth
based on their conformity to standards or norms of morality (for the discussion of Moral
Standards please see Chapter 6). Acts are classified into the following:

1. Ethical or moral acts – are Human Acts that are judged to be in

conformity to a standard or norm of morality. Moral/ ethical actions may
include helping others in need, taking examinations honestly, keeping a
promise, etc.

2. Unethical or immoral acts – are Human Acts judged to be in violation

of a standard or norm of morality. Immoral/ Unethical Actions may include
refusing to help others in distress, cheating the examination, speaking ill
against others etc.

To make our classification complete, it is important to introduce another

classification of actions: Amoral Acts. The prefix a- means “without”, hence the term
amoral is literally understood as without moral content. Amoral acts are also called
Neutral Acts because they are neither moral nor immoral (recall our discussion on Acts of
Man – amoral acts fall under this type of Non-material object of Ethics). We claimed
somewhere that acts without moral content (i.e. Acts of Man) are neither good nor bad in
themselves but depending on the circumstances surrounding them, they may become
moral/ethical or immoral/unethical acts (see natural-voluntary acts). Amoral acts, for
instance sleeping, becomes an immoral/ unethical act if it is done during times of work or
in violation of a duty e.g. a teacher sleeping in her class or a security guard sleeping in
his night duty, etc.

ELEMENTS OF HUMAN ACTS

PETER’S HELP

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

If we read closely the moral case, we can identify at least four elements involved
in the Human Act (in our case, it’s the act of helping). We can identify the intention (to
help a friend), the means or the intermediating act to fulfill the intention (giving of
medicine), then the end (to cure or to help make a friend feel better), and lastly, the
consequence (drug-overdose). A Human Act such as helping may become moral/ethical
or immoral/unethical because one or more of its elements may either be assessed as
something in conformity to, or in violation with, some principles of a particular Moral
Theory. The difference in emphasis on the elements of the Human Act marks the
difference between and among Major Ethical Theories (we will discuss moral theories
shortly, just be concerned with the elements we just identified).

Hence, in order for us to understand how Ethical Theories are used in analyzing
moral dilemmas, it is important to have a good grasp about the elements present in any
Human Act. Let us consider the following four elements of Human Acts:

1. The Intention of the Act – the primary motive or the particular reason why the
act is being done. The object of intention is the end of the act – that is, moral
agents act to fulfill a particular end. For instance the act of studying the lesson
is intended to pass an exam, or a suitor behaving well is intended to win the
heart of his special girl.

2. The Means of the Act – the object employed or the medium used to carry out
the Intention of the Act. For instance the act of regularly taking one’s vitamins
or exercising daily is a means to staying healthy. The Means could also be
another person. A person who pretends to help another to advance his selfish
interest is a person who treats another person as a means to his personal end.

3. The End of the Act – the intention of the act is directed to a desired end or a
perceived good, such as Living a well-balanced life or graduating with honors.
The End of the Act is thus the inspiration behind the intention of the act (of
taking vitamins.

4. The Consequence of the Act – the result, the outcome or the actual conclusion
or termination of the Moral Act. This determines whether the intention of the
Act was carried out or the end of the act was successfully realized.

Other philosophers also include circumstances surrounding the act (or morally
relevant details of the situation where the act occurs) as another component. Though it is
important to consider circumstances of moral acts in moral assessment (for instance, the
failure of a bystander to help a drowning child because he doesn’t know how to swim,
etc.), circumstances are external to moral acts (because they define the condition
surrounding the act, hence not an intrinsic part of the act). And because we are interested
in this section only about the components of moral act (moral act-in-it-self), we have a
reason to exclude circumstances surrounding the act as one of its components. The four
components we have identified are internal or are inherent to moral acts.

Human Acts and the Human Will

Human Acts stems from the Human Will. It is the Will that controls or influences
the internal and external actions of man. The Will stirs a person to act or to refrain from
acting, it colors his motive as to why he engages or disengages in a certain form of
action. Paul Glenn (as quoted by Ramon Agapay, 1965, Ethics and the Filipino, p. 12)
cited the following motivation that proceed from the Will (note: examples are mine):
 1. Wish – the tendency of the Will towards something, whether this be
attainable or not. Hence, a student wishing to be the topnotch in his
examination; a woman wishing to be the most gorgeous in the college ball; or
a student wishing to be a famous talk Show host like Kris Aquino or Inday
Badiday.

2. Intention – the tendency of the will towards something attainable but

without necessarily committing oneself to attain it. Thus, following our
previous examples, a student who intend to prepare for the examination; a
woman who intend to give herself a face-lift and of course to attend the
college ball; and a student who intend to report a juicy gossip a la Kris
Aquino or a la Inday Badiday.

3. Consent – the acceptance of the Will of those needed to carry out the
intention. Consent is simply the determination of the alternative means
necessary to realize the intention. Following our examples, Consent for the
student is whether to study the lesson or to cheat the exam; Consent for the
woman is to hire the services of the best beauty parlor or to ask the college
ball organizers to announce the person as the most gorgeous; and Consent for
the other student is to willfully search for juicy gossips or to invent them.

4. Election – the selection of the will of those means effective enough to

carry out the intention. Election, thus, include to study hard and not to cheat
the exam; to hire the services of the best beauty parlor and not to ask the
college ball organizers to announce that the person is the most gorgeous; to
willfully search for juicy gossips and not to invent them.

5. Use – the command of the will to make use of those means elected to
carry out the intention. Hence, staying late at night studying the lesson; going
to the beauty parlor and begging the beautician to apply all known make-up
colors to the face; going out and looking for a juicy scoop.

6. Fruition –the enjoyment of the will derived from the attainment of the
thing he had desired earlier. The euphoria of the student after besting his
examination; the joy of the woman for being acknowledged as the most
colorfully beautiful in the college ball; the satisfaction of the student for
being called a master gossiper like Kris Aquino or Inday Badiday.

These educed acts (or self-motivated acts) demonstrate the power of the Will for
motivating the human soul for hope and determination. It is that part of the human soul
that affects freedom and reason of the individual. The Will is the agency of choice as it
may prompt reason to overpower passion or it may arouse passion and allow it to overrun
reason. As such, the Will is a potential force for both good and evil. The strength or the
weakness of the Will determines the strength or the weakness of Human character. If
action follows being, Agere sequitor esse, and if the Will affects moral action, hence the
Will must be brought closer to reason and to the proper sense of morality and goodness.

The Human will is what Ethics, Religious and Values Education aim to tame
through the instruction of the Moral Sense – because the moral sense which is borne out
of human experience of morality direct the Will to its proper choice.

KEY TERMS AND CONCEPTS

Ethical or moral acts – are Human Acts that are judged to be in conformity to a standard
or norm of morality.
Unethical or immoral acts – are Human Acts judged to be in violation of a standard or
norm of morality.
Intention of the Act – the primary motive or the particular reason why the act is being
done.
Means of the Act – the object employed or the medium used to carry out the Intention of
the Act.
End of the Act – the intention of the act is directed to a desired end or a perceived good,
such as Living a well-balanced life or graduating with honors.
Consequence of the Act – the result, the outcome or the actual conclusion or termination
of the Moral Act.
Wish – the tendency of the Will towards something, whether this be attainable or not.
Intention – the tendency of the will towards something attainable but without necessarily
committing oneself to attain it.
Consent – the acceptance of the Will of those needed to carry out the intention.
Election – the selection of the will of those means effective enough to carry out the
intention.
Use – the command of the will to make use of those means elected to carry out the
intention.
Fruition –the enjoyment of the will derived from the attainment of the thing he had
Desired earlier.
 WORK SHEET
NO. 6

Name: _____________________________________ Score: ______________

Course & Year: _____________________________ Date: _______________

A. Determine the following acts whether they are Moral,

Immoral or Amoral Acts. Put a check mark on the column that corresponds to your
answer.

ACTS MORAL/ IMMORAL/ AMORAL/

ETHICAL UNETHICAL NEUTRAL
Telling the Truth

Plotting to murder an enemy

Committing Abortion

Praying before & after Meals

Eating a juicy hotdog

Defending a stranger

Refusing to pay a just debt

Drinking a glassful of Water

Relating a false story

Making a false accusation

Disobeying a rightful order

Combing a bald head

Caring for the sick

Saving a drowning Child

Using Illicit drugs

Coveting other’s wife

B. Arrange the following components of Moral Act according to
Intention, Means, and End.

Intention Means End

For example: Nourishment, Eating, To To Have a Eating Nourishment

Have a meal meal

Praying, Enjoyment of God, To be Holy

Self-Preservation, killing an unprovoked

aggressor, To preserve self from harm

To pass the exam, studying hard, passing

the exam

Winning the Mayoral post, vote-buying,

To be the next City Mayor

To write a good term paper, good term

paper, selecting a good topic

To be promoted, Bootlicking, promotion

Rehearsing dance steps, To dance

gracefully, Standing ovation

To save the life of the mother, Survival of

the mother, aborting the fetus

C. Answer the following questions briefly:

1. Why does the Human Will affect Human freedom and reason? Do you agree?
2. How can you make the will closer to goodness and truth?
 CHAPTER 4

APPROACHES AND PARADIGMS OF MORAL

PHILOSOPHY
General Objectives
After this Chapter, students will be able to:
1. Evaluate the different the two major approaches in the study of Moral
Philosophy
2. Learn the two major moral paradigms in Normative Approach in the study of
Moral Philosophy.
3. Gain basic information about the theories under Consequentialist Ethics and
Non-Consequentialist Ethics.

Specific Objectives
After this Chapter, students will be able to:
1. Explain the difference between Descriptive and Normative Ethics.
2. Differentiate Consequentialist Ethics from Non-Consequentialist Ethics.
3. Identify the theories under Consequentialist and Nonconsequentialist Ethics.

INTRODUCTION

Generally, we can study Moral Philosophy in two ways. One, is describing the
kinds of principles people use in making moral judgments (for example, a sociologist
who describes a particular African tribe as an interesting group of people which considers
all forms of kissing to be unethical); and the other way is by formulating norms or
principles by which we may prescribe how we ought to act in a particular situation (for
instance the moral principle which states that “act only in such a way that it promotes the
greatest happiness of the greatest number of persons” hence, following this prescription,
we should only perform acts that will make many people happy). This shows that the
study of ethics may be done either through descriptive or prescriptive approaches. Hence,
Ethics falls under two general categories: Descriptive and Normative. Under each of
these categories are paradigms and theories of morality.

In this chapter we will discuss the approaches used in the study of ethics, and
briefly, some ethical theories. It is important to take note that our goal in this chapter is
only to introduce the general approaches and major paradigms in the study of Ethics.
Comprehensive discussions on moral theories are presented in Chapter 5.
DESCRIBING HOW PEOPLE ACTUALLY ACT: THE DESCRIPTIVE
APPROACH

When we make description of something (for instance, when we describe how

people act or behave, or how people usually make moral judgments, etc.), we don’t tell
how things should be (or how people should act or behave), but rather, we simply report
how things actually are (or how people are actually acting or are behaving). In this way
we study moral philosophy as objectively as possible. Describing how people actually act
in moral situations is the scientific way of studying human morality. This approach in
studying Human morality is what we commonly call as Descriptive Ethics. In this
approach, we don’t impose pre-existing Principles when we study moral cases – but
rather, we aim to get an objective analysis of the case. If for instance, a cross-cultural
study shows that 98% of 200,000 respondents claim that they act only if acting serves
their self-interest – the study simply reports that people tends to be self-regarding or
selfish. Descriptive approach ignores the issue whether the subjects of the research have
acted unethically or whether selfishness is unethical. All it has to say is the result of the
study that people tends to be selfish. Because of its empirical or scientific approach to the
study of morality, it clearly suggests that descriptive approach is suited more to the social
sciences, like sociology, psychology or political science as these disciplines aim to
discover what moral beliefs are held in a given society, group or organization. It does not
prescribe, nor attempt to assess the moral soundness of any ethical systems, but rather it
objectively describes what kind of values people come to have.

An example of theory under descriptive ethics is Psychological Egoism.

Psychological Egoism is not an ethical doctrine but a theory concerning human
motivation. The theory says nothing about what is good or bad or right or wrong, but
rather, it simply declares that basing from various scientific studies, everyone is
fundamentally selfish, that everybody always does what pleases them, that the only thing
people ever want is their own satisfaction, and everyone always does what is to his own
interest.

Another good example of an ethical theory under Descriptive approach is

Cultural Relativism. Cultural Relativism does not prescribe how people should act, but
rather describes how people, when grouped and observed in their own cultural realities,
actually differ in their moral behavior. What is good or bad, moral or immoral, according
to this theory, is relative to people’s own culture or sets of cultural beliefs and practices.
To cite an example, we usually perceive pre-marital sex between two adolescent couple
to be immoral. But for some tribes in Africa, adult people take pride in encouraging their
sons and daughters to have pre-marital sex as early as sixteen years old! For most cultural
relativist, this proves that there are no objective or discoverable moral imperatives but
only sets of arbitrarily determined moral rules which differ from one culture to another.

Even though descriptive approach has its own advantages (one is its objectivity in
studying human behavior), it is very limited in many ways. One of its obvious limitations
is its inability to provide us with a clear standard of morality. It simply describes how
people act and not with how people should act. To put it simply, descriptive approach
does not, because it cannot, give us practical advice on how to solve moral problems. Let
us consider a case to make this point clearer. Consider the case of a female teenager who
found her self pregnant and who is considering whether or not to take the option of
abortion. Relying on descriptive approach of Ethics for a good advice on what to do, the
teenager will discover none. What she could possibly get from this approach is perhaps a
study showing that 95% of Filipino teens believe that abortion is wrong. But what should
the teenager do? The study will not tell. The study only reports that most teens are
against abortion and it does not tell why abortion should not be performed. And it is here
where the problem lies. If the purpose of our study of Ethics were to understand the
principles underlying our idea of right and wrong in human affairs, that is, how we should
fashion our existence vis-à-vis the existence of other human beings, then descriptive
approach would be insufficient. We need something more – we need to know the basis
why something is good or bad, right or wrong. Normative Approach in the study of
Ethics properly addresses this insufficiency.

PRESCRIBING HOW PEOPLE SHOULD ACT:

THE NORMATIVE APPROACH

Should I tell the truth? Why should I tell the truth? What makes telling the truth
better than lying? Ethics in order to remain significant and relevant, should be able to tell
people why or what makes something good or bad, right or wrong or why a particular act
is better that the other. It shows that the main business (or the reason of existence) of
Moral Philosophy or Ethics is to help people by providing them with good advice on
what to do in morally perplexing situations. Ethics advises us to do something, why we
should do it, and it explains why it is better to do it rather than not doing it. If this is so,
then Ethics is for the most part a normative study. It prescribes how people should act,
rather than simply describing how people act on particular occasions.

Ethics, as a normative study, is not merely a description of what people find

morally good and morally bad, but it seeks to discover norms or principles that ought to
guide our actions. It tries to discover what really makes good action good and bad actions
bad. In short, Ethics as a normative study, tries to produce practical knowledge about
how we should conduct our lives by understanding better our own moral assumptions.

But Normative Ethics does not come handy with a clean system of right or wrong.
If Ethics is to be viewed like an automated teller machine where we could get what we
want in a push of a button, then we should prepare ourselves to be frustrated. There is
no automatic answer in Ethics. True that Ethics can give answer to moral questions or it
can advice us on what to do if we are “morally” confused – the problem is, it gives many
answers and too many advices. Worst, the answers and advices are most of the time
conflicting and contradictory that they will leave us more confused than before. Take for
instance the case of abortion – One normative theory of Ethics will claim that if abortion
will make many people happy than it is moral. But another theory will claim the opposite
– abortion is killing an innocent human being, hence, regardless whether or not it
promotes happiness to many people, abortion is inherently wrong. Here we can clearly
see that the confusion that arises from normative ethics is essentially caused by its various
theories concerning the morality of moral actions. In short, normative ethics complicates
things because it has many theories concerning doing the good thing in the right way.
And here lies another problem with the study of Ethics in general. If it makes things more
complicated rather than simplifying it, or if Ethics makes people more confused rather
than enlightened – then what is the point of studying Ethics?

The reply to this objection is simple; Ethics does not make people really
confused. The apparent confusion is just our initial impression to our experience of
choosing from a wide array of moral options that are made available to us for the very
first time. Unlike before, normative theories help us recognize other factors in our
situation that we previously missed to consider (for instance the moral status of the fetus
in the case of abortion). They present other salient reasons which we previously failed to
think about in the past. Though it makes deciding a little more complicated, it is
undeniable that these various theories afford us with better alternatives to choose from–
and better reasons for accepting them. In this way Ethics enlightens us. With Ethics we
have the opportunity to make a choice in a more enlightened environment. It allows us to
make a more informed decision. Ethics forces us to think critically, to weigh our options
wisely, and to exercise our autonomy and our sense of objectivity in making moral
decisions. This explains the value of studying Ethics.

MORAL PARADIGMS OF NORMATIVE ETHICS

We said in the previous section that Normative Ethics has various theories each
explaining differently what makes an act good or bad, right or wrong. These various
normative theories can be generally categorized under two schools of thought or moral
paradigms. One is the Consequentialist (or Teleological) Ethics, and the other is the
Nonconsequentialist (or deontological) Ethics.

Consequentialist (or Teleological) Ethics and Nonconsequentialist (or

deontological) Ethics are called “schools of thought” or “paradigms” because they are
not simply theories – but rather, they are systems or bodies of different theories. What
groups the different theories into two distinct moral paradigms is their common feature
in evaluating moral acts. Theories under Consequentialist ethics accentuate the
consequences of acts: if the consequence of the act is good it is morally good, while, on
the other hand, theories under Nonconsequentialist ethics emphasizes the motive of the
act: if the act is well intended (or performed out from the sense of duty), then regardless
of the consequence, the act is good. Let us study the other main features of these two
schools of thoughts in Normative Ethics.
 ELEMENTS OF HUMAN ACTS

Motive Means Consequences (Probable and actual)

NONCONSEQUENTIST ETHICS CONSEQUENTIALIST ETHICS

Figure 1 shows the basic difference between non-consequentialist ethics and consequentialist q
ethics in terms of their emphasis on a particular element (s) of Human Acts.

Consequentialist Ethics. Consequentialist or Teleological Ethics is a body of

normative ethical theories that tries to measure the morality of an action based solely by
its consequences. If the consequence is good, regardless whether or not the motive is
good, the act is always morally good. There are various forms of consequentialist ethics,
though they vary in their determination of what consequences are relevant and in how the
value of the consequences is to be determined, they all depend on value theory, meaning
they interpret moral judgments as dependent on what benefits or good an act actually
brings either to the doer or to other people. The following are its major examples:

1. Hedonism or the view that only pleasure (regardless if the pleasure is

mental or physical, but favorably sensual) is the only good as an end. Hence,
eating all you can till you can, drinking all you can till you drop, and doing
sexual intercourse from dusk till dawn are few examples of good that should
be pursued.

2. Utilitarianism, it claims that the greatest happiness or good of the

greatest number of persons is the test of right and wrong. For instance, if
stealing will enable me to help many poor people, then stealing is good.
Utilitarianism is the best known consequentialist theory. We will discuss this
theory in more details in our Chapter dealing with Moral Theories (see
Chapter 5).

3. Perfectionism or self-realizationism, a rival of utilitarianism, which

holds that the ultimate end is the full development or perfection of the self. To
study hard, to exercise daily, to be moral, etc. are examples of things that are
considered good because they are good for the perfection of the self.
Perfectionism is concerned only with the self, and it has little concern for
others – simply because it is other’s duty individually to perfect themselves.

4. Ethical Egoism, as the name implies, maintains that an action is good

only if it promotes the good or the best interest of the one performing the act.
As we can observe, this theory is consequentialist but unlike most of the
consequentialist theories, egoism views the good exclusive to the interest of
the doer. If the act brings me more good than bad, then it is good. It is
 important not to confuse Ethical egoism with Psychological Egoism
(discussed previously in Descriptive Ethics), because unlike the latter, the
former prescribes a particular set of moral behavior. Ethical egoism does not
describe but prescribes how men should be motivated to act. If we look
closely, ethical egoism poses a difficult challenge to Ethics itself. It raises the
most important single question of Ethics, which is the question why we need
to be moral at all. That is, if we don’t benefit from being ethical (for instance,
Ethics does not make us wealthy) why should we be ethical? (this book
provides an answer, read Chapter 2 on the significance of studying Moral
Philosophy).

Non-Consequentialist Ethics. Non-Consequentialist or Deontological Ethics, on

the other hand, is a body of ethical theories that tries to measure the morality of an action
based on the nature of its motives and not on its consequences. If the motive or the
intention of the act is good, and as long as the means employed is good, regardless
whether or not the consequence has resulted to good, the act is always good. Major
examples of Deontological or Nonconsequentialist Theory are the following:
1. Kantian Ethics. Kantian Ethics or Kantianism holds that for an action to be
morally right it must satisfy two requirements, first, it must be willed to be a
universal law, that is, it must be willed to be done by everyone under the same
condition (that is, an act is good if I don’t mind everybody doing it) and
second, it has respected person’s dignity, that is, it did not use person as a
means to achieve selfish ends. Moral goodness of an act depends therefore on
motives or intention, and not on the consequences of what is actually done.
More will be said about this theory in the chapter concerning Moral Theories.

2. Theological Ethics. Theological or divine command theory of morality holds

that the will of God is what determines the rightness and wrongness of an act.
The will of God is expressed through the Holy Scriptures (e.g. the Ten
Commandments) and through the dictates of reason inspired by faith (e.g. the
Dogma of the Roman Catholic Church). If an act violates any of the
provisions of these sacred sources of morality, then the act is unethical and it
should be condemned regardless of its perceived or actual consequences. For
instance, a man who murders a tyrannical ruler has still acted immorally even
if killing the tyrannical ruler brings relief to many people. This is because the
man has committed murder – an act that violates the commandment of God
not to kill. Hence, what determines the moral worth of an act is based solely
on whether it is performed in accordance with the will of God or not.

Aside from Consequentialist and Non-consequentialist Ethics, there are other

normative theories that tell a different account about what determines the morality of
moral actions. Remember that these are theories and not paradigms – that is, they are
theories that neither belong to Consequentialism nor Non-consequentialism but are not
comprehensive enough to be a paradigm or a system of theories. We will consider one
major example of these theories here: Situational Ethics.
 Situational Ethics claims that the morality of an action depends on the situation
where and when it is being performed. What is good in one situation may not be good in
another. For instance, telling the truth when a perfect stranger asks for direction is good –
but when a mad man asks for the whereabouts of your friend in order for him to you’re
your friend, telling the truth in this case will be gravely immoral. Clearly, the act of
telling the truth, is perfectly ethical in one case but not in another different case. Hence,
situational ethics asserts that for every moral case there is a duty to perform, and the
nature of the condition where we find ourselves into determines what we ought to do in
that particular case. After discussing some major theories of Ethics, which theory
impressed you best? Have you found yourself a theory to adopt as your theory of life? If
you already have one, then congratulations! But for now, keep your theory because we
will have much more to say about it when we come to Chapter 5. Will you cling to it?

KEY TERMS AND CONCEPTS

Consequences – The outcome or the result of an action; an event (e.g. imprisonment) that
follows and is caused by some previous event (e.g. stealing)

Dogma - A religious doctrine that is proclaimed as true without proof; a doctrine or code
of beliefs accepted as authoritative

Empirical - Derived from experiment and observation rather than theory; or anything that
is verifiable or perceivable by the five senses (Trees, chairs, tables, etc. are
empirical things).

Ends – The result that a plan is intended to achieve and that (when achieved) terminates
behavior intended to achieve it

Imperatives – Rules or commandments enforced by an agent’s sense of duty.

Means - Instrumentality or the medium used to achieve an end (exercising regularly is a

means to achieve the desired end of good health)

Moral agent – refers to an individual who performs a moral act.

Motives - The reason for the action or that which gives purpose and direction to behavior
(for instance, the act of going to mass is based on the motive of
performing a religious duty)

Paradigm –A collection of theories sharing a common attribute (for instance a collection

of theories sharing a common feature of measuring the moral worth of an
act based solely on its consequences or exclusively based on its motive)
Universalizability – The first formulation or principle of Kant’s Categorical Imperatives
stating that “Act only on maxims that you can and at the same time will to
become a universal law.”
 WORK SHEET
NO. 7

Name: _____________________________________ Score: ______________

Course & Year: _____________________________ Date: _______________

A. Make your answers brief and direct.

1. Differentiate Descriptive Approach and Prescriptive Approach as two

distinct approaches to the study of Ethics.

2. Ethical Egoism raises the most important single question of Ethics,

which is the question why we need to be moral at all. Why do you think we
need to be moral? Personally, what benefits do we get from being moral or
Ethical? Recall our discussions in Chapter 2.

3. In your own words differentiate Consequentialist and Non-

Consequentialist Theory of Morality. Which do you personally prefer?
Explain your answer.

4. What is the problem concerning the descriptive approach to the study of

human morality? Do you agree? Why?

5. If Ethics complicates things and it makes people more confused then

what is the point of studying Ethics? Do you think Ethics is not worthy to be
studied? Why?

B. Identify the paradigm and the theory of Normative Ethics which the following
statements best refer to:

For example:

“ If it feels good, then it must be good” : Consequentialist Ethics, Hedonism

1. “Foods, Wines, and Sex are the only good

that should be pursued.” :
2. “The motive determines the goodness of an
act” :

3. “I don’t care whether that man is innocent or

not – the people want him hanged, so let the
will of the majority prevails – I will hang
him.” :
4. “Developing my potentials to the fullest is
good” :
5. “The Ten Commandments is the Greatest
Moral Rule” :
6. “What is good in this situation may not be
good in another” :
7. “There is no point for being good, why
should I be good?” :
8. “If an act respects the dignity of the human
person, then the act is good” :
9. “The greatest good is that which makes the
greatest number of people happy.” :
10. “If helping makes me feel good, then
helping is good.” :
11. “The Pope being the Christ’s vicar is always
true, since he said that eating raw peanuts is
bad, then it must be bad!” :
12. “Before I think about feeding you, I should
think about feeding myself first!” :
13. “If I make money in helping people, then I
will always help people!” :
14. “That man has intended to save me – even
though he broke my neck in the process of
helping – that man still deserves my
gratitude.” :
15. “Since I cannot will that other people lie,
then it follows that lying is wrong!” :