Formation in Morality is at the forefront of the development of the faith of a Christian. To live a moral life
entails that Christians conform to the life and teachings of Jesus. However, for them to live a moral life, it
is crucial that they understand what morality is and to unlearn all sorts of misconceptions. For a clear
understanding of morality, one is able to ascertain what action is appropriate and necessary for a certain
circumstance. With this, the concept of morality must be very clear to the human person since this will be
his/her very guide for his/her day to day living.
 
          Before going to the unique or specified Christian sources of morality this lesson will first present the
basic concepts on how Christians arrived with their different general moral norms so that we will be able to
connect the different concepts or norms of morality laid for the human person.
 
         The Descriptive title of our course is Christian Morality in Our Times. First and foremost, we have to
ask what is Morality? Basically, Morality is connected with norms. So, the next step is to ask if what is a
norm?
 
          Norm is a fundamental concept in the social sciences. It is commonly defined as rules or
standards that are socially enforced. In the ancient times, when there were no formal social structures such
as government and the Church; or when the different religions were not yet as organized as they are
now, norms often come in the forms of customs, rituals, and traditions. This was so since people would
easily follow these standards if it becomes part of their life-styles until it becomes part of their way of
living. In the Philippine context, respecting one’s parents would be taught by saying “po” or “opo” to them,
or by the practice of “pagmamano”. Norms would only come in the forms of rules, regulations, or
technically called law when society became more socially organized in their government systems. When
different societies mature or develop, their moral standards would also become more organized, more so
when they realized how important is the laying out of the rules to govern human actions for the sustenance
of the peace and order in society which will pave the way for more social progress and further
developments. So, what is “Morality” in a more technical definition?
 
       Morality is a science that deals with the “quality” (goodness or badness) of human
acts/actions. “science” generally means a field of study.  So, Morality will judge whether a certain act or
action is good or bad. How does morality judge human acts/actions? Morality needs basis/bases which are
the rules or standards or technically called Law. In general, these rules or standards or laws are
called Norms.    
            
       Our next question is, how did morality arrive with these norms? If the human person came up with
these norms or found these norms by thinking deeply/ reflecting or so, called philosophizing, then the
process or the science is called Moral Philosophy. In other situations, if the norms or rules were given or
revealed by God or the Divine being, the science is called Moral Theology.  What is the difference between
the two? Moral Philosophy found out the norms or rules by using purely human reasoning or called
philosophizing, while in Moral Theology, these rules or norms were given or revealed by God. An example
of norms in Moral Theology is the Ten Commandments. So Moral Philosophy relies on pure
reasoning/deeply thinking while Moral Theology would depend on God’s revelation and faith. Aside from
Philosophizing and God’s revelation, let us try to find out how others come up with norms for the human
person   .
 
 Sources of Norms:
 
Three Bases in coming up with a good/right norm for human act/ human life: Knowing the Origin, Nature
and the End/Destiny of the human person.
The concepts of the Origin, Nature, and the Destiny of the Human Person and their serious implications in
coming up with moral norms.
1. The Concept of the Origin of the Human Person and all things that surround him/her.
 
                      →   God (man is a creature of God)
    Origin:
                       →  Apes (man came from apes)
 
            Most if not all religions would strongly believe that all creation and the human person came from a
creator which we call “God” whether you call that God YHWH, Allah, Brahman, Bathala, Kabuniyan or
what so ever term which would indicate being all-powerful and other traits expected of a supreme being.
           Outside the realm of beliefs, some would strongly propose other theories for the origin of the human
person such as the theories that the human person evolved from other creatures or animals or even product
of purely natural happenings.
          
Serious Implications to Morality:
 
         If you believe that the human person originated from a supreme being called “God”, then it follows
that your moral norms/laws will depend on the characteristics of that “God”; or that “God” will be the one
to command or give norms to the human person. An example of this is the 10 Commandments in the case
of Judaism or Christianity. The moral laws will greatly respect the dignity of that “God” and the human
person whom He also created. There is what you call “fear of the Lord” as pat of your moral norms.
 
         For the second concept of the origin of the human person which suggests that we evolved from other
animals or just product of purely natural events, its moral norms will just depend on the nature of the
human person which will just be purely animal. With this, there will be no higher dignity for the person to
be respected and there will also be no fear or respect for a higher being or higher authority which is called
“God”. So, you can just do whatever you want such as easily manipulating others even to the point of
killing fellow human persons since you may think that man is the highest authority on earth.
 
2. Human Nature / Natural law (since man is part of the whole nature or Creation)
           The same with the concept of the origin of the human person, one’s concept/view of the nature of
the human person will also dictate what set of moral norms is being set to be followed or lived by us
humans.
 
Serious Implications to Morality:
 
          As being explained above in the concept of the origin of all things, if you believe that we are both
bodily and spiritual beings since we are creations of God, then our moral norms will flow from such
concept, and if you just believe that we are purely animals, then our moral norms will also flow from such
view like treating us as purely animals.
 
3. Destiny / End / or the Ultimate Goal of human life
 
          Different religions commonly believe that as we were created by a higher being or called supreme
being, we also have a good destiny prepared for us. We commonly believe that there is a life after the death
of our physical aspect. This is called “heaven” in Christianity, and other religions have also their own terms
for such a destiny for the human person.
 
          On the other way around, other people who do not believe in beings that are higher than the human
person will just say that there is no such thing as life after death. Death is the ultimate end of the human
persons.
 
Serious Implications to Morality:
 
        The same with the case of the concept of the origin of all, the view for the end/destiny of the human
person will also dictate what set of moral norms is being laid for us. If you strongly believe in the life after
death and going there at the end of life requires good moral life, then we have to do good in our lives to be
able to attained such destiny. On the other hand, if there is no noble end/destiny for the human person, then
there are no such thing as moral norms. There will be norms but they will greatly depend on the concept of
the people who can manipulate the others.
      
           With the presentation of the different sources of moral norms, I hope it now clear to us why there
are norms or laws which we find not compatible what we believe especially with our views on the origin
and the destiny for the human person. There are also norms/laws which we find not compatible with our
basic nature as human persons. These norms which we strongly believe as not good for us are what we
call misconceptions on morality. So, coming up with “wrong” norms is a product of one’s misconceptions
of morality. The misconceptions on morality are just product of the “wrong” concept of the origin, nature,
and the destiny for the human person.  
 
           Summarizing what is being discussed above, morality is centered on norms use to judge human
acts/actions or other practices of society whether they are good or bad. The nearest and best basis to come
up with moral norms is the nature of the human person and his/her surroundings/environment since for
some people, the origin and destiny for the human person is still unclear or for them others’ belief on those
matters is unacceptable.
 
           As stated in the beginning of this discussion, for us Christians, the two basic ways on how we
arrived with our moral norms are Philosophy (Moral Philosophy) and Theology (Moral Theology).
Formally defining the two will be as follows: Moral Philosophy studies the goodness and badness of
human actions in the light of the highest principles based on human reason alone while Moral
Theology studies the goodness and badness of human actions in the light of revelation (in the light of
Christian faith to attain his final goal).
         
Our course Christian Morality is based on both Moral Philosophy and Moral Theology. Christian Norms
are product of these two fields of science.
Human Nature/The Human Person
 
Who or what is the Human person based on Nature?
 
Since the actions of the human person flows from what he/she is, we need to discuss his/her nature by
enumerating its essential characteristics.   
 
 
o Rational being - The human person has intellect/mind/reason. He/she discovers things by reason,
and he/she is the only animal who knows that he/she knows. He/she thinks, rationalize, reflect and
other activities of the intellect.
o  Free-will. The human person is free/ has freedom which means he/she has two or more options
or choices and also has will which is the power to act or not to act on his/her choices. Will is the
power to do or not to do or to act or not to act.                                                                                       
o Conscience. – is the practical judgment of the intellect on what is good or what is bad, and
is prompting the person to always do/follow what is good.                  
o Loving being – Aside from the love between opposite sex which is designed for the continuity of
the human species, generally, loving means desiring the good of others.                                               
o Body - Person – We have a flesh (physical part), which connects us to the material world. Our
bodies(physical part) is dependent on nature/earth. Our bodies use the elements of the earth. The
death of mother earth will also be the death of our bodies.                                                                     
o Sexual – refers to being male or female which is intended for companionship and pro-creation.       
o Unique though Social: - We are individuals and need independence but we are also social
being: live with others. These two are inseparable. We are individuals and need independence but
we also need the presence of others to complete ourselves.                                                                     
o Historical: We have a continuity with the past.                                                                                       
o Transcendental: We always aim higher, to surpass our achievements, since we are longing for
completeness or total satisfaction/contentment. This also means that the human person has. . .       
o   Metaphysical (meta = beyond) aspects such as intellect, emotion, conscience and others.
 
          What is the Implication of the Human Nature to Morality? Going direct to the point, what does your
nature has to say to your actions? As we have stated above, our actions flow from our nature. Example, if
you are historical beings, then you must learn from your past experiences; if you are a loving being, you
must always desire what is good for others; if you are a rational being, then think before you act; if you are
transcendental, then you are not satisfied with your present achievements, or it will lead us to ask and
reflect that if we are transcendental, are we heading to a certain destiny?; if we are body persons, do we
need to take care of mother earth? and the likes. Among these traits of the nature of the human person,
which should regulate the others and his/her human actions/decisions?
          Among the nine traits stated above, the one which should always regulate the others or human
actions
which proceed from the other traits is Conscience. This is because using the other traits like intellect or
freewill alone without the intervention of Conscience can lead to misuse, or abuse of human actions.
Example is thinking, if you are problematic, you can think of some bad actions as a solution to your
problems which in the end is not the case, but it will just add or complicate your problem.   
           
        Since we are Christians who strongly believe in the existence of a Creator (Theos or God) as the
origin of all and the proper destiny which this Creator prepared for us, we also need to look at the other
traits of the human person based on this perspective.
 
Who/What is the human person in a Theological Perspective/View?

 Masterpiece of God (God’s Image and likeness): If we are the image and likeness of God, means
we reflect some of the important characteristics of this God such as goodness, loving, just,
compassionate and many  others. So, if God is good, then basically we are also good; if God is just,
we are also basically just, and others.                                                                                                       
 Fundamentally/innately good or moral being: No human person is bad or evil, only our wrong
actions are bad or evil and not the human person.                                                                                   
 God’s partner / “co-creators” of God. God created the world and us as “incomplete” or imperfect
so our mission is to develop or bring ourselves and our world to perfection. This is why we are
called stewards of God’s creation. Part of our being “co-creators” of God is our being sexual (male
or female) which is designed for      pro-creation.                                                                                     
 Rational being– has intellect or reasoning or mind.
 Freewill – has freedom and will which he/she can use to act or not to act.                                           
 Brother’s keeper (social, and communal): we need to take care of others aside from ourselves.       
 Weak / has fallen nature/ “brokenness”: This is called original sin in Theology. In other terms we
may call this being “incomplete”, or “unfinished”. From this being incomplete comes your mission
which is to finish or complete yourselves. Point for reflection: What if God created us as perfect
beings, what will you do?                                                                                                                           
 Graced: this means we are aided/being assisted by God in our journey of bringing ourselves to
perfection. In the Catholic Church, God’s grace will come to us through the Seven
Sacraments and our other ways of  connecting with our Creator.                                                         
 Transcendental: this pushes us to look for the ultimate meaning of life and ultimately to our God. 
 Children/family of God. We belong to the family of God, formally through Baptism.                       
 Destined for the Kingdom. We have our destiny which we commonly call “heaven” or “paradise”
or in Jesus’ words called the Kingdom of God.
 
            Basically, most of these traits of the human person in this Theological respective are the same with those
traits based on Nature since these are parts of the basic nature of the human person. There are just other traits
which are rooted in our connectedness with our Creator. So, for its relevance to Morality, we have to ask the
same question, what do these traits of the human person in the Theological view say on how he/she should act
or live?  The same answer, that these traits of the human person should strongly influence how he/she acts or
live his/her life. In the formulation of specific norms for the human person, these traits should
be strongly considered since these are the ones which will help direct the human person to
perfection/completeness or to his/her proper destiny which we call the Kingdom of God. The same clarification
also that why do we need to formulate norms/rules/laws for the human person if his/her nature should influence
his/her actions?  Well, there are many people who abuse their other faculties like mind/intellect, freedom and
others, and they also ignore the very basic and immediate norm which is Conscience. This is why there are
many norms or set of norms laid for the good of the human person and one of the very basic set of norms is the
Ten Commandments.
          With this, we hope that the sources of the norms of Morality is now very clear to us. For a kind of
widening of horizon, let us look on the other views on the destiny for the human person since we also said
earlier that the concept of the destiny is also one of the sources of the norms of morality.
 
Some views on the Ultimate End/Destiny of the Human Person
         Most if not all of these other views or concept of the destiny for the human person are just product of
philosophizing (Philosophy).
Hedonism
            For this Philosophy, the ultimate goal for the human person is Happiness, and this happiness is found in
pleasure (“sarap)”. So, “kung saan ang masarap’ dun ang kasiyahan”. This pleasure is sensual. Therefore, for
this certain philosophy, the norm for human action is to look for pleasure/pleasurable things.
 
Marxism:
              A philosophy by Karl Marx which looks at the human person as purely material being or from
mater and there are no such things as metaphysical aspects such as soul and also God. This view just focused
on the way of governance since it was more of a reaction to the abuses of the democratic and other forms
of governing people. For Marxism, the ultimate goal of people is to have a Classless Society (no rich, no
poor). This was achieved in a communistic form of government. Development or progress must always be for
the common  good / not individualistic.
 Norm: Do everything for the common good. Never mind individual goals or individual progress, set
aside ourselves. “all for one, one for all”.
 
Nihilism:
           For this philosophy, the human person and his/her life has no ultimate meaning, no ultimate value. If the
human person and life is meaningless or no value at all, what is your norm for life and for your action?  Aside
from having no definite norm, you reflect on the danger of this kind of philosophy.
Christian view:
           For Christianity, the ultimate goal/destiny for the human person is to enter the Kingdom or to have
eternal union/happiness with God.          
          Norm: Follow the teachings of God such as the Ten Commandments and others.
 
          As you may have noticed in our discussion, the view of the nature of the human person and his/her
ultimate destiny plays a very crucial role in laying out norms for human actions or for his/her way of living. As
we have said in our past discussions, “wrong” concept of the nature and the destiny for the human person cause
a lot of misconceptions about morality and produces a lot of wrong principles or norms. Examples of
these wrong principles/norms of morality are the following:

1. Morality is a matter of opinion. This means that moral norms are subjective; depends on the person.
2. All opinions about morality are equal and correct. Therefore, all opinions should be followed.
3. Morality is outside the world of practical people. Whatever impractical is not good.
4. Morality develops guilt and moral obligation which makes life unhappy. So, we need to set aside moral
norms.
 

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

4.          A Guide towards Meaning of Life

 As mentioned above, morality or always doing good will allow the human person to discover the real
value of things and life which at the end will let him/her experience the true meaning of life.
 
5.          The Entrance of Eternal Life into the Life of the Human Person
 After following the moral norms, discovering the truth and real value of all things, and bringing
himself/herself to perfection, the human person will be able to reach his/her final destiny which is to
enter the kingdom of God. Morality reveals and leads the human person to his/her ultimate end/destiny.
After finding out the Purposes of Morality, let us go back to the causes why there is morality. Although, these
were implied in the discussions above, we will enumerate and briefly explain them for clarification purpose.
 
MORALITY PRESUPPOSES the following:
 1. The existence of God
            Morality points us to the existence of the Creator of all things who is totally good and perfect and whom
we call “God”. Since this Creator is totally good or perfect, He/She also gave us a guide to attain total goodness
or perfection.

2. Intellect and Free Will

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

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

4. Accountability to an Ultimate value

            Morality tells us that there are ultimate values or ends that we will be accountable (responsible) or we
will face the consequence later if we do not follow the norms. This ultimate value is our final destiny which is
the Kingdom of God.  
 
OBJECT OF MORALITY
 
          We have been talking about norms, rules, standards or laws of which is being use by morality to judge
our actions. To clarify this, what does morality judge as good or bad? Is it the human person or his actions? It is
the action of the human person. To be very specific, what kind of action needs to be judge as good or bad?
There are two kinds of acts which are the so-called human acts and acts of man. Which of these two should be
moralized? While human acts and acts of man both pertain to the actions or behaviors of an individual or group
of individuals, they must be clearly delineated in order to discern which brings moral responsibility.
            Human Acts are actions that are proper to humans, thus the crucial element of willful consent and
knowledge of the action must be present. One must freely use his/her intellect and freewill when acting. Human
acts reveal the value of responsibility or accountability. Eating healthy foods, reading notes in preparation for an
exam, and saying no to drugs are just few examples.
            Acts of Man are the actions that do not reflect the person as a rational being. The actions are
performed without conscious deliberation or knowledge and with the absence of freewill. Acts of man constitute
unconscious and involuntary actions. Examples are one’s way of sleeping, suddenly catching a falling object,
one’s way of walking, reacting instinctively when touching a very hot surface, and the likes. These are done
without the use of freewill and reason. Some of these just happen naturally as automatic responses to the
situations.       
HUMAN ACTS ACTS OF MAN
Deliberate Indeliberate
Free Not free
Voluntary Involuntary
Conscious “Unconscious”
Willful Unwillful
Known “Unknown”
 Aware “Unaware”
 
  
CONSTITUENTS OF HUMAN ACTS
 
1. Human acts are known and deliberate. An individual, as the moral agent, has full knowledge in
doing a certain action. There is a prior knowledge and a deliberate evaluation whether to do an
action or not.
2. Human acts are free. An individual as the moral agent is free from any external factors as well as
internal pressure to do the act. He/She is neither forced nor intimidated to do or not to do something.
3. Human acts are voluntary. The action proceeds from the willingness of an individual to perform
action with a perceived knowledge of the end.
 
With the given distinction above, it is now very clear that we cannot moralize acts of man but the Human Acts
Morality therefore covers human acts and not acts of man.

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

1.  The Act (The Object)   

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

       Circumstance can create, lessen or increase or even remove one’s culpability (guilt, penalty)
       Example: walking on a newly cemented area is bad since alam na this, how about if the one who walked on
       that area is a two years old girl? Will you moralize her action? Of course not.
 
 4. For amoral act or indifferent act, its morality will be judge by its purpose and circumstance.
       ex:  throwing a stone, walking, etc. how about if one intentionally stepped on the newly cemented area?
       Obviously, such action is bad.
 

5. An act which is intrinsically evil is not morally allowed regardless of any circumstance.
     ex:  killing, suicide, adultery, rape, and the likes.
 
Other Moral Principles Based on the Three Criteria of Morality
 
o A good act done for a bad end becomes bad.
Example:  Politicians who gave relief goods to people who were greatly affected by the mass flooding taking
advantage of the situation to campaign for the election.
 
o A bad act done for a good end does not become good
Example:  When a father put the justice into his hands and kills the murderer of his daughter to take revenge for
her death.
 
o The end does not justify the means. (The end or purpose does not justify the means or manner) This is
almost the same with letter b. No matter how good the purpose is if the manner or way or act is bad then
it is not morally allowed.
Example:   A student cheats during examination to pass and obtain scholarship in a university. Recall also the
Robinhood story.       
o An indifferent act may become morally good or bad. (depending on the purpose/intention)

Example:  To study law is in itself an indifferent action. It becomes good when inspired by the thought of
alleviating human sufferings or making a decent living. It becomes bad if it is intended to perform illegal or
immoral actions.
An elder brother who puts hot sauce on a cake before giving it to a begging younger brother, so that the
younger brother will not ask for more, and the elder can have the cake all to himself.
o  Choose the lesser evil (if no other options or it is the last resort)

            This is only allowed if there are no other options and the situation is a matter of life and death where you
need to decide at that very moment.
o Why not give the same punishment for the same crimes?

          Aside from the purpose and circumstance which can lessen or increase the culpability of a bad action,
there are also other factors which affect the manner or the reason why a person committed such an act. Not all
acts are done perfectly by the doer/agent. There are the so-called kinds of human act or specifically called kinds
of voluntary act

KINDS OF VOLUNTARY ACT

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

10.        Interpretative A. - an act influenced by an intention which is presumed (interpreted) to be present

in an agent who lacks the ability to express his actual intention. Example: A mute person is asking you
something through sign language, and you are the one who will interpret what he/she is asking and you
did or gave it. These kinds of voluntary act are great factors which will affect the judgement of a certain
action.

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

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

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

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

is controlled by the will. The act abruptly or suddenly happens. This is called “gavva lang” in Ibanag     
For example, Juan was allegedly running late for his class. When he entered the school campus, the
guard confiscated his ID for no apparent reason. Out of anger, he cursed the guard.                           
2. Consequent Concupiscence – happens when the intellect is aware of the inordinate passion and the will
still choses to arouse the said passion and proceed with the act. So, it is pre-meditated. Example: you got
angry with your classmates and after many hours or even a day, you did not calm your anger and still
wanted to punch your classmates and you did it.
 
Morality of Actions done under Concupiscence:
       Bad actions done under Antecedent Concupiscence are still culpable but the
culpability can be lessened or can even be negated. This is so since the action was
abrupt and so not intentional.
         Bad actions done under Consequent Concupiscence are totally culpable.
 
3. Fear
Happens when the individual is threatened by impending danger. The existence of danger or threats can limit
one’s ability to use the will and reason and merely acts base on the instinct to survive or overcome the situation.
There are two kinds of Fear:
 Light Fear: The impending danger or threat is light or somewhat like remote. Example is, your
classmate tells you that he will slap you if you will not give in to his demand.
 Grave Fear: The impending danger or threat is so serious like a matter of life and death choices.
Example is when your classmate demands something from you with his gun pointed at your head.
Morality of Actions done under Fear:
Bad action done with light or grave fear are both culpable. This is because, despite the presence of the threat,
one can still choose to do what he/she prefers to do, although the consequence can really affect the decision.
Point to ponder: Which is more culpable? Bad action done under light fear or under grave fear?  Which
culpability can be lessened? Bad action done under light fear or under grave fear? 
 
4. Violence (physical attack)-is the application of physical force upon a resisting person to compel him/her to
do or not to do an act like protecting oneself and others. There are two persons involve here, the one who
attacks and the one who defends her/himself. What we judge here is the reaction of the one being attacked since
the act of the one who attacks is understood as bad.
Self-defense is a classic example for violence. With the presence of fear, one has to protect himself/herself
against his/her perpetrator. Self-defense means, there is no intention to kill one’s perpetrator but only to defend
oneself.
 
Morality of actions done under violence
   If you are on the act of defending yourself against your perpetrator like a rapist or killer or kidnapper and
unintentionally, you killed him/her, are you culpable? Of course not, but if you intended to kill your perpetrator
while defending yourself, then you are culpable although your culpability can be lessened.
 
5. Habit – Firm and stable behavior pattern of acting. An individual naturally and consciously, although most
often unconsciously performs an action, as a result of its repetitive performance through time. With the presence
of habit, an individual act based on his/her repeated responses to situations.
Good habits are called virtues while bad habits are vices. Obviously, we only moralize bad habits and not the
good ones. Examples of your habits is speaking bad words as a reaction to situations, like “ko diablo” or “diablo
ka ko” or “pesti”, or always causing trouble in a party when drunk, etc.
 
Morality of actions done under bad habit
Bad actions done because of habit are culpable. The culpability is lessened only when the person exerts utmost
effort to free himself/herself from a vicious habit.

The S-T-O-P Principle

There is one good practice which is very helpful in dealing with passions and dilemmas or problems in life. This
is called the STOP principle.
 
S – Search for the fact/s. Study what is the issue behind one’s problems or dilemmas and other related
situations.
T – Think for alternatives. This is necessary if your proposed action is not clear or not sure. 
O – Others are to be considered for advice. Ask others’ advice or suggestions if you are hard up.
P – Pray for guidance and wisdom. Pray to God for enlightenment about the issue or problem.
 
*One should apply STOP if one is doubting, confused, emotionally disturbed, things are unclear etc.
 
General Moral Principle:
One should not act nor decide if one is doubting, confused, emotionally disturbed, problematic, things are
unclear and other same circumstances.
Point to ponder: What will happen or what could be the probable result if one acts immediately when he/she is
still confused, problematic or controlled by passions? What is the worst thing that one can do if he will act
under these circumstances?
 
DOUBLE EFFECT – There are actions which have two effects (good and bad)
Question: When are you allowed to proceed with an action with these two effects?  
Principles of Double Effect
            One is allowed to do an act with two effects (good and bad) under the following conditions.
 

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

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

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

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

4. The intention of the agent is honest.

 There should be no other intention than to do good like the ones mentioned as sufficient reasons above.
 
An example of this is a physician/doctor operating a pregnant woman with the expected effects if ever like the
mother might die in the process or the baby in hesr womb might die or even the two might die.