Ge 08 Ethics Prefinal Module PDF

Midterm Page 1 of 34
General Education
Academic Year 2021-2022,
2nd Semester
ETHICS
GE 08
Qayser D. Siblante
OSMEÑA COLLEGES
Aspire…Achieve…Advance!
College of Teacher Education
OSMEÑA COLLEGES
The Meaning of Human Act

Module 13
OVERVIEW
Not all acts of the human person as a moral agent are
considered human act. Some may be classified as acts of man. This
is what you will learn in this Lesson in addition to the determinants
of the morality of the human act.
its LEARNING OUTCOMES

strengths and weaknesses.
By the end of this module, you should be able to:

• Explain the meaning of human act, the morality and
accountability of human act
• Cite the strengths and weaknesses of cultural relativism.
LEARNING EXPERIENCES & SELF-ASSESSMENT ACTIVITIES (SAA)
Activity
Classify the items either as human act or act of man. Write 1 for
human act and 2 for act of man.
____1. Breathing
____2. Blinking of the eyes
____3. Observing diet
____4. Dilation of the pupils of the eyes
____5. Perspiring
____6. Tutoring the slow learners
____7. Preparing for board exams
____8. Jerking of the knee
Analysis
OSMEÑA COLLEGES
Study your list. What is common to the items under acts of

man? under human act?
Abstraction
ACT OF MAN VERSUS HUMAN ACT
After studying the nature of the moral agent, the next thing to do is
to study the nature of human act itself. Says Fr. Coppens, (2017)
“(h)uman acts are those of which a man is master, which he has the
power of doing or not doing as he pleases.” In the words of Panizo,
(1964) "(h)uman acts are those acts which proceed from man as a
rational being." Observing prescribed diet, tutoring the slow learners
and preparing for board exams are examples of human acts. In other
words, human acts are the acts of a moral agent. Hence, “actions
committed by unconscious and insane persons, infants, or by those
who are physically forced to do something, are not considered as
human acts but acts of man." Likewise, "actions which merely
happen in the body or through the body without the awareness of the
mind or the control of the will are not human acts but merely acts of
man.” Examples of acts of man are breathing, blinking of the eyes,
dilation of pupil of the eye, perspiring and jerking of the knee.
THE DETERMINANTS OF THE MORALITY OF HUMAN

ACT
In his book earlier cited, Rev. Coppens, S.J. says that to know
whether an individual human act is morally good, three things are
considered. These are called the determinants of morality, namely,
a) the object of the act, b) the end, or purpose, and c) its
circumstances.
For an act to be morally good, all three determinants must be without
a flaw, according to the received axiom: “Bonum ex integra causa,
malum ex quocumque defectu” -- "A thing to be good must be
wholly so; it is not vitiated by any defect.”
The object of an act is the thing done. In reality, it is not distinct

from the act itself; for we cannot act without doing something, and
that thing that is done is the object of the act; say, of going, eating,
OSMEÑA COLLEGES
praising, etc. The act or object may be viewed as containing a further

specification - e. g., going to church, praising God, eating meat.
Now, an act thus specified may, when considered in itself, be good,
bad, or indifferent; thus, to praise God is good in itself, to blaspheme
is bad in itself, and to eat meat is in itself an indifferent act. But for
an individual human act to be good, its object, whether considered
in itself or as further specified, must be free from all defect; it must
be good, or at least indifferent.
The end, or purpose intended by the agent is the second determinant

of an act's morality. The end here spoken of is not the end of the
work, for that pertains to the object, but the end of the workman or
agent. No matter how good the object of an act may be, if the end
intended is bad, the act is thereby vitiated, spoiled or impaired. Thus,
to praise God is good in itself, but, if in so acting the intention would
be to play the hypocrite, the act is morally bad. This holds true
whether the vicious end is the nearest, remote or last end; whether it
be actually or only virtually intended. On the other hand, a good end,
though ever so elevated, cannot justify a bad act; in other words, we
are never allowed to do evil that good may result from there. Robin
Hood robbed the rich and distributed the money to the poor. No
matter how noble Robin Hood's intention was for robbing the rich,
his act of robbing the rich is not morally acceptable.
The circumstances of time, place and persons have their part in

determining the morality of an individual act. The moral character
of an act may be so affected by attendant circumstances. that an act
good in itself may be evil when accompanied by certain
circumstances; for instance, it is good to give drink to the thirsty,
but if the thirsty man is morally weak, and the drink is intoxicating,
the act may be evil. (Coppens, 2017)
The object of the act is the act itself. The following are
instances: using the name of God with reverence; sincerely invoking
God's name or the names of saints (the evil object is using the name
OSMEÑA COLLEGES
of God and the saints in vain), honoring one's parent, going to Mass
on days of obligation, a human life, respecting other's rights and
property, having pure acts and thoughts, being true to marital
commitments, telling the truth, etc.
The end, or purpose is the intention of the acting subject, or what
inspires the acting subject. For example, rendering free service to a
neighbor with the intention of boasting about it. Or helping a
neighbor inspired by love of God. The first instance is immoral,
while the second is moral. The guiding rule is the end does not
justify the means. The intention of helping a neighbor, say giving
food, by stealing the food from another neighbor, is never justified.
This is what Robin Hood did. He stole from the rich and gave it to
the poor. Of course, no matter how good his intention was, i.e. to
help the poor, his stealing is not made right by his good intention.
The circumstances, including the consequences, refer to the time,
place, person, and conditions surrounding the moral act. They either
increase or diminish the moral goodness or evil of human acts.
A morally good act requires the goodness of the object, of the end,
and of the circumstances together. An evil end corrupts the action,
even if the object is good in itself (such as praying and fasting "in
order to be seen by men")
Application
1. Can an act of man be considered human act if the action is carried
out with malice? Why or why not?
2. Illustrate with at least 3 examples “the end does not justify the
means."
3. Robin Hood robbed the rich and gave the money to the poor. Was
his act justified? Explain your answer.
4. Relate an instance when you acted like Robin Hood. Was your act
justified?
OSMEÑA COLLEGES
5. Among the three determinants of the morality of the human act,

which did the Greatest Teacher focus on when taught his followers
the following:
. ...when you fast, don't be like the hypocrites, with sad faces; they
disfigure their faces, that they may be seen by men to be fasting.
(Matthew 6:16)
“So, when you give to the needy, do not sound a trumpet before you,
as the hypocrites do in the synagogues and on the streets to be
praised by men.” (Matthew 6:2) ...when you pray, go into your
room, close the door and pray to your Father, who is unseen...
(Matthew 6:6)
6. Time, place, person, and conditions surrounding the moral act
may either increase or diminish the moral goodness or evil of a
human act. Illustrate this with at least 3 examples. e.g. stealing
money from your mother's wallet and stealing money (wallet) inside
the church or a place of worship.
KEY POINTS
✓ A human act is an action that is considered to be carried out

voluntarily, whereas an act of man is an involuntary action.
✓ A human act is an act on which an individual can make a
conscious decision whether or not to carry out that act. An
act of man is the natural act of vegetative and sense
faculties such as digestion, the beating of the heart,
growing, bodily reactions and visual or auditory
perceptions.
✓ For an individual human act to be moral, its object must be
free from all defect; it must be good, or at least indifferent.
The end or purpose intended by the agent for that act must
likewise be good.
✓ Circumstances surrounding the human act such as time,
place, person, and conditions surrounding the moral act
OSMEÑA COLLEGES
may either increase or diminish the moral goodness or evil

of a human act.
✓ A morally good act requires the goodness of the object, of
the end, and of the circumstances together. An evil end
corrupts the action, even if the object is good in itself.
END OF MODULE ASSESSMENT
Now that you have finished the review of the various concepts
outlined above, it is now time for an assessment to see how far you
have improved. On every module’s “End of Module Assessment”
(this part), write your answer/s on a one whole sheet of yellow pad
paper.
LOOKING AHEAD
Congratulations for making it till the end of this module! The
next topic will deal on The Filipino Character! Happy learning!
REFERENCES
Etgics by: Ruben A. Copuz, AB English-Philo, Lib, PhD,
Brenda B. Corpuz, BSE, MAEd, PhD and Lorimar Publishing,
INC 10-B Boston Street, Brgy. Kaunlaran, Cubao, Quezon
City, Metro Manila, Philippines.
END OF MODULE ASSESSMENT (Answer Sheet)

(Please do not forget to provide information on this part)
Name: _______________________ Course& Year:
_____________
OSMEÑA COLLEGES
Module Number and Title: ________Date accomplished:

_________
have improved. Write your answers on a one whole sheet of yellow
pad paper.
Direction: Classify whether the given phrase refers to act of man or
human act. Write 1 for act of man and 2 for human act.
__1. Deliberate
__2. Happen "naturally”
__3. Without reflection
__4. Freely chosen 5. Automatic
__6. Performed in freedom
__7. Done voluntarily
__8. Without consent
__9. Thought out
__10. Judgment of conscience
Accountability of Moral Act

Module 14
OVERVIEW
What is the moral agent’s accountability over his/her act?

On what does his/her accountability depend?
OSMEÑA COLLEGES
LEARNING OUTCOMES
• • Discuss the three bases of moral accountability

• • Give examples of modifiers of human act.
Activity
1. Read the story of Judas' betrayal of Jesus in Luke 22:1-53.
Analysis
1. Could Judas be held answerable/accountable for having
betrayed Jesus?
2. On what factors (at least three) would you base Judas
accountability?
Abstraction
Bases of Moral Accountability
Says Fr. Coppens (2017):
When I perform a free act -- one which I am able to do or
not to do, as I choose -- the act is evidently imputable to me: if the
thing is, blameworthy, the blame belongs to me; if it is
praiseworthy, I am entitled to the praise. Every human act
therefore, since it is a free act, is imputable to him who performs it.
To whom are we accountable? For violation of government

laws, people are held accountable directly to the government, and
indirectly to the people. How about violations of moral standards?
Under Christian natural law ethics, God is deemed the author of
the law, hence violators are accountable to God. For non-theistic
morality, violators are accountable solely to themselves.
OSMEÑA COLLEGES
There are three bases for moral accountability, namely:

knowledge, freedom and voluntariness. These are the necessary
conditions for the accountability of actions. First, a human act must
be done knowingly; second, it must be done freely and third, it
must be done voluntarily (intentional or negligent). To be credited
for a good act or held morally liable or responsible for an evil act,
a person must have done it knowingly, willingly and voluntarily.
Determining moral liability is analogous to determining criminal
liability. In criminal law, for instance, for you to be liable you must
have done the criminal act knowingly, freely and willingly. So
similarly, in ethics, for you to be morally liable, you must have
done the unethical act knowingly, freely and willingly or
voluntarily.
In other words, for you to be morally responsible for your
act, you must, first, have knowledge, that is, you are in possession
of a normal mind; you are not insane or totally ignorant, sleep-
walking due to somnambulism. Knowledge is “the awareness of or
familiarity with a fact, situation, or truth, unveiled through
experience or disclosed in dialogue or encounter with persons or
things.” Knowledge that stealing is wrong is the awareness of what
stealing is all about, that is, taking the property of another without
consent, as well as the awareness of violating property rights, and
all other unpleasant consequences of violating other's rights.
Knowledge that stealing is wrong is the awareness of what makes
stealing wrong.
To have genuine knowledge, your mind must be normal,
not impaired or vitiated, by mental condition or ignorance.
Secondly, the act is freely done. This happens when you
can exercise your power of choice. If the act you intend to do is a
choice between stealing or not stealing, then you must have the
freedom to choose which to do. Your freedom should not be
impaired by an irresistible force or uncontrollable fear. If the act
you intend to choose is testifying as to your personal knowledge,
what you saw, heard, etc., you should be free to do so, without
OSMEÑA COLLEGES
being subjected to an uncontrollable fear of being silenced by

death.
Thirdly, the act must be voluntary, that is, the act is either
intentional or negligent. An act is voluntarily intended when it is
done with the aim, purpose, or goal of attaining a result. An act is
negligent when it is done voluntarily, but without care or
precaution in avoiding the happening of a foreseeable event. You
can be morally liable either by intentional act or negligent failure
to exercise care and precaution. “A voluntary act proceeds from
the will and depends upon the will for its performance. We
something is done purely by accident, this is referred to as
fortuitous event, act of God.
Judas was morally accountable for having betrayed Jesus.
He had knowledge. He knew what he was doing. Jesus said “one of
you will betray me.” He freely chose to betray Jesus tempted by
the thought of 30 pieces of silver. He voluntarily and intentionally
did it. He led the soldiers to the Garden of Gethsemane and kissed
Jesus to signify to the soldiers that he was the one to be arrested.
For instance, stealing is immoral. To be liable for this
immoral act, you must do it knowing that it is immoral, you do it
freely, that is, you are not forced or coerced, and voluntarily, that
is, with intentions to do it. Sideswiping a pedestrian causing his
death is immoral if the incident happens due to your negligence,
like driving under the influence of liquor, texting while driving, or
driving without license. Accidentally dropping a gun causing the
gun to fire and hit and kill someone won't make anyone
accountable, unless you have been negligently playing with the
gun. Indiscriminate firing of gun during New Year merry making
leading to death of someone is criminal negligence and immoral.
Ultimately, it can be said that your degree of moral
accountability depends on the degree or extent of knowledge,
freedom and voluntariness. Addiction of whatever kind, e.g. drugs,
sex, power, money or property, weaken all three bases: knowledge,
OSMEÑA COLLEGES
freedom, and voluntariness, so that instead of eliminating them

"like dregs of civilization, they should be treated with compassion,
however, not condoning their acts.
Modifiers of Human Act
There are various factors which either increase or decrease
accountability. They are called modifiers of human acts. These are
analogous to exempting, mitigating, aggravating and justifying
circumstances in criminal law. “They affect the mental or
emotional state of a person to the extent that the voluntariness
involved in an act is either increased or decreased.” They are as
follows: 1) ignorance, 2) passions, 3) fear, and 4) violence.
(Panizo, 1964)
Ignorance is the “absence of knowledge.” There are various
degrees of ignorance. Traditional ethics classifies them as vincible,
invincible, affected, and supine or gross ignorance. “Ignorance,
whether of the law or of the facts, is either vincible or invincible.
When it cannot be overcome by the due amount of diligence, it is
invincible; otherwise, it is vincible. The latter is said to be gross or
supine when scarcely an effort has been made to remove it; and if a
person deliberately avoids enlightenment in order to sin more
freely, his ignorance is affected.” The basic rule is invincible
ignorance, one that is beyond one's ability to overcome, is entirely
involuntary, and hence removes moral responsibility; vincible
ignorance does not free us from responsibility.
Passion refers to positive emotions like love, desire,
delight, hope, and bravery and negative emotions like hatred,
horror, sadness, despair, fear and anger. “Antecedent passions
those that precede the act, do not always destroy voluntariness, but
they diminish accountability for the resultant act. In criminal law,
the commission of a criminal act “with passion and obfuscation"
means the perpetrator is blinded by his emotions lessening his
accountability from maximum to medium or from medium to
minimum. Consequent passions are those that are intentionally
OSMEÑA COLLEGES
aroused and kept. They do not lessen voluntariness, but may

increase accountability.” (Panizo, 1964).
Fear is the disturbance of the mind of a person due to an
impending danger or harm to himself or loved ones. Acts done
with fear is voluntary. but acts done because of intense or
uncontrollable fear or panic are involuntary.
Violence refers to any physical force exerted on a person
by another free agent for the purpose of compelling said person to
act against his will Actions performed by person subjected to
violence or irresistible force are involuntary and not accountable.
Moral Accountability for What Could Have Been
It is termed as sin of omission. Whatever one fails to do but
which should have been done is also imputable to him. This refers
to failure to act despite knowledge of being free, therefore different
from negligence or lack of foresight. It is intentionally not doing
same thing when one should have done it. It is failing to act as a
Good Samaritan when one should have acted as such. Pilate had
the case of Jesus Christ investigated and found Him innocent. He
could have set Jesus free but he did not. Withholding an
information could have prevented a disaster. Damaging
consequences could have been avoided.
Application
1. A nurse unknowingly gave a patient an overdose of medicine.
Is the nurse accountable for her action? Explain your answer.
2. A teacher was vindictive in giving the grade of student A who
happens to question a lot and unfortunately expose teacher's
lack of subject matter mastery. Is the teacher accountable for
not giving student A the grade he truly deserves? Explain your
answer.
3. Schools in the city have already suspended classes due to an
incoming typhoon except school B which was waiting for the
decision for the school President. Student C wrote on Facebook
OSMEÑA COLLEGES
– “That God-damn stupid principal and Asst. Principal. When

are they suspending classes? When all students are wet and
sick?
Was the student who wrote those in Facebook accountable?
Explain your answer.
4. In Euripides' play Medea is a proud, powerful, self-driven
woman who strives to avenge an act committed by her husband,
Jason. Jason has recently left Medea for another woman. This
crushes Medea, as she has sacrificed much for Jason, and truly
believes that they are lovers meant to be together for life. She
enters a long period of mourning, and becomes inconsolable by
even her closest of friends. Eventually her sadness turns to
anger, and she begins seeking revenge for the wrong she has
been done. Medea immediately begins plotting against Jason,
and devises a plan, which she believes, will hurt him in the
worst possible way. She decides to kill everyone close to him,
including the children they have together, and destroy any
legacy that may survive him. She carefully draws out every
detail of the plan, ensuring its completion. Medea is successful
in this aspect, as she is able to carry out everything she plans on
.... Medea is forced to battle not only those around her, who beg
her not to take the lives of her children, but she must fight her
conscience as well. In the end, Medea kills her own children.
(Source: https://www.megaessays.com/
viewpaper/36254.html)
5. Is Medea accountable for her acts? What modifies or decreases
her accountability, if any?
KEY POINTS
• There are three bases for moral accountability, namely:

knowledge, freedom voluntariness.
• These are the necessary conditions for the accountability of

actions: 1) a human act must be done knowingly; 2) it must
be done freely and 3) voluntarily.
OSMEÑA COLLEGES
• Modifiers of human acts either increase or decrease

accountability. analogous to exempting, mitigating,
aggravating and justifying circumstances criminal law.
• "These modifiers of human act affect the mental or
emotional state of a person to the extent that the
voluntariness involved in an act is either increased or
decreased." The modifiers of human act are: 1) ignorance,
2) passion, 3) fear and 4) violence.
• Ignorance can be vincible, invincible, affected and supine

or gross.
• Invincible ignorance cannot be overcome by due amount of

diligence while vincible ignorance can be overcome.
• Invincible ignorance, one that is beyond one's ability to
overcome, is entirely involuntary, and hence removes
moral responsibility; vincible ignorance does not free us
from responsibility.
• Gross or supine ignorance exists when scarcely an effort
has been made to remove it while affected ignorance exists
when a person deliberately avoids enlightenment in order to
sin more freely.
• Antecedent passion decreases moral accountability while
consequent passion does decrease voluntariness so
increases moral accountability.
• Acts done with fear is voluntary, but acts done because of

intense or uncontrollable fear or panic are involuntary.
• Actions performed by person subjected to violence or
irresistible force are involuntary and, therefore, the person
is not accountable.

OSMEÑA COLLEGES

Name: _______________________ Course& Year:
_____________
_________
paper.
Task 1. Illustrate with appropriate separate graphic organizers:
• The three bases of moral accountability.
• Modifiers of the human act, their effect on accountability
and concrete example for each.
LOOKING AHEAD
Congratulations for making it till the end of this module! The next
topic will deal on Universal Values! Happy learning!
REFERENCES
Ethics by: Ruben A. Copuz, AB English-Philo, Lib, PhD,
City, Metro Manila, Philippines
Feeling as a Modifier of Moral Decision-Making

Module 15
OSMEÑA COLLEGES
OVERVIEW
In Lesson 2 we talked about human act and the modifiers of

human act - ignorance, passion, fear, violence. In this Lesson we
will discuss feeling as a modifier of moral decision making.
LEARNING OUTCOMES

• Explain the role of feelings in moral decision making.
Activity
1. One sticker in a truck says: “If it feels good do it.” What
does this mean? Is this, always right?
2. Here are statements from a Filipina OFW in the USA.
Read then answer the questions below.
“I will never be able to forgive myself if I won't fly home
to be with my family in my father's death. I may not be able to talk
to him anymore, you may find it impractical and unreasonable but
I have to fly home. If I don't, I will not feel whole at all.”
If you were the Filipina nurse, would you decide and act
the same way? Why?
Analysis
1. What's wrong with “If it feels good, do it.”?
2. Would you consider the Filipina nurse's decision to fly
home, right? Why or why not?
OSMEÑA COLLEGES
Abstract
Feelings in Decision-making
Feeling, in general, is an emotional state or reaction, experience of
physical sensation, like feeling of joy, feeling of warmth, love,
affection, tenderness, etc. How do they affect moral decision-
making? “Several studies conclude that up to 90 percent of the
decisions we made are based on emotion. We use logic to justify our
actions to ourselves and to others.” Researches also show that
“actual emotional states can influence the process of moral
reasoning and determine moral judgment.”
Feelings are instinctive and trained response to moral dilemma.
They can be obstacles to making right decisions but they can also
help in making the right decisions.
Are there advantages of emotional decision making? According to
recent research, feelings or emotions have positive effects on
decision making. Some are identified as follows:
• A totally emotional decision is very fast in
comparison to a rational decision. This is reactive (and
largely subconscious) and can be useful when faced with
immediate danger, or in decisions of minimal significance.
• Emotions may provide a way for coding and
compacting experience, enabling fast response selection.
This may point to why expert's "gut" level decisions have
high accuracy rates.
• Decisions that start with logic may need emotions to
enable the final selection, particularly when confronted with
near equal options.
• Emotions often drive us in directions conflicting with
self-interest
Emotional decision making can also come with a number of

negatives.
• We make quick decisions without knowing why, and
then create rational reasons to justify a poor emotional
decision.
OSMEÑA COLLEGES
• Intensity of emotions can override rational decision-

making in cases where it is clearly needed.
• Immediate and unrelated emotions can create
mistakes by distorting and creating bias in judgments. In
some cases this can lead to unexpected and reckless action.
• Projected emotions can lead to errors because people
are subject to systemic inaccuracy about how they will feel
in the future.” (Source: DecisionInnovation
(file://Users/macos/Downloads/
Emotional20Decsion20Making.htmlaccessed, 2-3-2018)
Moral statements as expressions of feelings

Are moral statements or values mere expressions of feelings or
emotions as claimed by the linguistic philosophers? According to
some linguistic philosophers, called (emotivists) the statement
"stealing is wrong” is not a statement of fact, it is an expression of a
desire or emotion. The rule or maxim “Stealing is wrong” means "I
desire that you do not steal.” An emotional statement is not
verifiable like factual statement. “Pedro stole my cat" is verifiable,
can be established by evidence. But “Pedro's act of stealing my cat
is morally wrong” which is equivalent to "I desire that Pedro should
not steal” is not verifiable. The following explains this ethical
theory:
Emotivism... is the view that moral judgments do not
function as statements of fact but rather as expressions of the
speaker's or writer's feelings. According to the emotivist, when we
say “You acted wrongly in stealing that money,” we are not
expressing any fact beyond that stated by “You stole that money.”
It is, however, as if we had stated this fact with a special tone of
abhorrence, for in saying that something is wrong, we are expressing
our feelings of disapproval toward it. Emotivism was expounded by
A. J. Ayer in Language, Truth and Logic (1936) and developed by
Charles Stevenson in Ethics and Language (1945) The emotivist
thus goes further by saying that ethical statements being emotional
expressions are not verifiable. Emotional expressions are not
OSMEÑA COLLEGES
assertions of what is true or false. They are like expressions of taste.

There is no dispute or there can be no dispute on matters of taste.
"De gustibus non disputandum est.” One cannot argue with one's
taste, emotion.
It may be said that an analogy between legal and moral statement
may be made to show that moral statements may treated like a
factual statement. In criminal law, the allegation that “Juan's act of
stealing is wrong way be established by evaluating the act in the
light of the elements of the crime of stealing under the law. For
instance, the law provides that steaming is taking the property of
another without the latter's consent. So if there is an evidence that
Juan has taken a property, that the property belongs to someone else,
that the taking is without consent, then it can be decided that a crime
of theft is committed; in other words, the statement has been
verified.
What then would prevent one in applying the same procedure in
establishing the truth or falsehood of a moral statement. For
instance, the moral principle or rule is “stealing is wrong” that it is
explained by moral or ethics teachers that the statement is meant to
be referring to an act of taking someone else property without the
owner's consent. May not someone's act of stealing be verified by
finding out if the actor has indeed taken someone's property with the
latter's consent? And that, therefore, his act may be judged as
wrong?
The emotivist will still argue that such argument only proves that a
certain individual act has characteristic that can be described as
stealing. It does not make the statement "stealing is wrong" as a
factual statement, which is correct, since all maxims or rules are
non-factual and only the particular instances evaluated on the basis
of these rules would be considered as factual.
Managing Feelings
Aristotle wrote:
“Anyone can get angry---that is easy---but to do this to the
right person, to the right extent, at the right time with the
right motive, and in the right way, that is not for everyone,
OSMEÑA COLLEGES
nor is it easy. (Book II, Nicomachean Ethics). In other words

your anger should not be displaced. The moral person
manages his/her feelings well.
APPLICATION
1. Teaching and learning in the affective domain involve
feelings. Can you succeed teaching in the affective domain
devoid of feeling?
2. Recall one thing you learned which you clearly remember

up to this moment. Is it correct to say that if ever you
remember that which you learned up to now, it is because it
touched you somehow? What does this tell you about
emotion in relation to learning?
In logic, there is a fallacy on appeal to pity” (argumentum ad

misericordiam). What does this tell you regarding the roles of
feeling and reason in making moral decision?
KEY POINTS
• Feelings can be obstacles to making right decisions but

they can also help in making the right decisions.
• Feelings can help persons in making the right decisions if
they are reasonably managed.
• Acting on one's convictions imply involvement of both
reason and feeling.
• One teaches effectively when he/she touches the heart. This
is the main feature of value education that works.
• To be an ethical person, one must manage his/her feelings
well.
OSMEÑA COLLEGES
paper.
LOOKING AHEAD
next topic will deal on The Three Levels of Moral Delimmas!
Happy learning!
REFERENCES

Name: _______________________ Course& Year:
_____________
_________
OSMEÑA COLLEGES
pad paper.
ESSAY
1. Do feelings serve moral decision making? Explain you
answer.
2. When do feelings work against moral decision making?
Explain.
Reason and Impartiality as Minimum requirements for Morality

Module 16
LEARNING OUTCOMES
• To define reason and impartiality as minimum requirements

for morality.
• To apply the 7-step moral reasoning model and the value
clarification process
.
LEARNING EXPERIENCES & SELF-ASSESSMENT ACTIVITIES
Activity
Read these arguments. Are these based on reason? Defend your
answer.
OSMEÑA COLLEGES
1. “You didn't even finish high school. How could you possibly
know about this?”
2. I am filing for reconsideration of the offenses complained
about. Since I am a well-known athlete, I can make your
University great again.
3. Oh, Officer, there's no reason to give me a traffic ticket for
going too fast because I was just on my way to the hospital
to bring blood bags to my dying child. They are needed in a
few minutes.
4. After Sally presents an eloquent and compelling case for a
more equitable taxation system, Sam asks the audience
whether we should believe anything from a woman who isn't
married, was once arrested, and smells a bit weird.
5. Linus Pauling, winner of two unshared Nobel prizes, one for
chemistry, another for peace, stated his daily medication of
Vitamin C delayed the onset of his cancer by twenty years.
Therefore, vitamin C is effective in preventing cancer.
6. "UFOs are not real, because the great Carl Sagan said so."
You haven't held a steady job since 1992. Worse than that,
we couldn't find a single employer who'd provide you with a
good reference.”
7. "People like you don't understand what it's like to grow up
in the slums. You have no right to argue about the gang
violence on our streets."
8. "Well, it's not like you graduated from a good school, so I
can see why you wouldn't know how to properly grade a
writing assignment."
9. “You're clearly just too young to understand.”
10. "How can you make a decision about someone having
marital problems if you've never been married yourself?"
Analysis
Answer the following questions:
1. Which arguments are attack on the personality of the
source of the argument?
OSMEÑA COLLEGES
2. Which are arguments are an appeal to pity?

3. Which argument/s is/are appeal to authority?
4. Are these arguments based on reason?
Abstraction
The Human Person as a Moral Agent

The minimum requirements of morality are reason and
impartiality. “Moral judgments must be backed up by good reason
and impartiality. “Morality requires the impartial consideration of
each individual's interests.” Moral judgments, or resolving a
dilemma of moral judgments must be backed by good reason.
Reason and impartiality refer to a mental activity following
the basic principle of consistency, the lack of contradiction
between one idea and another. It is a process of deriving necessary
conclusion from premises, avoiding all forms of deception or
fallacy of reasoning. It avoids ad hominem, by not attacking the
personality of the opponent and instead directing one's argument
against his idea. Examples of argumentum ad hominem are # 1, 4,
8 and 9 in the Activity phase of this Lesson. Reason avoids ad
misericordiam, appeal to pity, since appearing miserable does not
improve an argument. Reason does not resort to ad verecundiam,
appeal to authority, one's power and influence cannot make a
wrong right. Examples of argumentum ad verecundiam are # 2, 5,
6, 7 and 10. In other words, good reasons include consistent and
coherent reasons.
A logical, impartial, objective reason avoids ambiguities
like equivocation, circular reasoning, amphibology, etc. Coherent
reasons needed to establish truth and meaningfulness of moral
judgments. "Morality requires impartial consideration of each
individual's interest. In arriving at a sound moral judgment you
must listen to everyone trying to speak. Biases and prejudices must
be placed between brackets, suspended. Everyone's message, silent
or verbal, should be allowed to be unveiled. Everyone has always
OSMEÑA COLLEGES
something to tell. No has a monopoly of the truth. A moral subject

must be seen from various perspectives and standpoints.
SCOTT RAE'S 7 STEPS OF MORAL REASONING
The following is another sample method of arriving at an
ethical or moral decision, the 7 steps of Scott Rae's moral
reasoning. (1996)
First, gather the facts, information. "The simplest way of
clarifying an ethical dilemma is to make sure the facts are clear.
Ask: Do you have all the facts that are necessary to make a good
decision? What do we know? What do we need to know?”
Second, determine the ethical issues, similar to "statement
of the problem." "... The competing interests are what create the
dilemma. Moral values and virtues must support the competing
interests in order for an ethical dilemma to exist. If you cannot
identify the underlying values/ virtues then you do not have an
ethical dilemma. Often people hold these positions strongly and
with passion because of the value/virtue beneath them.”
Third, determine what virtues/principles have a bearing on
the case. This is similar to identifying the relevant factors internal
and external): "In an ethical dilemma certain values and principles
are central to the competing positions. Identify these. Determine if
some should be given more weight than others. Ask what the
source for the principle is - constitution, culture, natural law,
religious tradition... These supplement biblical principles.”
Fourth, list the alternatives or develop a list of options.
“Creatively determine possible courses of action for your dilemma.
Some will almost immediately be discarded but generally the more
you list the greater potential for coming up with a really good one.
It will also help you come up with a broader selection of ideas."
Fifth, compare the alternatives with the virtues/principles.
“This step eliminates alternatives as they are weighed by the moral
principles which have a bearing on the case. Potentially the issue
OSMEÑA COLLEGES
will be resolved here as all alternatives except one are eliminated.

Here you must satisfy all the relevant virtues and values - so at
least some of the alternatives will be eliminated (even if you still
have to go on to step 6). Often here you have to weigh principles
and virtues- make sure you have a good reason for each weighing."
Sixth, consider the consequences or test the options. “If you
disclose the information directly possible consequences include; -
family feel alienated, cultural values have been violated - family
may take patient to another hospital - patient may 'give up' - patient
might be happy they are finally being told the truth.” If you
continue withholding information possible consequences include; -
patient continues to be fearful and anxious about the treatment -
patient finds out somehow and trust is compromised - family are
happy cultural values are being respected.
In general, the following may be used to test the options:
(Davis, 1999)
• Harm test: Does this option do less harm than the
alternatives?
• Publicity test: Would I want my choice of this
option published in the newspaper?
• Defensibility test: Could I defend my choice of this
option before a congressional committee or committee of peers?
• Reversibility test: Would I still think this option was
a good choice if I were adversely affected by it?
• Colleague test: What do my colleagues say when I
describe my problem and suggest this option as my solution?
• Professional test: What might my profession's
governing body for ethics say about this option?
• Organization test: What does my company's ethics
officer or legal counsel say about this?
OSMEÑA COLLEGES
Seventh, make a decision. “Ethical decisions rarely have

pain-free solutions – it might be you have to choose the solution
with the least number of problems/painful consequences. Even
when making a “good” decision you might still lose sleep over it!”
Values Clarification
Moral reasoning either arrives at what is right or wrong,
good or bad (valuable or not valuable). The moral reasoning
process may thus follow a model called values clarification.
Values clarification method as a part of the moral reasoning
model consists of a series of questions which one may ask himself
or others in order to arrive at one's true values, values that he really
possesses and acts upon. The following consists of the steps of the
values clarification model: (Raths, L. et al, 1978)
1. Choosing freely
Did you choose this value freely? Where do you suppose
you first got that idea?” or “Are you the only one among your
friends who feels this way?”
2. Choosing from alternatives
“What reasons do you have for your choice?” or “How long
did you think about this problem before you decided?”
3. Choosing after thoughtful consideration
“What would happen if this choice were implemented? If
another choice was implemented?” or “What is good about this
choice?
What could be good about the other choices?”
4. Prizing and being happy with the choice
OSMEÑA COLLEGES
"Are you happy about feeling this way?" or "Why is this

important to you?”
5. Prizing and willing to affirm the choice publicly
“Would you be willing to tell the class how you feel?” or
“Should someone who feels like you stand up in public and
tell people how he or she feels?”
6. Acting on the choice
“What will you do about your choice? What will you do
next??' or “Are you interested in joining this group of people who
think the same as you do about this?”
7. Acting repeatedly in some pattern of life
“Have you done anything about it? Will you do it again?”
or “Should you try to get other people interested in this?”
To discover whether or not one really values something,

one may go through the process of asking and answering the seven
questions. First is choosing freely. Are you free to choose? Are
you not under duress? Second, are you choosing from alternatives?
If there is only one option, you may not be able to really choose
what you really value. Third, are you choosing with a thoughtful
consideration of the alternatives. Why are you considering one of
the alternatives as your choice and not the others? Fourth, after
making a choice, are you happy with it? Or are you having second
thoughts? Fifth, are you willing to let others know about your
choice, affirm your choice publicly, and are happy to tell them
about it? Sixth, are you acting on your choice. If it is about a
course in college, are you going to enroll and seriously pursue it?
If it is about food, are you going to eat it. If it is about a game, are
you going to play it? If it is a choice of principles or rules, are you
going to follow it? Seventh, are you acting on it repeatedly? In
other words, are you pursuing the course and make it as your
OSMEÑA COLLEGES
career? Would you repeat eating the food? Would continue playing
the game, given the chance? And do you always abide by the
principle you have chosen to follow? The answers to these
questions will ultimately reveal what you really value in life, they
will clarify your values.
The 7 questions can be summed up into 3 big clarifying
questions:
1) Did you choose your action freely from among
alternatives after thoughtfully considering the consequences of
each alternative:
2) Do you prize or cherish your choice by publicly
affirming it and by campaigning for others to choose it?;
3) Do you act on your choice repeatedly and
consistently? If the answers to the questions are a YES, then the
moral choice or moral decision can be said to be a product of
reason.
As a result of the process, one may disco values. One
may need to recollect and re-orient oneself to genuine values.
Critique: Creative Responsibility
When a moral problem comes one's way, which may be
communicated as a silent or verbal message, or through a
happening or an incident, the serious response would be a process
of moral reasoning. One may use the aforementioned reasoning
models. One may automatically apply classic or traditional
frameworks or norms. One may be legalistic or situationist. But
one significant guide to the moral reasoning process is what
ethicist like Fr. Gorospe (1974) termed as “creative responsibility,”
which has the following characteristics:
First, a creative and fitting response involves some form of
positive human action... Second, to give a fitting human response
in some form of positive action inevitably means “create” a
OSMEÑA COLLEGES
response. The creative responsibility is something to be discovered

and created and is best envisioned in concrete cases....
Third, a creative response means one has to choose from
among many possible fitting responses. It is impossible to find
only one possible fitting response to a human situation.... Fourth,
in order that creative response of the individual be authentic he
must be in constant dialogue with the community and culture in
which he lives. Creative responsibility is not only individual but
collective; it is co-responsibility.
Creative responsibility is responding silently or verbally to
a call and address an ethical problem creatively by considering all
possible points of view, thinking outside the box, using relevant
frameworks. There are always available norms or rules to follow,
but one should apply them creatively, apply them in the light
situations and conditions and be ready to bend the rule where there
is no other remedy in sight. It is easier to understand this concept
from a wider point of view, like that of a ruler or government. For
instance, the response of government to the problem of drugs, like
adopting the policy of killing (murdering) the drug addict, upon the
assumption that he/she is dangerous and useless being, is
uncreative and irresponsible.
One technique of coming up with a creative response is
applying the phenomenological method of suspending judgment,
placing former knowledge, biases, prejudices, etc. between
brackets, letting the thing be or show itself as itself.
APPLICATION
1. Group case analysis. Using Scott Rae's 7-step model on the
ethics case, how should the salaries and benefits of a star
employee be determined?
2. You are the newly elected mayor of your municipality. You
got an IRA amounting to 20 million pesos. You can work
on 3 projects: 1) extension of the municipal hall; 2)
construction of a welcome arch boundary on the highway,
OSMEÑA COLLEGES
and 3) scholarships for out-of-school youths for livelihood

programs. Rank these 3 projects from the most important to
the least important. Do you really value that which you
ranked # 1? Ask yourself the value clarifying questions to
test if you really value most your rank 1.
3. State in metaphorical statement Gorospe's creative
responsibility as an approach to a moral problem, e.g.
Creative responsibility is thinking without the box for the
solution to a moral problem.
KEY POINTS
✓ The minimum requirements of morality are reason and
impartiality.
✓ Moral decisions should be arrived at by the use of reason.
✓ The use of reason is exemplified in the 7-step model of
Scott Rae and the value clarification process.
✓ Fallacious reasoning such as ad hominem, ad verecundiam
and ad miserecordiam has no place in moral decisions.
paper.
LOOKING AHEAD
OSMEÑA COLLEGES

next topic will deal on Freedom as Foundation for Moral Acts!
Happy learning!
REFERENCES

Name: _______________________ Course& Year:
_____________
_________
pad paper.
1. Why are argumentum ad hominem, ad verecundiam, ad

misericordiam out of place in moral response?
2. Reason and impartiality are minimum requirements of
morality. What does this mean? How is this done?
OSMEÑA COLLEGES

Ge 08 Ethics Prefinal Module PDF

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Ge 08 Ethics Prefinal Module PDF

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Midterm Page 1 of 34

The Meaning of Human Act

its LEARNING OUTCOMES

By the end of this module, you should be able to:

LEARNING EXPERIENCES & SELF-ASSESSMENT ACTIVITIES (SAA)

Study your list. What is common to the items under acts of

THE DETERMINANTS OF THE MORALITY OF HUMAN

The object of an act is the thing done. In reality, it is not distinct

praising, etc. The act or object may be viewed as containing a further

The end, or purpose intended by the agent is the second determinant

The circumstances of time, place and persons have their part in

5. Among the three determinants of the morality of the human act,

✓ A human act is an action that is considered to be carried out

may either increase or diminish the moral goodness or evil

END OF MODULE ASSESSMENT

END OF MODULE ASSESSMENT (Answer Sheet)

Module Number and Title: ________Date accomplished:

Accountability of Moral Act

What is the moral agent’s accountability over his/her act?

By the end of this module, you should be able to:

• • Discuss the three bases of moral accountability

LEARNING EXPERIENCES & SELF-ASSESSMENT ACTIVITIES (SAA)

To whom are we accountable? For violation of government

There are three bases for moral accountability, namely:

being subjected to an uncontrollable fear of being silenced by

freedom, and voluntariness, so that instead of eliminating them

aroused and kept. They do not lessen voluntariness, but may

– “That God-damn stupid principal and Asst. Principal. When

• There are three bases for moral accountability, namely:

• These are the necessary conditions for the accountability of

• Modifiers of human acts either increase or decrease

• Ignorance can be vincible, invincible, affected and supine

• Invincible ignorance cannot be overcome by due amount of

• Acts done with fear is voluntary, but acts done because of

END OF MODULE ASSESSMENT

(Please do not forget to provide information on this part)

Feeling as a Modifier of Moral Decision-Making

In Lesson 2 we talked about human act and the modifiers of

By the end of this module, you should be able to:

LEARNING EXPERIENCES & SELF-ASSESSMENT ACTIVITIES (SAA)

Emotional decision making can also come with a number of

• Intensity of emotions can override rational decision-

Moral statements as expressions of feelings

assertions of what is true or false. They are like expressions of taste.

nor is it easy. (Book II, Nicomachean Ethics). In other words

2. Recall one thing you learned which you clearly remember

In logic, there is a fallacy on appeal to pity” (argumentum ad

• Feelings can be obstacles to making right decisions but

END OF MODULE ASSESSMENT

END OF MODULE ASSESSMENT (Answer Sheet)

(Please do not forget to provide information on this part)

Reason and Impartiality as Minimum requirements for Morality

By the end of this module, you should be able to:

• To define reason and impartiality as minimum requirements

LEARNING EXPERIENCES & SELF-ASSESSMENT ACTIVITIES

2. Which are arguments are an appeal to pity?

The Human Person as a Moral Agent

something to tell. No has a monopoly of the truth. A moral subject

will be resolved here as all alternatives except one are eliminated.

Seventh, make a decision. “Ethical decisions rarely have

"Are you happy about feeling this way?" or "Why is this

To discover whether or not one really values something,