Module 6

Determinants of
Morality Mrs. Soledad A. Tambaoan
Instructor

Email Address:
sollytambaoan01@gmail.com

Contact Number:
0961-436-8702

Module Duration:
October 17 – 28, 2022

GE004
Ethics
 MODULE 6 – DETERMINANTS OF MORALITY

MODULE SCHEDULE
This module is designed to be discussed for a period of two weeks. Lesson Delivery will be done in synchronous and
asynchronous learning. The platform to be used will be facebook messenger, google classroom and google meet
created for the class.

LEARNING OBJECTIVES

At the end of the module, you are expected to:

1. discuss the different determinants of morality as explained in the module;

2. demonstrate the correlation of motive and action;
3. illustrate the different properties of a just law as discussed in the module.

INPUT INFORMATION

I. INTRODUCTION
An axiom says -"Bonum ex integra causa, malum ex quocumque
defectu", that is, a thing is good from the perfection of its parts, evil
from any defect of its part. A human act, in order to be morally
acceptable, must be morally perfect in all its aspects.

II. The Determinants of Morality

The determinants of morality are so called because they are the basis
for judging whether an act is good or evil, moral or immoral. They are
the following: (1) the end of the act itself, (2) the end of the doer, and
(3) the circumstances of the act.

1. The End of the Act. It is the natural termination or

completion of an act. The end of the act of eating is
appeasing hunger, the end of playing basketball is scoring a
point, and the end of medication is curing illness.

The end of the act determines whether an act is intrinsically

or extrinsically good or evil. Any act which is consistent with
the natural tendencies of human nature is intrinsically good.
But those that are contrary to reason are intrinsically evil,
such as murder, abortion, kidnapping, robbery, and rape.
We speak of these acts as being contrary to natural law.

Actions which are neutral or indifferent to the norm of morality are extrinsically good or evil. These actions are either good
or bad, not on account of their nature, but because of factors or circumstances concomitant to them. The act of eating, for
example, is an amoral act and is neither morally good or bad. But either over-eating or excessive dieting could be
unhealthy and therefore, morally objectionable.

Actions which are intrinsically evil are prohibited at all times. Actions which are extrinsically evil may be permitted when
the factors which render them evil are removed or corrected.

It is a fact that some actions entail pain and suffering, while some do bring pleasured to their doers. Pain or pleasure do
not define whether an act is moral or immoral. The sexual act, for example, could either be moral or immoral regardless
whether it is a painful or pleasurable
experience.

2. The End of the Doer. It is the purpose or

motive which the doer wishes to accomplish
by his action. Without a motive, an act is
accidental and involuntary. A good motive is
truthful, prudent, temperate, and just. It is
the most equitable for the greatest number
of people, or in the words of the
existentialist: “the most loving of all in a
given situation.

“The end does not justify the means” is a

fundamental moral principle. It affirms that
 one should not do wrong (means) in order to attain a good purpose (end). The motive of a person, no matter what how
noble, does not excuse an act which is intrinsically evil. The desire to pass a subject does not justify a student who cheats
in the examination. Likewise, the need to feed a family does not justify stealing. The desire to know the truth does not
justify torture of a suspect by the police. The rule is – don’t do wrong even if this will result in something good.

Motive and Action

The correlation between motive and act is defined in the following principles (Glenn, 111 – 113):

1. An evil act which is done on account of an evil motive is grievously wrong . In

other words, a bad action and a wrong motive make for a dangerous
combination. Stealing in order to buy “shabu” meant double trouble. Do not try
it.

2. A good action done on account of an evil motive becomes evil itself . This
means that something nice and sweet may turn ugly and sour because of a
bad motive. Do not be a hypocrite!

3. A good action done on account of a good purpose acquires an additional merit .

This means you go ahead and do the right thing. You can never go wrong on
this one.

4. An indifferent act may either become good or bad depending on the motive . This means you be careful of what you eat or what
you say.

3. Circumstances of the Act. These are the historical elements

surrounding the commission of an act, such as the status of the doer,
the place, the time, or the intensity of the act. The circumstances are
hinted by the interrogative pronouns – who, what, where, with whom,
why, how, and where.
1. Who refers either to the doer of the act or the recipient of the act?
It has to do with the age, status, relation, schooling, social
standing, an economic situation of those involved in an act. In this
regard, we note the following:
i. The moron, insane, senile, and children below the age of
reason are incapable of involuntary acts and are not morally
accountable.
ii. Educated persons have greater accountability than those
with less or without education.
iii. Persons constituted in authority have accountability for the
actions of those under them. This is the meaning of
“command responsibility.” Thus, parents have command
responsibility over their children who are minors,
employers, over the actuations of their employees, and
superiors, over the acts of their subordinates. The law on
sexual harassment is based on the doctrine of command
responsibility.
iv. The legal or blood relation of people involved in act may
modify the nature of such an act. For instance, killing of a
parent changes homicide to parricide.
2. What refers to the act itself, or to the quality and quantity of the results of such act. In robbery, for instance, what is
stolen and how much is stolen are aggravating factors. Likewise, the number of victims determines the seriousness
of the murder.
3. Where refers to the place where the act is committed. A crime inside a church is more scandalous than that
committed in a secluded place. Murder in a marketplace is more heinous than that done in a mountain trail.
4. With whom refers to the companion or accomplices in an act. The more people involved in the commission of an act,
the more serious is the crime.
5. Why refers to the motive of the doer, as discussed earlier.
6. How refers to the manner the act is perpetrated. Homicides
committed with much cruelty is a heinous crime.
7. When refers to the time of the act. A murder committed when the
victim is sleeping is more offensive than the one done when the
victim is wide awake.
Observations:

Circumstantial factor:

1. Circumstances may either increase or decrease the wrongfulness of an

evil act. The killing of innocent people in the case of terrorists exploding
 a bomb in public places constitutes a serious crime against humanity. On the other hand, killing a tyrant who has long
oppressed the assailant accepts a mitigating factor, and, therefore, is less evil. Nonetheless, the act remains an evil act and
the perpetrator of such act is accountable and punishable.
2. Circumstances also may either increase or decrease the merits of a good act. Helping another at the risk of one’s life is an
act of heroism. Helping another in expectation of a reward or fee is a business transaction.
3. Circumstances may exempt temporarily someone from doing a required act. A debtor may not pay his debts when he does
not have the money, or if paying up would cause him great hardships.
4. Circumstances do not prove the guilt of a person. The presence of a person when a crime is committed does not prove he
is the criminal.

III. The Morally Good Act

A morally good act is that which sound in all aspects – in its
nature, motive, and circumstances. In the Scriptures, the
morally upright is a just man, one who weighs his actions in
relation to what the law demands, to what circumstances
would allow, and to what fits his stature as a rational being. A
morally good action, therefore, is a just act – “makatarungan.”

We also speak of it as “maka-tao” or “maka-Diyos,” indicating

that such action is fair to the other person and in accordance
with the Will of God.

IV. The Relevance of Laws.

Laws mandate some actions as prohibited and others as permitted and
required. We may therefore consider laws as determinants of human
behavior. Some people do not do what is good unless they are forced
to. St. Thomas points out that laws are made for those who are weak in
character.

Society adopts laws to protect its members from themselves or from

those who might want to hurt them. By prescribing punishments for
transgressions, laws encourage and compel people to act for the good
of all. Everyone should obey the law or risk being punished. As
authorities would put it – dura lex, sed lex (The law is harsh, but it is the law – and everyone must obey.

V. The Definition of Law

Law, according to St. Thomas Aquinas, is an ordinance of reason, promulgated for
the common good by one who has charge of society.

Laws are "ordinance of reason" because they are results of serious study,
deliberation, or public debate. They are "promulgated" because they are made
known to the people who are bound to observe them. They are "for the common
good" because the purpose of the law is the general welfare of the people. They are
enacted "by who has charge of society" because only those who have legitimate
authority to govern may pass laws.

VI. Kinds of Law

1. Divine Positive Laws are those made known to men by God, like the Decalogue
(Ten Commandments) given to Moses. We also call them moral laws because
they are concerned with moral acts. Violation of these laws constitutes a sin.

2. Human Positive Laws are those made

by legitimate human authority, such as
the laws enacted by the State or the
Church. Human positive laws are
intended to preserve peace and order
and to direct members object to the work for the common good. They may also
have as their object the moral acts. The Constitution and the Civil Code embody
the laws of the Philippines. Canon Law embodies the laws of the Catholic
Church.

3. Affirmative and Negative Laws. Both divine and human positive laws are either
affirmative or negative. Affirmative laws are those that require the performance of
an act, like that of giving respect to parents and that of paying taxes when due.
Negative laws are those that prohibit the performance of an act, like the
prohibition against smoking in designated public places.
 VII. Binding in Conscience
Moral laws are those derived from natural law. They are the inherent and
essential tendencies of human nature so that they are thought as being "written"
in the hearts of men. They regulate thoughts and feelings.

Moral laws are enforced by personal commitment in the absence of the threat of
corporal punishments or sanctions. Moral laws are said to bind in conscience,
because they impose upon the person a moral obligation to accept the law and
comply with it. Moral laws then are enforced by personal conviction rather than
by the threat of corporal punishment.

On the other hand, human laws regulate only the external acts when these are manifested and observed. They do not regulate
thoughts and feelings so that, for example, a person may not be arrested for wanting to commit murder until such time when he
actually attempts it. Human laws do not bind in conscience and are purely penal, that is, they are enforced by police powers and
justice is served when the culprit suffers the punishment.

VIII. Properties of a Just Law

A human law, in order to be accepted as just, must have
the following properties:

1. A human law must conform with divine laws. This is

because all legitimate authority comes from God.
Therefore, no human authority may contradict God’s
will as manifested in the natural law or divine positive
laws.
2. A human law must promote the common good. The
common good is the communal benefit, material, and
spiritual necessary for the promotion of human life.
The common good consists in economic prosperity,
peace and order, health, education, and moral
instruction of the members of the society.
3. A human law must not discriminate against certain individuals or groups. It must apply proportionately to all members of the
society so that the needs of each one is served.
4. A human law must be practicable. A law which imposes undue hardships and sacrifices in its compliance is not just.
5. A human law must be flexible. It must provide limits and define the basis for exemptions. Laws are for the benefit of man,
not for his destruction.
6. A law must be amendable. The conditions and reasons for a law do change. Therefore, a law should be amendable and
changeable.

IX. Reading
The Reality of Evil

There are good actions and there are evil actions. Their realities do not
come from the mind in spite of some people saying "evil is all in the
mind".

Some people do not see evil, accept it as something "normal", or

identify it as something else. Some, for example, would regard
pornography as an art. Some think of gambling and prostitution as
means of livelihood. A terrorist believes that murdering unbelievers is
fulfilling God's Will. A government official believes accepting bribe is a
privilege of his office.

A pile of garbage is garbage even if a scavenger were to say it is good.

Garbage represents what is ugly, dirty and bad in the surrounding. In contrast, a rose garden stands for what is clean, beautiful, and
wholesome. Therefore, only he who is intellectual dishonest would claim "evil is only in the mind", implying that evil is something
imaginary, an illusion.

The expression "ang masama ay nasa isip lang" should not mean that evil is a fiction. It should mean rather that an evil act begins in
the mind as an evil thought and is translated into an immoral act .. Indeed, the mind is "the devil's workshop".

LEARNING ACTIVITIES
Answer the following question (10 points each).
1. What factors determine the moral quality of an act?
2. When is an action a “just act?”

ASSESSMENT/EVALUATION
Be ready for a 15-item quiz.
ASSIGNMENT
1. Explain: “the end does not justify the means.”

LEARNING RESOURCES
Agapay, Ramon (2016): Ethics and the Filipinos. National Bookstore