Lesson 3 * in consequence, it is culpable ignorance

THE MODIFIERS OF HUMAN ACTS Degrees of Vincible Ignorance

* This refers to the things that may affect the human act’s essential qualities and thus
lessen the moral character of the human act, and consequently diminish the responsibility
of the agent.
* There are five modifiers.
* crass (stupid/gross) ignorance – if it be the result of total or nearly total, lack of effort to
dispel it
* simply vincible – if some efforts were done but not persevering and whole-hearted effort,
be unsuccessfully used to dispel it

1. Ignorance * affected ignorance – if positive effort is made to retain it

3 General kinds of Ignorance: Negative, Privative, and Positive b. Invincible (unconquerable) Ignorance

* It refers to the absence of intellectual knowledge in man. It is a negation of knowledge,
and thus, a negative thing.
* When it is absence of knowledge that ought to be present, the ignorance is not merely
negative, but privative.
* ignorance that ordinary and proper diligence cannot dispel because:
(a) the agent has no realization whatever of his lack of knowledge
(b) the agent who realizes his ignorance finds ineffective his effort to dispel it

* There is also positive ignorance, which consists not merely in the absence of knowledge * this is not the fault of the agent, and thus, it is inculpable ignorance
but in the presence of what is falsely supposed to be knowledge. This is called mistake or
error. Degrees of Invincible Ignorance

1.1. Ignorance in its Object * physically invincible – if no human effort can dispel it

- talks about the thing of which the agent may be ignorant about * morally invincible – if it would be extremely difficult to dispel it even with the aid of some
good and prudent men
a. Ignorance of Law
1.3. Ignorance in its Result
* refers to the ignorance of the existence of a duty, rule, or regulation
- refers to acts performed while ignorance exists
b. Ignorance of Fact
a. Antecedent Ignorance
* refers to the ignorance of the nature or circumstances of an act as forbidden
* that which precedes all consent of the will
* It is lack of knowledge that what one is actually doing comes under the prohibition of a
known law. b. Concomitant Ignorance

c. Ignorance of Penalty * that which accompanies an act that would have been performed even if the ignorance did
not exist
* the lack of knowledge of the precise sanction affixed to the law
* an act done in concomitant ignorance is non-voluntary
1.2. Ignorance in its Subject
c. Consequent Ignorance
- refers to the agent in whom ignorance exists
* that which follows upon an act of the will
a. Vincible (Conquerable) Ignorance
* the will may directly affect it or crassly neglect to dispel it
* ignorance that can be dispelled by the use of ordinary diligence
*Similar with vincible ignorance
* results due to lack of proper diligence on the agent, and is his fault
Ethical Principles (Ignorance)
a. Invincible ignorance destroys the voluntariness of an act.
* An act, in so far as it proceeds from invincible ignorance, lacks voluntariness, is not a
human act, and is not imputable to the agent.
b. Vincible ignorance does not destroy the voluntariness of an act.
* The agent has knowledge which bears indirectly upon the act which he performs in
ignorance, and the act has, in consequence, at least indirect voluntariness, and is a human
act imputable to the agent.
c. Vincible ignorance lessens the voluntariness of an act.
* While vincible ignorance does not destroy the voluntariness of an act, it lessens
voluntariness, and diminishes the responsibility of the agent.
d. Affected ignorance in one way lessens and in another way increases voluntariness.
* Despite the bad will which it implies, it is still lack of knowledge, direct and perfect, and
lessens the voluntariness of the act that proceeds from it.
* If being deliberately fostered to serve as an excuse for sin against a law, it shows the
strength of the will’s determination to persist in such sins, thus, increases the voluntariness
of an act that proceeds from it.
2. Concupiscence
* It refers to those bodily appetites or tendencies which are called the passions, viz., love,
hatred, joy, grief, desire, aversion or horror, hope, despair, courage or daring, fear, and
anger.
* The passions are called antecedent when they spring into action unstimulated by the will-
act. They are called consequent when the will, directly or indirectly, stirs them up or fosters
them.
a. Antecedent Concupiscence
* This is an act of man, and not a human act; it is a non-voluntary act, and the agent is
not responsible for it.
b. Consequent Concupiscence
* This is the fault of the agent, for it is willed, either directly or indirectly, i.e., either in
seor in causa, and thus, the agent, as a result, is responsible for it.
Ethical Principles (Concupiscence)
a. Antecedent concupiscence lessens the voluntariness of an act.
* Antecedent concupiscence disturbs the mind and thwarts the calm judgment of the mind
upon the moral qualities of an act, thus, impairing knowledge needed for perfect
voluntariness.
* It is a strong and sudden urge to action, and thus it lessens the full and prompt control
which the will must exercise perfectly, hence, it impairs freedom.
* Thus, on both knowledge and freedom, it lessens the voluntariness of an act, and in
consequence, diminishes the responsibility of the agent.
b. Antecedent concupiscence does not destroy the voluntariness of an act.
* Although knowledge and freedom are lessened by it, they are not destroyed; and the
agent’s responsibility, while diminished, is not cancelled.
* If the antecedent passion is so great as to make control of the agent’s acts impossible,
then the agent is temporarily insane, and his acts are not human acts but acts of man.
c. Consequent concupiscence, however great, does not lessen the voluntariness of an act.
* Consequent concupiscence is willed, directly or indirectly, thus, the acts that proceed
from it have their proper voluntariness.
3. Fear
* the shrinking back of the mind from danger
* the anxiety or worry of mind (from slight disturbance to actual panic) brought about by
the apprehension of impending evil
* Actions may proceed from fear as their cause, or may be done with fear as an
accompanying circumstance.
Ethical Principle (Fear)
An act done from fear, however great, is simply voluntary, although it is regularly also
conditionally involuntary.
* Fear does not excuse an evil act which springs from it.
* The law of Church and State provides that an act done from grave fear, unjustly suffered,
and excited directly in order to force the agent to do an act that is against his will, is an
invalid act or one that may be invalidated.
4. Violence
* the external force applied by a free cause for the purpose of compelling a person to
perform an act which is against his will
Ethical Principle (Violence)
Acts elicited by the will are not subject to violence; external acts caused by violence, to
which due resistance is offered, are in no wise imputable to the agent.
5. Habit Division of Morality

* refers to operative habit, which is a lasting readiness and facility, born of frequently a. Material and Formal (Objective/Subjective)
repeated acts, for acting in a certain manner
* A human act considered in itself as a deed performed stands in relation to the norm of
Ethical Principle (Habit) morality as materially good or evil.

Habit does not destroy voluntariness; acts from habit are always voluntary, at least in * A human act considered as conditioned by the agent’s understanding and will, stands in
cause, as long as the habit is allowed to endure. relation to the norm of morality as formally good or evil.

Lesson 4 THE MORALITY OF HUMAN ACTS * Simply, material morality points to the act itself while formal morality points to the agent
of the human act.
MORALITY
b. Intrinsic and Extrinsic
* As described, it is that quality of human acts which leads us to call some as goodor evil
(not good). * These divisions will be applicable only to material morality.

* A thing is good inasmuch as it can answer a tendency, appetite, or desire; otherwise, it is
evil (not good).
* In Ethics, we consider moral good or evil.
* As said, a human act always has a last end towards which it tends.
* Morality is intrinsic when the human act performed stands by reason of its very nature in
relation to the norm of morality as good or evil. This is to say that morality is traced in the
act itself.
* Morality is extrinsic when the stand or relation of an act to the norm of morality is
determined by the prescription of a positive law and not on the act itself.

* Objectively, the end is the SummumBonum, the Limitless Good, God. Lesson 5 DETERMINANTS OF MORALITY

* Subjectively, the end is the perfect happiness in the possession of the Summum Bonum.
* Thus, human acts are good inasmuch as they serve to carry the agent towards the
attainment of this end; otherwise, it is not good or evil.
Norms (Standard) of Morality
* These determinants will decide whether a human act measures up or does not measure
up to the norm of morality.
* There are three determinants of morality, and the human act to be morally good must be
in agreement with the norm of morality on all these three; it is evil if it does not agree with
any of the three.

a. Divine Reason / Eternal Law A. The Object

- the ultimate norm * This refers to the act itself, the deed done or to be done.

b. Human Reason / Conscience * There are certain acts that are intrinsically good or evil.

- the proximate norm * The morality of indifferent acts is determined by the end for which it is done and the
circumstances which affect it.
* Human acts are good or evil inasmuch as they agree or conflict with the Divine Reason.
B. The Motive (End of the Agent)
* Conscience is the judgment of human reason recognizing and applying the Eternal Law in
human acts. * This refers to the agent’s personal intentions or wishes to be achieved by the act over
and above what it naturally tends to.
MORALITY
* An act which is good in itself may still be evil by reason of the agent’s motive for which it
- As defined, morality is the relation of human acts to their norm. is done BUT an act which is evil in itself cannot be made good by reason of the end for
which it is performed.
- It is that quality or property of a human act whereby it measures up to what it should be
as a step towards the objective last end of human action, or fails so to measure up. Ethical Principles
a. A good act done for a good purpose or motive takes on a new goodness from the good
end; if it had several good ends, it takes on a new goodness from each.
b. An evil act done for an evil end takes on a new evil from the evil end; if it had several
evil ends, it takes on a new evil from each.
c. An act, which is good but done for an evil end, is entirely evil if the end is the whole
motive of the act.
d. An evil act can never become good by reason of a good end.
e. An indifferent act becomes good if done for a good end, and evil if performed for an evil
end.
C. The Circumstances
* They are the conditions that affect an act, and may affect it morally, although they do not
belong to the essence of the act as such.
* Seven circumstances can be given: who, what, where, with what ally (means), how,
when, why
1. Circumstance of Person (WHO)
2. Circumstance of quality or quantity of the act (WHAT)
3. Circumstance of Place (WHERE)
4. Circumstance of Means (WITH WHAT ALLY)
5. Circumstance of Manner (HOW)
6. Circumstance of Time (WHEN)
7. Circumstance of the End of the Agent (WHY)
Ethical Principles
a. An indifferent act becomes good or evil by reason of its circumstances.
b. A good act may become evil by reason of circumstances.
c. A good or evil act may become better or worse by reason of circumstances, and may
even take on new goodness and badness from its circumstances.
d. An evil act can never be made good by circumstances.
e. A circumstance which is gravely evil destroys the entire goodness of a good act.
f. A circumstance which is not gravely evil does not entirely destroy the goodness of a good
act.
Lesson 6 MORAL STANDARDS VS. NON-MORAL STANDARDS
* Different societies have different moral beliefs and that these beliefs are primarily
influenced by one’s culture and context.
* This implies that some values have moral implications and others don’t.
* Thus, different cultures have different moral standards.
* What is a matter of moral indifference, that is, a matter of taste (hence, non-moral
value) in one culture may be a matter of moral significance in another.
* The danger here is when one culture will impose its cultural standards on others, thereby,
resulting to a clash of cultural values and beliefs.
* In order to avoid violence and crime, such as religious violence and ethnic cleansing, one
needs to understand the difference between moral standards and non-moral ones.
* Once we have distinguished moral standards from non-moral ones, of course, through
the aid of the principles and theories in ethics, we will be able to identify fundamental
ethical values that may guide our actions.
Moral Standards
* They are norms (general rules about our actions or behaviors) that individuals or groups
have about the kinds of actions believed to be morally right or wrong, as well as the values
(enduring beliefs or statements about what is good and desirable or not) placed on what
we believed to be morally good or morally bad.
* Moral standards normally promote “the good”, that is, the welfare and well-being of
humans as well as animals and the environment.
* Moral standards, therefore, prescribe what humans ought to do in terms of rights and
obligations.
* Moral standards are the sum of combined norms and values.
Characteristics
1. Moral standards deal with matters we think can seriously injure or benefit humans,
animals, and the environment, such as child abuse, rape, and murder.
2. Moral standards are not established or changed by the decisions of authoritative
individuals or bodies.
3. Moral standards are overriding, that is, they take precedence over other standards and
considerations, especially of self-interest.
4. Moral standards are based on impartial considerations, thus, they are fair and just.
5. Moral standards are associated with special emotions (such as guilt and shame) and
vocabulary (such as right, wrong, good, and bad).
Non-Moral Standards
* They are standards by which we judge what is good or bad and right or wrong in a non-
moral way.

* Examples of non-moral standards are the standards of etiquette, standards of law, and
standards of aesthetics.

* Non-moral standards are matters of taste and preference.

* Thus, a scrupulous observance of the said standards does not actually make one a moral
person and violation of such standards does not pose any threat to human well-being.

MORAL DILEMMAS

Dilemma

* This refers to a situation where a person is forced to choose between two or more
conflicting options, neither of which is acceptable.

* This implies that the person has choices to make that will all have results she does not
want.

* It must be noted, however, that if the agent is in a difficult situation but is not forced to
choose two or more options, then she is not in a dilemma.

* When dilemmas involve human actions with moral implications, they are called ethical or
moral dilemmas.

Moral Dilemmas

* They refer to situations where moral agents are forced to choose between two or more
conflicting options, neither of which resolves the situation in a morally acceptable manner.

* There are three conditions needed to be present in a situation to be considered as a

moral dilemma.

1. The agent of a moral action is obliged to make a decision about which course of action is
best. She must choose the best option and act accordingly.

2. There must be different courses of action to choose from.

3. No matter what course of action is taken, some moral principles are always
compromised.

* There is no perfect solution to the problem

* In moral dilemmas, the moral agent “seems fated to commit something wrong which
implies that she is bound to morally fail because in one way or another she will fail to do
something which she ought to do."