THE MEANING OF HUMAN ACT

Act of Man versus Human Act

(H)uman acts are those of which a man is master, which he has the power of doing or
not doing as he pleases says Fr. Coppens.
 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
Acts of man are action committed by unconscious and insane persons, infants, or by
those who are physically forced to do something
 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

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.
1. 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, praising, etc.
 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 of
God and the saints in vain)
 Honoring one’s parent
 Going to mass on days of obligation
 Saving human life
 Respecting other’s rights and property
 Having pure acts and thoughts
 Being true to marital commitments
 Telling the truth, etc
2. 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.
 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.
 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 guiding rule is the end does not justify the means. The intention of
helping neighbor, say giving food, by stealing the food from another
neighbor, is never justified.
3. 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; 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
 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”).