What is philosophy?
BASIC QUESTIONS ON ONTOLOGY
PHILOSOPHY (western)
- comes from the two Greek word Philia (love) and
Sophia (wisdom)
- Love of Wisdom
- Strong desire of a human person to posses’
knowledge and apply it correctly.
Love – strong desire for a particular object
Wisdom – correct application of knowledge
TRADITIONAL MEANING OF PHILOSOPHY
- Science that studies beings in their ultimate
causes, reasons and principles through the aid of
human reason alone.
Beings – all things that exist (material or immaterial) ex:
stones, trees, person, soul, God, or spirit
Philosophy is concerned with a reason and principles that
account for everything that exist.
BASIC QUESTIONS IN PHILOSPHY
- What is the origin of the world of everything that
exists?
- Why do these things exist rather than not exist at
all?
- Is there God? If so, how can we justify the goodness
of God in the face of evil?
- What is the meaning and purpose of life? Why do
we have to suffer?
- If one is suffering from unbearable pain, such as
cancer, is it morally right to resort to euthanasia or
assisted suicide?
Philosophy attempts to understand things in critical and
logical manner.
Philosophers’ opinion about the meaning of Philosophy
Karl Jas Pers – questions are more important than answers
because answers themselves will in turn become questions.
MAJOR BRANCHES OF PHILOSPHY
- Metaphysics
- Epistemology
- Logic
- Ethics
METAPHYSICS
- Greek word meta (beyond/after) physika
(physical/nature) , study of things beyond the
physical; concepts or things that cannot be
experienced.
- Such as concept of God, freedom, and soul
- Foundation of philosophy
- Aristotle calls it the first philosophy.
- Study of that which exist beyond the physical
TWO DIVISIONS OF METAPHYSICS
GENERAL METAPHYSICS/ ONTOLOGY
- Ontology – derived from Onto (being or that which
is) Logos (knowledge/ study)
- Studies beings in their ultimate causes, reasons,
and principles through the aid of reason alone.
- Studies the first principles or the essence of all
things
Heraclitus – understands logos is reason or underlying
principle of all that is.
- What is being?
- Why do things exist, rather than not exist at all?
- What is the meaning and nature of reality?
- What is the underlying principle of all that exist?
- Is there nothing?
SPECIAL METAPHYSICS
▪ COSMOLOGY
- Comes from the Greek word kosmos (World),
logos (study)
- Specific subbranch of philosophy that studies the
world (or universe) , its origin, dynamics and
characteristics, as well as the laws that govern its
order
Basic Questions in Cosmology
- What is the origin of the world?
- What is the basic material of which the world is
formed?
- How do things arise?
- In what consist of its fundamental from or principle
of order?
- Is the world or universe infinite?
▪ PSYCHOLOGY OR ANTHROPOLOGY
- Psyche (soul, mind), logos (Study)
- Physical subbranch of philosophy that studies the
soul or mind
- Study of nature and the dynamics of the human
person as a whole with emphasis on the way the
person’s mind functions and the way she behaves
Basics Questions in Psychology
- What is the nature of the human person?
- Is there such thing as human nature?
- What is the meaning and purpose, if any, of life?
- Is there life after death?
- How do we account for the existence of sufferings
in the world
▪ NATURAL THEOLOGY OR THEODICY
- Comes from the Greek word theos (God)
- Study of God , Justification of the goodness of God
in the face of the existence of evil
- Theodicy was coined by the famous 18th century
philosopher named Gott fried Wilhel Leibniz in his
1710 work: Theodicee
Basic Questions in Theology
- Is there God?
- What and who is God if he exists at all?
- How do we prove the existence of God?
- If God exists, how do we justify the existence of evil
and suffering in the world?
- Does a belief in God really necessary?
-
EPISTEMOLOGY
- Episteme (knowledge), Logos (Study)
- Study of nature and scope of knowledge and
justified belief
- Analyzes the nature of knowledge and how it
relates with the notions such as truth, belief and
justification.

Basic Questions in Epistemology
- What is knowledge?
- What do we know?
- How is knowledge acquired?
- What are the structures and limits of knowledge?
- What makes justified beliefs justified?
LOGIC
- Logos (science of correct thinking)
- Studies of the principles and criteria if a valid
argument
- Distinguish sound or good reasoning from unsound
or bad reasoning
Basic questions in logic
- What is correct reasoning?
- What distinguishes a good argument from a bad
one?
- How can we detect a fallacy in argument?
- What are the criteria in determining the validity of
an argument?
- What are the types of logic?
ETHICS
- Ethos (custom or habit)
- Morality of human actions
- Questions of how human persons ought to act, and
search for a definition of a right conduct and good
life
- Ethics (Theory) is not the same with morality
(Practice)
Basic Question in Ethics
- What is the right conduct as that which causes the
realization of the greatest good?
- How do we determine a right conduct?
- What is a good life and can we attain it?
- What is the difference between human act and
actions that are based on extinct?
THE ORIGIN OF PHILOSOPHY
Socrates – wonder is the only beginning of philosophy.
Aristotle – It is owing to their wonder that men both now
begin and at first began to philosophize.
WONDER (beginning of philosophy)
- Philosophic wonder : feeling of being perplexed
Aristotle writes: “for men were first led to study philosophy,
as indeed they are today, by wonder. Now, he who is
perplexed and wonders believes himself to be ignorant…
they took to philosophy to escape ignorance
WESTERN PHILOSOPHY
- Originated in Miletus, Ionia
Thales
- the first philosopher in western world lived in
Miletus
- First to wonder
- First to put his philosophy into writing
Asia Minor – moved to Croton
WHAT IS ETHICS
Ethics = ethos (customer or character)
- Studies the rightness or wrongness of a human
action
- How human person ought to act and search of a
right conduct and a good life.
No single absolute definition of Ethics since it is consistently
involving
In Greek Tradition Ethics is…
- Good life
- Describing the nature of happiness
- “Being happy”
For Judeo-Christian Tradition, Ethics is…
- Righteousness before God; love of God and
neighbor
- “Doing what is right”
ETHICS IS NOT THE SAME WITH MORALITY
ETHICS
- “theory” of right action and the greater good
- “Systematic study” of underlying principles of
morality
MORALITY
- “practice”, rightness or wrongness of human action
- “prescriptive” tells us what we ought to do and
exhorts us to follow the right way.
“Morality According to Terrance McConnell (1994)
is characterized as an ‘end-governed rational enterprise’
whose object is to equip people with a body of norms that
make for peaceful and collectively satisfying coexistence by
facilitating their living together and interacting in a way that
is productive for the realization of the general benefit”
ETHICS = SCIENCE OF MORALS
MORALITY = PRACTICE OF ETHICS
TYPES OF ETHICS
1. Normative Ethics (Prescriptive in Nature)
- Seeks to set norms or standards that regulate right
and wrong or good and bad conduct
- Normally attempts to develop guidelines or
theories that tell us how we ought to behave.
2. Metaethics (Descriptive in Nature)
- Analytical
- Aims to understand the nature and dynamics of
ethical principles, and the way we learn and
acquire moral beliefs.
NORMATIVE ETHICS = DO GOOD AT ALL TIMES
METAETHICS = WHAT IS GOOD?
3. Applied Ethics
- Actual application of ethical or moral theories for
the purpose of deciding which ethical or moral
actions are appropriate in a given situation.
Casuists = adherents of applied ethics, may act in an
advisory capacity.
Different fields or Applied Ethics:
- Business Ethics: ethical behavior in the corporate
word
- Biomedical and environmental ethics: issues
regarding health, welfare and the responsibility we
have to the people in the environment.
- Social Ethics: principles and guidelines that
regulate corporate welfare within society.
EXAMPLE done without advertence and the exercise of
A police officer shoots a terrorist who is about to blow up a free choice
crowded shopping mall. - Example: actions done in infancy ( peeing ), in
For Metaethics = the act of the police officer is morally sleep, in delirium, etc.
wrong because killing is not good. ETHICS IS FOCUSING IS ON THE PERSPECTIVE OF THE
For Normative Ethics = It is the right thing to do in this HUMAN ACT.
particular situation. ✓ It is to be noted that an act of man can become
Casuists = The police officer is just doing his best to fulfill his a human act by the advertence and consent of
duty.
the agent.
For example: Sensation of Hearing is by itself an
WHAT IS MORALITY
act of man.
Morality
But when performs the act with knowledge and
- Comes from the Greek word Mos (Mores)
- Customary Behavior
freely it becomes a human act.
Ethics and Morality can be used interchangeably.
Immoral = unethical; moral = ethical ✓ Human acts are moral acts.
Ethics ✓ For human acts, man is responsible, and they are
- Systematic study of the rightness and wrongness of imputed to him, as worthy of praise or blame, of
a human action reward or punishment. (two important words;
- Provide systems of moral principles and the responsibility & immutability)
reasons why these principles are valid ✓ Human acts tend to repeat and form habits in
Basic Ethical Principles man, which in turn, unite into his character.
1. Respect for persons ✓ THUS, A MAN IS WHAT HIS HUMAN ACTS MAKE
2. Truthfulness and confidentiality HIM ( you are what you do, you are what you
3. Autonomy and Informed consent constantly do in your life)
4. Beneficence REMEMBER:
5. Non-maleficence Every act you do knowingly and freely it entails
6. Justice responsibility in your act and imputed on you.
Morality By responsibility we must be ready to accept the effect
- The rightness or wrongness of a human action with our acts made by knowingly and freely.
- Principles of right and wrong
- In determining the morality of human actions, the
MOTTO: WE HAVE TO THINK FIRST, WE HAVE TO USE
moral agent is guided by the broader rules or
OUR REASONS FIRST BEFORE WE FREELY DO
principles of ethics
SOMETHING. THINK FIRST BEFORE DOING AN ACT.
Ethics = Killing is wrong because it violates the basic ethical
REGRETS ARE THERE. (to avoid regret think it first)
principles of “respect for persons”
Morality = Do not kill because it is wrong

II. CLASSIFICATION (of human acts)

UNDERSTAND THE VERY NATURE OF HUMAN BEING A. Based on Complete/ Adequate Cause
- there are some act that begin and are perfected in the
- MAN is a rational ANIMAL
will itself, and the rest begin in the will and are
- We humans being are rational at the same time
perfected by other faculties under control of the will.
we are animal.
- The term animal is being described as rational
A.1 ELICITED ACTS
- As human being we have so called faculties to
- for those that begins in the will and ends there; without
function who we really are
being carried out physically. (these are not seen
Higher faculties; which is reason
physically because it begins in the will and ends there)
- composed of: intellect and freewill
- these are those that find their adequate cause in the
Lower faculties; which is sensation
will the deliberate will alone. (EXAMPLE: Your intention
to study in your room.)
I. DEFINITION
A. WISH
HUMAN ACT (ACTUS HUMANUS)
✓ Refers to the simple love of anything
- An act which proceeds from the deliberate free
✓ The first tendency of the will towards a thing,
will of man
whether realizable or not
- An act that proceeds from the knowing and
✓ Every human act begins with the wish to act
freely wiling human being ( any act therefore
Example: I do so long to see you tonight. (I wish to see
that we perform knowingly and freely is
you tonight)
considered as human act)
FOR A WISH TO BECOME RELIZABLE AN INTENTION
- Example: listening to a talk, studying this pdf (
MUST BE IN IT.
you do it out of force, it’s all on your freewill)
B. INTENTION
✓ The purposive tendency of the will toward a
ACT OF MAN ( ACTUS HOMINIS)
thing regarded as realizable, whether the thing is
- any activity that man performs in the absence of
actually done or not.
knowledge and freedom
Example: I will see you tonight.
- these are man’s animal act of sensation ( use of
the senses) and appetition ( bodily tendencies)
When you have an intention to do something it can be
a true intention when put consent to it
Example: You wish to study today (wish)
I will study today ( you have the intention to study)
In the act of studying what are the means to carry out
intention.
C. CONSENT
✓ The acceptance by the will of the means
necessary to carry out intention
✓ It is the further intention of doing what is
necessary to realize the main intention.
✓ You identify different ways and means in order to
carry out an intention
Example: I will see you tonight, I consent to how really to
see you.
D. ELECTION
✓ The selection by the will of the precise means to
be employed in carrying out an intention.
✓ You choose the exact the precise means to be
employed
Example: I will select riding my bike to see you tonight.
E. USE
✓ The employment by the will of bodily or mental
powers or both to carry out its intention by the
means elected.
✓ It refers primarily to the command of a will;
commanding both mental and bodily powers to
carry out the intention. (without the command
these mental and bodily powers will not work)
Sample:
In election you choose to riding the bike
In use you must command your feet to walk, and hand
to ride the bike.
Example: To actually see you, I will command my mental
and bodily powers to carry out my intention.
F. FRUITION
✓ The enjoyment of a thing willed and done
✓ The will’s act of satisfaction in intention fulfilled
✓ The satisfaction in yourself.
Example: I will experience this the moment I will actually
see you.
A.2. COMMANDED ACTS
- these are those that do not find their adequate cause in
the will-act but are perfected by the action of mental or
bodily powers under orders from the will (EXAMPLE:
Using your mind, eyes, etc. in studying)
- certain powers we need to use in the command of our
will such as the act of memorizing you command when
you study and memorize.
-seeing is an act of man but looking becomes a human
act. (there is a command of the will already)
NOTE: mental and bodily powers will not work when
there is not command of the will to do so
- call them Blind faculties of man
- can only be activated once a human being uses his or
free will in order to do these acts.
A. INTERNAL
✓ Acts done by internal mental powers under
command of the will
Example: effort to remember, effort to control anger
B. EXTERNAL
✓ Acts effected by bodily powers under command
of the will
Example: eating halo-halo, writing your answers
C. MIXED
✓ Acts that involve the employment of bodily and
mental powers
Example: solving a math problem
B. Based on the relation of human acts to reason (highest
faculty of man)
- human acts are either an agreement or disagreement
with the dictates of reason, and this relationship
constitute the morality of human acts.
B.1. GOOD (MORAL ACT)
✓ When human acts are in harmony with the
dictates of right reason.
The teacher tells you to watch a video and you did it.
B.2. EVIL (IMMORAL ACT)
✓ When human acts are in opposition with the
dictates of right reason.
The teacher tells you to watch a video and you did
not do it.
B.3. INDIFFERENT (AMORAL ACT)
✓ When they stand in no positive relation to the
dictates of reason.
Singing is indifferent act is neither good or evil. Moral
or immoral.
III. CONSTITUENTS OF THE HUMAN ACTS
✓ These refer to the essential elements or qualities
for an act to be human
✓ These qualities are KNOWLEDGE, FREEDOM
AND VOLUNTARINESS.
1. KNOWLEDGE
✓ A human act proceeds from the deliberate will;
it requires deliberation
✓ Deliberation means advertence, or knowledge
in intellects of what one is about and what this
means.
✓ Deliberation means knowledge.
✓ EVERY HUMAN ACT THAT WE DO BEGINS WITH
KNOWLEDGE. YOU KNOW WHAT YOU ARE
ABOUT TO DO.
✓ THUS, NO HUMAN ACT IS POSSIBLE WITHOUT
KNOWLEDGE.
MOTTO: WE THINKS FIRST, WE UNDERSTAND FIRST
BEFORE WE DO AN ACT.
2. FREEDOM
✓ A human act is an act determined (elicited or
commanded) by the will and by nothing else
✓ It is an act that is under control of the will, an act
that the will can do or leave undone
✓ Such an act is called a free act, thus, every
human act must be free
3. VOLUNTARINESS
✓ A human act to be voluntary, or must have
voluntariness, simply means it must be a will act.
✓ This is to say that there must be both knowledge
and freedom in the agent or the doer of the
action.
NOTE:
 every HUMAN ACT is done FREELY.
every HUMAN ACT is a MORAL ACT.
as moral acts we are held responsible to every act we
do.
these acts we perform knowingly and freely are
always IMPUTABLE in us and us alone.
think first before you do an act.
VOLUNTARINESS – entails both present of KNOWLEDGE &
FREEDOM of the HUMAN ACT.
I. DEGREES OF VOLUNTARINESS
A. PERFECT AND IMPERFECT
✓ Perfect – when the agent fully knows and fully
intends the act. (EXAMPLE: telling a lie to your
parents)
-full knowledge, full freedom
-fully understand, fully know what you are doing,
you fully perform the act
✓ Imperfect – when the is some defect in the
agent’s knowledge, intention, or both. EXAMPLE:
adding details in narrating an event
-there is some defect of your knowledge and
freedom of the performance of the act
B. SIMPLE AND CONDITIONAL
✓ Simple voluntariness – is present in a human act
done, whether the agent likes or dislikes doing it.
(EXAMPLE: washing the dishes after the family
meal)
✓
NOTE: whether or not you like or dislike doing it
but you fully know what you are doing and you
fully and freely perform it PERFECT
VOLUNTARINESS is also present.
✓ Conditional voluntariness – is present in the
agent’s wish to do something other than that
which he is actually doing, but doing with dislike.
(EXAMPLE: washing the dishes with a wish of just
watching TV)
NOTE: is there a defect in your freedom? YES,
there is. IMPERFECT VOLUNTARINESS is also
present.
-you are actually doing an act with dislike because
you have something else other than doing what
you are actually doing.
C. DIRECT AND INDIRECT
✓ Direct voluntariness – is present in a human act
willed in itself.
✓ you do this particular act by itself
✓ you willed the performance of the act itself
nothing more and nothing else
✓ performing the act itself for the sake of the act
itself
EXAMPLE:
DIRECT: the act of studying if you willed it that
you will actually study
SIMPLE VOLUNTARINESS: when you do it either
with like or dislike doing it
PERFECT VOLUNTARINESS: If you fully know that
you are actually studying and you fully and freely
perform it.
✓ Indirect voluntariness – is present in that human
act which is the foreseen result of another act
directly willed.
✓ will be present on the EFFECT of an act that
you directly willed
✓ it is in the EFFECT not on what you are
actually DOING.
✓ this is only present as an EFFECT of an act that
you DIRECTLY WILLED.
A human act that is directly willed is called VOLUNTARY IN
SE. (IN SE = ITSELF)
While that which is indirectly willed is called VOLUNTARY
IN CAUSA. (IN CAUSE = IN ITS CAUSE; IN ITS EFFECT)
EXAMPLE:
A father kills a rabbit for dinner. He directly wills the act of
killing as a means to an end to be achieved. He also
directly wills the dinner as an end to be achieved by this
means. (There is DIRECT VOLUNTARINESS in every aspect
of the act.)
Suppose that the rabbit is a pet of his children. It gave
them pleasure every time they played with it. The father
knows that if he kills the rabbit, it will cause his children
sorrow. Nevertheless, he kills the rabbit to have something
for dinner. (There is INDIRECT VOLUNTARINESS in the
sorrow experienced by the children.)
The father’s direct act of killing the rabbit is called
VOLUNTARY IN SE while the result, sorrow of his children,
which he does not directly will, is called VOLUNTARY IN
CAUSA.
D. POSITIVE AND NEGATIVE
✓ Positive voluntariness – is present in a human
act of doing, performing. It is present in an act
that the agent is OUGHT TO DO AND IS
DOING IT.
(EXAMPLE: A student attends class on his schedule time.)
– being a student you ought to attend and a class and
when you are actually doing it is POSITIVE.
✓ Negative voluntariness – is present in a
human act of omitting, refraining from doing.
It is present in an act that the agent is NOT
OUGHT TO DO BUT IS DOING IT.
(EXAMPLE: A student deliberately misses class)
SIDE DISUCSSION:
For example, in Christians SIN
SIN OF OMMISION: you are not doing what you are ought
to do.
SIN OF COMMISION: you are doing what you are not to
do.
E. ACTUAL, VIRTUAL, HABITUAL, INTERPRETATIVE
✓ Actual Voluntariness (intention) – is present
in a human act willed HERE AND NOW.
✓ Right at this very moment, right there and
then
(EXAMPLE: The “I DO” vows of a man and a woman
during the marriage rites.)
✓ Virtual Voluntariness (intention) – is present
in a human act done AS A RESULT OF (OR IN
VIRTUE OF) a formerly elicited actual
 intention even if that intention be here and
now forgotten.
(EXAMPLE: The faithfulness of the husband/wife with
his/her spouse throughout their married life.)
✓ Habitual voluntariness (intention) – is present
in a human act done IN AGREEMENT WITH,
BUT NOT AS A RESULT OF, a formerly elicited
and UNREVOKED actual intention.
EXAMPLE:
You make an intention to be baptized in a Catholic religion.
Years, passed by, you did not realize it nor you revoked it.
One day, you became seriously ill, fighting for your life. A
priest came over and baptized you in your unconscious
state. Here, the act of receiving baptism is in agreement
with the actual intention once made and unrevoked. You
passes the habitual voluntariness for the act of receiving
the sacrament of baptism.
✓ Interpretative voluntariness (intention) – is that
voluntariness which in the JUDGEMENT OF
PRUDENCE AND COMMON SENSE, would be
actually present if opportunity or ability for it
were given.
EXAMPLE:
The small boy who has to be carried literally to school and
kept there against his will has an INTRERPRETATIVE
INTENTION of going to school. For parents and teachers
know that, if the boy could but realize the value of
schooling, he would certainly will to attend.
II. INDIRECT VOLUNTARINESS
✓ Indirect voluntariness, or voluntariness in cause, is
present in that human act which is an effect,
foreseen or foreseeable of another act directly
willed.
- There is indirect voluntariness in an act as an
effect and a result of an act that is directly willed.
✓ When we bring together INDIRECT
VOLUNTARINESS AND IMPUTABILITY, that is, as
worthy of praise/blame, reward/punishment, two
ethical questions on RESPONSIBILITY AND
PERMISSIBILITY OF THE ACT are raised:
✓ Example: A Philosophy teacher lacks knowledge about
Concept of Responsibility
a. When is the agent responsible for the evil effect of a
cause directly willed?
- fully responsible ba, less responsible ba, naa bay
punishment full or less.
Concept of Permissibility of the act
b. When may one perform an act, not evil in itself, which
has two effects – good and evil?
-are we permitted to do it?
2 BASIC ETHICAL PRINCIPLE
PRINCIPLE OF INDIRECT VOLUNTARINESS (FIRST
QUESTION)
➢ The agent (doer of the action) is RESPONSIBLE
(imputable) for the evil effect of a cause directly
willed when the following conditions are met:
a. when he can readily foresee the evil effect, at least in a
general way (he knows it already before doing the act)
b. when he is free to refrain from doing what causes the
evil effect. (not being force)
c. when he is bound to refrain from doing what causes the
evil effect. (na ka tali siya)
PRINCIPLE OF DOUBLE EFFECT (SECOND QUESTION)
➢ The agent may lawfully perform an act which has
two effects, one good and one evil, when the
following conditions are met:
a. when the evil effect does not come before the good
effect so as to be a means to it
b. when there exists a reason, proportionately grave or
weighty, which calls for the good effect
c. when the agent intends the good effect exclusively, and
merely permits the evil effect as a regrettable side-issue.
TAKE AWAY:
From these two principles, we may deduce the following
thoughts before the performance of any act:
✓ We must do good: we must avoid evil.
✓ We must never do what is evil, even though good
may be looked for and intended as a result of it.
MODIFIER OF HUMAN ACTS
- Refer to the things that may affect the human
act’s essential qualities and thus lessen the
moral character of the act, and consequently
diminish the responsibility of the agent.
- Essential qualities of an acts of man: Knowledge
and Freedom
➢ There are FIVE of them, namely:
1. IGNORANCE
2. CONCUPISCENCE
3. FEAR
4. VIOLENCE
5. HABIT
➢ Let us consider them.
1. IGNORANCE
➢ Generally, it means the lack or absence of
knowledge.
➢ It can be classified into:
a. NEGATIVE IGNORANCE is the absence of intellectual
knowledge in man.
higher mathematics.
b. PRIVATIVE IGNORANCE is the absence of knowledge
the ought to be present.
Example: A licensed civil engineer lacks knowledge about
strength of materials.
c. POSITIVE IGNORANCE is the presence of false
knowledge. This is also called mistake or error.
Example: Judging someone in the mail as an
acquaintance but really is not due to poor eyesight.
✓ Before we will discuss the ethical principles
governing ignorance let us first consider it in
three ways.
A. Ignorance in its Object
✓ This talks about the thing of which the agent may
be ignorant about.
a. IGNORANCE OF LAW
 ✓ This refers to the ignorance of the existence of a
duty, rule, or regulation
b. IGNORANCE OF FACT
✓ This refers to the ignorance of the nature or
circumstances of an act as forbidden. It is also
lack of knowledge that what one is actually doing
comes under the prohibition of a known law.
c. IGNORANCE OF PENALTY
✓ This is lack of knowledge of the precise sanction
affixed to the law.
B. Ignorance in its Subject
✓ This refers to the agent in whom ignorance
exists.
a. VINCIBLE IGNORANCE
✓ This is ignorance that can be dismissed by the
use of ordinary diligence.
✓ This results due to lack of proper diligence on the
agent, and is his fault.
✓ This is also called culpable ignorance.
Degrees of Vincible Ignorance
a. crass (stupid/gross) ignorance – if it be the result of
total, lack of effort to dispel it
- the agent is not doing anything; does not make an effort
b. simply vincible – if some efforts were done but not
persevering and whole-hearted effort, be unsuccessfully
used to dispel it.
-the agent exerts a little effort
c. affected ignorance – if positive effort is made to retain
it.
-the agent positively knows he’s ignorant; he positively
refuses to look into or ways and means in order to
correct ignorance because he wish to retain his
ignorance.
For example: I will not look into this rule para if mo abot
ang time mka reason out ko na wa mn ko kahibaw ani na
rule jd
B. INVINCIBLE IGNORANCE
✓ This is 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 dismiss it.
✓ This is not the fault of the agent.
✓ This is also called inculpable ignorance.
Culpa – fault or sin
Degrees of invincible ignorance
a. physically invincible – if no human effort can dismiss
it
For example: even the pope cannot help you or even the
president cannot help you to dismiss your ignorance
b. morally invincible – if it would be extremely difficult
to dismiss it even with the aid of some good and prudent
men.
For example: You are looking for a particular truth. You
are doing on a particular research there is a part of this
research that is lacking and wouldn’t be completed
without that particular part. But this knowledge or truth
needed is found somewhere else may be far away from
you. No matter what you are going to do it would be
extremely difficult to posses it. This remains as a defect
on you and makes you ignorant about it.
SAYING: IGNORANCE ON THE LAW EXCUSES NO ONE
-There is a consideration if and only if the agent is
INVINCIBLY IGNORANT he can be excuse from the law.
C. IGNORANCE IN ITS RESULT
✓ This refers to acts performed while ignorance
exists.
A. ANTECEDENT IGNORANCE
✓ It is that which precedes all consent of the will.
✓ Prior to the performance of the act the agent is
already an ignorant agent
✓ Ignorance exists before performance
✓
B. CONCOMITANT IGNORANCE
✓ It is that which accompanies an act that would
have been performed even if the ignorance did
not exist.
✓ An act done in concomitant ignorance is non-
voluntary.
✓ Ignorance exist while the agent is doing an act
C. CONSEQUENT IGNORANCE
✓ It is that which follows upon an act of the will.
✓ The will may directly affect it or crossly neglect
to dispel it.
✓ Either the agent did not exerts efforts or he
exerts effort to retain his ignorance.
THE ETHICAL PRINCIPLES ON 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.
✓ Type of ignorance can be excuse to any
responsibility or imputability of 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.
✓ Does not mean you are excuse, you need to face
responsibility, you need to face imputability
however in a lesser degree. Because the act you
do in the presence of vincible ignorance is a less
human act.
✓ when talking about sanction you violate a rule
because you are possibly ignorant about that
 rule. You are simply vincible ignorant of that
particular rule. Then if the punishment is one
week you will have only less. You will still have a
punishment but lesser.
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 lessen 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 the
proceeds from it.
Example: If being deliberately fostered aware jd totally
ang agent that I want to retain this as an excuse for sin
against a law. The more the human act becomes. Then
this affected ignorance will INCREASE VOLUNTARINESS
making the agent fully responsible for the act under the
influence of affected ignorance. But If simply talk about
lack of knowledge it could lessen voluntariness,
imputability and responsibility.
2. CONCUPISCENCE (PASSIONS)
✓ It refers to those badly appetites or tendencies,
which are called passions, viz.., love, hatred, joy,
grief, desire, horror, hope, despair, courage or
daring, fear, and anger.
It can be classified into:
a. Antecedent – when these passions spring into action
unstimulated by the will-act.
-actions occur naturally: no use of will or knowledge.
Example: the automatic feeling of awe over a wonderful
scenery
b. Consequent – when these passions are directly or
indirectly stirred up or fostered by the will
-the agent knows and retained it.
Example: getting angry on the teacher retained for a long
time.
EXAMPLE:
ANTECEDENT: When watching a documentary and
seeing someone maltreating the other automatic the
feeling of anger would come out in you. But you are not
dictating that you should be angry because I am watching
that one.
CONSEQUENT: But when you begin to foster it that
antecedent anger becomes consequent. You are aware
that you are angry on a particular person or something
and you foster it or retain it for a long time.
✓ From the descriptions metioned, antecedent
concupiscence is an act of man, and not a human
act; it is a non-voluntary act, and the agent is not
responsible for it while
consequent concupiscence is the fault of the
aget, for it is willed, either directly or indirectly,
i.e., either in se or in causa, and thus, the agent,
as a result, is responsible for it.
THE ETHICAL PRINCIPLES ON CONCUPISCENCE
a. Antecedent concupiscence lessens the voluntariness
of an act.
✓ Antecedent concupiscence disturbs the mind
and hinders the calm judgement 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 exercise perfectly, hence, it impairs freedom.
✓ Since knowledge and freedom are impaired by it,
the voluntariness of an act is thereby lessened,
and in consequence, diminishes the
responsibility of the agent.
Even if there is a presence of antecedent concupiscence
in the performance of the act your act is still considered
a human act but lesser degree.
EXAMPLE: You were so happy and with all the
movements of your hands you hit someone and that
someone got injured. You are not using your will to hit
that someone but you were able to hit that someone
because of the feeling you were having at the time. You
will be held responsible for that but with lesser degree.
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.
If reason is in our mind. Passion is in our heart.
If our brain or mind is where reason resides. Our heart is
where our passions reside.
What is in our mind always controls what is in our heart.
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
➢ It is the shrinking back of the mind from danger.
➢ It is the anxiety or worry of mind (from the slight
disturbance to actual panic) brought about by
the apprehension of imminent or coming evil.
It may be classified as:
a. From fear – when the actions are done caused by fear
Example: A student cheats because he is afraid of failing.
b. With Fear – when fear is the accompanying
circumstance in doing an act
Example: A student cheating is afraid of being caught.
THE ETHICAL PRINCIPLES OF FEAR
An act 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.
When you say the agent is suffering from grave fear. We
can simply understand this one as a matter of life and
death.
EXAMPLE: Blackmailing you do an act because you are
afraid of the blackmail.
A robber points a knife on you so whatever you are going
to do you would not be held responsible because you are
doing it with grave fear.
4. VIOLENCE
➢ It is the external force applied by a free cause
(that is, by human beings) for the purpose of
compelling a person to perform an act which is
against his will.
EXAMPLE: You are being harassed which you are force
to do the act.
THE ETHICAL PRINCIPLE OF VIOLENCE
Acts elicited by the will are nit subject to violence;
external acts caused by violence, to which due resistance
is offered, are in no wise imputable to the agent.
5. HABIT
➢ This refer to operative habit, which is lasting
readiness and facility, born of frequently
repeated acts, for acting in a certain manner.
THE ETHICAL PRINCIPLE OF HABIT
Habit does not destroy voluntariness; acts from habit are
always voluntary, at least in cause, as long as the habit is
allowed to endure.
With the use of your reason you can actually control your
habit.
Whatever action done perform under habit will always
be imputable and responsible on you for the effect.
TAKE AWAY:
There are only few instances wherein we can be excuse
from responsibility and imputability.
Ignorance
- one can be excuse under Invincibly ignorant.
Passions
- We can be excuse when our passions makes us
temporarily insane.
Fear
- You can be excuse when its under grave fear
Violence
- We can be excuse under violence
Habit
- We can never be excuse
SAYING: We think first before we do an act. We must be
extra careful when doing an act because once it is done
you cannot take it back.
MORALITY OF HUMAN ACTS AND ITS DETERMINANNTS
THE MORALITY OF HUMAN ACTS
➢ Morality is described as that quality of human
acts which lead us to call some as good or evil,
(not good)
✓ 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.
✓ A human act always has a last end towards which it
tends.
✓
• Objectively, the end is the Summum Bonum,
the Limitless Good, God.
• 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
a. Divine Reason / Eternal Law – the ultimate norm
b. Human Reason / Conscience – the proximate norm.
✓ Human acts are good or evil inasmuch as they agree
or conflict with the Divine Reason.
✓ Conscience is the judgement of human reason
recognizing and applying the Eternal Law in human
acts.
➢ From what has been said, morality can now be
defined strictly as the relation of human acts to
their norm.
➢ Furthermore, morality is also defined as 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.
DETERMINANTS 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.
✓ They are the object, the motive, and the
circumstances.
❖ THE OBJECT
✓ This refers to the act itself, the deed done
or to be done.
✓ There are certain acts that are intrinsically
good or evil.
✓ The morality of indifferent acts is
determined by the end (motive) for which it
is done and the circumstances which affect
it.
❖ THE MOTIVE (END OF THE AGENT)
✓ This refers to the agent’s personal intentions or
wishes to be achieved by the act over and
above what is naturally tends to.
An act which is good in itself may still be evil by reason f. A circumstance which is not gravely evil does not
of the agent’s motive for which it is done BUT an act entirely destroy the goodness of a good act.
which is evil in itself cannot be made good by reason of
the end for which it is performed.

❖ ETHICAL PRINCIPLES GOVERNING MOTIVE

a. A good act done for a good motive becomes better; it
will become best if done for several good motives.
b. An evil act done for an evil end becomes worse; it
will become worst if done for several evil motives.
c. A good act 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.

❖ 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 A PERSON (WHO)

✓ Who is the agent? To whom is the act done?

2. CIRCUMSTANCE OF QUALITY OR QUANTITY OF THE

ACT (WHAT)
✓ What is the extent of the act? Was the injury
slight or serious? Was the amount stolen large
or small?

3. CIRCUMSTANCE OF PLACE (WHERE)

✓ Where did the act took place?

4. CIRCUMSTANCE OF MEANS (WITH WHAT ALLY)

✓ What is used in the performance of the act?

5. CIRCUMSTANCE OF MANNER (HOW)

✓ How did the agent perform the act? Was he in
good or bad faith? Was his evil disposition
intensely malicious or only slightly so?

6. CIRCUMSTANCE OF TIME (WHEN)

✓ How long did the agent retain an evil thought,
long period or momentarily?

7. CIRCUMSTANCE OF THE END OF THE AGENT (WHY)

✓ This is similar to the second determinant.

❖ ETHICAL PRINCIPLES GOVERNING CIRCUMSTANCES

a. An indifferent act becomes good or evil by reason of
its circumstances.
b. A good act may become evil by reasons of
circumstances.
c. A good or evil act may become better or worse by
reason of circumstances, and may even become best or
worst from its circumstances.
d. An evil act can never be made good by circumstances.
e. A gravely evil circumstance destroys the entire
goodness of a good act.