Note: The content below is taken from Agapay R.B.

(Ethics and the Filipino)

pages 21-28.

The Modifiers of Human Acts

The ideal is for human beings to act deliberately, that is, with perfect
voluntariness. This is not always possible though. Oftentimes, a certain
degree of doubt or reluctance accompanies an act. At other times, emptions
hold sway, propelling action with the swiftness of an impulse.
Factors that influence man’s inner disposition towards certain actions
are called “modifiers” of human acts. 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. This is significant because the accountability
of the act is correspondingly increased or decreased.
We cite this principle: The greater the knowledge and the freedom, the
greater the voluntariness and the moral responsibility. (Panizo: 38).

The Modifiers
Human being does not act in vacuum. He is an organism responding
and reacting to stimulus. His total make-up is the sum of all experiences. His
personal background, education, social upbringing, political persuasion,
religion, and personal aims – contribute largely to his development and
behavioral preferences.
Authors point to the following as modifiers of human acts: (1)
Ignorance, (2) Passions, (3) Fear, (4) Violence, (5) Habit.

Ignorance
We are familiar with the saying: “Ignorance of the law excuses no one”.
This implies that one should not act in the state of ignorance and that one
who has done a wrong may not claim ignorance as a defense.
Ignorance is the absence of knowledge which a person ought to
possess. A lawyer is expected to know his law; the doctor, his medicine; and
the manager, his business operations. In the realm of morals, everyone of
age and reason is expected to know at least the general norms of good
behavior.
Ignorance is either vincible or invincible. Vincible ignorance can easily
be reminded through ordinary diligence and reasonable efforts. The
ignorance of a visitor regarding a particular address in a certain place is
vincible, since he can easily ask for information from a policeman or
pedestrian.
Invincible ignorance is the type which a person possesses without
being aware of it, or, having awareness of it, lacks the means to rectify it.
The ignorance regarding missing persons or objects is often invincible.
Sometimes, too, a person acts without realizing certain facts. Thus, a cook
might be unaware that the food he is serving is contaminated.
Under the category of vincible ignorance is the affected ignorance. This
is the type which a person keeps by positive efforts in order to escape
responsibility or blame. It is affected ignorance when an employee refuses
to read a memo precisely so that he may be exempted from its requirements.

Principles:
1. Invincible ignorance renders an act involuntary. A person cannot be held
morally liable if he is not aware of his state of ignorance. A waiter who is not
aware that the food he is serving has been poisoned cannot be held for
murder.
2. Vincible ignorance does not destroy, but lessens the voluntariness and
the corresponding accountability over the act. A person who becomes aware
of the state of ignorance he is in has the moral obligation to rectify it by
exercising reasonable diligence in seeking the needed information. To act
with vincible ignorance is to act imprudently. A waiter who suspects that the
food he is serving has been laced with poison has the moral obligation to
ascertain the fact or, at least, forewarn the guests about his suspicion.
3. Affected ignorance, though it decreases voluntariness, increases the
accountability over the resultant act. Insofar as affected ignorance interferes
with the intellect, it decreases voluntariness. But insofar as it is willed to
persist, it increases accountability. Certainly, refusing to rectify ignorance
implies malice. And the malice is greater when ignorance is used as an
excuse for not doing the right thing. Thus, a child who refuses to be guided
by his parents has only himself to blame for his wrongdoing.

Passions
Passions, or concupiscence, are either tendencies towards desirable
objects, or, tendencies away from undesirable or harmful things. The former
is called positive emotions; the latter, negative emotions. The positive
emotions include love, desire, delight, hope, and bravery. The negative
emotions include hatred, horror, sadness, despair, fear and anger.
Passions are psychic responses. As such, they are neither moral or
immoral. However, man is bound to regulate his emotions and submit them
to the control of reason.
Passions are either antecedent or consequent. Antecedent are those
that precede an act. It may happen that a person is emotionally aroused to
perform an act. Antecedent passions predispose a person to act. Thus, love
may induce one to make numerous and lengthy phone calls to his
sweetheart, or, to plot the murder of a rival.

Principle: Antecedent passions do not always destroy voluntariness, but they

diminish accountability for the resultant act. Antecedent passions weaken
the will of a person without, however, completely obstructing his freedom.
Thus, the so called “crimes of passion” are voluntary. But insofar as passions
interfere with the freedom of the will, one’s accountability is diminished.
Consequent passions are those that are intentionally aroused and
kept. Consequent passions, therefore, are said to be voluntary in cause, the
result of the will playing the strings of emotions. Thus, a young man may
deliberately arouse himself sexually by reading pornographic magazines. Or
a victim of injustice may intentionally nurse his resentment towards his
tormentor. The young man who commits lasciviousness after arousing
himself sexually and the fellow who commits vengeance due to his cultivated
resentment – are both morally accountable.
Principle: Consequent passions do not lessen voluntariness, but may even
increase accountability. This is because consequent passions are the direct
results of the will which fully consents to them instead of subordinating them
to its control.

Fear
Fear is the disturbance of the mind of a person who is confronted by
an impending danger or harm to himself or loved ones. Distinction is made
however between an act done with fear and an act done out or because of
fear.
Certain actions which by nature are dangerous or risky are done with
varying degree of fear. Climbing a cliff, flying an airplane through a storm,
diving for pearls, or arresting a notorious killer – are examples of acts
performed with fear. In these cases, fear is a normal response to danger.
Such actions are voluntary, because the doer is in full control of his faculties
and acts in spite of fear.
Fear is an instinct for self-preservation. We even fear new experiences
or situations such as, embarking on a long journey, being left alone in a
strange place, or being asked to speak before a group of people. But doing
something out of fear, or because of it, is entirely different. Here, fear
becomes a positive force compelling a person to act without careful
deliberation.
The child reads his book out of fear of the mother; the employee
volunteers to work over-time out of fear of being fired by the boss; a friend
stops smoking out of fear of contracting cancer. These examples show how
actions are done because of fear. Fear modifies the freedom of the doer,
inducing him to act in a certain predetermined manner, often without his full
consent.
Principles:
1. Acts done with fear are voluntary. A persona acting with fear is action in
spite of his fear and is in full control of himself.
2. Acts done out of fear, however great, is simply voluntary, although it is
also conditionally voluntary. It is simply voluntary because the person
remains in control of his faculties, including that of moderating fear. It is also
“conditionally involuntary” because, if it were not for the presence of
something feared, the person would not act, or would act in either way.
Intimidating or threatening a person with harm is an unjust act. Legally
speaking, actions done out of fear are invalid acts. Thus, contracts entered
into out of fear are voidable, meaning, they can later on be annulled. It is
grossly unfair to oblige any person to fulfill a contract obtained by force or
threat.

Violence
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.
Bodily torture, maltreatment, isolation, and mutilation – are examples of
violence against persons.

Principles
1. External actions, or commanded actions, performed by a person subjected
to violence, to which reasonable resistance has been offered, are involuntary
and are not accountable.
“Active resistance should always be offered to an unjust aggressor.
However, if resistance is impossible, or if there is a serious threat to one’s
life, a person confronted by violence can always offer intrinsic resistance by
withholding consent; that is enough to save his moral integrity.” (Panizo: 37).
2. Elicited acts, or those done by the will alone, are not subject to violence
and are therefore voluntary.
The will insofar as it is a spiritual faculty is not within the reach violence.
History carries the story of thousand heroes who had suffered death instead
of surrendering their will to that of their tormentors. On the contrary, we
consider them villains or weaklings those who succumbed and consented to
the wishes of tyrants. But we may not be too harsh on them, since every man
has his own limit of endurance. “Violence of force”, says Bernard Haring, “in
any instance, if bound up with the refined cruelty of present-day methods of
psychological torture, can constitute a serious temptation and often also
contribute towards a notable diminution of inner freedom.
Habits
Habit, as defined by Glenn, “is a lasting readiness and facility, born of
frequently repeated acts, for acting in a certain manner”. Habits are acquired
inclinations towards something to be done. They assume the role of a second
nature, moving one who has them to perform certain acts with relative ease.
The word “habit-forming” that we use to refer to certain experiences
shows how easy it is for one to acquire a habit. It also implies that a habit is
not that easy to overcome or alter. It requires a strong-willed person to
correct a habit successfully within a limited period of time. Thus, alcoholics
and smokers find it almost impossible to reform.
Principles
Actions done by force of habit are voluntary in cause, unless a
reasonable effort is made to counteract the habitual inclination.
Habits are voluntary in cause, because they are the result of previously
willed acts done repeatedly as a matter of fact. Thus, every action emanating
from habit is said to partake of the voluntariness of those previous acts.
Therefore, for as long as the habit is not corrected, evil actions done by force
of that habit are voluntary and accountable.
When a person decides to fight his habit, and for as long as the effort
towards this purpose continues, actions resulting from such habit may be
regarded as acts of man and not accountable. The reason, as pointed out by
Glenn, is that the cause of such habit is no longer expressly desired.
Action and Emotion
Human beings do not act the way robots do – without feeling or
emotion. In doing his act, man does not only evoke certain sentiments, but
his decision or intention to perform is swayed by his emotions. One who
loves to sing does not only sing with “feelings” but is moved and motivated
to sing when the occasion is there.
Emotions are generally instinctive in origin. Neither the degree of their
intensity, clarity, or awareness makes them human acts to be judged as good
or evil. They become good or evil by the attitude of the person manifesting
them. A person who nourishes his feeling of hostility towards another is more
prone to acquire the motive for inflicting harm on the object of his hatred.
This is not to say that man is helpless in the tide of his emotions and that
man’s responses to action are emotionally motivated. It means simply that
man’s thoughts and actions are colored by his emotions.
“The psychological and moral aspects of the inner life of man are expressed
positively by the affections of love, kindness, humility, reverence, justice, and
purity. These have a vitalizing, purifying, enriching effect. Here we have
psychic energies which in some manner precede every decision and
influence it. They are an intimate approval of their object, a purposeless
confirmation of their worth. The negative dispositions tend toward disdain
and denial (as though to blot out the very existence of the object of hatred,
disdain, envy), repudiation, disruption. But it is possible that the objective
goal (perhaps a person) of those dispositions is totally unaffected by them.
Again, they may be brushed aside or overcome. Nevertheless, in every
instance, by a kind of inner compulsion, they exert a direct and immediate
influence on the subject himself. The tendency is ever present to promote,
to vitalize, or, is the effect be baneful, to scorn and isolate. And it is also true
that in every instance the effect on the subject is greater. More surely and
more vehemently is the subject of emotions affected than the objects to
which they are directed. Emotions make up the very heart of man, from which
come both good and evil. (Bernard Haring, The Law of Christ, Vol. I, Mercier
Press, Cork, 1960, p. 199).
Refinement of Emotion
Ethics deals with emotions as factors affecting human motivation and
behavior. Instead of repressing them, it calls for their refinement. This means
that man is expected to act not only with his mind and body, but precisely
with his heart and soul. Thus, for instance, the Decalogue does not merely
command that we love God, but adds to say “with all your heart and with all
your soul”.
In the purist sense, doing good for another is not a virtue unless it
comes from the “love” of what is good. Any other motive is inadequate
regardless of the merits of the assistance offered. It is possible indeed to
extend a loan to a friend and this – grudgingly.
 In like manner, mere external obedience to a law is cold and
hypocritically convenient. The ethical expectation is to enter into the spirit of
the law and to accept it with humility and respect.
“It is evident”, says Bernard Haring, “that education, through proper
discipline and cultivation of emotional life (in which we include the cultivation
of the values of character and disposition), is in many ways more significant
than the tense straining of will power. Indeed, the ail of ethics is not to turn
man into an efficient machine to do things. Rather, it hopes to transform man
by inner spiritual conversion.
Moral perfection comes from within. We, Filipinos, refer to it as
“kagandahan ng loob”. It is “loob” because it radiates from within the human
personality.
Kagandahan ng Loob
Kagandahan ng loob refers to attitude. It stands for all things that is
good, we call kabaitan, in a human being. It is the multiplicity of sterling
qualities, both natural and acquired, which, because they proceed from the
heart and mind, also greatly influence one’s behavior towards himself and
others.
Kagandahan ng loob includes scuh moral values as mapagmahal,
maunawain, may-pakikiramdam, may-pakikiramay, matulungin, masayahin,
and hindi mapagkunwari.