Fundamental Concepts of

Morality Overview
Morality
– refers to the quality of goodness or
badness in human act.

A moral agent is a person who has the ability to

discern right from wrong and to be held accountable
for his or her own actions.
Moral agents have a moral responsibility not to cause
unjustified harm. By expecting people to act as moral
agents, we hold people accountable for the harm they
cause others.

Moral patients are things towards which moral agents

can have moral responsibilities.
Norm of Morality

• The basis of distinction between right and wrong.

• By norm of morality we mean therefore:

° The standard of right and wrong in human acts.

° The reason why certain acts are morally right and why
certain actions are wrong.
Human acts

• Ethics deals with the study of man and

particularly with his actions.
• Not every acct which proceeds from man is a
human act.
• By human acts in ethics, we mean:
° The (free) voluntary acts of man.
° Acts done with knowledge and consent.
° Acts which are proper to man as man; because, of all
animals, he alone has knowledge and freedom of will.
° Acts which, we are conscious, are under our control and
for which we are responsible. O Human acts are those of
which man is master, which he has the power of doing or
not doing as he pleases.
• Acts, to be truly human, must be done knowingly and
willfully.
• Without knowledge and consent, there can be no human
act.
• Only human acts have moral significance.
• Movement of other things do not fall under the study of
ethics. If things do its purpose, then it acts well.
• Some acts are morally indifferent, i.e., they are
neither good nor bad in themselves. (sitting
walking, smiling) they become bad only when
they are forbidden by some law or certain
circumstances.
Voluntariness and responsibility

1. Relation between voluntariness and ethics – ethics

studies human acts, and human acts to be human, must be
voluntary.
2. Between morality and voluntariness – only voluntary acts
have moral bearing. Animals do not possess freedom of
choice in their actions.
3. Human act and voluntariness – human acts are the free
acts of man.
4. Responsibility and voluntariness – there can be responsibility
only if there is knowledge and consent; and consent means
voluntariness.
5. Punishment – it is absurd and cruel to punish anyone who
acted because of pure necessity, for doing what he could not do
otherwise. Unless there is voluntariness, there can be no
responsibility, and without responsibility, punishment is
meaningless.

The notion of voluntariness is most basic and inseparable from

ethics
Immoral and amoral

• Immoral is the contradictory of moral. It means

contrary to, or violative of, the rules of right conduct.
• Amoral means morally indifferent, i.e., it is
neither good nor bad, in itself.
Moral and normal

• Normal refers to a physical or psychological standard and has no

reference to moral rectitude. A perfectly normal person can be very
immoral, whereas an abnormal person can be very moral in his acts
and live in accordance with the moral law.

Peculiarity and perversity

• Perversity or perversion always involves moral turpitude and

responsibility, whereas peculiarity or anomaly does not. (ex.
Homosexuality)
Further studies on voluntariness

1. Ethics deals precisely with the study of human acts, i.e.,

the voluntary acts of man.

2. It is the amount or degree of voluntariness present in an

act which determines the amount or degree of responsibility
and this in turn will determine the amount of punishment, if
any, to be meted out.
 Nature of voluntariness

Prefect and imperfect voluntariness:

1. Prefect voluntariness – with full knowledge and full

consent.
2. Imperfect voluntariness – occurs when there is no perfect
knowledge nor consent, or either or both knowledge or
consent is partial.
Direct and Indirect Voluntary Act

A. Direct voluntary act – (also called voluntary in se)

when the act is intended for its own sake, either as a
means or as an end.
 
B. Indirect voluntary act- (also called voluntary in
causa) an act which is not intended for its own sake but
which is which is merely follows as a regrettable
consequence of an action directly willed.
Why is an indirect voluntary act still voluntary when it is not
intended and follows only as a regrettable side issue?

• When we will to do an act, we will the whole act including its

consequences; and, since we place the cause, we also indirectly will
the effect, although this in itself regrettable.
• We are therefore responsible for the consequences of our actions
even if these are not intended.
• The cause of the cause is the cause of the thing caused. In a series
of caused causes the first cause is the true cause.
The moral principle involved in actions having two effects.

• Is it morally right to do an action from which both good and bad

effects follow?
• The answer is yes, but under the following conditions:
A. The act in itself should be good, or at least morally indifferent.
B. The evil effect should not be directly intended, but morally
allowed to happen as a regrettable side issue.
C. There should be a reason sufficiently grave in doing the act; and
D. That the evil effect should not outweigh the good effect.
A. The first condition requires that the act be good in itself. The reason for this is
that if the act itself is bad, then we would be doing evil that good may come from
it. But, ―the end does not justify the means‖. We should not employ bad means
even in order to attain a good end. We may not do evil that good may result.
B. The second condition requires that the evil effect be not intended. If the evil be
directly intended, the act would be done for the sake of evil, and this is forbidden
directly by the moral law.
C. The act entails bad effects and we should not trifle with evil effects.
D. If the evil effect be greater, then the intention and the motive in doing the act
would be more for evil than for good, and this is against the moral law.
 THANK YOU
FOR LISTENING!