The Morality

of Human
Acts
 Human Acts ( Actus Human)
• Are those act that man does as a man, , of which he is properly master because
he does them with full knowledge and of his own will.
• Human acts are therefore those acts that proceed from a deliberate will. In
them, the will is properly enlightened by the knowledge supplied by the
intellect.
• Specifically, human acts are those actions done by a person in certain
situations which are essentially the result of his/her conscious knowledge,
freedom and voluntariness or consent. Hence, these actions are performed by
man knowingly, freely, and voluntarily.
• Three Important elements or constituents are obviously present for an act to be
strictly considered a human act: knowledge, freedom, and voluntariness or
consent – on the part of the acting agent.
 Acts of Man
● as opposed to human acts, are those acts that man performs without being
master of them through his intellect and will. These actions are done
without deliberation, reflection and consent.

● In principle, acts of man are not the concern of morals, since they are not
voluntary. Acts of man, therefore, are those that humans share with animals
whose actions and movements emanate from purely sensual nature. The
person here is neither morally responsible nor accountable for these kinds of
actions.
Basic elements
of human acts
 The act must be deliberate.
● It must be performed by a conscious agent who is very much aware of what
he/she is doing and of its consequences – good or evil. Thus, children who
are below the age of reason, the insane, the senile, lunatics, people who are
under the heavy influence of drugs and alcohol (of course, the act of taking
these may be with consciousness and knowledge, hence a different matter
altogether) – are said to be incapable of acting knowingly and with
sufficient knowledge.
 The act must be performed in
freedom.
● It must be done by an agent who is acting freely, with his/her own volition
and powers. An action performed under duress and against one’s own free
will cannot be strictly considered a free and voluntary action. The person
who is performing the action be free from any force beyond his/her control,
or from any powerful influence from outside. Otherwise, we can say that
the act is not truly and entirely his/her own.
 The act must be done voluntarily.

● Voluntariness requires the presence of both knowledge and freedom

of the agent. It must be performed by an agent who decides willfully
to perform the act. The act, to be truly, voluntary one, must come
from the core of a person’s being. This willfulness is the resolve to
do an act here and now, or in some other time in the future.
 Major
Determinants of
the Morality of
Human Acts
 1. The Act Itself or the Object of the Act (Means)

• The act itself or the object of the act refers to the action that is done or
performed by an agent, or simply, WHAT the person does. It is “the natural
termination or completion of an act… [which] determines whether an act is
intrinsically or extrinsically good or evil. This is “the substance of the moral
act,” and here regarded as the basic factor of morality.

2. The Motive or the Intention (End)

The motive is the purpose or intention that for the sake of which something is done. It is
the reason behind our acting. It answers the question “WHY the person does what he
does?” One normally performs an act as a means to achieve an end or goal, different from
the act itself. And since the motive or intention is practically present in all human acts, it
then becomes an important and integral part of morality.
 Four principles concerning Motive or
Intention:
• An indifferent act can become morally good or morally evil depending upon the intention
of the person doing the act.

• An objectively good act becomes morally evil due to a wrong or bad motive.

• An intrinsically (objectively) morally good act can receive added goodness, if done with
an equally noble intention or motive.

• An intrinsically evil act can never become morally good even if it is done with a good
motive or intention.
 3. The Circumstances

• Circumstances refer to the various conditions outside of the act. They are
not, strictly speaking, part and parcel of the act itself. Circumstances are
conditions that influence, to a lesser or greater degree, the moral quality of
the human act. They either “affect the act by increasing or lessening its
voluntariness or freedom, and thus, affecting the morality of the act.”
 Seven kinds of Moral Circumstances
WHO
– is the subject of the person who does or receives the action. Every act has a doer and a receiver. The
one who performs it and the one to whom the action is done. (ex. A priest who lied is more culpable
than a politician).
WHAT
refers to the quantity or quality of the object. (ex. stealing a bar of soap is not the same as
stealing a sack of soap).

WHERE
is the setting of an action. Every act is done in a particular place. The place where the act is committed
by someone affects to a considerable degree its morality. But place here is not only confined to a
particular geographical location where the act happened but also includes the nature of the place. (ex.
committing murder inside the church is much worse than doing it in a public place).
 Seven kinds of Moral Circumstances
BY WHAT MEANS
it can also include the particular instrument/weapon/equipment/tools, etc. that the person used or
employed in the performance of the act. (ex. Killing a person with a chain saw is eviler than with a
gun because it inflicts more pain). (ex. robbing using threats, force and vulgar statements)

WHY
is the intention or the motive that moves the agent to an action. Not to be confused with the end of the
agent, it refers to additional motives. (This one, as a matter of systematic presentation, was already dealt
with above, as the second major determinant of morality). (ex. Raping with the intention to gratify
oneself sexually is already evil, but it becomes eviler if the rapist has another bad intention in mind
which is to humiliate his victim).
 Seven kinds of Moral Circumstances
HOW
answers the question as to the way or manner the act was carried or performed. (ex. robbing using
threats, force and vulgar statements)

WHEN
is the time of the action performed. Every act is done at a particular and specific time. The element of
time is also important and even vital as to the moral assessment and judgment of the human act. (ex.
Committing murder during a holy time like Sunday [for most Christians] is eviler than in any other day).
Modifiers of Human Acts
 Modifiers of Human Act
● Factors and conditions that affect to a considerable extent man’s inner disposition
towards certain actions are known as “modifiers of human acts.” As the term modifiers
implies, they influence specifically the mental and/or emotional state of a person
concerned to the point that the voluntariness involved in an act is either increased or
diminished. This is significant precisely because the moral accountability of the doer of
the action is also increased or decreased, as the case may be. These modifiers,
accordingly, affect human acts in the essential qualities of knowledge, freedom,
voluntariness, and so make them less perfectly human.
1. Ignorance
● It is the absence of necessary knowledge which a person in a given situation, who is performing
a certain act, ought to have. Ignorance therefore is a negative thing for it is a negation of
knowledge.

Difference between Ignorance and Innocence:

● Ignorance is the absence of knowledge in a person who is required to know what he/she does
not know.
● Innocence is the absence of knowledge in a person who is not required to know what he/she
does not know.
 Types of Ignorance
● 1.1. Invincible Ignorance. Also known as antecedent ignorance, is the kind of ignorance
which an individual may have without being aware of it, or, having knowledge of it, simply
lacks the necessary means to correct and solve it. This type of ignorance is unconquerable, and
thus not correctible.
● 1.2. Vincible Ignorance. Otherwise known as consequent ignorance, can easily be remedied
through ordinary diligence and reasonable efforts on the part of the person who is in this
particular mental state. This type of ignorance is therefore conquerable since it is correctible.
● 1.3. Affected Ignorance. This is the kind of ignorance which an individual keeps by positive
efforts in order to escape blame and accountability.
 Principles Governing Ignorance
● 1.1. Invincible ignorance renders an act involuntary. A person cannot be held morally responsible or
liable if he or she is not aware of the state of his or her ignorance. (ex. A student who is not truly aware
that the money he or she has paid for his or her tuition is actually counterfeit money, cannot be held for
committing an act of deception).

● 1.2. Vincible ignorance does not destroy, but lessens the voluntariness and the corresponding
accountability over the act. A person who becomes aware and conscious of the state of ignorance he or
she is in has the moral obligation to correct it by employing enough diligence in finding the information
required to make one’s ignorance disappear. “To act with vincible ignorance is to act imprudently.” (ex. A
student-nurse who is not sure whether the reading that he or she did on a patient’s BP is accurate or not,
and has failed to double check, when it could have easily been done, is guilty of this kind of ignorance).
● 1.3. Affected or pretended ignorance does not excuse a person from his or her bad actions;
on the contrary it actually increases their malice. This specific kind of ignorance happens
when a person really wants and chooses to be ignorant so that he/she can eventually escape any
accountability arising from the wrongfulness of the act later on. (ex. A student who intentionally
misses a committee meeting in order not to be given any task he or she suspects to be assigned to
members so as to avoid any responsibility that goes with it.
 2. Passion or Concupiscence.
● It is understood as a strong or powerful feeling or emotion. It refers more specifically to those bodily
appetites or tendencies as experienced and expressed in such feelings as fear, love, hatred, despair,
horror, sadness, anger, grief and the like. Passion or concupiscence is also known by other names such
as sentiments, affection, desires, etc.

Two types of Passions:

● 2.1. Antecedent Passion. It arises spontaneously before the judgment of reason and before the will can
control the psychological situation. (ex. When a delicious food is served at the table, it spontaneously
causes appetite and the desire to it).
● 2.2. Consequent Passion. It is deliberately aroused by the will in order to ensure a more prompt and
willing operation. (ex. When a person deliberately provoking hatred in his heart in order to carry out
his intention to murder or kill another).
 Principle governing
Antecedent Passion
● Antecedent Passions do not always destroy
voluntariness, but they diminish
accountability for the resultant act.
Antecedent passions weaken the will power
of a person without, however, completely
obstructing his freedom. (ex. A wife, who
out of love for his husband, becomes so
jealous that in a moment of savage rage,
kills him and the concubine).
Principle governing
Consequent Passion
● Consequent Passions do not lessen the
voluntariness, but may even increase
accountability. This is because consequent
passions are the direct result of the will which
fully consents to them instead of subordinating
them to its control. (ex. By reading or watching
immoral literature in order to entice or arouse the
intellect and the will for another evil act).
 3. Fear
● It is defined as the disturbance of the mind of a person who is confronted by an impending
danger or harm to himself or loved ones. Fear may be considered a passion which arises as
an impulsive movement of avoidance of a threatening evil, ordinarily accompanied by bodily
disturbances. Here, it is treated as a special kind of passion, and hence also treated as
another distinct modifier of human act since it is a kind of a test of one’s mental character.

Principles Governing Fear:

● 3.1. Acts done with or in spite of fear are always voluntary. This is so since the person
acting with fear is acting in spite of his/her fear, and thus, still very much in control of his/her
conduct. Therefore, the person concerned remains morally responsible of his/her action,
whether good or bad, right or wrong. (ex. A thief who is about to rob a bank is afraid of getting
caught).
● 3.2. Acts done because of intense fear or panic are simply involuntary. A person
when acting out of extreme fear is not morally accountable of his/her action or conduct.
Such action exempts the person from any moral or even legal responsibility. (ex. A
cashier who hands the money to a robber who is poking a gun on his/her head is acting
out of intense fear and panic, and thus, doing something involuntarily and without
his/her consent).
4. Violence
● It refers to any physical force exerted on a person by another free agent for the purpose of compelling
the said person to act against his will. Any act where great and brutal force is inflicted to a person
constitutes violence. This includes acts such as torture, mutilation and the like.

Principle Governing Violence

● 4.1. Any action resulting from violence is simply involuntary. However, the person whose physical
external conduct emanates from and controlled by violence should always be in defiance in terms of
one’s will. This means that even one is compelled to do something, one should not consent to it. (ex.
A woman whose body may be violated but remained defiant in the presence of an unjust and brutal
aggressor, whose superior strength overpowers that of the woman victim).
 5. Habit.
● It is a constant and easy way of doing things acquired by the repetition of the same act. Also,
habit is the readiness, born of frequent repeated acts, for acting in a certain manner.

Principle Governing Habit

● 1. Actions done by force of habit are voluntary in cause, unless a reasonable effort is made
to counteract the habitual inclination. This means that if a person will simply let his/her habit
take control of his/her action without doing anything about it whatsoever, then we can say that
he/she is morally accountable of his/her action by allowing the habit to determine his/her
conduct. (ex. A person seriously exerts effort to repress a habit of saying foul words, he/she is no
longer responsible for his/her occasional foul language).
 Thanks!

CREDITS: This presentation template was created by Slidesgo, and includes

icons by Flaticon, and infographics & images by Freepik

Please keep this slide for attribution