Lesson 2

Ethics and Morality: Similarities, Differences, Significance

MORALS/MORALITY ETHICS
Practice Theory
First-order set of beliefs and practices about how to
live a good life.
Second-order, conscious reflection on the adequacy
of our moral beliefs.
Customs, Precepts, Actual Beliefs and Practices
of Peoples and Cultures
Science or study of morality (content) and moral
philosophy (process/reflection)
Conforming to a standard of right behavior.
Choosing principles of conduct as a guiding
philosophy.
Set of beliefs and practices or moral standards and
moral conduct about how to lead a good life.
The rational reflection or formal study of those
standards and conduct. For this reason, the study of
ethics is also often called "moral philosophy."
Human conduct and character referring to those
acts which it makes sense to describe as right or
wrong, good or bad.
Ways of thinking philosophically about morality, and
moral judgment
Behavior customary in our culture or society that
may change as a person moves from one society to
the next.
Standards of right and wrong that do not change as
a person moves from one society to the next.
moral is a lesson (good) to be learned about a
single principle of right and wrong
ethic is a single guiding principle that affects your
criteria for determining what is right and wrong

Q? MORALITY ETHICS
Etymology? Latin word "mos" meaning "custom" Greek word "ethos" meaning "character"
What is it? Good and Bad or Moral and Immoral Right and Wrong
What are they?
Principles or habits with respect to right or
wrong conduct. It defines how things should
work according to an individual's ideals and
principles.
The rules of conduct recognized in respect to a
particular class of human actions or a particular
group, culture, etc. It defines how thing are
according to the rules.
Where do they
come from?
Individual - Internal Social system - External
Why we do it?
Because we believe in something being
good or bad.
Because society says it is the right thing to do.
What if we don't do
it?
Doing something against one's morals and
principles can have different effects on
different people, they may feel
uncomfortable, remorse, depressed etc.
We may face peer/societal disapproval, or even
be fired from our job.
Flexibility?
Usually consistent, although can change if
an individuals beliefs change.
Ethics are dependent on others for definition.
They tend to be consistent within a certain
context, but can vary between contexts.
The "Gray"?
A Moral Person although perhaps bound by
a higher covenant, may choose to follow a
code of ethics as it would apply to a system.
"Make it fit"
A person strictly following Ethical Principles may
not have any Morals at all. Likewise, one could
violate Ethical Principles within a given system of
rules in order to maintain Moral integrity.
Acceptability? Morality transcends cultural norms
Ethics are governed by professional and legal
guidelines within a particular time and place
Ethics and Morality
Morality as a personal belief or world view without Ethics which is a scientific study of moral theories and
principles has its tendency to disregard the universal and society, and become egoistic, ethnocentric and
rationalistic. Likewise, Ethics as a science that do not recognize what is uniquely natural, good and
mysterious in every person may turn to legalism, formalism, only theory and conformism.
Source of Principles
Ethics are external standards, provided by the institutions, groups or culture to which an
individual belongs. For example, lawyers, policemen and doctors all have to follow an ethical code laid
down by their profession, regardless of their own feelings or preferences. Ethics can also be considered
as a social system or a framework for acceptable behavior.
Morals may also be influenced by culture or society, but they are personal principles created and
upheld by the individuals themselves.
Consistency and Flexibility
Ethics are very consistent within a certain context, but can vary greatly between contexts. For
example, the ethics of the medical profession in the 21st century are generally consistent and do not
change from hospital to hospital, but they are different from the ethics of the 21st century legal
profession.
An individuals moral code is usually unchanging and consistent across all contexts, but can
change if the individual has a radical change in their personal beliefs and values.
Example of a conflict between ethics and morals
One professional example of ethics conflicting with morals is the work of a defense attorney. A lawyers
morals may tell her that murder is reprehensible and that murderers should be punished, but her ethics
as a professional lawyer, require her to defend the client to the best of her abilities, even if she knows
that the client is guilty.
Significance
Critical. Ethics is a reflective investigation on the basis of assertion, the meaning of the terms good/bad,
right/wrong, human act, choices, etc. It inquires on how humans ought to live and where do they ground
their actions.
Practical. Ethics influences conduct, and leads life. Its moral principles serve as action-guide to be a
good person. Everyday, humans are confronted with moral dilemmas; they need to develop and live the
discipline of ethics.
Necessity: Morality is necessary to preserve our individual human dignity and to preserve our social life.
Important Points to Consider in Teaching Ethics by Dr. James H. Toner
1. I believe that we human beings knowinnately, naturally, and inherentlythe difference
between good and bad, truth and falsity, right and wrong.
2. To develop leaders, we develop and focus the human potential of our people. So it is,
exactly, with ethics education. None of us, not one, is ever done with ethics education
until the moment of death.
3. The fact that the boss is ethical does not mean that the organization will be a moral
exemplar; and the fact that the boss is corrupt does not mean that everyone in the unit
will be infected with ethical disease.
4. Someone once said that there are two kinds of peoplethose who make simple things
complex and those who make complex things simple. Military ethics is not a simple
matter, which leads to another mistake.
5. The idea that every commander is an ethics teacher is absolutely correct; the idea that
every teacher is thereby a competent classroom instructor is absolutely wrong.
6. Get out of the way and let teachers teach. Monitor, sure; sit in, of course; challenge and
criticize, certainly. But do not substitute approved curriculum for the spontaneity of
lively, creative, dynamic teaching by someone deeply in love with the subject and with an
almost desperate need to explain it to others! We must not fear dynamic teaching, and
the kind of teaching-by-committee so often used in military circles may drive out precisely
the kind of inspired instruction neededespecially in ethics.

Lesson 3

HUMAN ACT. It is the human activity by which human person attains an end he wants to obtain. It
is not the animal or acts of man. Being animal in nature, he has some activities common with
brutes like feeling, hearing, eating, taste and smell. He is not purely human or spiritual. He makes
animal activities, which are called Acts of Man which are not classified as human acts.
QUALITIES OF HUMAN ACTS: QUA-KFV
1. KNOWLEDGE: The act must be deliberate. The agent does it consciously; he knows that he
is doing the act and aware of its consequences, good or evil.
Principle: An agent not conscious of his actions going on is not responsible.
Ex: 4
th
Class Matino K. Minsan who losts his mind breaks the legs
of 3
rd
Class Puro de Kumokopya.
2. FREEDOM: The act must be free. The person who is doing the act must be free from external
force beyond his control, or from any strong influence. Otherwise, the act is not his own. The act
must not be done out of fear.
Principle: An agent without freedom of choice (forced) to act is not responsible.
Ex: Cadet Pedro de Sinungaling maltreats his underclass man
because he is forced by the threats of his 1
st
Class Toto O. Suwail
3. VOLUNTARY: The act must be voluntary. The act is done out of the will and decision of the
agent. The act emanates from the bottom of his heart.
Principle: An agent whose act does not proceed from and depends upon the will is not
responsible.
Ex: Cadet Matutona Integridad who was designated by her fellow
cadets to dance seductively during their program feels that
she was sexually harassed.
FREEDOM AND WILL. Freedom and will are almost synonymous but are different.
Freedom: It is the absence of contriction or the power to be and to act under
free will and choice.
Principle: Freedom is situated or limited by the rights of others or things.
Will: It is mans natural tendency of being attracted (vs. attraction to do)
to what is good and beautiful and to repulse the bad and ugly.
Principle: The will is free if it acts without any pressure from the outside;
free will makes the agent responsible for his act.

HUMAN ACTS AND RESPONSIBILITY/OBLIGATION
Responsibility (personal and social) is an internal quality or ability to respond to a need in a
situation or to a human law recognized by the mind. It is free and voluntary yet morally obligatory to
himself. A moral person feels the obligation that he must do what-ought-to-be-done to the
demand of the situation. His conscience tells him from within that he must do something for the
situation. Gawin mo ang dapat mong gawin. (Do what you ought to do.). But the agent remains
free to do or to refuse the call.
SANCTION: It is any motive consideration, or promise which impels one to follow a moral
obligation for the preservation of law and restoration of moral order. It can be considered as
incentives to keep the law and as deterrent from breaking the law. It is an actual reward or
punishment applied as determined by the authority.
PUNISHEMENT: It is a physical pain or loss of property inflicted upon convicted person and
applied according to the discretion of the court. Its effects are to vindicate the offense, to reform
the offender and to set a lesson for all.
Lesson 4

COMPONENTS OF HUMAN ACTS: CO-MICE
Intention: It is the motive, aim of the act or the end of the agent. It is the active desire for a good
after the intellect has convinced the will that this good should be obtained through personal action.
Principles
1. A good act for a good intention has an added goodness from the intention, and a bad act for a
bad intention has an added badness from the intention;
Ex: A cadet who helps his fellow cadets not only to live a good character
but also for his mission to put into action his faith in God.
2. A good act for a bad intention is wholly bad if the intention is gravely bad or if it is the whole
motive of the act;
Ex: A soldier who protects and gives food to troubled girl with the intention
of having sex with her later.
3. A good intention cannot make a bad act good; and ,
Ex: An ideal military officer steals from PDAFs of the rich congressmen
and distributes whatever he collects to the Yolanda victims.
4. An indifferent act may become good or bad by its intention.
Ex: To study in a military school is an indifferent/amoral/neutral act.
It becomes good if the intention is to serve God and country selflessly,
and bad if the purpose is to enrich the self thru power and connection.

Circumstance. It consists of the conditions, situation or essential parts of the act.
(4Ws and 1 HWho, What, Where, When and How)
Means: It is an act, object, instrument employed to carry out the intent of the act.
Principles
1. Circumstance may increase or diminish the goodness or badness of an action.
Ex: To steal a carabao from a farmer for pulutan is worse than to steal it
from a rich a ranch owner senator.
2. Circumstance may change a good or indifferent act into a punishable one.
Ex: To sleep is an indifferent act but a cadet sleeping at his post
in the barracks and during the class can lead to possible dismissal.
3. Summary: Bonum ex integra causa (The good results from whole perfection); malum ex
quocumque defectu (the evil from any defect).
a. In order to be good, a human act must be perfect according to the MICE.
b. Any deficiency will make a human act bad.
a. A circumstance gravely bad destroys the goodness of and makes bad the whole act.
(Recitation-Apply-give an example: 1 Bonus pt.)
ii. A circumstance slightly bad, which is not the entire morive of a good
act, does not destroy its goodness. (Recitation-Apply-give an example: 1 Bonus pt.)
NB: Goodness is perfection. We cannot be perfect but we can perfect
good action wherein perfection means the degrees of perfection
possible in things.
End: It is the object (about which something is made), substance,
the assumed constant direction, basis, foundation,
or perceived good of an intention of an act.
End vs. Consequence
END (Form) is the perceived good derived from the performance of the act.
CONSEQUENCE (matter) is the outcome, actual conclusion or result of the act. It determines
whether or not the intent of the act was carried out or the end of the act was successfully realized.
CLASSIFICATION/DIVISION OF HUMAN ACTS
Moral or Ethical conforms to a standard or norm of morality.
Ex: helping the poor, taking UE honestly, leading some followers
Immoral or Unethical violates or deviate a standard of morality.
Ex: refusing to help the sick, cheating in training, gossiping
Amoral or Neutral are non-human acts because they are neither good nor bad.
However, depending on the circumstance, they may become human acts.
Ex: Sleeping (Circumstance: in class & during duty) is wrong or unethical.
Classification Of Moral Or Ethical Acts
Elicited Acts emanate from and are completed only in the will (no bodily actions).
Commanded Acts carry out elicited in body and mind of the agent.
Ex: Elicited: Pedro has the will-act of going to the court to play basketball.
Commanded: He walks to the court with the ball in hand to shoot.
Paul Glenns Six Elicited Acts
Wish is the wills natural inclination towards object possible/impossible to realize.
Ex: I wish to become a very good military officer.
Intention is will's tendency towards something attainable but not obligatory.
Ex: I intend to marry my girlfriend because I love her very much.
Consent is the acceptance of the will to implement the agent's intention.
Ex: The tactical officers consents (allows) their cadets to visit their families.
Election is to choose from among a variety of means which is most effective.
Ex: If I go to Zamboanga, I select to go by ship instead of airplane or taxi.
Use is to employ of selected means in carrying out the intention.
Ex: In order to win her love, I should text her and give her flowers everyday.
Fruition is the wills enjoyment for attaining the desired object.
Ex: Having stayed awake in class, I now enjoy my graduation with honors.
Internal Acts refer to the purely mental faculties under the command of the will.
Ex: deliberate imagination to draw pictures, meditation on death
External Acts done by the body (acts of man) as commanded by the will (human).
Ex: running, swimming walking, writing, eating.
Mixed done by both bodily and mental powers.
Ex: shooting an enemy, kicking an opponent, encoding a project

















Lesson 5

End: Good/Bad and Right/Wrong Human Acts
Endtowards which an action tends
Principles:
1. Intentionality of actions or human acts always lead towards an end.
2. The end justifies the means.
3. Extrinsic/intrinsic end is for the sake of something external/internal to the action.
Kinds:
a. Proximatefirst end of which an action is immediately done
b. Intermediatesubordinate end sought for another end
c. Relatively Ultimateultimate end of a series
d. Absolute Ultimatethe crowning or utmost end of all human activity
e. Objective: intrinsic end, purpose, object of action
f. Subjective: extrinsic end, purpose/intention/motive of the agent
3 principles:
a. Every agent that performs an action, acts for the sake of an end or purpose to be
attained.
b. Every agent acts for an ultimate end
c. Every agent has the power of moving for an end which is suitable or good for him.
Every agent acts for a good. St. Thomas
IDEA Infinite end, good, happiness
Summum Bonum (highest good)
Good the end that perfects some faculties
It is that which satisfies the appetite, GUT
the object of our striving,
the thing which can confer perfection MIND
and satisfaction to our powers or faculties. HEART
(It is only with the heart that one can see rightly; what is essential is invisible to the eye.)
Antoine de Saint-Exupry
Happinessthe reality under the name good and end
and behind all human experience.
different ethical theories spouse different happiness
GOOD AND BAD
OR MORAL AND IMMORAL
RIGHT AND WRONG
WHAT OUGHT TO BE WHAT IS PROPER
End-If consequence has/has no practical
benefit to the agent.
End-If consequence has/has no practical benefit
to the majority.
Good vs. bad is about benefit vs. neglect or
harm, and it encompasses a vast continuum of
degrees.(Valuation vs. devaluation)
Right vs. wrong is about justice:
respecting/honoring the rights and entitlements
of another vs. denying or violating them. (Right-
recognize/protection and Wrong-deny/violation)
Good whether intrinsic or extrinsic is refers to
the moral quality of a human act.
Right appertains to the conformity of a given
human act to a moral principle.


Lesson 6

Modifiers of Human Act: MO-FHVIP

Lesson Content

Modifiers of Human Act: MO-FHVIP
Principle 1: The greater the knowledge and freedom,
the greater the voluntariness and moral responsibility.



A. Fear is an emotional response to a known or definite threat.
Ex: Lets say a cadet inside jeepney is travelling a dark street in Manila and the guy beside
him points a gun at him and says, This is a hold up. This would likely elicit a response of
fear. The danger is real, definite and immediate. There is a clear and present object of fear.
Although the focus of the response is different (real vs. imagined danger), fear and anxiety are
interrelated. Fear causes anxiety, and anxiety can cause fear. But, the subtle distinctions
between the two will give you a better understanding of your symptoms and may be important
for treatment strategies. Fear is an actual danger which is associated with a past first or
second hand experience.
Anxiety is a diffuse, unpleasant, vague sense of apprehension (Kaplan and Sadock). It is
often a response to an imprecise or unknown threat.
Ex: Lets say a cadet inside a jeepney is travelling a dark street in Manila and the guy beside
him points a gun at him and says, This is a hold up. He may feel uneasy and perhaps feel
flying butterflies in his stomach. These sensations are caused by anxiety that is related to the
possibility that a stranger may jump out from behind a bush, or approach him in some other
way, and harm him. This anxiety is not the result of a known or specific threat. Rather it
comes from your minds vision of the possible dangers that may result in the situation. Anxiety
is about a future.
a. Act-out-of-fear when one vacates his home due to an imminently coming strong
earthquake, or when one has to kill an enemy to defend himself.
b. Act-in-Fear. When a priest goes to preach Christ's gospel in communist lands, he is acting
in fear.
B. Habit. It refers to repeatable acts of a person done with facility and ease. Repetition or
frequency of the performance of the act does not, in any way, affect the voluntariness of such
act. The agent is fully aware and free in doing the act that is why he remains responsible and
the result of it is imputable to him. Habitual act is a human act because it is voluntary. Good
habits are called virtues; bad habits, vices.
Ex: Habit: Virtue of Temperance
Self-indulgence
Excessive indulgence of one's own
appetites and desires.
Temperance
personal restraint.
Insensibility
Lack of awareness or concern;
indifference.
Application:
Excessive extravagance
or pleasure brought
about by the drill.
Personal restraint in conducting
drills expecially
if it may sacrifice more essential
things.
Lack of awareness or concern on
the good effects of the drill such
as the inculcation of discipline and
orderliness

The degree or intensity of the morality of human acts depends upon the presence of
certain factors that affect the commission or omission of human acts.

C. Violence. It refers to a physical external force inflicted on a person by a free agent for the
purpose of compelling said person to do an act against his will. Some soldiers suffer bodily
or even die because they are forced to reveal information. Enemies of the state are tortured
to forcibly reveal their locations. The act they perform is against their will because if they do
not, violence will be inflicted on them even though the will can exert effort to command the
body to resist violence.
D. Ignorance. It is the lack of knowledge in man of a certain thing expected to have been known
by him. It is ordinarily a negation of knowledge. But intellectual ignorance is more than just a
negation. It also means the presence of what is falsely supposed to be knowledge (Glenn:
26). For example, a plebe violated a CCAFP regulation of maltreatment against his fellow
plebe not deliberately, because he was not fully aware of it. This is lack of knowledge. But
supposedly he knows fully that there is a no maltreatment policy but he thought that such
policy is only applicable only to upper class men. This is called mistake or error or a
positive ignorance because the mistake can be checked.
a. Ignorance in its Object. Relation of ignorance to the knowledge of law,
fact, or corresponding penalty.
i. Ignorance of law is the absence of knowledge one ought to possess.
Ex: A lawyer is expected to be knowledgeable of laws, and as a member of an
organization, he is expected to be aware of the organizations rules.
ii. Ignorance of fact is the ignorance of the nature or circumstances of an act that is
generally forbidden in the community and could have been prevented if it was known.
Ex: In an indigenous community where it is unacceptable to offend or disrespect an
elder regardless of his possible violation or mistake, an army officer humiliates the
elder infront of his people by bull outing him. The community could not accept such
act so that some filed a complaint and other relatives joined the rebels to avenge the
humiliation of their elder. Had the officer knew of such culture, he could have avoided
an unnecessary death threats.
iii. Ignorance of penalty is the lack of knowledge of the sanction imposed by the law to
violators.
Ex: A cadet may not have dared disrespected a faculty civilian had he known that it is a
grave offence with a penalty of discharge from service precisely because of such of
offence is contrary to constitutional mandate as civilian protectors.
b. Ignorance in its Subject. Relation of the ignorance of law, fact, penalty,
etc. to the subject.
i. Vincible Ignorance is one that can easily be overcome through diligence and exertion
of efforts by the subject.
Ex: Ignorance of the law on the militarys non-use of the AFP material resources for
personal/family use can be known by reading the AFP code of Ethics.
ii. Invincible Ignorance is one which the subject concerned cannot possibly overcome due
to lack of means, among other factors.
Ex: The illiterate indigenous people in the remotest Barrio of Patikul, Sulu cannot
overcome their ignorance of the fact that the AFP are the protectors of the Nation who
are in pursuit of bandits and lawless elements such as the MNLF known to them as the
real soldiers. This is due to their disadvantage in resources, development and
education.
c. Ignorance in its Result. Relation of ignorance to the end of the act done.
i. Antecedent Ignorance precedes the consent of the will.
Ex: An American lover lived-in with a Filipina whose community condemns such act as
immoral. His ignorance existed even before courting, he being an American. Had he
known the law, he would have married the woman first so that his love may not be
humiliated.
ii. Concomitant Ignorance. When knowledge is wanting, yet so that the action would be
done if there were knowledge. The agent has some degree of knowledge of the law,
yet he refuses to obey due to an accompanying ignorance.
Ex: A cadet knows that he has to attend the drill, but he is not interested to go because
he is ignorant of the moral values of discipline and patience thereof
An officers knows that he is the protector of human rights but he refuses to respect the
cadets human rights because of the ignorance on the fact that human rights are
inherent and universal.
iii. Consequent Ignorance is affected, if by a direct act, one chooses to remain ignorant, or
crass if the means of acquiring the knowledge necessary to act with propriety are
neglected.
Ex: AffectedAn officers who refuses to know the laws of the
indigenous people just because he is a stranger high ranking military.
CrassThe officer neglects the opportunity to immerse and learn
from the indigenous people language so he could easily educate his
men on how they should behave and relate in order to win their support
and sympathy.
E. Passion or Concupiscence, emotions, affections, feelings, sentiments, desires. It refers to
strong tendencies (appetite) towards either possession of something good or avoidance of
something bad. Some of this are love, hatred, joy, sorrow, desire, anger, horror, anger, hope,
despair, fear, daring, etc. These are amoral or neither good nor bad but changes to moral
once they become human acts (under reason).
a. Passions maybe called good when ordered by the rational will to help man in the practice
of virtue, or in the attainment of what is good.
Ex: The fear of being caught prevents a cadet drink in a bar.
b. Passions maybe called bad when used by the rational will to accomplish anything bad.
Ex: A cadet makes love to another girl only for pleasure but not marriage.
c. Passions may arise spontaneously before the previous judgment of reason and the will
can control the psychological situation.
Ex: When a cadet explodes in anger upon seeing his girlfriend hugging
his mistah but realizing later that his mistah is his girlfriends cousin.




















Lesson 7

MORAL PRINCIPLES: MODIFIES OF THE MORALITY OF HUMAN ACT

Principle 1. Invincible Ignorance makes an act involuntary.
For an act to be voluntary, knowledge and freedom must be present, upon which voluntariness
depends. But if they are lacking; then, the act is involuntary. Therefore, a person cannot be held
morally responsible and accountable for an act done due to ignorance he cannot possibly dispel or
overcome, not of his own negligence or fault but due to impossible means or fate.
Application: A former cadet, for instance, marries a mistah without any knowledge that they are
blood sister and brother. The two cannot be condemned as immoral because they
were totally unaware of their blood relation. They were found separately; one at the
NAIA terminal and the other at the Peoples Park in Davao City some 22 years ago,
the former cadet was adopted by Cruz family and the other, by Santos family.

Principle 2. Vincible Ignorance does not make the act involuntary, but reduces the
voluntariness and accountability.
Vincible ignorance lessens the voluntariness of the act and renders it less human.
It is within the ability of the person to overcome it. If only he exercises effort and diligence, he can
acquire the knowledge. But he does not do it despite the fact that he is aware of his ignorance and
the capacity to subdue it. His awareness makes him responsible; therefore, he is accountable for
the consequence of the act. But the fact of ignorance is still there. So, there must be a
corresponding reduction of the accountability.
Application: A female plebe was a victim of a sexual misconduct but was unable to report the
incident because he was absent during the orientation on the Gray books discipline
and conduct. Besides, she knew that she was just following her squad leader who
had though her not to squeal no matter what.

Principle 3. Affected or Consequent ignorance may reduce or intensify voluntariness.
Affected ignorance has some degree of voluntariness because the agent willfully does not exert
effort to dispel it. The fact that there is ignorance, however, means less voluntariness on the part of
the agent. Refusal or negligence to cast out the ignorance means blame on the agent, at the same
time to be excused accordingly for his ignorance. Ignorance, invincible or vincible, should not be
used as a justification for a bad act done. Prevention is better than cure. Ignorance used as an
excuse is a poor way of justification. Oftentimes, it is a defense mechanism.
Application: An officer violating the human rights of Cadet Cowa Wang is held responsible for his
action because ignorance of human rights is not a difficult problem to solve; you can
just read it from constitutional books and Commission on Human Rights website,
learn from formal education, and discover through reason. He cannot excuse himself
by saying that Human Rights are just propaganda of the rebels.




Principle 4. Antecedent passion diminishes voluntarines.
Passions are not totally rational acts of the intellect because there is no adequate control of the
intellect or will. Antecedent passion occurs as sudden reactions to external stimulants where there
is not much involvement of knowledge and freedom required for voluntariness.
Application: A soldier 1
st
Lt. Sayan K. Nawawa who just came from war and is currently in shock
comes home and intends to surprise her wife whom he has not seen in 5 years.
Upon reaching home, he goes immediately to their bedroom but to his surprise,
founds out her wife naked with another man whom he recognized to be his mistah.
Exploding in anger, he confronts them but the 2 angrily argued with him until he
unconsciously draws his pistol. His mistah, upon noticing such movement, throws
himself and struggles with 1
st
Lt. Nawawa but gets himself killed with 3 bullets. The
crying soldier turns to her wife and fires all the remaining bullets.
Principle 5. Antecedent passion does not eliminate voluntariness.
While antecedent passion diminishes voluntariness, it does not altogether eliminate it. The word
diminish simply means reduction of its quantity or intensity, implying that voluntariness is still present.
The agent is still responsible and accountable, although the imputability (blame) is diminished.
Application: A murder done without pre-meditation (Capt. on mission) is given a lighter
punishment than a pre-meditated one (Gen. on order).
Principle 6. Acts done in fear are voluntary.
An agent performing an act with fear is in full control of his act. The act emanates from himself; he
does it willfully. There is awareness, freedom and voluntariness in the agent. For this reason, he is
responsible and accountable, for the act is truly human. Acting with fear is simply an accompanying
circumstance.
Application: A cadet was found guilty of murdering his fellow cadet because even if he feared his
upper class man who ordered him to do such act, he remains accountable precisely because he
could have disobeyed his upperclassman and endured punishmen for not following unlawful order.
Principle 7. An act done out of great fear is voluntary but is also regularly conditionally
involuntary.
An act can also be regularly involuntary if it is done due to intense fear or out of panic. In this case, the
act loses its quality of being human. Were it not for the intense fear, the agent would not do the act.
Application: A plebe who tortures another plebe admits a crime for fear of same torture or death
by his upper class men.
Principle 8. External acts which are commanded, performed by a person under pending
violence which could be reasonably resisted, are involuntary and, therefore, not imputable
(responsibility is not to be attached).
It is but instinctive for a human person to resist violence being inflicted to him by an aggressor. It is
a moral duty to make resistance. One should not easily surrender without any attempt for self-
defense. If resistance is futile, intrinsic resistance by withholding consent is the last resort.
Application: Young officers, who were ordered by their seniors to distribute cash, few days before the
election, could not be held responsible because they were threatened with rebellion,
discharge from military service, and criminal acts against their families. Nevertheless,
such pending violence could be reasonably resisted but considering the circumstance
where there was massive corruption perpetrated by the highest authorities, it seemed
impossible for them to resist.

Principle 9. An agent is responsible for the effect of his indirect voluntary act.
The Indirect Voluntary Act. There are acts done for certain specific purposes. But acts when
performed can have multiple effects other than those directly intended by the agent.
Ex: A soldier is running in pursuit of a rebel in a crowded park. The rebel is holding his gun ready to
shoot. The soldier submerges the rebel and before he gets fired, he releases his bullet that
kills the culprit. Unknowingly, his bullet passes through the rebel that kills an innocent woman
and injures three more.
Problem: Is the soldier also responsible for the killing of the woman? Did he intend to kill her? Was
he aware that if he shoots the enemy in a crowd, others might be killed, too? Was he
under freedom to refrain from shooting? Did he foresee the bad effects of his act?
Answer: Assuming the soldier intended the killing of the rebel without any intention of killing the
innocent woman, he must have been aware that the bullets from his gun do not select to
kill only the enemy. Besides, the stray bullets in a crowd may kill anybody. He should
have had the prudence and choice to refrain from doing it, aware of and foreseeing the
danger. Hence, the agent is responsible bad effects of his shooting.
Principle 10. The Principle of Double Effect
An act may result to dual effects, one good and the other evil. An agent is allowed to perform such
act but must pass the following:
a. The act must be good in itself or at least neutral.
b. The good effect must be greater than the bad or at least equally important.
c. The act is the only means to attain the good effect.
d. The bad effect must be the last to happen.
e. The agent must be honest in his intention.
Ex: A passenger plane bound for Cebu was on fire. In ten minutes, it would explode. The plane
was flying 30,000 feet high above the earth's surface. A skydiver passenger, 1
st
Lieutenant
Langoyan de Pasisindak, was confronted with two options: to stay in the plane, wait with the
hope for non-explosion; or, to jump down to escape death by explosion. But there are no extra
parachutes to use for him because he shared his to a kid. Even though to jump down could
mean death, he chose to jump down.
Problem: Was 1
st
Lieutenant Langoyan de Pasisindak, morally right in doing the act? Was his
action not a suicide? Did his act pass the last principle?
Answer: He was right because all the requirements of such principle were fulfilled. His hitting the
ground is not suicide. The act is justified; it was heroic. His jumping is to escape death, not to
commit suicide. His priority was to save his life which was good though others see it differently.










Lesson 8

CHARACERISTICS OF MORAL PRINCIPLES

1. Prescriptive- refers to the practical guiding or directing nature of principles which are intended
to advise people on what to do and avoid. It influences action under certain rules of conduct.
Ex: Do not lie, Do not steal, Do not tolerate dishonesty
2. Impartial- means that ethical rules should be neutral regarding its recipient. Moral standards
should apply to everyone regardless of ones status and situation in life and not to advance the
interest of the few or one person. They are granted on the reasons of an Ideal observer, an
Impartial spectator.
3. Overriding means that moral standards must have hegemonic authority or should tower over
all the other standards or norms of evaluation, whatever they may be. They have to be of prime
and ultimate importance.
4. Autonomous from Arbitrary Authority means that moral standards should stand on their
own logic, independent of the arbitrariness of the majority. Something is right or wrong
regardless of what the majority decides or says. We can always challenge on logical grounds
the tyranny of numbers and the tide of public opinion on matters of right and wrong. Thus,
moral rules are not subject to the whims and caprices of those in power.
5. Public- means that moral principles as impartial and of primordial value must be made public if
they are to serve as guidelines to our actions. The principles are made and promulgated to
render advice as well as assign praise or blame to certain behaviors. To keep them from public
is self-defeating. You do not hide something that you really think is genuinely good and noble.
6. Practical mean that moral rules is workable to a reasonable extent and not be impossible to
achieve or else they are but for angels. Standards must not lay a too heavy burden on people.
For what practical use is a norm if it is simply impossible for anyone to follow.
7. Binding - means that the people to whom the morality applies ought to obey their moral
principle. It is incoherent to claim that some rules apply to some group of people, and yet not to
another group of people. This applies to rules of etiquette and manners as well as moral rules.
8. Independent - means that numbers and majority do not decide the rightness and wrongness of
moral principles. Moral principles cannot be made by mere votation. You cannot legislate
morality.
9. Correct means that moral principles provide often correct answers. Despite many
controversies like abortion, euthanasia etc., most people have no trouble using the principles to
distinguish good actions or decisions from bad ones. Disagreement only means the need to
continue talking in order to arrive at certain points of convergence.
10. End means that a moral principle is an end in itself not just means. People ought to live moral
principles because it is what they ought to be.
11. Obligatory means one cannot just decide what moral principles one would like to have.
Whether one likes it or not, morality ought to be done.
12. Reasonable means that moral principles need to be settled through arguments to justify
ones moral views rather than appeal to feelings. One cannot just not believe in a principle.
There must be good reasons to make it worth listening to.
13. Ambiguous means that moral principles are sometimes unclear or ambiguous. This may
explain why a number of individuals argue on certain moral issues without ever reaching
decisions because of being unsure whether they are right or wrong. There are still certain gray
areas that need to be clarified.

Lesson 9

NORMS OF MORALITY: No-LaCoVi

Norms of morality are the standards that indicate the rightfulness or wrongfulness, the goodness or
evilness, the value or disvalue of a thing. Obviously, these are qualities that cannot be measured by any
mechanical device. They are spiritual qualities that appeal only to reason.
Judges in a contest follow a given criteria for deciding the winner. In like manner, for us to decide what
action is good or bad, we need a criteria, a set of principles from which we may deduce a conclusion.
Morality therefore, consists in the relation of a thing with a norm.
a. LAW: It is an ordinance of reason promulgated (officially published) for the common good by one
(competent authority) who has care of the community (St. Thomas). It is more permanent and
universal compared to an ordinance or mandate (not a decisive command for performance or
avoidance), plea or advice (do not demand obedience) and regulation (local ordinance). Reason and
not the whim of any authority is the one that dictates the law. The common good (universal
happiness) is the sum total of benefits derived by individuals from government and nation.
a. Eternal law-is the eternal and absolutely universal plan of God in creating the universe and in
assigning to each creature therein a specific nature. It is the divine reason or will of God that the
natural order of things be preserved and forbidding that is be disturbed. In order to explain
Eternal Law, Saint Thomas Aquinas makes a comparison: just as an artisan conceives a project,
such as a stained glass window, or a ruler conceives a law before executing it, so does God,
before creating something, conceive in His Divine Wisdom the idea that will serve as a model for
the being He wanted to create. And since for God there is no time, He conceived Creation and its
laws from all eternity. This is why we call eternal the laws that Infinite Divine Wisdom conceived.
Accordingly, says Saint Thomas, Eternal law is nothing else than the type of Divine Wisdom, as
directing all actions and movements.
b. Natural law-It is nothing else than the creatures participation (extension or corollary of) in the
eternal law. Natural law imprinted in the human nature and man has the light of reason (practical
judgment) to know it. DO GOOD AND AVOID EVIL. It is unchangeable because mans essential
nature can never be lost as long as man is a man. It enables man to recognize self-evident
principles. By his natural reason, man perceives what is good or bad for him. He preserves his
life, his property; he tends to marry and procreate. At the same time, the fact that he shares the
same nature with all men creates a natural link of fraternity to his fellow men. Thus, man
perceives the goodness of his life, the legitimacy of his property and the sanctity of his marriage;
and he knows that it is bad to kill, to steal someones property or to commit adultery. He also
knows the end of each of his acts and how they must be in accordance with happiness on this
earth and eternal beatitude. As a consequence, he knows it is wrong to transform the means
that help him accomplish an act into the finality of that act. For instance, if he did not take some
pleasure in eating, an act that is fundamental for maintaining his life and health, he would tend to
neglect eating. The same goes for procreation. If some pleasure were not linked to it, it would
also be neglected, thereby causing problems for the perpetuation of the human race. But, if man
transforms pleasure, which is a means that facilitates the abovementioned acts, into an end in
itself, he goes against his own reason that shows it as a disorder. And in doing so he contradicts
natural law and violates the objective norm of morality. As further proof to this point, Saint Paul
taught the Romans that the natural law is inscribed in mans heart.
c. Human Positive Law-(Latin: ius positum) is the term generally used to describe human-made laws
that oblige or specify an action. It also describes the establishment of specific rights for an
individual or group. Etymologically, the name derives from the verb to posit (conceive; assume as
a fact; put forward as a basis of argument). It is distinct from "natural law", which comprises
inherent rights, conferred not by act of legislation but by "God, nature or reason." It is also
described as the law that applies at a certain time (present or past) at a certain place, consisting
of statutory (required, permitted, or enacted by statute) law, and case law as far as it is binding.
More specifically, positive law may be characterized as "law actually and specifically enacted or
adopted by proper authority for the government of an organized jural society. (Wikipedia).
According to St. Thomas, it has four essential propertiesshould be in accord with the divine law
and natural law, promote the common good, and must have universal character. To Kill a
Mockingbird reflects the natural law belief that human beings are sustained and improved by
good positive law. Civilization rests on respect for law because good civil law brings with it the
moral virtues that reflect the natural law. Individuals are capable of good and evil, and the only
real safeguard against the vagaries of human nature is the rule of law. But to be effective, the civil
law must conform to the higher moral law. As countless works of literature have shown us, when
the two are inconsistent, tragedy and chaos result. In To Kill a Mockingbird, Atticus Finch
represents the moral law as that sanctioned by rational thinking and reflected in our constitutional
guarantees of equality, justice, fairness, freedom, and respect for the rule of law. However, there
coexists a travesty of the moral law because of a disjunction between those democratic principles
and the positive law and the social norms of the community in which Atticus lives and works.
Harper Lee introduces her story and its intertwining themes, childhood and the law, with an
epigram from Charles Lamb, Lawyers, I suppose, were children once. Atticus Finch, the
protagonist of To Kill a Mockingbird, is a lawyer, a state legislator, and also a widower who is
rearing his two young children, Jem and Scout, in the small southern town of Maycomb, Alabama.
Scout narrates this memory tale from her vantage point as a mature woman recalling her
childhood. Because of her close relationship with her lawyer father, much of the story revolves
around the lawits intricacies, its formalities, its fascination, and its foibles. Both Jem and Scout
wrestle with the difficult reconciliation of the official law and the unofficial rules that often govern
behavior in their community. The climax of the story is the trial of Tom Robinson, a black man
whom Atticus defends when he is wrongly accused of raping a poor white woman in the rural
south of 1930s.
b. CONSCIENCE: It came from the Latin words cum alia scientia which mean application of knowledge
to a specific individual. It is the practical (doing and omitting) judgment of human reason upon an act
as good, thus permissible and obligatory, or as bad, thus to be avoided and rejected. It considers the
components (MICE) of human acts. It is traditionally known as the inner voice of God telling an
agents moral obligation to do or not to do. Its role is to investigate, to judge (to praise or to
condemn), and to mass sentence on actions. Abraham Maslow believes that people have an inborn
sense of right and wrong.
Kinds of conscience
1. Antecedent conscience It is the mind balancing decision regarding a situation before making any
action. It approves, commands, advices, warns, or permits doing the act.
2. Consequent conscience It is the mind seeing the morality of an action done. It either approves the
act thus promoting a sense of peace, wellbeing, and spiritual joy, or disapproves an act resulting to
feelings of remorse or guilt.
3. Right or True conscience It is the mind making correct judgment on an act that was done. It gives
the correct subjective judgment of how an act is morally good or morally bad corresponding with the
facts of that particular act.
4. Erroneous conscience It is the mind judging good as bad, and bad, good. It is culpable (guilty) if the
agent has no fault like when a child kills because his father soldier kills a rebel. It is inculpable (not
guilty) if the agent is at fault such as when a 1
st
class cadet thinks that cheating is the only way to
pass his finals and eventually to graduate.
5. Certain conscience It is the mind absolutely sure, without a trace of doubt in its judgment, of what is
morally right or wrong in specific issues. The person is 100% convinced backed with moral norms
that an act is either good or bad.
6. Doubtful conscience It is mind undecided whether an action or behavior is good or bad leaving
unsure of what to do or not having any peace of mind after performing a certain action.
7. Scrupulous conscience It is the mind constantly seeing an act to be morally wrong or interpreting a
venial sin to be a mortal sin which results in having feelings of torment and guilt for no good reason.
8. Lax conscience It is the mind denoting something that is lenient or loose. It signifies having a poor
sense of what is morally right or morally wrong. It tends to select the easy way out and make excuses
for mistakes.
9. Timorous or tender conscience It is the mind constantly fearing not only of sinning but for whatever
it is that may cast at the very least a shadow of sin
Education of conscience is very important.
c. VIRTUE: The term "cardinal" comes from the Latin cardo or hinge; the cardinal virtues are the basic
virtues, required for a virtuous life. These were derived initially from Plato's scheme, discussed in
Republic Book IV, 426-435 (and see Protagoras 330b, which also includes piety (hosiotes));
expanded on by Cicero, and adapted by Saint Ambrose, Augustine of Hippo, and Thomas Aquinas
(see Summa Theologica II(I).61).
2. Prudence (, phronsis): also called "wisdom," the ability to judge between actions with
regard to appropriate actions at a given time. It includes assistant virtues such as practical
memory and understanding, docility, ingenuity, foresight, circumspection and caution.
3. Justice (, dikaiosyn): also called "fairness," the perpetual and constant will of
rendering to each one his right.
4. Temperance (, sphrosyn): also called "restraint," the practice of self-control,
abstention, and moderation; tempering the appetition (power of desire); and chastity.
5. Courage (, andreia): also called "fortitude," forbearance, strength, endurance, and the
ability to confront fear, uncertainty, and intimidation. Courage is either with pride that does not
accept failures and limitation resulting to suicide or with humility that accepts failures thereby
facing the danger completely. It can be active or passive.


































Lesson 11

Fundamental Concepts of Ethical Theories



UNIVERSALISM VS. NIHILISM

Moral Universalism: The position that some systems of ethics apply to all actions and individuals
anywhere at anytime. It is for all existing individuals, regardless of age, culture, race, gender, religion,
nationality, preference, or other distinguishing features. A universalist judges all actions against a single
standard to determine whether an action is right or wrong, or which of the two actions is better. A
universal is the singular property or feature of an object which can exist simultaneously in two places in the
same space-time continuum. For instance, the blackness of an object exists independently of the object
itself in different locations or other things. Universalism is opposed to moral nihilism and moral relativism.
Moral Nihilism: It basically says that there is no such thing as morality. It might say that what looks like
moral judgments are just expressions of human feelings. It says that not only is moral knowledge
impossible, but that nothing is inherently moral. It is also called amorality in which there is no absolute
basis for right and wrong. A person or culture's ethical rules are entirely artificial, created to keep a society
run well. Moral nihilists consider morality to be constructed, a complex set of rules and recommendations
that may give a psychological, social, or economical advantage to its adherents, but is otherwise without
universal or even relative truth in any sense. For example, a moral nihilist would say that killing someone,
for whatever reason, is neither inherently right nor inherently wrong.


UNIVERSALISM VS. PLURALISM

Moral Pluralism: It is the idea that there are many theories about what is right and wrong (moral norms)
which may be equally correct and fundamental, and yet in conflict, incompatible with others and/or
incommensurable because there is no objective ordering of them in terms of importance. Ethical pluralism is
also known as value or moral pluralism. It is related but not identical to the concepts of moral relativism
(there exist many moral theories and there is no objective standard by which they may be judged) and
cultural relativism (that norms, values, and practices may be understood as sensible within their respective
cultural contexts).

ABSOLUTISM VS. RELATIVISM

Moral Absolutism: It is the undeviating moral discipline. Nothing is relative; a crime is a crime, regardless
of circumstances. Is it ok to kill someone without reason? Obviously both ethical standpoints would say no.
Assuming that the murderer is a doctor who could kill one patient to save another. In this case both ethical
groups still say no. Once we keep with this situation and move to the more extreme case of killing one to
save a million people, or perhaps all of humanity. This is when the ethical relativist will feel that it is ok to kill,
however, for the ethical absolutist this is still wrong.
Moral Relativism: This is basically the opposite of universalism, but still allowing for moral judgments. A
moral relativist for example would accept that in a society of cannibals killing might be morally right. Or
accepting morality based purely on individual beliefs. Moral relativism is then the position that multiple valid
systems of ethics exist against which actions can be compared. A moral relativist sees no conflict in the
existence of ethical systems other than their own. Different cultures and individuals have different
standards of right and wrong. Moral standards also change over time in the same culture. For example,
slavery was considered moral in the United States at one time but not anymore. Moral relativists argue that
there is no known universal rule that defines right and wrong. Instead, morality is determined by the
standards of a person's own authorities. These authorities might be a government, a religion or even a
family member.


SUBJECTIVISM VS. OBJECTIVISM

Moral Subjectivism: Moral judgments describe how we feel and moral principles follow the subjects
feelings. There are no objective moral properties and that ethical statements are in fact arbitrary because
they do not express immutable truths. Instead, moral statements are made true or false by the attitudes
and/or conventions of the observers, and any ethical sentence just implies an attitude, opinion, personal
preference or feeling held by someone. Thus, for a statement to be considered morally right merely means
that it is met with approval by the person of interest. Another way of looking at this is that judgments about
human conduct are shaped by, and in many ways limited to, perception.
Moral objectivism. The truth value of a given moral proposition is determined by objective facts about the
world (reality) and is independent of subjective opinion. In other words, there are correct answers to moral
questions that do not depend on any persons opinion of the matter.


REALISM VS. IDEALISM

Moral Idealism. It upholds that all of the opinion about the world, and everything in it, is but a creation of
our minds and there is no objective reality. It is to believe that all people are to adhere to the same
standards as everyone else in a group, society, or globally. It focuses on what is 'right' to do (e.g., anti-
slavery stance). It tends to avoid compromises and deals with absolutes. In the epistemological sense this
means that one cannot know the existence of things beyond the realm of the intellect. Conscious
experience in the now is supposed to be known directly or intuitively, it cannot be explained, and is self-
evident and is enough to provide an ultimate theory regarding how we ascertain truth.
Moral realism. It is the doctrine that moral judgments, when correct, refer to something that is objective,
independent of our opinions, that exists, in some sense, external to human thought. It is a belief that moral
facts support many of our moral judgments. It postulates that reality exists independently with human
perception and is not dependent on observers to define its objective boundaries. It focuses on what may be
accomplished thru negotiations (e.g., do you ignore human rights violations and try to use trade to influence
their policies). It tends to avoid absolutes and concentrate on compromises.