Part I.

PHILOSOPHY
(Introduction)

I. Definition of Philosophy (Bittle 3-12; Joyce 1-8, Gansewinkle 9-10)

a) (Nominal definition) - The word Philosophy is derived from the Greek words, philos =
lover or friend; and Sophia = wisdom or knowledge. Therefore Philosophy is the love
of wisdom.

b) (Real definition): PHILOSOPHY is the science of the ultimate reasons of beings, as

acquired by the aid of the human intellect alone.

Explanation:

a) Philosophy as science- it is based on certain knowledge derived from reasoned

demonstration of causes and reduced to a system.

b) Philosophy as science of the ultimate reasons of Beings – it is a quest not only

for the proximate causes of all things but most of all, for their final causes.
Being as a material term is the present participle of the verb to be (latin: Esse).
Hence, Being is anything that is at present or anything that exists.. The word
Esse has been adopted in English and modified to “essence” which means,
“whatness of the thing”. Therefore Being refers to anything existing with
something else in a class or kind of things. However, aside from those Beings,
which already are or already in act (Ens in Actum), there are Beings, which
have not yet reached their perfection – meaning, they are yet in the process of
becoming. These beings are called Beings in potency (Ens in Potentiam). To
illustrate, a chicken’s egg is the potency of a chicken. Therefore, it will only
reach the perfection of its existence when it soon becomes a chicken. An egg
therefore is an example of a being that may exist. There are also Beings, which
exist but not in reality (Latin: Res; Eng: Thing). They can however be perceived
by the mind. For example, spirit. Such is called being, which is knowable.
Therefore, Being may be defined as anything that exists; that may exist; or
anything knowable by the thinking intellect. The scope of Being proves that
Philosophy is the “mother of all sciences”.

c) By the aid of Human Intellect alone - finally, philosophy is the science of things
by their ultimate causes and principles as known by natural reason alone =
philosophy does not base its knowledge on authority but solely on the reasoning
power of the human mind.

II. Importance of Philosophy

 a. Philosophy is the unification and systematization of all-important knowledge within the
domain of reason.

b. It enables one to differentiate truth from error in the midst of conflicting and confusing
opinion.

c. By the principles of true philosophy, one can become a better character and a greater
human being.

III. Material Object and Formal Object of Philosophy

The material object of philosophy is all beings in the widest sense of the term; its
formal object is all beings in its ultimate reasons, causes, and principles, studied in the light
of human reason alone.

IV. Branches of Philosophy

A. General Philosophies

1. General Metaphysics – the philosophy of all being whether within or outside the realm
of nature.

2. Ontology – the philosophy of ontological realities or beings outside the realm of nature.
Theories of existence e.g. big bang theory

3. Aesthetics – the philosophy of beauty.

4. Cosmology – the philosophy of the universe and inorganic beings.

5. Theodicy – the philosophical study on the existence of the Supernatural Being or God.

B. Philosophies in particular relation to the Human Person

1. Rational Psychology – the study of the rational soul as the principle of human life.

2. Anthropology (Social Philosophy) – the study of the social nature of the human person.

3. Philosophy of the Human Person – the study of the mysteries of the Human Person.

4. Logic – the science of those principles, methods and laws which the mind must follow
for a secure and accurate attainment of truth.

5. Epistemology – the science of the validity of human knowledge because only if we are
sure that we can attain truth will philosophy rest upon a solid basis.

6. Ethics – the science of the morality of human conduct.

V. Nature of Philosophy

“…philosophy is a battle against the bewitchment of our intelligence” (Ludwig

Wittgenstein, Philosophical Investigation, I, 109)

The term philosophy is ambiguous. It carries with it a variety of definitions since it

is the oldest intellectual discipline that has survived with minor modifications of problems,
methods and styles up to contemporary times. In ancient Greek, philosopher Pythagoras
(571-497 B.C.) was documented to have been the first to use the term philosophy. It is
nominally derived from two Greek words philos, which means loving, and Sophia, which
means wisdom. Plato (428-348 B.C.), another Greek philosopher defined philosophy as
“the study of the true, the good and the beautiful”.

From the time of the Greek philosophers down to the present, there were numerous
definitions of the term “philosophy” yet none has gained universal acceptance among the
advocates. One reason for this is that a proposed definition is often limited to the special
interest of the philosopher who offers the definition. Sometimes a definition is too narrow
like the proposal that philosophy is the logical analysis of language and the clarification
of meaning and concepts. If a definition is too narrow, the danger is it would exclude from
the discipline of philosophy many important philosophical areas. At other times, a
definition is too broad like, philosophy is an attempt to get at the general nature of the
universe. If a definition is too broad, it becomes uninformative for it gives no specific
information about the discipline. There were even attempts to define philosophical terms
of its methods, thus we have the definition that philosophy is the method of reflective
thinking and reasoned inquiry. What seems to be the amiss here is that this method is not
and should not be the monopoly of the philosophers for it is needed in all respectable
disciplines. The teacher who will teach this course will probably have his own insight into
what philosophy is. So it is but prudent to leave that matter to him to discuss the term
philosophy as he pleases. After all, a good disciple of philosophy believes in the analogy
of the square table where each person sitting at each side of the table is entitled to what he
sees on his side, and has no right to judge what he does not see on the other sides.

On our side, we see philosophy as a discipline that deals with clusters of issues and
problems. These problems, generally, are not covered nor discussed in any intellectual
discipline. What distinguishes philosophy and other disciplines are the problems it handles.
Some of these problems have ancient origin, like the problem whether or not man is free,
or the problem of what is real; some are quite contemporary like the problem of theoretical
terms. In fact, the subdivision of the branches of philosophy into Ethics, Metaphysics,
Epistemology, Philosophy of Language, Philosophy of Science, etc. can only be effected
because problems in philosophy tend to cluster and each cluster is differentiated from the
other, although it is quite possible to show the interconnection of these different clusters.
However, the subdivision serves important pedagogical purpose. Thus, the best technique
for discovering what philosophy is all about would be to absorb oneself in the study of
typical problems characterized by philosophy. But if you follow this advice and hope to
 find solutions to these typical problems, you will be disappointed because what you will
discover are philosophical controversies and not solutions. The great Bertrand Russell
ended his small but very influential book Problems in Philosophy by the following
remarks:

“Philosophy is to be studied not for the sake of any definite answer to

its questions, since no definite answer can, as a rule, be known to be
true but rather for the sake of the questions themselves, because these
questions enlarge our conception of what is possible, enrich our
intellectual imagination and diminish the dogmatic assurance which
closes the mind against speculations; but above all through the
greatness of the universe which philosophy contemplates, the mind is
also rendered great, and becomes capable of that union with the
universe which constitute the highest good.”

A philosophical problem often generates a controversy. A philosophical controversy

emerges when one group of philosophers take a stand, proposes a solution to a philosophical
problem, defends the solution with arguments, and then another group of philosophers take
a different stand, proposes a different solution to the same problem and defends the solution
with arguments. The philosophical controversy generates a paradox when the arguments of
two groups are úequally plausible yet they have conflicting philosophical solutions. How
does one eliminate a philosophical paradox? Unfortunately, unlike perhaps in other
disciplines, there is no standard way of doing so.

Progress in philosophy, if it can be called such, goes through the dialectical process
of proposals and counter proposals, arguments and counter arguments.

Thus, we believe that the best technique of teaching and learning philosophy would
be in the context of intellectual openness where all the conceptual arsenals of philosophy
are fully deployed by the professor in defending his convictions and clarifying the confused.
VI. The dual perspective of philosophy

Philosophy may be conceptualized in two perspectives: first, as a way of life; and

second as a vehicle towards truth.

I. As a View of Life, philosophy is conceived as an established pattern of living that

people tend to follow. So we ask ourselves the question, “what is my philosophy in
life?” and we think that our answer is unique but actually not, since it is after all
patterned after a common belief on the way life should be lived, thus, “I believe that
life should be simple” or that “it is impossible to live with nothing”, or “to live is
enough”. These beliefs are actually based upon two views of life, which divide
humanity, the Western, and the Oriental views. Western Philosophy is a philosophy
of Being. This means that a westerner believes that to exist is “to be”, or “to have”,
or “something” or to be complex. On the other hand, Oriental Philosophy is a
Philosophy of Simplicity and Nothingness. This can be seen on the way an Asian or
Oriental values a simple life. And on the basis of religion, the westerners’ intimacy
 with materialism is so intense that even metaphysical realities are conceived to be
extensions of matter, such as the concept of Heaven, Purgatory and Hell. Or
conceptualizing God more as a person and less as a spirit, as in the thought that God
is a male, bearded old man. The Orientals have a metaphysics extremely different
from that of the Westerners. For instance, Buddhism teaches that beyond this
material existence is Nothing (Nirvana), while to Taoism to live in simplicity (wu
wei) is a virtue. Both are ideals to the Orientals. Even Christianity, which originated
in the Orient and later was adopted by the West, advocates the philosophy of
simplicity.

II. As a Vehicle towards Truth, philosophy is always associated with reasoning or

thinking. The ultimate satisfaction of our mind is the achievement of truth. We will
not stop asking and pursuing the answers to the questions that bother us every day
until we arrived at the truth. Great thinkers since the ancient civilization used
philosophy to answer the questions about life and existence. They have opted for
philosophy since it is independent of facts physical evidences, which if our mind
would rely on, are limited. Physical evidences for instance cannot prove the truth
about God. If we rely on such proofs we will end up concluding that there is no God.
But would our mind be satisfied then?

As mentioned earlier, Philosophy comes from the Greek word Philos (love of) and
Sophia (wisdom). Initially, wisdom meant possession of one or more practical skills, such
as those of ruling, healing or exorcism, surveying, tool making, weaving, housekeeping,
etc., for this was how Pythagoras (571-497 B.C.) understood it in his time. To Heraclitus
(540-475 BC), who said, “it is not possible to step into the same river twice”, wisdom meant
knowledge that all things are one, that is, wisdom is not the same as knowledge which is
derived from the senses. Plato (428-348 B.C.) identified wisdom with knowledge as a
whole, while Aristotle (384-322 B.C.) thought of it as knowledge of the first causes or
principles of things. Those who loved wisdom did not want to claim that they already
possessed wisdom and continued their search for it.

There is no common definition of philosophy because its practitioners tend to define

according to their own fields of interests. However, the following seemed to be widely
recognized as some of its characteristics.

1) It is concerned with the clarification of concepts by continuously asking the question

regarding the use of the terms; it is the “stubborn effort to think clearly”, (William
James).
2) It is the discipline endeavored to know what lies beyond that which has been
discovered already and to know why something exist and why it is what it is; it asks
the question that led science to find answers and, once science finds the answers it
proceeds to ask questions.
3) It proceeds not by unsupported declarations or by an appeal to supernatural
revelations nor by mere experimentation or observations but by critical reflections
upon human experiences in its widest scope, taking into account the results of the
 investigation being carried on in by the sciences and humanities, and by arguments
based on evidence and common sense.
4) It is not contented with a fragmented view of reality or with the mere accumulation
of facts but seeks to recognize and integrate all available data from all areas where
empirical investigations are being carried out into a coherent and comprehensive
vision of reality.
5) It is concerned with the application of the best available knowledge to the right
conduct of life in society, and whereas philosophers merely contemplated on the
world, the task of philosophy is to transform it (Karl Marx).

@@@

POINTS FOR DISCUSSION

1. Discuss the Real Definition of Philosophy.

- PHILOSOPHY is the science of the ultimate reasons of beings, as acquired by the
aid of the human intellect alone.
2. Define Being and discuss the extension of Being. - Being is anything that is at present or
anything that exists.. Beings, which already are or already in act (Ens in Actum), there
are Beings, which have not yet reached their perfection – meaning, they are yet in the
process of becoming. These beings are called Beings in potency (Ens in Potentiam).
There are also Beings, which exist but not in reality (Latin: Res; Eng: Thing).
3. What is the importance of Philosophy to the human nature? The importance of
philosophy in human nature is the

4. Define briefly and discuss the branches of Philosophy.

5. Distinguish Philosophy as a way of life and as a vehicle towards truth.

CHAPTER II

ETHICS AND MORALITY:

ETHICS: THE PHILOSOPHY OF CORRECT DOING and
MORALITY: THE QUALITY OF RIGHT LIVING

Index

1. The Etymological meaning of Ethics

2. The Importance of Ethics
3. Definition of Ethics
4. The Relationship of Ethics and Morality
5. The Concept of Morality
6. The Synonymic Significance of Ethics and Morality
7. The Participation of Human beings in Moral reasoning according to St. Thomas Aquinas
8. Ethics in Relation to other Sciences
Ethics and Anthropology
Ethics and Psychology
Ethics and Sociology
Ethics and Economics
Ethics and Politics
Ethics and Medicine
Ethics and Profession
Ethics and Business
9. Sources of Ethics
10. Basis of Ethics
11. Basis of Morality

☼☼☼

1. The Etymological meaning of Ethics

The word Ethics comes from the greek word “éthos” (with epsilon) and “ệthos” (with the
typical “eta”in greek). The “éthos” with epsilon signifies “customs or the right customs for the
good of the I.” 1It has reference to the general conduct of the people for the people. It is also a type
of conduct used as communal custom and habit.

The “èthos” with the typical “eta” concept in greek signifies “individual character” or
“the habitual mode of being as an individual.” It has reference to personality character and
conduct. It is also a quality that distinguishes one being from the other in terms of conduct and
habit.2

In this aspect, ethics is affirmed by the philosopher Zeno of Citium from the Stoic school
of thought. He affirmed that ethics “is the basis of intention or motives that creates a particular
reason why a human act is performed.”3

2. The Importance of Ethics

1) It is the object of morality and the human act.-When it is said morality, it literally means
the ability of an individual to act morally or to have that capacity to be moral in ones
action as a person. It gives a very important emphasis on the human act itself and
distinguishes it from the acts of man.
2) It studies the moral goodness of an act.-This means that ethics is after for the good and
instruct “the-how-to-do” the good and avoid any form of evil. It also focus on the good
of its intention, the good of its action and finally the good of its result in the manner of
acting with the intention in it.
3) It also determines what is good and actualizes the science of Morality.-It helps to know
when is the person does good or evil. The causes and proximate reasons why a person
does evil. How did it intends and in what manner it expresses its action either good or
evil.

3. Definition of Ethics

Ethics comes from the Latin word “ethicus” meaning ”conduct” or ”character.” It is
defined as the science of the morality of human conduct. It can be defined also as the science
of correct doing. Others defined it as a science of and for the right living. It is a science because
it is a body of knowledge with guiding principles. It is morality because there are norms and rules
of life founded by natural law and the divine law. And it is a human conduct because it involves
deliberate freewill and voluntariness.

4. The Relationship of Ethics and Morality

Ethics is the formal study of the standards of right conduct. It is a scientific study of
manners by which man of his natural inclination, transcends an act. Morality, however, is the

1
Cfr. Aurelio Fernandez, Teologia Moral; Moral Fundamental,Tomo I, (Burgos:Edeciones Aldeoa,1995),p.49.
2
Ibid.,p.49.
3
Citado por ESTOBEO, Eclogarum physicarum libri II, II,7. En los escritos mas antiguos de la literature griega, la
conducta moral procede no tanto de unas normas cuanto del ethos que viven los heroes; es decir, son “ethicas” las
acciones de estos hombres singulars que merecen elogio por cuanto son dignas del hombre. Los heroes complen esta
primera teoría éthica que formula Aristóteles: “Somos lo que hacemos” (We are what we are doing). ARESTOTLE,
Etica a Nicómaco II, 1103b 26-28.
quality of goodness or badness in a human act. In other words, it is the capacity or ability of one
person to live what is moral. If a person will act good it is called moral. If contrary to the good, it
is called immoral.

5. The Concept of Morality

The word morality or moral(science of character and customs)originated from the Latin
word “mos”,”moris”, which means as “customs”or“natural inclination to do something.” It is
the totality of customs, beliefs, values and norms of a person or social groups. It also determined
to exercise an obligation to do something either good or bad.

6. The Synonymic Significance of Ethics and Morality

Being ethical is not the same as being moral. A person can be ethical because he has
mastered the science of Ethics. But to be moral is to apply this science especially its principles into
one’s life. In like manner with religiosity, it is not morality. A person can be religious but not
necessarily moral in its conduct.
Ethics and Morality study the principles that direct the individual conscience in searching,
choosing and doing the good. According to St. Thomas Aquinas “The object of Moral
Philosophy is the human act directed to an end, or in man is the same, he freely and
voluntarily act for an end.”4

Morality Ethics
Particular Principles General principles
By region in its scope Unique and universal in its scope
Eternal in nature External in nature
Internal in dimension External in dimension
Non-philosophical Philosophical

7. The Participation of Human beings in Moral reasoning according to St. Thomas Aquinas

For Thomas Aquinas and the scholastics, this participation is the beginning of moral
reasoning in a person especially when the person reaches the “age of reason.” Here, he acquires

4
Thomas Aquinas, “Subjectum moralis philosophiae est operatio humana ordinata in finem, vel etiam homo prout
est voluntarie agens propter finem”. In X libr Eth ad Nic,l. I, lect. 1.
the basic understanding of the difference between right and wrong. According to Aquinas, the
moral sense in man is manifested and expressed in three different ways;

1. Man is able to distinguish or know what is good and what is bad. Of all creatures, only
man has the capacity to know the difference between a good and a bad action.

2. Man is always obligated to do good and avoid evil. In any given circumstance, man is
the only creature who feels the primary duty to do what is good and avoid what is evil.

3. Man knows that he is accountable for his actions either good or bad. Of all creatures,
only man realizes that the performance of an action that entails rewards or punishments. If
he does a good action he expects rewards. If he does evil action he expects punishments.5

8. Ethics in Relation to other Sciences

Ethics and Anthropology

Anthropology is a speculative science while ethics is a practical science. Both have equal
importance and I knowledge. Hence, ethics should not be taken as inferior science with the any
other forms of anthropological ideas. They are fundamental sciences united in one being in man’s
existence. Ethics studies the conduct of man while anthropology assumes responsibility in this
man. In this manner, anthropology and ethics unitedly and directly stand together in one subject-
man himself. This is founded on the principle that “Whatever kind of ethics that is accepted and
is known, is the kind of idea and man that we have.”6

Ethics and Psychology

Every human action depends on the manner of its individual disposition. Ethics and
Psychology distinguishes only in its formal object. Psychology studies the behavior of man while
ethics studies its human act. It also studies the human faculty and behavior. Ethics, however, as a
regulative science judges this behavior. All constituting ethical elements like conscience, freedom,
responsibility and temperance, etc. in human behavior which directs psychology into a moral
value.

Ethics and Sociology

Sociology is a speculative science while ethics is a practical science. Sociology treats social
realities but not on the regular norms that rules. In this sense, sociology in some part is subject to

5
Ramon B. Agapay, Ethics and the Filipino (Mandaluyong City: National Bookstore, Inc. (1991)p.1.
6
M. Vidal, Retos morales en la sociedad y en la iglesia. Ed. Verbo Divino. Estella 1992, 121-157.
ethics called social ethics. Hence, sociology and its social principles are subject to the
transcendental norms of ethics.

Ethics and Economics

Economics deals on the study of determined norms that rules over the economic
development. It studies the economic situations and proposes norms of action. Ethics with its moral
norms also orient and direct the economic conduct and behavior.

Ethics and Politics

Politics deals on human dignity and its social condition. Ethics, however, continually focus
on the diverse political programs and some principles that speak about the moral life of the people.
It gives the right solution of the different social problems, political and economic, which most of
the time complicated and manifold.

Ethics and Medicine

Ethics, in front of medicine, deals on the moral responsibility in the medical practice. It
focuses questions in licit medical practice. It gives value on the dignity of every sick patient and
those who need medical attention. It enlightens certain questions regarding conjugal relationships,
etc. It also elucidates some related questions pertaining to the sixth commandment.

Ethics and Profession

Profession essentially deals on its proper transcendental activity in serving the work place
and the common good. It deals on the social character that entails much on having a responsibility
to a social organization. Ethics establishes a guide and principles to maintain the spirit of service
and respect of human dignity.

Ethics and Business

Ethics in business regulates the human natural activity of buying, selling and producing
something that capture the needs and wants of the people. It also deals the moral responsibility of
business activity of the human society that involves the production, marketing, selling and buying.
Ethics enlightens the worker and the corporate owners certain issues regarding their
relationship in the workplace.

9. Sources of Ethics

1. Human Reason-This is because the human mind can be enlightened by divine enlightenment. In
so far as that mind is divinely enlightened it can be a source of good ethical conduct. But if it is
contrary human reason cannot be a good source of Ethics. Human reasoning is incomplete. It has
to be completed by divine enlightenment.

2. Human experience in general-General experiences of divine inspiration can be a good source of

Ethics. This is because it transcends from being ordinary to become extraordinary. It is the divine
participation working in an ordinary experience according to man in its standard but extraordinary
in the eyes of the divine standard. If such human experience is referred to as the subjective and
personal experience, it is not also a good source of Ethics. Furthermore, it is taken only as man
made in general term.

3. Personal Experiences and Experiences of others-Experiences of personal nature and of others

must also be divinely inspired. Any outside experience of such nature cannot be a good source of
Ethics. A personal experience and experiences of others can be erroneous and such nature is
incomplete. However, if it is of the divine inspiration it becomes complete.

10. Basis of Ethics

The science of correct doing is based upon the acceptance of the following truths. In
accepting these truths it shows that ethics is capable of proving facts from other sciences.
Engineering accepts mathematics; medicine accepts biology. In like manner, ethics accepts these
fundamental truths.7

1.) The truth that God exist and this God is just.-This is a fundamental truth of faith that states “A
faith that believes.” If the person has no faith in ethics, it cannot affirm and believe the fundamental
truths of it. It is a basic step that faith must be the first to achieve in order to believe things that are
transcendental-the concept of the Good, the Truth and the Beautiful. These are the tenets of Justice.

2) The veracity that the human reason is after for the truth and once it knows the truth it hastens to
do- This means to say man was given a power of his mind to know the truth and live by the truth
and even die for the sake of the truth. If every man only knows the truth there is no evil committed.
Since man is clouded by his ignorance and innocence, he becomes a victim of it.

3) The truth that good life is meritorious in the life hereafter and bad life/evil life is punished in
the life hereafter-If doing good is just the same as doing evil, it diminishes the normal balance of
natural law. It is by natural law that doing the contrary to what is good harms people. But living
the good nourishes people and find life happy and worth living. Since many has been fulfilled and
contented then others share this and find life rewarding all the more.

4) The truth that man has an immortal soul and this soul has intellect and will-The faculty of the
soul is the intellect and will. That is why even if man is dead, he can still go to the place where he
wants to go and recognizes the people whom his intellect has represented.

5) The truth that human will is after for the good in things, person and place.-It is a will freely
capable of choosing and doing good or evil. It is clear that man chooses something because he
believes that there is something good that will happen next. It appears before his eyes and mind
7
Reynaldo A. Padilla. Ethics for Nursing (Quezon City: Rex Printing Company, Inc.,1993) .pp.5-6.
that such is good for himself yet in reality afterwards some that seems to be good is not good in
reality at all.

6) The truth that to do good and avoid evil is the moral standard of living-man by his very nature
is after for the good and avoid any situation that will harm his life at the moment or later on.

7) The truth that an act is good when it conforms to the right reason and is evil when it does not
conform to the right reason.8 This means to say that the right reason of things is for the right reason
of ones living.

11. Basis of Morality

i) Good action- this is the end and the purpose of life. All good action is directed to the
“Summum Bonum” or the “Greatest Good.” (Mark 10:18) which every now and then invites
everyone to do good and avoid evil in every palace, in everything and with every person.

ii) The Divine will- that is doing and living the commandments which is the golden rule of life
and action

iii) Fulfillment of the Commandments- that it is not enough that a person knows the natural and
divine law but be transformed as to what is good and well-pleasing not only for himself but in all
things and in all the world specially with others.

Sources, Readings and Bibliography:

Agapay, Ramon B. 1991. Ethics and the Filipino. Mandaluyong City: National Bookstore, Inc.

Cruz, Corazon L. 1995. Contemporary Ethics. Manila, Philippines: National Bookstore, Inc.

Padilla, Reynaldo A. 1993. Ethics for Nursing. Quezon City: Rex Printing Company, Inc
.
Peschke, Henry C. 1982. Christian Ethics. Manila: Catholic Trade.

8
Cfr. Ibid.
 CHAPTER III

THE MORALITY OF HUMAN ACTS:

WHEN WILL I KNOW THAT
WHAT I AM DOING IS MORAL OR IMMORAL?

Index

1. Elements in Determining Morality

2. The Intention must be good
3. The Act itself or action must be good
4. The Result or circumstances must be good.
5. The Criterion of Recognizing an immoral Act

☼☼☼

1. Elements in Determining Morality

In order to know that certain act is moral or immoral, it is important to discern the “I,A.R
principle.” The I represent the intention. The A is action or the manner of expression of one’s
act and the R denotes the result or circumstances after the execution of an act.
To qualify such act is moral each aspect must be good. To have one that is evil or not good
among the three of its aspect will constitute to an immoral act.

I = intention must be Good*

A = action/the act itself or the manner of expression of the act must be Good*
R = result of the intention and the action/ circumstances of the act must be Good*
-------------
Moral action/good act or morally good action

*If one of which is bad or evil, it causes to exist immoral act.

2. The Intention must be good

This means to say that a person in his very intention, from the things he wants to acquire
and achieve, must be of good intention. It is much on the good “whys” and “hows” he intends to
have that thing. In going to places he wants to go, it is also important to be sure that it is a good
place. Furthermore, the person has to consider to be sure that the person inviting and any other
party invited, everyone have the good intention in their togetherness.

3. The Act itself or action must be good

This refers to the good manner of acting regarding that thing intended. If such things create
an immoral act, it is better to avoid it. The person becomes good because he is not only fun of
doing good. It is because by himself, he is good in nature manifested in his actions. The act must
be good in dealing with others and behave well on the places he is to live especially with others.

4. The Result or circumstances must be good.

This affects the product of both the good intention and good action. It considers the idea
that the things, persons and places involved will result a good effect. The circumstances that
manifest is a kind of perpetual goodness and not momentary.

5. The Criterion of Recognizing an immoral Act

The act is considered immoral if one of the three elements has evil. If the intention is by
nature evil even if the manner of acting is good and the circumstances is on the situation that is
good and enjoyable such ct is still considered immoral. On the other hand, even if the intention is
good by nature yet the manner of acting has an element of evil expression with the hope that good
result will happen eventually in the future circumstances such action is considered immoral. It is
because of the evil occurrence in the manner of acting. If a human act had resulted an evil effect
even there was a good intention and manner of acting still it is considered an immoral action.

Here are the outline of the immoral expression of ones action for determining and
recognizing that such conditions are immoral in nature:

a. The intention is bad or evil + The action is good/good manner of acting + There is a good
result in circumstances = Immoral act.

b. The intention is good + The action is evil/ the evil manner of acting + There is a good result
in circumstances = Immoral act.

c. The intention is neutral + The action is good/ the good manner of acting + There is an evil
result in circumstances = Immoral act.

d. The intention is good + The action is neutral/ the neutral manner of acting + There is an
evil result in circumstances = Immoral act.

e. The intention is evil + The action is evil/not good in the manner of acting + There is an evil
result in circumstances = Immoral act.

Sources, Readings and Bibliography

Agapay, Ramon B. 1991. Ethics and the Filipino. Mandaluyong City: National Bookstore, Inc.

Cruz, Corazon L. 1995. Contemporary Ethics. Manila, Philippines: National Bookstore, Inc.

Fernandez, Aurelio, 1995. Theologia Moral Tom. I Moral Fundamental. Burgos: Ediciones
Aldecoa.
Lexico Filosofico, Rialp, Madrid 1984.

Marin, Antonio Royo, 1996. Teologia Moral Para Seglares Tom.I Moral Fundamental y Especial.
Madrid: Biblioteca de Autores Cristianos.

Peschke, Henry C. 1982. Christian Ethics. Manila: Catholic Trade.

Reich, Warren T. 1998. The Ethics of Sex and Genetics. U.S.A.: Macmillan Reference
 CHAPTER IV

HUMAN ACTS AND ACTS OF MAN

Index

1. The Nature of Human Acts

2. The Human Act in Itself
3. The Different Natural acts
a.) Acts of man
b.) Violent acts
c.) Human actions
d.) Natural acts
4. The Different Terms Related to Human acts
5. The Different Divisions of Human Acts
a.) Elicit Acts
b.)Impaired Acts
c.) Internal Acts
d.) External Acts
e.) Natural Acts
f.) Supernatural Acts
g.) Valid Acts
h.) Invalid Acts
i.) Good Acts or Virtuous Acts
j.) Bad Acts or Vicious Acts
k.) Indifferent Acts
l.) Licit Acts
m.) Illicit Acts
n.) Permitted Acts
o.) Perfect Human Acts
p.) Imperfect Human Acts

☼☼☼

1. The Nature of Human Acts

Man, by himself alone, cannot reach his ultimate end-the life of goodness. It is only by
means of his human act that is meritorious in nature and supernatural in its intention or motive that
can lead him into his personal salvation or beatific vision. Hence, it is important to know that every
human act is universal, fundamental and necessary in studying ethics and morality.
1. Why is human act universal in its nature- Because it can specify parts and explain general ideas
or notions and principles to every action of man’s conduct.
2. Why is human act fundamental in its nature- Because it can give basis to the moral life of man.
3. Why is human act necessary in its nature- Because it can serve as enlightenment to anyone who
wants to know deeply the mechanics of morality of human conduct.

2. The Human Act in Itself

A Human act is an act that proceeds from the voluntariness and deliberate free will of
man. But not all actions performed by man are human acts meaning with freewill and voluntariness
but simply natural actions like: acts of man, violent acts, human actions and natural acts.

3. The Different Natural acts

a.) Acts of man-when the act does not have the deliberate free will and voluntariness because it
was habitually deprived in its understanding of what he is doing. It is the conscious awareness of
the mind when such act was done; realized or committed and the person did not have a form of
voluntariness.
Example: young children, idiot, insane, sleeping, hypnotized, drunk, absent-minded. However, if
it will not give something harmful to the doer or agent it will not affect morality, If, however, it
will cause to give something harmful to the one doing or agent then it is already a subject to
morality.
b.) Violent acts-When the act was realized because of an external coercion and compulsion coming
from another person and that obligates the individual to act against his will and inner voluntariness.
c.) Human act-When actions are realized with full admonition and deliberation using his rational
human faculties. It is also the act of man in itself, as author of his own action and fully responsible
in it.
d.) Natural acts-When the actions are coming from sentient powers and vegetative powers where
man has no voluntary control over it and entirely common to all the animals; example; nutrition,
digestion, circulation of blood, pain and pleasure, etc.

4. The Different Terms Related to Human acts

1.) When we say human acts it refers as by product of man’s action with full dominion and
deliberation coming from his being rational-meaning man knows what is right and what is wrong
in his own power and capacity.
2.) When we say human acts it is the same as free acts-meaning anything that man is doing is
always coming from his human freedom. It is always free not tied up.
3.) When we say human acts it is also meant as voluntary acts-meaning anything that man is
doing it is voluntarily realized and have the knowledge about the act to be done or being done.
3.) When we say human acts it is also meant as moral acts-meaning man has the knowledge to
conform or not to conform to the laws of morality.
4.) When we say human acts it is also meant as imputable acts-meaning man does things in itself
by voluntary degree and naturally free. He has full responsibility over his action that deserves
reward or punishment later on.

5. The Different Divisions of Human Acts

a.) Elicit Acts-When the human act is immediately determined and directly known in itself coming
from a natural faculty and of specific faculty.
Ex; the elicit act of understanding is to understand; the elicit act of will and voluntariness is to
love, etc.
b.)Impaired Acts-When the human act is directed by an internal or external impulse of the will
ordained to be controlled yet cannot be resisted (like opening and closing one’s eyes),because that
already has conformed to the laws of nature and because also it has the power to disobey (like to
listen attentively with no distractions, etc.) Here, Only the locomotive faculties and external senses
admits being ordained to such act and not in the internal senses; not knowledge, which most often
times knowledge do not obey the will.
c.) Internal Acts-When the human act is coming from internal faculties of man. It does not
manifest any form of external actions. Example; imagination, understanding, will, etc.
d.) External Acts-When the human act is coming from external faculties of man, visible to the
eyes either in private or in public. It is also incorporated to the internal acts as complements of
morality that can affect penal law (example; excomunication, being exiled) that in some extent
merely internal.
e.) Natural Acts-When the human act is directed and is coming solely from natural powers of man
without the aid or help of divine grace. Example: to think, to speak, to hear, etc.
f.) Supernatural Acts-When the human act is coming from the divine grace or actual grace and it
is in the order of eternal life. Example: the actual truth of love for God.
g.) Valid Acts-When a human act is incorporated by the law including all established conditions
in order to produce certain effects. Example: the obligation of a contract.
h.) Invalid Acts-When a human act is not incorporated by conditions and has no power to produce
an intended effect. Example: Baptizing a child not using a natural water and without a formula.
i.) Good Acts or Virtuous Acts-When a human act conforms to the right reason and norms of
morality. It can be naturally good or supernaturally good.
Example: giving alms to the poor because of natural compassion or because of your love for God.
j.) Bad Acts or Vicious Acts- When a human act does not conform to the right order or moral
order. There is no human act that is naturally evil. There is also no human act that is supernaturally
evil. Rather, evil exists because you take away the right order of things, places, persons, etc.
Example: adultery, stealing, etc.
k.) Indifferent Acts- When a human act has no reference or relation to morality. It is abstract, not
concrete; it is the concrete circumstances that will tell or judge if such act is good or bad.
Example: to take a walk, to take a ride, etc.
l.) Licit Acts- When a human act is allowed because it is good or authorized by the natural law or
by legitimate positive law.
Example: to clean the garbage, etc.
m.) Illicit Acts-When a human act is bad or evil in itself. It is also a human act that is prohibited
by a legitimate positive law. Example: to curse or blasphemes, to lie, to work during Sundays, etc.
n.) Permitted Acts- When a human act is not prohibited by natural law or human positive law.
Example: to plant a tree, etc.
o.) Perfect Human Act- When a human act is directed with full knowledge and deliberate free
will and man has the complete control over himself.
Example: to study, to think, to play, etc.
p.) Imperfect Human Act-When a human act is executed or performed with semi-warning or
semi-consent. If it is completed before the exercise of reason, it is not properly human but an in
deliberate movement that is primary of the human act and it does not affect the moral order,
however, it is totally irresponsible. If it is done with semi-warning or semi-consent, it is also a
human act which affects the moral order but in an imperfect manner.
Example: being high in the influence of shaboo.

Sources, Readings and Bibliography

Artigas, Mariano, Juan Jose Sanguineti, 1993. Introduccion a la Filosofia. Pamplona, Espaňa:
Ediciones Universidad de Navarra, S.A.

Fernandez, Aurelio, 1995. Theologia Moral Tom. I Moral Fundamental. Burgos: Ediciones
Aldecoa.

Lexico Filosofico, Rialp, Madrid 1984.

Luno, Angel Rodriguez, 1993. Etica General. Pamplona, Espaňa: Ediciones Universidad de
Navarra, S.A.

Millan, Puelles, A.: Fundamentos de Filosofia, 5.a ed., Rialp, Madrid 1967.