Determinants Of Morality

“Bonum ex integra causa, malum ex quocumque Chapter 6

defectu”

• A thing is good from the perfection of its parts, evil

from any defect of its part. A human act, in order to be
morally acceptable, must be morally perfect in all its
aspects

Aaroh Torreses
Jae Cruz
GE-6107-ETHICS-231O Topher Garcia
The Determinants of
Morality
• The End of the Act

• The End of the Doer

• The Circumstances of the Act

The End of the Act
-is a natural termination or completion of an
act.
• The end of the act determines whether an act is extrinsically good or evil. Any act which is
consistent with the natural tendencies of human nature is intrinsically good. Those are contrary
to reason are intrinsically evil. We speak these of these acts as being contrary to natural law.

• Actions which are neutral or indifferent to the norm of morality are extrinsically good or evil.
These actions are either good or bad. Not on account of their nature, but because of factors or
circumstances concomitant to them

o The act of eating, for example is an amoral act and is neither morally good or bad. But
either over-eating or excessive dieting could be unhealthy and therefore, morally
objectionable

• Actions which are intrinsically evil are prohibited at all times. Actions which are
intrinsically evil may be permitted when the factors which render them evil may
be removed or corrected

• It is a fact that some actions entail pain and suffering, while some bring pleasures
to their doers. Pain or pleasure do not define whether an act is moral or immoral.
The End of the Doer
Is the purpose or motive which the doer wishes to
accomplish by his action. Without a motive, an act is
accidental and involuntary. It is most equitable for the most
number of people, or in other words of the existentialist “the
“The End does not justify the means”
most loving of
• A fundamental moralallprinciple
in a given situation.
• It affirms that one should not do wrong (means) in order to attain a good purpose (end)
• The motive of a person, no matter how noble, does not excuse an act which intrinsically evil.

• The rule is- don’t do wrong even if this will result in something good
Motive and Action
The correlation between motive and act is defined in the
following principles
1. An evil act which is done (Glenn: 111-113):
on account of an evil motive is grievously wrong
• A bad action and a wrong motive make for a dangerous combination

2. A good on account of an evil motive becomes evil itself

• This means that something nice and sweet may turn ugly and sour because of bad
motive

3. A good action done account of a good purpose acquires an additional merit

• Means you go ahead and do the right thing. You can never go wrong on this one.

4. An indifferent act may either become good or bad depending on the motive
• This means you should be careful of what you eat or what you say
Circumstances of the Act
- Are historical elements surrounding
the commission of an act, such as the
status of the doer, the place, the time, or
• Theintensity
circumstances
the of are
anhinted
act. by the interrogative pronounce
1.Who
2.What
3.Where
4.With whom
5.Why
6.How
7.When
Circumstances of the Act
1) “Who”- Refers either to the doer of the act or the recipient of the act.
It has to do with age, status, relation, schooling, social standing, an
economic situation of those involved in an act.

• The moron, insane, senile and children below the age of reason are
incapable of voluntary acts and are not morally accountable.

2) “What” - Refers to the act itself, or to the quality and quantity of the
results of such act.

• In robbery, for instance, what is stolen and how much is

stolen are aggravating factors
• Likewise, the number of victims determines the
seriousness of the murder
Circumstances of the Act
3) . “Where”- refers to the place where the act is committed

4) “With whom” - refers to the companion , or accomplices in an act. The

more people are involves in the commission of an act, The more
serious the crime.

5) “Why” – refers to the motive of the doer

6) “How” – refers to the manner the act is perpetrated

• Homicide committed with much cruelty is a heinous crime

7) “When” – refers to the time of the act.

• A murder is committed when the victim was sleeping
is more offensive than the one done when the victim is
Circumstantial Factor:
1. Circumstance may either increase or decrease the wrongfulness of an
evil act. The killing of innocent people in the case of terrorist exploding a bomb
in public places constitutes a serious crime against humanity. On the other hand,
killing a tyrant who has long oppressed the assailant accepts a mitigating factor
and, therefore is less evil. Nonetheless, the act remains an evil act and the
perpetrator of such act is accountable and therefore punishable.

2. Circumstances also may either increase or decrease the merits of a

good act. Helping another at the risk of one’s life is an act of heroism. Helping
another in expectation of reward or fee is a business transaction
The
•
Morally Good Act
A morally good act is that which sound in all aspects- in its

• Nature,
• Motive
• Circumstances

• In the Scripture, the morally upright is a just man, who weighs his actions in
relations to what the law demands, to what the circumstances would allow, and to
what fits his stature as a rational being.

• We also speak of it as “maka-tao” or “maka-diyos”, Indicating that such action is

fair to the other person and in accordance with the Will of God.
The Relevance of Laws
“dura lex, sed lex”, the law is harsh, but it is
•the
Lawslaw- and
mandate some everyone must
actions as prohibited obey
and others as permitted and required.
We may therefore consider laws as determinants of human behavior. Some
people do not do what is good unless they are forced. St. Thomas points out that
laws are made for those who are weak in character

• Society adopts laws to protect its members from themselves or from those who
might want to hurt them. By prescribing punishments for transgressions, laws
encourage and compel people to act for the good of all. Everyone should obey the
law or risk being punished
The Definition of Law
The law according to St. Thomas Aquinas,
Is an ordinance of reason promulgated for the common good by one who has
charge of society.

• Laws are “ordinance of reason” because they are results of serious study, deliberation or
public debate.

• They are “promulgated” because they are made to known to people who are bound to
observe them. They are “for the common good” because the purpose of the law is the
general welfare of the people.

• They are enacted by “who has charge of society” because only those who have
legitimate authority to govern may pass laws.
Kinds of Law
1. Divine Positive Laws – are those made known to men by God. Like the Decalouge (Ten
Commandments) given to Moses. We also call them moral laws because they are
concerned with moral acts, Violation of these laws constitutes a sin.

2. Human Positive Laws – are those made by legitimate human authority, such as the laws
enacted by the State or the Church. Human positive laws are intended to preserve
peace and order to direct members to work for the common good. They may also have
as their object the moral acts. Violations of these laws constitutes an illegal act. The
Constitution and the Civil Code embody the laws of the Philippines. Canon Law
embodies the laws of the Catholic Church

3. Affirmative and Negative Laws - Both divine and human positive laws are either
affirmative or negative Affirmative laws are those that require the performance of an
act, Like that
of giving respect od paying taxes when due. Negative laws are those that prohibit
the performance of an act, like prohibition against smoking in designated
public places.
Binding in Conscience
• Moral laws are those derived from natural law, They are the inherent and essential
tendencies of human nature so that they are thought as being “written” in the hearts of
men. They regulate thoughts and feelings.

• Moral laws are enforced by personal commitments in the absence of threat of corporal
punishments or sanctions. Moral laws are said to bind in conscience, because they
impose upon the person a moral obligation to accept the law and comply with it. Moral
laws then are enforced by personal conviction rather than by the threat of corporal
punishment

• On the other hand, human laws regulate only the external act when these are
manifested and observed. They do not regulate thoughts and feeling so that, for
example, a person may not be arrested for wanting to commit murder until such time
when he actually attempts it.

• Human laws do not bind in conscience and are purely penal, that is they are
enforced by police powers and justice is served when the culprit suffers
punishment
Properties of a Just Law
A human law, in order to be accepted as
1. Ajust must
human have
law must the following
conform properties
with divine laws. This is because all legitimate
authority comes from God. Therefore, no human authority may contradict God’s
will as manifested in the natural law or divine positive laws.

2. A human law must promote the common good. The common good is the
communal benefit, material and spiritual necessary for the promotion of human
life. The common good consist in economic prosperity, peace and order, health,
education, and moral instruction of the members of society.

3. A human law must not discriminate against certain individuals or groups.

Properties of a Just Law
A human law, in order to be accepted as just must have the following
properties
4) A human law must be practicable. A law which imposes undue hardships and
sacrifices in its compliance is not just

5) A human law must be flexible. It must provide limits and define basis for
exemptions. Laws are for the benefit of man, not for his destruction.

6) A human law must be amendable. The conditions and reasons for a law do
change. Therefore, a law should be amendable and changeable.
The Reality of Evil
• There are good actions and there are evil actions. Their realities do not come from the
mid in spite of some people saying “evil is all in the mind”

• Some people do not see evil, accept is as something “normal”, or identify it as

something else. Some for example would regard pornography as an art, Some think
gambling and prostitution as means of a livelihood. A terrorist believes that murdering
unbelievers is fulfilling God’s Will. A government official believes accepting bribe is a
privilege of his office

• A pile of garbage is garbage even if a scavenger were to say it is good. Garbage

represents what is ugly, dirty and bad in the surrounding. In contrast, a rose garden
stands for what is clean, beautiful, and wholesome. Therefore, only he who is
intellectually dishonest would claim that “evil is only in the mind”, implying that evil is
something imaginary, an illusion

• The expression “ang masama ay nasa isip lang” should not mean that evil is
fiction. It should mean rather that an evil act begins in the mind as an evil and
is translated into an immoral act. Indeed, the mind is “the devil’s workshop”
 Thank You!

• Aaroh Torreses
• Jae Cruz
GE-6107-ETHICS-231O • Topher Garcia