MODULE 7.

0
RIGHTS AND DUTIES
Overview:

This chapter discusses the matters of right and duty. Defining and dividing them,
indicating their properties, designating their subject, and considering their relation to each other.

Learning Objectives: At the end of the lesson the learners should be able to:

1. Discuss the definition of right and duty

2. Identify the properties of right and duty
3. Identify the subject of right and duty
4. Discuss the relation between right and duty.

Content:

RIGHTS
Definition of Right:
a. General – right is that which is just, whether this be a just law, just deeds, a just debt
or a just claim.
A right, considered in general, is that which is just, whether this be a just low, a just
deed, a just debt, or a just claim. Our use of the adjective right may show all these
senses. Thus, we say that a law, a deed, a debt, or a claim is "right," or, colloquially,
"all right, or "just right."
as that which is owed or that which is due.

b. Subjective – right is a moral power residing in a person

– a power which all others are bound to respect
- a power of doing, possessing or requiring something
Again, we may view the term right subjectively, i. e., as residing in the one who
possesses it (its subject), and th
c. Objective – right is that which is owed or that which is due.
Taking the word right as a substantive, we may view it objectively, or as a thing,
as when we say, "This is my right;" "That is his right;" "The wise man will see that he
gets his rights.” In this sense, right is defined us considered, it is a moral power
residing in a person, power which all others are bound to respect-of doing,
possessing, or requiring something.

It is in this subjective sense that we use the term right in Ethics

*Right is founded upon law. For existence of a right in one person involves an obligation in all
others of not impeding or violating the right. Now, it is only law that can impose such an
obligation. And whether this law, upon which right is based, be the natural law or positive law, it
is (as all true law) founded ultimately upon the Eternal Law. Hence, the ultimate basis of right is
the Eternal Law.

Division of Right
a. Legal Civil Right – a claim or privilege sanctioned by the positive laws of each
country. It may concern business, property, searches, seizures, trials political
privileges etc.

b. Human Natural Right – a fundamental privilege immediately derived from the

rational nature of man and the natural moral law and guaranteed to all men for the
attainment of their temporal and eternal goals as right to lie to a livelihood, to
education.
c. Connatural or Congenital Rights – comes to man by reason of his human nature.

d. Acquired or Adventitious Right – established upon a fact

e. Inalienable Right – that which cannot be renounced or transferred because they are
necessary for the fulfillment of man’s primordial obligations.

f. Alienable Right – a right which can be renounced or transferred for sufficiently

grave reasons
g. Perfect Right – a right that is backed by coercive power as the rights of parents over
their children. Also a right which flows from commutative justice, as the rights
involving human contracts.

h. Imperfect Right – a right which lack the support of might. Also it is a right not well
established on strict justice.
i. Public Right – rules the action of a perfect society like the church, the state or the
international society.

j. Private Right – rule the actions of an imperfect society.

Properties of Rights
Since right is an inviolable moral power by its very definition--for we have defined right as a
moral power which all are bound to respect-we do not list inviolability as one of the properties of
right. Inviolability belongs to the essence of right as such. We list three properties of right, as
follows: coaction, limitation, collision.
a. Coaction – the power which right enjoys of forcefully preventing its violation, and
exacting redness for unjust violation.
Ordinarily the moral power called coaction must be exercised through process of law.
Between man and man (not between man and society) coaction may be exercised by
personal force or violence only when all other means have failed.
 b. Limitation – is the natural terminus of right, beyond which it cannot be exercised
without violating the right of another.

A right ceases to be a right at the point where it impinges injuriously upon another's
right. If I wish to remove my old house and to build a better one in its place, I may
not burn my present house, though that would be the easiest way to get rid of old and
useless lumber; such an action would endanger the houses of my neighbors, that is,
such an action would violate my neighbors' right to the secure and unmenaced
possession of their property.

c. Collision – is the apparent conflict of two rights in such wise that one cannot be
exercised violation of the other.

We say it is an "apparent” conflict; for a real conflict of rights cannot exist; when
rights collide, the greater prevails and the lesser ceases to be a right. All right is
founded on law; all law is an ordinance of reason (when it is strictly and truly law);
and there can be no conflict between the ordinances of reason, for "it would not be
reasonable for reason to contradict itself.” In apparent collision of rights, that is the
prevailing right, to which the other cedes (or in face of which the other disappears),
which: (1) belongs to the more universal order; or (2) is concerned with the graver
matter; or (3) is founded upon the stronger title or claim. Thus, a soldier may place
the welfare of his country ahead of his private right to life; thus, the right to life which
be- longs to a man trespassing on my grounds is a greater right than my right to
privacy, and I may not take his life for the act of trespass, thus, the claim upon my
charity possessed by poor relatives is stronger then the claim possessed by other poor
persons

Four Elements of Right

a. Subject – a person who is vested with the moral power to do, to hold or to exact
something as his own.
By the subject of right we mean the person who possesses right. The subject of right is a
person. It is not an irrational creature. For right is a moral power, and belongs only to those that
can exercise moral acts, therefore brute animals have no rights. Again, we may argue, creatures
that have rights have obligations; and no creature can have rights, which is incapable of
assuming and discharging obligations. But animals have no capacity of assuming or discharging
obligations (i. e., moral obligations, and duties). Therefore, animals have no rights.
What of cruel treatment of animals? Such treatment is immoral, not because it violates
any rights that animals may have, but because it outrages reason. Cruelty is not in accord with
the dictates of reason. Cruelty to animals does not square with the right and reasonable order of
things which reason (and ultimately the moral law) demands. For this reason cruelty to animals is
immoral and evil.
What of vivisection? Animals are created to man's use. Now it is a most valuable use of
animals to employ them for the furtherance of biological knowledge. Hence, vivisection is not
illicit in itself. But to inflict injury or pain upon animals where no necessity of use is served is
not reasonable; nay, it is contrary to reason; and hence is evil.
As to sentiment about animals, especially pet animals, it is to be said that the sane
treatment of them, the treatment required by reason, is ordinary care for their needs; and with this
may be associated a certain pleasure and amusement in having them about. Two extremes are
unreasonable and hence evil: the extreme of cruelty on the one hand, and the extreme of
excessive care or consideration for animals, on the other.
The subject of rights, we have said, must be capable of assuming and discharging
obligations, i. e., duties. This is true in the order of creatures. God, the All- Perfect Creator has
perfect rights, but He has no obligations, for He made all creatures and all they have is His: He
owes them nothing. But God's rational creatures have rights and duties; and His rational
creatures are men and angels. But in Ethics, the science of human acts, we consider man as the
person who is the subject of rights; and, indirectly, we must consider God as the subject of rights
when we come to consider man as having duties towards God.

b. Object or Matter – is that or which a person has a right.

The object may be threefold:
1) To perform or to omit something
2) To hold, keep or use something
3) To exact or to demand something from others

c. Title – is the objective ground or reason upon which the right is based so that a
person has the moral power to do, to hold or to exact something.

d. Term – is the person in whom is found the duty corresponding to the right.

DUTIES
A duty considered objectively, i. e., as an object or thing, is anything one is obliged to do
or to omit. Thus we speak of our daily work as our duty. Thus too we say, "It is your duty to do
this;" "It is one's duty to avoid evil companionship;" "My duties are very numerous."

Ethics takes the term duty subjectively, i. e., as affecting the subject bound by it, and so
considered duty is defined as a moral obligation incumbent upon a person of doing or
omitting (avoiding) something.

Duty is a moral obligation, i. e., an obligation resting as a requirement upon a free will.
Hence, the subject of a duty is a person, and only a person. Brute animals do not have duties. We
distinguish moral obligation from physical obligation. A Catholic is morally obliged to assist at
Mass on Sundays; he is, however, not bound and carried to Mass by force. A moral obligation
binds the will; the will is not subject to physical compulsion.
 A duty is the correlative of a right. A right in one imposes a duty on all others of
respecting it, of not violating it. Duty, like right, is based on law.

DIVISION OF DUTY

i. A duty imposed by the natural law is natural; a duty which comes from positive law is
positive. The duty of worshipping God is a natural duty; as also is the duty of preserving one's
life. The latter example shows us that an inalienable right is also a duty. The duty of hearing
Mass on certain feast-days is a positive duty, as is the duty of paying taxes.

ii. A duty which requires the performance of an act is affirmative; a duty which requires
the omission or avoidance of something is negative. The primary requirement of the natural law,
"Do good; avoid evil" gives us, in a single example, an instance of both positive and negative
duty. Again we have the matter exampled in the Decalogue: "Honor thy father and thy mother" is
an affirmative law enjoining an affirmative duty; while negative duty is enjoined by the law,
"Thou shalt not kill."

iii. A duty which obliges in strict justice, and so corresponds to a perfect right is a perfect
or juridical duty. A duty which does not obligate according to justice, but according to charity or
some other virtue, and so corresponds to a non-juridical right, is a non- juridical, an imperfect, or
a moral duty. The obligation of paying to an employee the wage agreed upon is a perfect duty,
while the duty of giving alms to the needy is a moral duty.

iv. There are greater and lesser duties, and here these seem to conflict, the lesser ceases
to be a duty, and the greater prevails. That is the greater duty (in an apparent collision) which
comes from the higher power, the higher law. Thus duties towards God come before duties
towards men, and if a parent forbids his child to hear Mass on Sunday, the duty of obeying
parents ceases, in this instance, to bind the child, while the duty towards God prevails. Similarly,
if a superior command his subject to steal, the subject has not, in this instance, the duty of
obedience, for the duty which comes from the natural law—the duty of justice- prevails. Again:
where there is an apparent conflict of duties, that which is concerned with the graver matter
prevails, while the other ceases to be a duty. Thus, while one has the duty of giving ordinary care
to bodily health and integrity, one ceases to be bound by this duty when the welfare of the soul
requires that the body be exposed to danger and even to death. Thus the martyrs violated no duty
in allowing themselves to be killed, even though they might have saved their lives by a single
word declaring their apostasy: on the contrary, they were strictly bound not to utter that word :
the greater duty prevailed; the lesser disappeared and ceased to be. Finally: when there is an
apparent conflict of duties, that duty prevails—the other ceasing to be a duty-which arises out of
the more solid title or claim. Thus, obedience to parents is a greater duty than obedience to other
elders of the household. To sum up: In an apparent conflict of duties the greater prevails and the
lesser ceases to be a duty; and that is the greater duty which comes from the higher law, or is
concerned with the graver matter, or is grounded upon the more solid title or claim.
 EXEMPTION FROM DUTY

Duty is founded upon law. Now there is an old saying that “Necessity knows no law.”
What of the value of this saying in moral matters? When there is an imminent evil that cannot be
avoided except by a violation of duty, is one exempted from the duty? In other words, does
necessity exempt from duty?

There are three degrees of necessity.

By necessity, in the present instances, we mean the conflict of a duty and a danger; or,
more accurately, we mean the state in which one finds oneself when the performing a duty
means enduring an evil. Now, since there are degrees of evil to be endured, there are degrees of
necessity. Thus we distinguish extreme necessity, grave necessity, and common or ordinary
necessity. One is in extreme necessity when one's choice lies between duty and death, or
between duty and an evil fairly comparable with death. Thus, the Christians taken prisoner by the
early persecutors, and faced with the alternative of death or denial of their faith, were in extreme
necessity. One is in grave necessity when one's choice lies between duty and a notable evil less
than death, such as loss of health, good name, or very valuable property. Thus, a man who will
be considered an embezzler unless he secretly and unlawfully employs a fund which he holds in
trust for another, is in grave necessity.-One is in common or ordinary necessity when one's
choice lies between duty and the enduring of ordinary evils or common hardships. Thus, a man
of sound health who must disregard the Lenten fast or endure some weakness and occasional
headaches, is in common or ordinary necessity.

A word now about law. In General Ethics we learned that a negative law of the natural
order binds always and at every moment, i.e., admits of no exception in any circumstances
whatever. We also learned that an affirmative law binds always, but not at every moment, i.e., Its
prescription is to be fulfilled, but not in all circumstances : such fulfilment may, in certain
circumstances, be postponed till the adverse circumstances are changed

We come now to the principles concerning the exempting force of necessity:

1. Common or ordinary necessity never exempts from duty. This principle

needs no proof. It is evidently true. If it were otherwise, there would be no such
thing as duty at all. For duty is obligation, and obligation ordinarily involves
some measure of difficulty or self-denial. If common necessity exempted one
from duty, one might escape every duty, for it is quite the easiest thing in the
world to find a difficulty or an inconvenience in anything one does not feel
inclined to do.

2. No necessity exempts from a negative natural duty. A negative natural duty

is a duty that comes from a negative law of the natural order. Now, the natural
law is, as we have seen, the Eternal Law, inasmuch as this is known to sound
human reason. The Eternal Law itself is the ordinance of All-Perfect Rea- son,
and the things forbidden by the All-Perfect Reason are forbidden because this
infallible Reason sees that they are evil in themselves. And it is a basic
 principle of Ethics, a primal demand of reason, that what is intrinsically evil
may never, under any circumstances, be lawfully done. Hence if a man is faced
the alternative of death on the one hand, and blasphemy, slander, murder, or
other naturally for- bidden evil on the other hand, the man has no lawful choice
but to accept death.

3. Extreme or grave necessity exempts from a natural affirmative duty,

provided there is no involved violation of a negative precept of the natural
law. The affirmative prescriptions of the natural law require definite acts of
virtue as means to man's last end. But the achieving of man's end does not
require precisely this positive act of virtue at this exact moment of time or in
these precise circumstances. Hence, when extreme or grave necessity presses,
man may defer the act of virtue until the circumstance of necessity has been
changed. Thus, a man is required by the natural law to restore ill-gotten money.
But if the original money has been spent and present restitution would mean
extreme or grave evil; if, for example, it would mean extreme poverty for the
man and his family, loss of social position, and loss of good name, the
restitution might be deferred until happier times, or, at least, full payment might
be so deferred while the man in question does all that he can to make partial
payments and to prepare himself, even at the continuous cost of common
hardships and sacrifices, to make restitution in full. If, however, the deferring of
restitution would put the person to whom it is due in extreme poverty, then the
withholding of payment would be itself a violation of the negative law that
forbids us to injure others, and in this case restitution, even at the greatest cost,
would have to be made.

4. Extreme or grave necessity exempts from duty imposed by human positive

law, provided there is no involved violation of negative natural law. This is
quite obvious in view of the principle just explained. For certainly that which is
sufficient to exempt from a prescription of the natural law, is a fortiori
sufficient to exempt from human positive law.
Evaluation: EXERCISE 7

Name: _______________________________________ DATE: _____________

Course & Year: _______________________________ CAMPUS: __________
Modified TRUE or FALSE. Write TRUE if the statement is correct but if the statement is
FALSE, underline the word or group of words that makes the statement incorrect and provide
before the number the correct word or group of words to make the statement true.

_________________ 1. Public Right is a right which can be renounced or transferred for sufficiently
grave reasons

_________________ 2. Duty is a moral obligation incumbent upon a person of doing or omitting

(avoiding) something

_________________ 3. Limitation is the apparent conflict of two rights in such wise that one cannot be
exercised violation of the other.

__________________4. Coaction is the power which right enjoys of forcefully preventing its violation,
and exacting redness for unjust violation.
.

__________________5. There are degrees of necessity, namely; extreme necessity, grave necessity, and
common or ordinary necessity

__________________6. In general right is that which is just, whether this be a just law, just deeds, a just
debt or a just claim.

__________________7. Term is the objective ground or reason upon which the right is based so that a
person has the moral power to do, to hold or to exact something..

_________________ 8. It is in this objective sense that we use the term right in Ethics

__________________ 9. Inalienable Right is that which cannot be renounced or transferred because they
are necessary for the fulfillment of man’s primordial obligations

__________________10. No necessity exempts from a negative natural duty

References:
Bulaong, O.G., Calano, M.J.T., Lagliva, A., Mariano, M.N.E., & Principe, J.D.Z. (2018). Ethics: Foundations for Moral
Valuation. Quezon City: Rex Bookstore.
Glenn, P. (2013). Ethics: A Class Manual in Moral Philosophy. USA: Literary Licensing, LLC
Shafer-Landau, R. (2017). The Fundamentals of Ethics. USA: Oxford University Press.
MODULE 8.0
MAN’S DUTY TOWARDS GOD
Overview:

This Chapter deals with the special duties man owed to God, for all true duties are
imposed, directly or indirectly, by God, and their fulfilment leads man to God, his last end. In a
general way, all man's duties are owed to God, for all true duties are imposed, directly or
indirectly, by God, and their faithful fulfilment leads man to God, his last end. In the present
study, however, we treat only of the duties of man that have God as their direct object. Such
cuties are included in the term religion.

This Chapter deals with religion, not only in the abstract, but also as practically accepted
and expressed in worship

Learning Objectives: At the end of the lesson the learners should be able to:

1. Discuss the definition and division of Religion

2. Identify the relation of religion to morality
3. Discuss the definition and division of Worship
4. Identify the acts of Worship

Content:

RELIGION
Religion taken subjectively, i. c., as resident in the person (subject) possessing it, is a
moral virtue which inclines the will to give to God the worship which is His due. Religion
taken objectively, i. e, as a thing or object, is the sum-total of truths and laws which establish
and regulate man's duties to God. Thus we see that religion is divided into objective and
subjective religion. Ethics is primarily concerned with objective religion.
We have already offered our definition of objective religion, but we may add another
accepted definition here, a definition that is perhaps more free and practical than the one given
above, Religion is thus defined as "A system of truths, laws, and practices, which regulate
divine worship."
We see that religion is directly concerned with duties that require the exercise of man's
noblest faculties, viz., his intellect and will. Man's intellect must assent to the truths of religion:
to some on account of their clear demonstrability; to others man must assent by faith which is
grounded upon the solid basis of credibility. Man's will must conform with laws which constitute
an essential part of religion.
 We have already distinguished religion as subjective and objective. Now we distinguish
objective religion as natural and supernatural. Natural religion is the sum-total of religious
truths and laws which are known, or can be known, by sound human reason, un- aided by divine
revelation. Supernatural religion, or revealed religion, is the sum-total of truths and laws divinely
revealed to regulate man's duties towards God. The two forms of religion are not separate, but
supplementary; for revealed religion contains all natural religion and adds to it those truths and
laws which man could not discover unaided, even though, after revelation has been made, man
finds in such truths an utter reasonableness and a marvellous evidence of God's goodness and
providence for his salvation.
THE OBLIGATION OF RELIGION
Man is bound to render to God the duty of religion. This truth is a certainty known by
man's natural power of reason. For, by the basic precept of justice, "Render to everyone his due,"
it is rationally certain that honor is owed to excellence, obedience is due to superiors, love is
exacted by that which is good and lovable, gratitude is to be paid to benefactors. Now, God is
perfect excellence; He is the supreme ruler of the universe; He is all-perfect and hence all-
lovable; He is the giver of all good gifts. Therefore, the highest honor, obedience, love, and
gratitude are owed to God. In other words, it is man's duty to honor, obey, love, and thank
God. But this is only saying that it is man's duty to practise religion. Hence, man is bound to
render to God the duty of religion.
Obviously, man is further bound to exercise his, rational powers in the discovery of the
true religion. It is not an act of reason to accept as religion any dim sentiment, any established
practice, perhaps a barbaric practice, that expresses some sort of belief in some kind of di- vinity.
But it is reasonable, and a thing required by reason, to discover the actual truths and laws which
do, as a matter of fact, establish and regulate man's duties to God.
Not only must man render to God the duty of religion, but he must regard this duty in its
true light as the most important affair of life. For man exists to achieve his last end, and religion
is the duty which bears him directly to this achievement. Again, man exists as the creature of the
all-perfect God, Who is not only his efficient cause, but his final cause: man de- pends wholly
upon God, and exists only to give glory to God. Hence, the duty of religion, which means a
practical grasp of the true state of affairs between man and God, is the essential duty of every
human being.
THE RELATION OF RELIGION TO MORALITY

There can be no morality without religion. Morality consists in the relation which
exists between free human acts on the one hand, and the Eternal Law, Divine Reason, God
Himself, on the other. Hence, morality itself is religious; its norm is the line within which man
must keep to make his actions carry him towards his last end; and this last end is God. Now, if
we take away God, the line or norm of human acts is removed, But to take away religion is to
take away God; at least it is to remove God from definite relation to human acts, and that is the
destruction of morality.

Conversely, there can be no religion without morality. For if there is no morality, there is
no right and wrong; if there is no right and wrong, there is no duty and no neglect or refusal of
duty; if there is no duty, there is no duty of religion. Thus we see that religion and morality stand
or fall together; they are perfectly and essentially correlated.

Now, some philosophers have put forward the theory that there can be morality without
God. They speak of this as independent morality or lay morality. But not only is independent
morality impossible; it is a contradiction in terms and in fact, for it destroys morality while
giving itself the name. For, as we have repeatedly seen, morality, or moral duty, arises from a
bond which necessarily exists between human acts and the end which these are to achieve, viz.,
God. This bond is not made by man, but by God, who has established the necessary relations
between human acts and the last end. Man's reason avails him in the discovery of the last end and
of the bond which holds him to its achievement; but human reason does not create either the end
or the bond, nor can human reason change these. Hence, moral duty depends upon God and to
speak of independent morality is to speak absurdly; it is like speaking of non-moral morality.
And thus the theory of independent morality keeps the name of morality while it destroys the
essence of morality.

WORSHIP
By worship, taken in its general signification, we mean honor and homage paid to a
person. We use the word in this ordinary sense in poesy, and we find it so used in the rituals of
various societies: thus we have "worshipful masters" and "worshipful grand outside guards," and
so on. Thus, too, the British use the word worship objectively, meaning a person to be worshiped
or honored, when they call their magistrates "Your Worship.” But in Ethics we employ the term
worship to signify the expression of religion, and in this use it is more properly called divine
worship. Divine worship, then, is defined as the sum-total of all acts by which a rational
creature shows to God the honor and the homage that is His due. We distinguish divine
worship as internal and external. Internal worship consists in the acts of mind and will by
which due honor and homage are paid to God. External worship consists in the acts which
sensibly express this honor and homage. External worship is called friends when it is performed
by, and in the name of, in vials. It is called public or social when it is performed in the name of a
society.

THE OBLIGATION OF WORSHIP

Man is bound to render to God the duty of worst both internal and external, both
private and public Man is bound to internal worship of God. We have already proved that man
has the duty of religion towards God. Now internal worship is inseparable from the performance
of the duty of religion. Hence, given the existence of the first duty (i.e, religion), the second (i. e.,
Worship) necessarily follows.

Man is also bound to external worship of God. Man is bound to show to God due honor
and homage be- cause God is his Creator, Preserver, and Master. Now God is the Creator,
Preserver, and Master of the body as well as of the soul of man. Hence man is bound not only
to the homage of soul (i. e., acts of intellect and will), but to homage of body (i.e, external
bodily acts of worship). Homage of body, homage shown by bodily acts, is external
worship. Therefore, man is bound to external worship. Again: internal worship itself requires
certain external acts for its perfect performance. For it is in accord with the requirements of
man's nature that he express internal acts in sensible signs; and man's internal acts depend, in a
measure, upon things external, since all intellectual knowledge has its first beginnings in the
action of sense, and will- acts depend upon intellectual knowledge. Hence it is connatural to
man, and therefore requisite, that he give some external expression to internal worship.

It is clear, then, that individual man has the duty of internal and external worship. But it is
also true that man in society has this obligation. For human society (as we shall see later) is not
an artificial thing; it is natural to man, and therefore carries the requirements of man's nature.
Society itself is the work of the Creator, and, like individual man, must recognize and ex- press
its dependence upon Him in worship. Therefore, man is bound to public worship.

ACTS OF WORSHIP

The chief acts of internal worship are devotion and prayer, while the most notable acts of
external wor- ship are adoration and sacrifice.

i. Devotion consists in a readiness of the will to elicit acts that belong to the worship of
God. True and sincere devotion comes from the knowledge and love of God. Man, of course, is
strictly bound to know God, and for this purpose he has been given power of reason and has,
moreover, been enlightened by divine revelation. For if a man does not know God, how shall be
dis- charge the obligation of religion? Again, man must love God. This follows from the fact that
man must, and can, know God. For to know God is to know the all-lovable, the supremely good,
the all-perfect efficient and final cause of all creatures. And reason demands that what is known
to be all-lovable, must, in fact, be loved. Given, then, the knowledge and the love of God, the
will must be ever in readiness to render service (homage and honor) to God; and in this readiness
consists the act of devotion. Devotion is obviously essential to proper internal worship of God.

ii. Prayer is the elevation of the mind to God to praise Him, to thank Him, and to ask His
blessings. Among the blessings asked will be that of pardon for sins, and so we may say that
prayer also includes penance, or reparation, since by God's free pardon of faults the relation of
man and God, injured by these faults, is, so to speak, repaired. Prayer is either mental or vocal,
according as it is perfected in the mind with- out exterior signs, or is expressed in words. Prayer
is an act of internal worship when mental; when vocal, it is an act of external worship. Some men
have denied the need and utility of prayer, saying that God's immutability, or changelessness in
eternal perfection, makes the answering of prayers impossible. But this is a short-sighted and
unworthy objection. For, as St. Thomas says, prayer is not meant to change the eternal decrees of
God, but to fulfil these decrees. For God, from eternity knowing all possible prayers, has from
eternity decreed to answer them and to bless the man who prays. Hence, the answer to our
prayers is eternally prepared for us if only we will prayers do make a difference! There is no
prayer that we can pray. Our offer to God but has its answer, prepared from eternity, to take
effect in time. The placing of the necessary condition for the fulfilment of the eternal decrees to
answer prayers rests with us, is a matter of our free choice to pray.

iii. Adoration, as an act of external worship, is an exterior manifestation of subjection to

the divine excellence. Thus, a kneeling posture at prayer is an act of adoration. Adoration, as an
internal act, is much at one with devotion. Adoration is the normal external expression of
acknowledgment of God's supreme control of the universe. It is an act of honor proportioned to
the dignity of the Creator, on the one hand, and to the utter dependence of the rational creature
on the other hand. Hence man owes to God the duty of adoration.

iv. Sacrifice is an external act by which a bodily object is offered to God, and destroyed
(really or equivalently) to manifest the supreme dominion of God over creatures and the utter
dependence of creatures upon God. It is the highest act of divine worship. Sacrifice has always
been found wherever religion and worship are found that is to say, among all men of all times. It
is a rational necessity of man to give practical expression to his appreciation of the relation
between the Supreme Being and dependent creatures by destroying, with symbolic ceremonies,
something that is of value to himself. Even when, in false cults, sacrifice assumed monstrous
forms, the impulse back of it was rational. Passion and the degradation of human nature through
sins, may pervert the right understanding of sacrifice, but the idea of sacrifice as a duty is sound.
When we speak of "sacrifice" as the giving up or "destroying" of our own convenience, or of our
goods, for motives of religion, we use the term in an extended sense: and then it is but the normal
expression or actualization of devotion.
Evaluation: EXERCISE 8

Name: _______________________________________ DATE: _____________

Course & Year: _______________________________ CAMPUS: __________
Modified TRUE or FALSE. Write TRUE if the statement is correct but if the statement is
FALSE, underline the word or group of words that makes the statement incorrect and provide
before the number the correct word or group of words to make the statement true.

_________________ 1Adoration is the elevation of the mind to God to praise Him, to thank Him, and to
ask His blessings.

_________________ 2. Internal worship consists in the acts which sensibly express this honor and homage

_________________ 3. Worship taken objectively, i. e, as a thing or object, is the sum-total of truths and
laws which establish and regulate man's duties to God.

__________________4. Devotion is the highest act of divine worship.

.

__________________5. Homage of body, homage shown by bodily acts, is internal worship.

__________________6. There can be no morality without religion

__________________7. Ethics is primarily concerned with objective religion

_________________ 8. Internal worship consists in the acts of mind and will by which due honor and
homage are paid to God

__________________ 9. Religion is thus defined as "A system of truths, laws, and practices, which regulate
divine worship."

__________________10. internal worship itself requires certain external acts for its perfect performance.

References:
Bulaong, O.G., Calano, M.J.T., Lagliva, A., Mariano, M.N.E., & Principe, J.D.Z. (2018). Ethics: Foundations for Moral
Valuation. Quezon City: Rex Bookstore.
Glenn, P. (2013). Ethics: A Class Manual in Moral Philosophy. USA: Literary Licensing, LLC
Shafer-Landau, R. (2017). The Fundamentals of Ethics. USA: Oxford University Press.
MODULE 9.0
MAN’S PERSONAL OFFICE
Overview:

By office we mean duty or system of duties. And by personal in our caption we mean that
which is done by and to the acting person, the human agent. In a word, this Chapter discusses man's
duties towards himself. These duties are concerned with matters of soul and of body.

Learning Objectives: At the end of the lesson the learners should be able to:

1. Discuss the duties of man towards his soul

2. Discuss the duties of man towards his body

Content:
DUTIES OF MAN TOWARDS HIS SOUL

The soul of man has two faculties or powers or capacities for action, viz., the knowing
faculty or intellect, and the choosing faculty or will. Duties are obligations, things to be done. Hence
man's duties of soul consist in things to be done by intellect and will.

Duties of the Intellect

Man is bound to use his faculties for the achievement of his last end; this is the law of nature;
for this purpose were faculties given, as is evident from their nature and function. Hence, man has the
duty of exercising his intellect and of perfecting it. Now the intellect is perfected by knowledge of
truth. Some truths must be known if man is to achieve his last end as a rational being, and some
truths are not of this necessary character. Thus we distinguish necessary knowledge, and free or non-
necessary knowledge. Man must, of necessity, know the truths that relate to the last end and the
means of achieving it. Man did not establish this last end; he is not free to change it. The end is there
to be achieved; man exists to achieve it; hence it is distinctly "up to man" to dis- cover this last end
and the means of reaching it. Now, the last end of man is God; and the means of reaching God and
eternal happiness in the possession of God are morally good human acts. Therefore, man must know
God, and must know what makes human acts morally good, and he must know how he himself is to
main- tain such goodness in his acts. This is the body of necessary knowledge that man is bound to
acquire. Hence, man must know God and the basic prescriptions of the natural law, and his intellect
must be equipped with the virtues of wisdom and prudence.

Further, man must know the special duties of his state of life and the bearing these have upon
his actions towards others--for all this is required by the general ethic in the matter, viz., "man must
know what makes human acts morally good, and how to maintain such goodness in his own acts.
Matters of free knowledge, matters in which, absolutely considered, man has no natural obligation,
are history, science, letters, and "book-learning" in general. Still, reason counsels (but does not
command) the acquiring of such knowledge, for it is rational to perfect one's faculties in every
possible way. Thus, all studies of a speculative or practical nature which have no direct bearing upon
the achievement of man's end, are matters of free knowledge. Excessive devotion to such studies,
however, a devotion that would divert man from acquiring the essential and necessary knowledge
which is pertinent to the achieving of his last end, is forbidden by the natural law. In all this we are
speaking absolutely, i. e., without taking conditions or related considerations into account. When
such considerations are brought to bear, we see that certain matters of free-knowledge become
obligatory. Thus, a boy who would refuse to learn his letters or to go to school would violate the
natural law which re- quires obedience to parents. Again, a man who would refuse to learn a trade,
business, profession, or even the manner of performing acts of common labor, would violate the
natural law which requires him to take ordinary care of bodily life and health in himself and in his
dependents, and hence to have some means of gaining a livelihood.

Duties of the Will

As the intellect is perfected by the knowledge of truth, so the will is perfected by the quest of
that which is good. Now the foremost good is the good of the last end. This good is, objectively,
God; and subjectively it is eternal happiness in God. Hence the first obligation of the will is to
tend towards the achieving of happiness in the possession of God, and therefore the will must tend
towards or love God as the Supreme Good.

To attain the last end, the will must follow the rule of right reason, and must acquire a
readiness in this matter. Such readiness is acquired in the moral virtues of prudence, justice,
fortitude, and temperance. These virtues are necessary to keep the will prompt in its choice of good,
and in its repression of the sudden impulses of inordinate passion which would thwart the
achievement of the limitless good and happiness.

DUTIES OF MAN TOWARDS HIS BODY

LIFE

Man does not own his body. God owns it. God alone has the right to dispose of it and of its
life and health. Life and health have been given to man as great blessings, as goods to be conserved
and used. Like all true goods that man may possess, life and health, and all pertains directly to these
goods, are to be used for the achievement of man's last end. Therefore, absolutely speaking, man is
bound to exercise ordinary care for the conservation of life and health. Thus he is obliged to maintain
the integrity and perfection of his members, to take such nourishment as is required for the proper
development or maintenance of bodily life, to observe the requirements of reason in matters of
cleanliness and proper dress, to keep the senses strictly under control of reason, and to cultivate the
virtues --particularly temperance and fortitude which give one readiness in keeping the appetites of
the flesh un- der due and proper control. These are man's positive duties with regard to his body.

Man's negative duties with regard to bodily life and health oblige him to avoid suicide, the
needless mutilation of his members, intemperance, and all unreasonable use of objects or practices
that could be harmful to life or limb or bodily health.

A special word must be said on the subject of suicide. Suicide is self-murder. It is the direct
taking of one's own life upon one's own authority. And suicide can never, under any circumstances,
be permitted. Of course, a soldier going to certain death in a desperate charge is not a suicide, for he
does not directly take his own life, but permits it to be sacrificed while his direct aim and effort is to
perform a good work for the defence of his country. But suicide, dearly regarded as simple and direct
self-murder, is absolutely contrary to the natural law, and is never per- mitted. The reasons for this
truth are not far to seek: suicide is an injury done to God, to society, and to the person
committing it. It is an injury to God, for it usurps the right of God, who alone is "Master of life.
and death." It is an injury to society, for man is an integral part of society and is bound to promote
its welfare; and the suicide, by removing himself from society, destroys its integrity, and, moreover,
sets a horrible example to others, an example which would mean the extinction of society, were all to
follow it. Finally, suicide is an injury to the person who commits it, for such a person acts against the
plain dictates of nature, and halts the achievement of perfection that might have been his.

OTHER GOODS

Besides the goods of soul and body there are others, such as prosperity, good name, honor,
external liberty, etc. These are usually required, in greater or less measure, for the full perfection of
bodily life. They are also required by the man who has dependents. Hence, a man must have
employment or some means of livelihood. He must take care of those dependent upon him and
provide for their future. He must earn a good name and achieve an honest place in the estimation of
his fellows. Thus, ordinarily, a man must exert himself to obtain a sufficiency of the goods of this
world.

But, apart from the necessity imposed by the duties of one's state of life, man is quite free to
neglect the matter of worldly prosperity, nay, he may find it much to his advantage to do so. For the
absence of care about worldly possessions ordinarily favors one's progress in virtue, and removes
many obstacles from the path in which one must walk to attain one's last end. Of course, it does not
follow that the pursuit of honest prosperity, good name, etc., is wrong. As long as both the matter and
the manner of such a quest is kept within the moral law, it is quite licit. Goods of fortune, fame,
honor, liberty, etc., are gifts of God, though they are not gifts of the first rank. As long as they are
used according to reason, and not abused, they can be made to serve man's purpose in attaining his
last end, notwithstanding the fact that they are likely to be abused and to be a hindrance to man's true
work rather than a help.
MODULE 10.0
MAN’S DUTY TOWARDS HIS NEIGHBOR
Overview:

This Chapter treats of the duties which every individual man owes to his fellowmen. Some of
these duties are founded upon the natural law of charity, which is expressed in the formula,
"Love thy neighbor as thyself"; while others are based upon the natural law of justice, which may
be ex- pressed thus: "Injure not thy neighbor nor his goods." This Chapter, therefore, deals with
the duties of charity and the duties of justice which a man owes to his neighbor, i.e., to all other
men, even his enemies.

Learning Objectives: At the end of the lesson the learners should be able to:

1. Discuss the definition of charity

2. Identify the duties of love
3. Discuss and Identify the duties regarding our neighbor’s body, our neighbour’s soul
and our neighbor’s property.

Content:
CHARITY

Charity is a word derived from the Latin, and love is a word derived from the Anglo-
Saxon, and both have the same meaning. Charity means love. Now love is not a mere affection
or emotion. Love, strictly speak- ing, is an act of the will and it may or may not be associated
with affection or emotion. Love is actively disposed to become an enduring thing, a habit, a
virtue. But affections and emotions are, of their nature, passing. Affections and fine emotion are
flowers that bloom sometimes upon the sturdy plant of love, but they are not the substance of the
plant.

Now, love may be love of concupiscence or love of benevolence. The love of

concupiscence (and the word concupiscence has no evil meaning here: it means desire) tends to
the possession of the object (person or thing) beloved. The love of benevolence tends to seek the
welfare of the object beloved. The first seeks to win or have its object; the second seeks to do
good to its object.

The Duty of Love

A man is bound to love his neighbor as himself. This ethical principle expresses a law of
nature, a law of natural charity. It means that every individual man is in duty bound to love every
other man, even his enemy, with the love of benevolence. Further, the principle means that this
love of neighbor must follow the pattern of the love one has for oneself. The word "as” in the
principle does not indicate equality, but similarity: it indicates love of self, not as the exact
measure, but as the exemplar or model of love of neighbor. Man, to act according to reason, must
wish for the goods that help him to achieve his last end. The principle of charity means that man
must wish goods of this kind for his neighbor also. Of course, a man cannot love his neighbor
with the same directness, the same intensity of interest, or to the same extent that he loves
himself. For each man has an individual work to do, viz., the achieving of his own last end, God.
This is his first, his special, and his greatest work; for this he was created; in this he must
succeed, or fail the purpose of his being. Hence, he is bound, first and foremost, to do good to
himself, to wish good for himself, inasmuch as he is bound by means of such "good" to reach his
last end. Therefore, a man's love for himself is greater than his love for his neighbor. This, as is
obvious, is a requirement of rational nature.

Consider it as illustrated in analogy: A kindly merchant is well disposed towards all the
other merchants of his city. He wishes them well; he desires their success. He is willing to give
them the benefit of his own experience in advice; he is willing to help them, within reasonable
limits, by loans of money, goods, equipment. But he does not let his own business go to ruin -and
it is not in nature to expect him to be willing to ruin his business, even to save the business of
another merchant. Thus, it appears, the merchant in question has a greater concern, a greater
love, for his own business than for that of his fellow merchants. And reason sees that it should be
so.

What, then, of heroism? Does not the fireman who rescues an invalid from a burning
building- giving up by his act a sound, stalwart life for one that is broken and failing-love his
neighbor more than himself? Not at all. The act of heroism pro- cures a greater good for the hero
than for the person saved by it. For the hero gains a greater good (provided his ordinary life has
not thwarted it) than the life he gives up, and a greater good than life is to the rescued person. For
one heroic act of charity merits a greater good in the life to come than a prolonged life of
ordinary rational (i. e., virtuous) human conduct. But, though man must love himself more than
he loves his neighbor, he must, as a matter of fact love his neighbor. This fact, already stated and
explained, needs a short proof. All men are one in nature; all are made to achieve the same last
end; they constitute one great family. Now, in this solidarity of human nature is rooted the duty
of love of neighbor. A man is a traitor to his humanity if he wishes his neighbor to fail where he
himself hopes to succeed. There is no competition in the quest of man's last end; the success of
one does not mean the failure of another; therefore, there is nothing in reason which can justify
the wish that a neighbor fail; on the contrary, reason requires that each man, as an integral part of
the great army or family of human beings, must wish that success to each and all that he seeks
for himself. Such a rational wish is the love of benevolence fashioned upon the love of self—and
this is precisely what the law of charity commands.

Again: a man, as we have seen, has the duty of loving God, his last end. Now, a man
cannot love God unless he loves those that God loves, i. e., all men. Therefore, a man must love
all his fellowmen. But a man cannot love his fellowmen- an enormous multitude which is, for the
most part, personally un- known to him-except by the love of benevolence. Hence a man must
love his fellowmen by the love of benevolence. But the love of benevolence consists precisely in
the wish and the will for goods profitable to one's fellowmen in their work of attaining their last
end, that is, in such goods as a man must rationally wish for himself. Therefore, a man must love
his neighbor as himself.
 Duties Consequent Upon Love

We fulfil the duty of love towards our neighbor by acts of humanity, beneficence, and gratitude.
Our duties in these virtues may be called duties consequent upon love, or perhaps it would be
more accurate to call the acts of these virtues the normal expression of love of neighbor. Just a
word on each:

i. Humanity is expressed in such acts of kindness as are easily performed, and of which
the refusal would be a monstrous meanness. Examples of acts of humanity are: the
giving of kindly advice, the indicating of a road or direction, the giving of a drink of
water to one who asks for or needs it, the lending of aid in case of fire or sickness, etc. A
man who would without reason refuse such kindnesses would deserve to be called
"inhuman."
ii. Beneficence finds expression in the giving of alms, the lending of active aid or
assistance which re- quires more effort or self-sacrifice than the works exacted by
humanity. We see that the Spiritual and Corporal Works of Mercy are works of humanity
and beneficence, and hence are duties required by rational nature.

iii. Gratitude or thankfulness is the due and equal recognition and return for benefits
bestowed. It belongs to the equality and fitness of things, the sane balance required by
reason.

Other special duties (some of which touch justice, and will be mentioned again) should
be indicated in this place: Man is bound to avoid leading his neighbor into error, especially into
error as regards religion; nor dare a man do his neighbor harm by scandal, whether this be done
by word of mouth, by writings and books, or by bad example. On the contrary, man is bound to
help his neighbor to know that with certainty, especially such truth as pertains to religion, and
hence directly to man's last end. Further, man must give his neighbour for the benefit and
encouragement of good example in all his words, writings, and conduct. In a word, man must
obey the Golden Rule, which is positively expressed as, "Do unto others as you would have then
do unto you" The same rule, negatively ex- pressed, is, "Never do to others what you would not
have them do to you." Notice that one of these principles is a positive prescription of the natural
law, the other is a negative prescription of prohibition. Recall what we have learned about the
binding force of affirmative and negative natural laws.

DUTIES OF JUSTICE

Duties regarding our Neighbours

As every man has the duty of preserving bodily life and health and integrity of members,
so he has the right to freedom from human interference in the discharge of this duty. In other
words, each man has the duty of respecting the life and health and bodily integrity of his
fellowmen. Hence, man cannot un- justly kill his neighbor, he cannot maim or mutilate him, he
cannot break down his health, he cannot unjustly confine or imprison or enslave him. These
prohibitions give a summary of our negative duties with regard to our neighbor's body and bodily
life. The chief of these duties is that expressed in the prohibition of killing, homicide; the other
prohibitions follow as corollaries from this. Hence we shall deal in detail with the subject of
homicide

Homicide is the unjust killing of a human being by private authority and without the
justification of necessary self-defence. It comes under the prohibition of the natural law, and
therefore is never licit in any circumstances. As suicide is wrong because it is an offence against
God, against society, and against the suicide himself, so homicide is wrong because it offends
God, injures society, and violates the right of the victim. For consider: homicide usurps the
unique rule which God holds over the life and death of His children. Further, it removes an
integral member of society; it arouses fear among men, and so destroys the peace and sense of
security to which men have a right, and which are needed for the proper conduct of social life
and for prosperity. Finally, homicide violates the right to life which the victim possesses with
regard to all other men, even though he has not the right to life with reference to God. Thus we
see that homicide is not only forbidden by the divine positive law of the Fifth Commandment,
but also by the natural law.

Man has rights—with reference to other men - to life, bodily integrity, and health. Hence,
a right is violated and the natural law outraged if these goods are taken away or harmed. It
follows that harmful bodily acts less grave than homicide are also forbid- den. Thus it is against
the natural law to wound, mutilate, or strike one's neighbor. Thus, too, parents and superiors
offend against the natural law if they fail to provide the necessary food, clothing, and care for
those under their charge. Physicians, too, offend against the natural law by undertaking the
treatment of serious maladies of the nature of which they are culpably ignorant; and so do
surgeons who perform operations without accurate knowledge and requisite skill . Merchants
offend against the natural law, who adulterate foodstuffs with substances harmful to human
health.

Going back now to the matter of taking a neighbor's life, we consider the case of
necessary self-de- fence. The fact that a man has the right to life and the duty to exercise
ordinary care in its preservation implies the further fact that he has the right to defend his life
against unjust attack. The principle in the matter may be expressed as follows: It is lawful to
defend one's life against unjust attack even at the cost of the life of the aggressor, provided there
is nothing inordinate in the time or the manner in which the fatal defensive act is performed.

We must study this principle in detail:

i. The attack must be unjust, i. e., it must come from the private authority of the attacker,
or of other private citizens, and not from justly constituted civil authority. Hence a criminal who
is about to be executed by public authority would not be al- lowed to kill his executioner on the
plea of self- defence.
ii. The attack must be of a serious nature, one that involves danger to life or limb. A man
set upon by an enemy, who evidently intends merely to strike him, is justified in repelling force
with force, but not in killing his aggressor,

iii. There must be nothing inordinate in the time at which the fatal act of defence is
performed. If I know that a certain man has threatened to kill me on sight, and know further that
he will keep his word, I am not thereby justified in seeking him out and killing him before he has
an opportunity to at- tack me. Such an act would be plain homicide. Nor may I kill one who has
murderously attacked me, after I have escaped from the danger, or even as I lie in the death
throes. Such an act would be one of vengeance, and would also be homicide. It is plain, then, that
the act of self-defence which involves the taking of an aggressor's life must be performed at the
moment of the attack or during its continuance, and neither before nor after the attack itself.

iv. There must be nothing inordinate in the manner in which the fatal act of self-defence
is per- formed. Thus a person attacked must do no more in the way of violence than is requisite
and sufficient for preserving life. If the person unjustly attacked can save himself by running
away, or by crying for help, or by lightly wounding the aggressor, he is bound to take such
means and is not justified in killing the aggressor.

. b) Duties Regarding Our Neighbor's Soul

The faculties of soul are intellect and will. The intellect seeks, and has a right to the truth;
the will inclines to, and has a right to, goodness. Hence, no man may lawfully withhold the truth
which his neighbor has a right to know, nor may he deprive the neighbor of the good which he
has a duty to achieve. Against the duty of truthfulness man of fends by lying. Against the duty of
goodness man offends by scandal, and by imposing servitude which tends to destroy human
personality and hampers, the liberty necessary for the free and proper quest of good. The illicit
character of scandal and servitude is obvious, and needs no special study here. We must discuss
the matter of truthfulness, however, and we shall do this negatively by studying and proving the
intrinsic evil of lying

A lie is a serious statement at variance with the knowledge or belief of the speaker. It is a
disagreement between what one says and what one knows, or thinks one knows. It differs from a
mere error (called a material lie, although strictly it is not a lie at all), which is a sincere
statement of a mistaken mind. Thus, one may affirm something as true, and with the sincere
conviction that it is true, while as a matter of fact it is false; and, conversely, one may sincerely
declare something to be false which is really true. This material falsity is not the falsity of a lie.
The formal falsity of a lie consists in its disagree- ment with the mind of the speaker.

There are three types of lies

(1) The jocose lie, a fallacious statement made for fun and under- stood, or easily
understandable, as a joke. This lie does not square with the definition of lie, because it Is not a
serious statement. However, there is such a thing as a joke "going too far"; and jocose lie that is
not easily understood in true character may become a real lie

(2) The officious lie, which is a lie of excuse or convenience. It is a cowardly refusal to
meet the issues of life; it is the mark of a weak, unmanly, crawling soul. It is a full and formal
lie, and has all the malice of perfect mendacity.

(3) The pernicious lie, which is a lie meant to do mischief or injury. It is the lowest and
worst of lies.
 It is never lawful to tell a lie, no mat- ter what great good would come of it; for a lie is
intrinsically evil. It is licit to conceal the truth when the hearer has no right to know the truth and
when there is a sufficient reason for the concealment.

Closely associated with goods of the soul to which everyone has a right-a right that
cannot be violated without offending against the law of nature -are the external goods called
good name and honor

Good name is the reputation one bears among others for uprightness and honesty. "Good
name is better than great riches." It is of inestimable value in the making of friends, the
establishing of credit, and the promoting of business. Hence good name is to be classed with
those goods that a man rightfully seeks to acquire and to preserve. The ethical principle in the
matter is: Every man has a right to his good name. Good name is "the immediate jewel of the
soul"; it is a thing acquired and owned; to steal it is to commit an act of injustice which demands
reparation and restitution in so far as this may be possible. Good name in others is injured by
rash and suspicious judgment, by calumny or slander, and by detraction. These evils are,
therefore, contrary to natural law

Honor is the natural or official dignity of a person which rightfully calls for esteem,
respect, or consideration on the part of others. The ethical principle in the matter is: Every man
has the right to that honor which is normally due to his nature and position. This is a natural
right, for it concerns a matter which is of importance and advantage to a man in achieving and in
tending towards his last end. Respect for our fellowmen as men, and respect for superiors in the
measure required by their place and dignity, is an absolute requirement for harmonious and
profitable existence in private life and in society. Therefore, to injure a man in point of honor is
to offend against the natural law by an act of injustice which requires due requital or reparation
in as far as this is possible. Honor is injured by disrespect, mockery, derision, caricature,
contempt, scornful insolence, etc.

a) Duties Regarding Our Neighbor's Property

The Right of Ownership:--The right of owner- ship, or property right, is the right of
disposing of property at will and of excluding other men from its use or disposition. By property
is meant any external goods that are capable of distribution among men to serve their utility. In
the main, these are material or bodily goods. And these are divided into movables and
immovables according as they can or cannot be transferred from place to place without injury to
their substance: thus, animals and furniture belong to the first class, while lands, houses, etc.,
belong to the second. Movable goods are distinguished as fungible and non-fungible, according
as they can take the place of other goods of the same kind, or are incapable of such substitution:
thus, goods that can be borrowed and returned in kind, like a pound of sugar or a measure of
corn, are fungible; while goods that must be returned in proper identity, such as a borrowed
horse, are non-fungible. Goods are also distinguished as fruitful (productive) and consumptible,
according as they produce new goods, or are consumed or destroyed by their use: thus, a field is
productive, while food is consumptible
 Ownership of goods involves the right to use or dispose of them at will. Thus, an owner
has the right to sell his property, to give it away, to change it, or to destroy it. In all this,
however, the collision of rights is to be taken into account, and it is understood that the right
ceases if its exercise would violate the rights of others or the common welfare. Ownership of
goods is exclusive. The owner has the right to refuse to other men the use and disposition of his
property. The right of ownership belongs to a person, whether this be a physical person (i.e., an
individual human being), or a moral or juridical person (i.e, a unified group acting as one, such
as Church, State, community, corporation). Ownership is private if the person in whom it is
vested is a physical person; corporate, if vested in a moral person. There is also a form of
ownership called public, and this is the right of the civil power, the State, to use the property of
private citizens, even without their consent, when public necessity or great utility requires such
use. This right is called the right of eminent domain. Thus, for example, the State may build a
public road through a farmer's field, even though the farmer is unwilling and refuses to sell the
field. Thus, too, the State, in times of war, may commandeer privately owned commodities. This
is not the right of ownership strictly so called, for the State has not the right to dispose at will of
the property of citizens, and is ordinarily required to indemnify the citizen whose property is
taken over by the right of eminent domain, that the State has the true right to make proper use of
its eminent domain is clear from the fact that the public welfare is of a higher or more universal
order than private ownership of material goods, and when these two rights collide, the greater
prevails.

The right of ownership is a natural right. Man has the natural right to preserve life,
and he cannot properly preserve life without private ownership of property; hence, the natural
right to own property is a corollary of the natural right to life. Why cannot man preserve life
without owning property? Because the proper conservation of life not only involves the use of
food and clothing and shelter necessary for the hour or the day, but it involves a permanent and
stable title to these things; for a man must provide for the future, for times of ill-health,
unemployment, age; he must provide for those dependent upon him, or those to become
dependent, and have a stable and permanent means of caring for such dependents. All this is
saying that man cannot fulfil the requirements of normal life unless he has the right to own (i. e,
permanently to possess for his own use and disposition) the goods called private property. We
conclude that the right of ownership is a natural right, that is, a right which is founded upon the
natural law.

Again: the right of ownership is a natural right because, without it, man cannot exercise
properly his natural right to perfect his powers. If a man cannot earn anything to have and to hold
as his own, where will he find inspiration and incentive for work, for study, for the development
of his rational faculties? And where will he find the independence required for study and
research? If the right of owner- ship perishes, progress in the arts and sciences must perish with it

Further: the right of ownership is a natural right because man has a natural right to the
fruits of his own labor. Man (under God) owns his own bodily and mental powers. With these
powers he perfects objects. In perfecting objects, man, in a true sense, projects into them
something of his own personality, something of himself. Hence, to take away these objects from
man is to take away, so to speak, part of himself, an action clearly contrary to natural law.
Therefore, to deny the right of private ownership is to come in conflict with the natural law. Let
this matter be illustrated: Suppose a man works in his garden. His work is truly something of his
own, and it is as truly something given to the garden and henceforth inseparable from it. Man's
work gives to the garden a fruitfulness it did not have; for his labor removed choking weeds,
loosened soil for the ready admission of moisture, supplied the chemicals necessary for
fertilization, killed the insects that would harm or destroy the yield. Hence the man has put
something of his own, something even of him his natural right to perfect his powers . If a man
cannot earn anything to have and to hold as his own where will he find inspiration and incentive
for work, for study, for the development of his rational faculties? And where will he find the
independence required for study and research? If the right of owner- ship perishes, progress in
the arts and sciences must perish with it. Further: the right of ownership is a natural right because
man has a natural right to the fruits of his own labor. Man (under God) owns his own bodily and
mental powers. With these powers he perfects objects. In perfecting objects, man, in a true sense,
projects into them something of his own personality, something of himself. Hence, to take away
these objects from man is to take away, so to speak, part of himself, an action clearly contrary to
natural law. Therefore, to deny the right of private ownership is to come in conflict with the
natural law. Let this matter be illustrated : Suppose a man works in his garden. His work is truly
something of his own, and it is as truly something given to the garden and henceforth inseparable
from it. Man's work gives to the garden a fruitfulness it did not have; for his labor removed
choking weeds, loosened soil for the ready admission of moisture, supplied the chemicals
necessary for fertilization, killed the insects that would harm or destroy the yield. Hence the man
has put something of his own, something even of himself, into the garden. To say that he does
not, or cannot own the garden is to say that he does not or cannot own what is indubitably hic,
and what he has put into the garden and is now inseparable from it. This is wholly unjust.
Therefore it is unjust, and contrary to natural law, to deny the possibility of man's ownership in
the garden. It does not follow, of course, that because a man works upon a plot of ground, he
owns the ground. We presuppose the original title by which the man holds the garden as his own,
and of the validity of this title we shall soon speak. But even if a man works in a neighbor's
property, he will work for wages or as a kindness, and so by a wage-contract or a gift-contract he
will transfer to his neighbor his natural right to the fruit of that labor; for that which he has given
to the land he will accept what is adjudged an equivalent money, or the sense of well-doing (and
the spiritual merit for a life hereafter) in the interests of a fellow-man.
Evaluation: EXERCISE 9-10

Name: _______________________________________ DATE: _____________

Course & Year: _______________________________ CAMPUS: __________
Modified TRUE or FALSE. Write TRUE if the statement is correct but if the statement is
FALSE, underline the word or group of words that makes the statement incorrect and provide
before the number the correct word or group of words to make the statement true.

_______________________1 Good name is the due and equal recognition and return for
benefits bestowed.

_________________ 2. The right of ownership is a natural right.

_________________ 3. Homicide is the unjust killing of a human being by private authority and
without the justification of necessary self-defence.

__________________4. Honor is the disagreement between what one says and what one knows,
or thinks one knows.

__________________5. Charity means love.

__________________6. Jocose lie is a lie meant to do mischief or injury. It is the lowest and
worst of lies.

__________________7. Man does not own his body. God owns it

_________________ 8. A man is bound to love his neighbor as himself

__________________ 9. Suicide is self-murder

__________________10. Officious lie is a lie of excuse or convenience.

References:
Bulaong, O.G., Calano, M.J.T., Lagliva, A., Mariano, M.N.E., & Principe, J.D.Z. (2018). Ethics: Foundations for Moral
Valuation. Quezon City: Rex Bookstore.
Glenn, P. (2013). Ethics: A Class Manual in Moral Philosophy. USA: Literary Licensing, LLC
Shafer-Landau, R. (2017). The Fundamentals of Ethics. USA: Oxford University Press