UNIT 5: On MORALITY of HUMAN ACTS

Introduction Unit Learning Objective

In this phase of study, the focus is already on the By the end of this unit, you should be
criterion of morality. Likewise, this will consider the able to evaluate the determinants of
determinants of morality or the points of contact morality over the different aspects
which human acts have in reference to the norm of of human acts.
morality through which human acts are regarding as
either good or evil.

Timing

This subject is credited with 54 hours for the whole semester. The said fifty-four (54) hours
will be divided into 6 weeks, which means that a total of nine (9) hours per week must be consumed.
Such 9 hour-allotment is intended to handle the demands of a unit. To have a comprehensive
understanding of the unit topic, you need to devote six (9) hours of thorough reading and analysis of
the text. After which you will perform the fifth practice quiz or exercise to measure your level of
comprehension on the said topic. The fifth set of practice quiz or exercise is located in the Exercises
section.

Getting Started!

5.1. On the Description of MORALITY

It has already been mentioned earlier that morality is about the relation of a human act with
the dictates of reason or conscience resulting in an act to be called good or evil. When it is good, it
means that the said act is in agreement with the norm otherwise it is evil because it is not in agreement
with the norm of morality. Likewise, it has been said that anything that is good is desirable and it is
the end of a human act, while anything perceived as evil is not desirable and it is not the end of a
human act.

Morality can also be viewed as that quality (or property) of a human act whereby it measures
up to what it should be as a step towards the objective last end of human action or fails to measure
up. Human acts tend to achieve a series of ends like for example from childhood dream of becoming
a doctor could entail several ends such as going through elementary years, high school years, college
years and medical school years, passing the medical board examination, completing residency in a
reputable hospital, writing researches on the field of specialization in medicine, and become a full-
pledge consultant in the field of specialization chosen. All of these are a series of ends which a person
who wants to be a medical doctor should consider since childhood. If such individual is mindful of
always acting in a manner that is consistent with the norm of morality, then achieving all his or her
ends in life can be assured. On the other hand, individuals who prefer to deviate from the norms might
be hampered in achieving any of them and end up failing despite their efforts. Thus, conforming to
the norm or measuring up with the norm matters.
Division of Morality

1. Material and Formal

A human act considered in itself as a deed performed stands in relation to the Norm of
Morality as materially good or evil. Here, a human act on its own can be good or evil regardless
of the intention of the person doing. So, the act of giving alms is materially good regardless of
the intention of the giver. On the other hand, a human act considered as conditioned by the
agent’s understanding and will, stands in relation to the norm as formally good or evil. Using
the same example above, the act of giving alms is materially good, but it is formally evil if the
intention of the giver is evil. Thus, Material Morality is objective while Formal Morality is
subjective (Glenn, 1998).

2. Intrinsic and Extrinsic

Material morality is Intrinsic when the human act, as a deed performed, stands in relation
to the norm of morality as good or evil. For example, the Divine Law does not allow taking
another wife if a man still has a wife living with him. On the other hand, Material morality is
extrinsic if the relation of an act to the norm is determined not by its nature but by the
prescription of positive law or human laws. In reference to the example in Intrinsic Morality, a
Christian cannot remarry if his or her husband or wife is still alive. However, the law of Islam
allows a man to remarry even if his wife is still alive. Here, Extrinsic Morality applies.

5.2. On the Determinants of Morality

As mentioned earlier, morality can be said as the degree of relationship of a human act with
the norm or dictates of reason. But the question now is what points of contact or relationship exist
between human acts and the norm? The determinants of morality can help enlighten on this matter.
In dealing with these determinants of morality, just remember that all of them must be morally
acceptable as the Latin axiom states:”Bonum ex integra causa, malum ex quocumque defectu” or
stated in English as “A thing to be good, must be entirely good; it is vitiated by any defect”(Glenn,
1998). So, the rule in dealing with the determinants of morality is that if a human act is good on the
object down to the circumstances, then it is entirely good. But, if a human act fails to be good on the
object, then there is no way it can be good at all. If a human act is good in the object but fails to be
good with the end, then it cannot be good at all. Or if a human act is good in its object and end but fails
to be good with the circumstances then it cannot be morally good at all.
The determinants of morality are as follows:
1. the Object,
2. the End, and
3. the Circumstances.
The Object refers to the human act done. The focus here is intrinsic morality and not extrinsic
morality. So, regardless of the intention, the act by itself is good or evil. For example, the act of charity
of giving alms is good per se or good in itself while the act of stealing is evil per se despite of any good
or evil intention. Thus, Robin Hood is never justified on this determinant of morality even if he has
good intention because the object of his act of stealing is evil.
The End refers to the intention or motive of the agent. If the agent has a morally good motive,
it can add more goodness to a good act. But, if the motive is morally evil, it can make a morally good
act (object-the first determinant) evil. For example, if giving alms done by a person during this time
of pandemic is out of honest generosity, then the intention adds more goodness to the act itself. On
the other hand, if the giving of alms is done for the intention of getting noticed in order to be famous
2
and be assured of winning the future elections, then the good act of giving becomes evil due to the
wrong intention. While an evil act (evil object) cannot be validated good due to a morally good
intention like the case of Robin Hood’s charity.
The Circumstances refer to the conditions which can affect or qualify the performance of the
act as good or evil. These circumstances can also add more goodness or evilness to the human acts.
Herein below are the so-called circumstances, to wit:
1. Circumstance of Person (who is the agent or to whom is it done?)
2. Circumstance of Quantity or Quality (what is the extent of the act? or how much is
involved?)
3. Circumstance of Place (Where is the act performed?)
4. Circumstance of Means or Instrument (with what ally?)
5. Circumstance of Manner (was the act done in good faith?)
6. Circumstance of Time (when did the agent perform the act?)
7. Circumstance of the End of the Agent (the second determinant of Morality)
Using the Circumstance of Person, for instance, there is an added goodness of charity if done
to an elderly. Why? Because seniority in age is a big factor in doing charity. Also, in the Circumstance
of person, there will be an added malice if a dishonest act victimizes an elderly because a senior citizen
deserves more respect than anybody else.
If a human act is to be morally acceptable, just take note that it must be perfectly good on
three scores; the object, end, and circumstances.

5.3. On Properties of Human Acts

In Philosophy, the term “property” or attribute means a quality or characteristic, or capacity

which belongs by natural necessity to the thing but does not form an essential part of it. For example,
one of the properties of a person is the capacity of speech. Thus, normally a person can learn to speak.
However, other people cannot speak. Does it mean that those who can speak are more human than
those who cannot? The answer is both of them are equally human regardless of their capacity to
speak. Speech is only a property but not an essential part of being human.
In human acts, there are properties which do not belong to the essential elements of
knowledge, freedom, and voluntariness. These properties of human acts cannot influence their
essential elements like the way the modifiers can.
The following are properties of human acts such as: imputability, merit, and demerit.
Imputability-this property of a human act answers the questions “to whom can a human act
be attributed to?” “who can be praised or blamed for such human acts done?”
Imputability clarifies the matter of responsibility and accountability for actions. For example,
a person who stole cash from another cannot justify his actions by saying “it’s my right hand that did
it so that I do not deserve to be punished for such action.” In other words, actions belong to the
performer or agent as a whole and not in part.
If a human act is imputable or attributable to the agent as good or evil, then it brings with it
praise or blame. A human act that is good deserves praise and therefore results in a merit. What is the
merit of following the law? The answer is freedom and peace of mind. On the other hand, a human act
that is evil deserves blame and therefore results in demerit or punishment. So, what is the demerit
for deviating from a law? The answer is the lack of freedom and peace of mind.

3
5.4. On Consequences of Human Acts

Human acts create a habit of doing things as time pass by. Thus, it is easier for a person to be
honest because of frequent repetition of honesty while its difficult for the same person to be dishonest
because he got used to being honest. This reality is what we call a consequence of a human act.
There are two consequences of human acts such as: virtue and a vice.
As mentioned in earlier chapters, a virtue is a good habit which has been formed overtime.
On the other hand, a vice is a bad habit formed by frequent repetition.
There are several good habits or virtues such as: prudence; justice; fortitude; and
temperance.
Prudence is a virtue of the mind which enables an agent the right means to an end.
Remember prudence is a virtue of the intellect not of the will. It is said that the practical measure of
prudence is moderation or being in the middle. As it is said in Latin: “Virtus in medio stat.” The other
virtues are virtues of the will which are guided by this principle of moderation of being in the middle.
Justice is the virtue which inclines one to give each one his due. Being guided by prudence,
this must remain in the middle of broad spectrum of possibilities of lack and excess. Thus, this must
not be lacking in effort nor excessive in effort. Justice must avoid of giving less than what is required
nor giving more than what is required by the law.
Fortitude is the virtue which inclines one to face dangers with reasonable courage. Just like
justice, this is also guided by prudence to avoid being a coward and to avoid being too bold.
Temperance is the virtue which regulates the use of pleasures in life. This is also guided by
prudence in order to avoid the extremes.

5.5. On Ethical Theories

A lot of ethical theories have ensued since the time of Socrates. In this last part of this
unit, some of the most commonly discussed ethical theories are considered in order to give the
learners a different ethical view about what is right and what is wrong in actions.

Virtue Ethics
In Virtue Ethics, morality is determined by means of character developed by a person
into what is called as virtue. So, Virtue Ethics is not about blind following of the norms but
instead develop the right character that help a person develop valid and acceptable moral
judgments. This Virtue Ethics was introduced by Aristotle himself who was well-known for
developing the four commonly known virtues such as: prudence, fortitude, justice, and
temperance.

Deontology
Developed by Immanuel Kant, this theory stresses that morality is determined by good
intention which he called “good will”. Even if the action which has good will results in an evil
consequence, still the action is good and the human agent is not to be blamed for the evil results
because Kant believes that the evil results are beyond the control of the performer. Likewise,
Deontology requires that for an action to be good, it must be done to perform an obligation to
the welfare of others. This is the justification used by some ethicists for the bombing of
Hiroshima and Nagasaki that it was done for the greater good of the majority of humanity and

4
the deaths of thousands of Japanese are beyond the control of those who authorized the said
bombings.

Utilitarianism
Two philosophers became famous with this ethical theory called Utilitarianism. They
were Jeremy Bentham and John Stuart Mill who actually advanced this theory of the 18th
century in England.
Both Bentham and Mill contend that humans assess that rightness or wrongness of an
act depends on whether actions can bring pleasure or pain. Thus, a right act can bring pleasure
while a wrong act can bring pain. Later, pleasure has been equated with happiness. Thus, they
contend that humans who will do right will find happiness while those who will do wrong will
yield pain.
However, Bentham and Mill presented their theories in a different manner. Bentham
expressed his theory in the famous maxim that “the greatest happiness of the greatest number
is the measure of right and wrong.” It is clear that he is emphasizing quantity of happiness
instead of quality. This is proven by his devised Hedonistic Calculus which is dependent on
probability of results such as:
1. Intensity (how strong is the pleasure?)
2. Duration (How long does the pleasure last?)
3. Certainty (How is one assured of the pleasure?)
4. Proximity (How soon will pleasure be experienced?)
5. Fecundity (How many times will pleasure be repeated?)
6. Purity (Will there be pain?)
7. Extent (How many people will experience the pleasure?)
Any action that is morally acceptable must gain a greater number in each of this variable
in order to be right because this is about the “greatest number.”
For Mill, he stated his point of view in one of his famous maxims which say that “it is
better to be a human being dissatisfied than a pig satisfied; better to be Socrates dissatisfied
than a fool satisfied. And if the fool, or the pig, is of a different opinion, it is only because they
only know their own side of the question.” Unlike Bentham, Mill believes that there are
different kinds of pleasure wherein some are lower forms of pleasure while others belong to
the higher forms of pleasure. Mill did not approve of the Hedonistic Calculus of Bentham
because they cannot help in the advancement of civilization of men instead men must be made
aware that they must pursue more the higher forms of pleasure instead of the lower forms of
pleasure.
What are these higher forms and lower forms of pleasure? The lower forms of pleasure
are those that satisfy only the body like smoking, drinking liquor and other bodily forms of
satisfaction. On the other hand, higher forms of pleasure are those that satisfy man’s
rationality. The higher forms of pleasure are known here as “intellectual pleasures”. If one is
to examine closely the above- mentioned maxim of Mill, he used the term pig to refer to the
satisfaction through lower forms of pleasure which is nothing compared to human
dissatisfaction, while he used the term fool to refer to a person who insists in getting satisfied
only with the lower forms of pleasures which is nothing compared to Socrates who is
dissatisfied where the latter’s satisfaction with intellectual pleasures are worth dying for.
Thus, if Bentham and Mill are compared, the former is concerned of quantity of pleasure while
the latter is concerned with quality of pleasure in determining morality.
5
 Notes

Key Concepts: Morality, Determinants, Properties, Consequences, Ethical Theories

Unit Activity

Activities designed for this unit give primary attention to the Morality of Human Acts
particularly the information about the Determinants, Properties, Consequences, and Ethical
Theories. Please refer to the activity section.

Readings

On Morality, Determinants of Human Acts, and Selected Ethical Theories

Unit Summary

• Human acts which are frequently performed create certain habits which are either good,
known as virtues, or evil, known as vices.
• Likewise, human acts must be owned by the performer or agent, a characteristic known
as immutability.
• Ethical theories which can help explain several events and actions which are being
justified by several moral philosophers like Kant, Bentham, and Mill.