THE NATURE OF ETHICS

A. The Science of Ethics

- “Ethics” comes from the Greek word “ethos,” meaning character, or “a characteristic way of acting.”
- “Morality” comes from the Latin word “moralis,” meaning customs or manners.
- Ethics, then seems to pertain to the individual character or a person/s, whereas morality seems to point
to the relationships among human beings.
- Nevertheless, in ordinary language, whether we call a person ethical or moral, or an act unethical or
immoral doesn’t really make any difference.
- In philosophy, however, the term “ethics” is also used to refer in a specific area of study – the area of
morality, which concentrates on human conduct and human values. Hence, we can define ethics as the
science which guides our judgment concerning the morality of human act.
- Ethics is a natural science – it employs the power of human reason, which is purely a natural process. It
is not based on the teaching of the Catholic church or any system of belief. Being a branch of philosophy,
it arrives at its conclusion by the use of the human reason, which is philosophy’s only tool.
- Ethics is a practical science – apply its principles to their conduct.
- Ethics is not a physical science – It is rather a moral science, dealing with the free acts of men.
- Definition and purpose of ethics. Ethics is the study of the moral behavior or conduct of man as viewed
from the ultimate principles insofar as these principles are known by human reason. Briefly, Ethics is a
philosophical science dealing with the morality of the human acts.
- Like Logic, Ethics is a philosophico-practical science, but while the science of Logic guides man’s
intellect in the acquisition of truth, the science of Ethics guides the intellect in the acquisition and
application of the moral principles.
B. The Material and Formal Objects of Ethics
1. Material Object – In the case of ethics, the material object consists of “human acts.” Human acts are
acts performed by a man as a man – acts in which his superior faculties of both intellect and will are used.
2. Formal Object – In the case of ethics, the formal object is the moral rectitude of man’s human acts in
relation to man’s natural end.
3. Ethical Conclusions. In order to reach its conclusions, ethics draws upon the following sources”
- Human Reason – Its primary source
- Experience (Contemporary and historical)

 Personal Experience
 Experience of others
4. Relationship with the divine revelation. It is worth noting that divine revelation does not appear among
the sources. Divine revelation is not a source of ethics but is employed as a check on its conclusion. If
some apparent conclusion of ethics is contrary to God’s revelation, then the conclusion must be wrong,
since God cannot contradict Himself.
C. Difference between Ethics and Morals
- Ethics is the science which guides our human judgment concerning the morality of human acts.
- Morals is human conduct in the light of ethics.
- Ethics is a science of ideals
- Morals is the application of ethics.
D. Division of Ethics
Ethics has two major parts:
d.1. General Ethics – presents truths about human acts, and from these truth deduces the general
principles of morality.
d.2. Special Ethics – is applied ethics. It applies the principles of general ethics in different departments
of human activity, individual and social.
E. Approaches to the Study of Morality
e.1. The Scientific or Descriptive Approach – is most often used in the social sciences, which, like ethics,
deals with human behavior and conduct. The emphasis here is empirical, that is, social scientists observe
and collect data about human behavior and conduct them and then draw certain conclusions.
e.2. The Philosophical Approach (Normative or Prescriptive and Metaethics or Analytic ethics)
e.2.1 – Normative/Prescriptive – having to do with norms and prescription. Using the example that human
beings often act in their own self-interest, normative ethical philosophers would go beyond the
description and conclusion and want to know whether human beings should or ought to act in their own
self-interest. Prescribing how human beings should behave.
e.2.2 – Metaethics/Analytic Ethics – Metaethicists analyze the ethical language, ex. What do we mean
when we use the word good). They also analyze the rational foundation for ethical system or the logic and
reasoning of various ethicists. Metaethicists go beyond, concentrating on reasoning, logical structure and
language rather than the content.
F. The Norm of Morality
- “Why is it that some actions are worthy or unworthy of being chosen, and what is it which gives them
that quality and which accounts for that characteristic?”
f.1. Norms are Purely Internal – Many people today reject any moral norms or standards which would be
based on the existence of values outside of us and they argue that the only valid norms are purely internal.
f.2. Norms based on current Opinions and Customs – There are some who use the norms that current
opinions and customs determine the acceptable mode of acting or at least rationalize along those lines.
f.3. Norm of Expediency – Other people regulate their actions in accordance with what is useful for them
at the moment rather than what is objectively right or wrong. Many people today guide his action by
expediency rather than by morality.
f.4. Norm of Preference – There are still others who act in accordance with what is desirable, what one
“prefers” doing rather than what is right or wrong.
f.5. Situation Ethics – To the question, “what must I do to act rightly and well?” there is one answer
which we hear more often than any other in our day, “I must always do what I feel is right for me. I must
not impose my views of right and wrong on you, and you must not impose your views on me. For after
all, who is to say who is right?” Here, there is no objective standards for human activity, I must always
act in what I perceive to be a loving way, be letting the situation, in all of its uniqueness, speak to me.”
f.5.1. I must do what I feel is right for me. – The use of individual freedom
f.5.2. Provided I do not hurt or harm anyone else.
f.6. Evaluation – Morality is not a matter of current opinions or actions of the majority, it is not a matter
of what is useful at the moment, of a spirit of altruism, or expediency, or feeling. It is not a matter of
social usefulness or sentiments. That is, right which is in conformity with human nature and right reason
or commanded by God. Morality is intrinsic objective and unchanging.

THE MORALITY OF HUMAN ACTS

A. Human Act and Act of Man
- Human Act – is one that proceeds from the deliberate free will of man. It is an act that is deliberately
and knowingly performed by one having the use of reason. Therefore, both intellect and will are in play.
It is an act proper to man as man.
- Act of Man – is one that is not dependent upon intellect and free will. It is done by a human person but
is not proper to him as person because it does stem from those faculties which are peculiar to man,
namely intellect and will. In plain language, an act of man is essentially an animal act.
 For an act to be considered a human act, it must possess the following essential attributes:
1. It must be performed by a conscious agent who is aware of what he is doing and of its
consequences.
2. It must be performed by an agent who is acting freely, that is, by his own volition and
powers.
3. It must be performed by an agent who decides willfully to perform the act.
B. Elements Determining Morality
- Every human act derives its morality from three (3) elements: the act, the purpose, and the
circumstances.
1. The act itself – It will be seen rather easily that, in order to judge the morality of a human act, we must
first consider the “act itself.”
2. Purpose – or the end of the act. The purpose of a human act is the reason for which the act is
performed. In other words, the purpose is the intention of the agent.
3. Circumstances – From the moral point of view, the circumstances of a human act are those factors,
distinct from the act itself and from the purpose, which may affect the morality of the act.
C. Principles for Judging Morality
Various fundamental principles must be applied in judging the morality of a specific act.
1. An act is morally good if the act itself, the purpose and the circumstances are substantially good.
We say “substantially” good because an act may have minor moral shortcomings and still be a
truly good act.
2. If an act is intrinsically evil (evil by its nature), the act is not morally allowable regardless of
purpose or circumstances.
3. If an act is in itself morally good or at least indifferent, its morality will be judged by the purpose
or circumstances.
4. Circumstances may create, mitigate or aggravate sin.
5. If all three moral elements are good, the act is good. If any one element is evil, the act is evil.

D. Conditions Affecting Morality

The objective goodness or badness of an act is one thing, and the subjective accountability of the
agent is another thing.
1. Ignorance – is lack of knowledge in a person capable of knowing.
Types:
1.1. Vincible Ignorance – is that which can and should be dispelled. It implies culpable
negligence. The subject could know and ought to know.
1.2. Invincible Ignorance – Is that which cannot be dispelled.
1.3. Affected – is that which is deliberately fostered in order to avoid any obligation that
knowledge might bring to light.
2. Fear – is an agitation or disturbance of mind resulting from some present or imminent danger.
3. Concupiscence – is the rebellion of the passion against reason.
4. Violence – Violence is an external force applied by someone on another in order to compel him
to perform an action against his will.
5. Habit – A habit is an inclination to perform some particular action, acquired by repetition and
characterized by a decreased power of resistance and an increased facility of performance.
6. Nervous Mental Disorder – Nervous mental disorder can completely take away the voluntary
nature of certain accts or can lessen the voluntary nature of those acts.