BLOCK-3 INTRODUCTION

Moral consciousness is not just another inherent dimension of human relationship. It is the
essence of interpersonal relationship. It is only through the authentic application of moral
consciousness can one rise above ignorance, inexperience, and self-interest that regularly impede
moral judgement. Through the development of moral consciousness, a person is able to gain the
most appropriate knowledge, wisdom, sensitivity, and insight for ensuring that they can act
justly, rightly and promote common good. To this end, this block focuses its attention on this
relatively neglected but vitally important aspects and elements of moral consciousness such as
moral experience, virtues and vices, human action, norm of morality, and natural and moral law.

Unit 1 is on “Moral Experience.” This unit introduces the learners to the concept of moral
experience in general and guide them to gain an insight into the philosophical analysis of the
main components of moral experience, moral judgment, moral dilemmas, moral principles and
moral sentiments. Various theories connected with the norm for moral experience are presented
so that there is some clarity with regard to moral decisions.
Unit 2 is on “Virtues and Vices.” Virtues are the habits that characterize the human personality
which quests for final fulfillment, specifically happiness. Humans search for happiness. The
means to attain this goal is virtuous life. In this unit, after a preliminary understanding of the
meaning of virtue we make an effort to grasp the Socratic, Platonic and the Aristotelian
conception of virtue followed by teachings on the same in major world religions.
Unit 3 is on “Analysis of Human Action.” This Unit studies human action which is central to
human conduct and Ethics. The unit highlights the obstacles that could possibly obstruct the
performance of human act. Then it analyses the factors that generally influence the morality of
human action against the backdrop of determinism and indeterminism.

Unit 4, “Norm of Morality,” explains the basic understanding of the norms of morality. We
understand conscience as subjective norm of morality and intuition, law and pleasure as
objective norms of morality. Norm is a rule or standard for our judgement. It remains as a
standard or rule with which we can judge our actions as good or bad. For this we have to
compare the human acts with the norms before we form our conclusions.

Unit 5, “Natural and Moral Law,” is oriented to understand the phenomenon of morality, to
define natural law, to understand its nature, i.e. its universality and particularity, change of
natural law, the relation of natural law to particular laws, its relation to human dignity, to the
concept of intrinsic evil and to understand the criticism of natural law and to answer it. Our
understanding of natural law has shown that there is an essential relationship between moral
values and reason. The good manifests itself to reason. Or, it is only in the light of reason that
the good becomes visible.

The above given five units emphasize that moral consciousness, that arises from moral
experience, is the essence of interpersonal relationship. The cultivation of virtues and avoidance
of vices are human actions in accordance with subjective and objective norms of morality having
their foundation in natural and moral law.

1
UNIT 1 MORAL EXPERIENCE

1.0 Objectives
1.1 Introduction
1.2 Study of Moral Experience
1.3 Moral Consciousness
1.4 Data for Moral Experience
1.5 Philosophical Analysis
1.6 Norm for Moral Judgment
1.7 Moral Dilemmas
1.8 Moral Principles
1.9 Moral Sentiments
1.10 Dynamics of Moral Experience
1.11 Let Us Sum Up
1.12 Key Words
1.13 Further Readings and References
1.14 Answers to Check Your Progress

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------1.0.
OBJECTIVES

The major objective of this unit is to introduce the learners to the concept of moral experience in
general and guide them to gain an insight in to the philosophical analysis of the main
components of moral experience, namely moral consciousness, moral judgment, moral
dilemmas, moral principles and moral sentiments. Various theories connected with the norm for
moral experience are presented so that there is some clarity with regard to moral decisions. So at
the end of this unit, the student will be able:

• To understand moral experience in general

• To gain a philosophical insight into the various theories of moral judgment
• To have an idea of moral dilemma, moral principle and moral sentiment
• To understand the meaning of dynamics of moral experience

1.1. INTRODUCTION

Ethics is a branch of enquiry in Philosophy. It is a treatise which studies human behaviour and
determines what is right and wrong behaviour. Another term for ethics is moral philosophy. It
attempts to show that there is in human beings a spontaneous and moral awareness and
orientation for distinguishing between right or wrong. The capacity for differentiating the mere
registration of facts from the meaningfulness of such facts is based on rationality. Ethics does not
merely describe the rules of conduct as a positive science but it also aims, as a normative science
to show if moral conclusions can serve as objective norms for daily living. The whole of human
history may be viewed as a journey in moral experience. Humanity has undertaken this important
voyage by a continuous process of moral decisions.

1
Against this backdrop, ‘Moral Experience’ includes a wide range of concepts like moral
consciousness, moral sense, moral sentiments, moral dilemmas, moral principles and moral
judgments. Moral experience investigates all these as human events. Psychological states such as
intentions, motives, will, reason, emotions like guilt and shame, moral beliefs and attitudes offer
further scope for moral experience. It does not stop with psychology but covers concepts like
virtue, character, habit and freedom. Hence moral experience may be studied both as a
descriptive and as a normative science.

1.2. STUDY OF MORAL EXPERIENCE

The Study of Moral experience is motivated by scientific curiosity, a search for explanations of
all kinds of moral phenomena, more specifically as to what is designated as moral experience.
However, the study must include the promotion of human welfare. Moral experience is highly
contextual and communal. Therefore cultural and social factors play a very important role in the
understanding of moral experience. Another significant aspect of moral experience is the moral
system which regulates the member of the community. Moral experience is in constant need of
revision and improvement in view of public service in a democracy. Individual development of
personality always takes place through the study of one’s moral experience. Moral sense derives
its character from the public context within the larger socio-political and intellectual context.
One could argue for moral experience purely on individual conviction. Rejection of external
authority and belief in one’s own inner light situates moral sense within human nature itself
without any reference to any agency or divine will.

1.3. MORAL CONSCIOUSNESS

Moral experience begins with moral consciousness or moral sense. In fact moral consciousness
and moral experience are used as synonyms by many. But it is good to distinguish between the
two. Experience is a generic term in the sense that whatever affects a person can be called an
‘experience’. It can be an emotion like love or hatred. It can be active or passive like love for a
friend or love of a friend. One can speak of one’s progress in studies as ‘knowledge experience.’
Any experience leaves behind an impression or memory. Such impressions or memories
cumulatively add up to one’s experience. The totality of such experiences contributes to the
formation of a human personality.

However in the experiential process of personality development of an individual, there is always

a lack of awareness. It is only when an individual becomes aware of one’s latent talents and
potentialities of every aspect like mind, heart and will that one could speak of consciousness. As
a human experience ‘human consciousness’ is never total. Even though human consciousness or
the self- reflective process of a person is integral to human nature, it is possible to distinguish the
contents of the various fields of human consciousness. These fields are normally referred to as
‘noetic consciousness ’, ‘aesthetic consciousnesses’ and ‘moral consciousness’ which highlight
the formal objects of Truth, Beauty and Goodness.

The formal object of moral consciousness or rectitude deals with what is right and the right thing
to do. Rectitude or Goodness is very meaningful word. Careful reflection and calm reasoning is
required to understand the implications and importance of the phrase ‘moral goodness’ or ‘moral

2
rectitude’ which constitutes the major component of moral experience. The passage from moral
experience to moral consciousness may very well be compared with the entry point of an airport
and the myriad runways on the tarmac. It is again like going from the merely implicit
background opaque experience to the explicit foreground of enlightened consciousness. So far, it
has been dim, vague and unthematic. Henceforth it would be clear, plain and thematic.

1.4. DATA FOR MORAL EXPERIENCE

At this juncture, a remark is necessary as to what is specific or ‘subjective’ experience of a

particular individual and what makes for the general or ‘objective’ experience of every person. A
study of the moral experience of others obtained from public contact with them and a careful
study of moral history would throw light on the question of the data of moral experience. The
most immediate primary data of moral experience are actions which are good and which are
done by everyone and the actions which are bad and which are avoided by everyone. The
scholastic tenet that ‘the good is to be done and the evil to be avoided’ is the principle of
common sense. Humans come to the awareness of this distinction through the process of
socialization, influence and education.

Some good actions are absolute, some are conditional and some others are optional in practice.
Similarly some bad actions are avoided absolutely while others are avoided conditionally. A
sense of obligation or constraint is the result of the feeling of’ ‘should’ or ‘should not’. Moral
experience is based on a moral choice or freedom to comply with the sense of obligation or
constraint. Moral obligation becomes objective in the sense that an individual finds oneself as
‘obligated’ even before any moral decision. It comes to express a universal application. The
second aspect of moral experience is that what is right must be done because it is right to do it
and it is an end in itself and avoid what is wrong and must be avoided. The sense of satisfaction
when the right thing is done and the sense of guilt when a wrong thing is done is another
important datum of moral experience. The right action gets approval and praise while the wrong
action invites condemnation and blame.

1.5. PHILOSOPHICAL ANALYSIS

A philosophical understanding of moral experience invites us to explore the meaning of terms

such as ‘good or bad’, ‘right or wrong’. There are different approaches to moral experience.
Linguistic analysis of moral experience serves as a useful method to understand moral problems.
Meta-ethical theories like logical positivism, emotivism and intuitionism do not actually solve
ethical problems but contain very precious insights for understanding moral experience,
particularly with regard to moral ideal or moral value which cannot be reduced to non- moral
value. Moral experience is made up of specific moral actions. Moral actions issue from moral
values. And the totality of moral values can be called the moral order.

What is the foundation for moral experience? Do humans build such a foundation? Is it
universal? How do the humans come to know such a foundation? The first two questions are
explicit and the latter are implicit.
Humans as beings with a conscience are dynamic, always becoming and in the making,
transparent, undetermined and indefinable. They become the foundation of moral experience. If

3
Humans as social beings are the immediate domain of moral experience, then interrelatedness
becomes the foundation for moral order and experience. This interrelatedness operates at three
levels namely, a relatedness with an absolute being, a relatedness with other humans and a
relatedness with the infra–human world. For the moment, the relation with the Absolute as
religious value is kept aside. The other two relations play a significant role in moral experience.
Expression of moral sentiments towards the infra-human world is analogous in the sense that
one’s attitudes towards animals and plants are similar to one’s attitudes towards fellow human
beings. Only the relation with other humans serves as the primary sphere of moral experience.
Actions in this domain become morally qualifiable and quantifiable.

The social dimension is a constitutive aspect of the human order. Humans are not merely ‘social
animals’ but are bound by ‘social contract’ as well. The human interrelatedness serves as the
foundation for moral experience, human rights and duties. While the believer considers the
foundation of moral order to be God, there are others who take human relatedness and freedom
to be the foundation of the moral order.

Check Your Progress I

Note: a) Use the space provided for your answer.

b) Check your answers with those provided at the end of the unit.

1) What do you understand by moral experience?

………………………………………………………………………………………………………
………………………………………………………………………………………………………
………………………………………………………………………………………………………
………………………………………………………………………………………………………
………………………………………………………………………………………………………
………………………………………………………

2) Why is natural law universally valid?

………………………………………………………………………………………………………
………………………………………………………………………………………………………
………………………………………………………………………………………………………
………………………………………………………………………………………………………
………………………………………………………………

1.6. NORM FOR MORAL JUDGMENT

Once the foundation for moral experience is established, the question about the criterion for
moral judgment arises. Moral judgments must be based on ‘norms, rules, standards or criteria.
Ethical history has proposed ethical theories which are founded on ethical principles. A cursory
view of these norms would shed some light on moral judgment. These theories may generally be
classified as teleological (from the Greek word, ‘telos-end’) and deontological (from the Greek

4
word ‘deon-that which is binding, duties). Teleological theories propound ‘ethical egoism’,
represented by hedonism of Epicurus and Thomas Hobbes, ‘eudemonism’ of Aristotle and
‘ethical altruism’ or Utilitarianism represented by Jeremy Bentham and John Stuart Mill.

TELEOLOGICAL THEORIES

Epicurus (4th century BC) looks at pleasure as the motivating power of moral experience and
indeed as the end of human life. Pleasure is not the present transitory sensation. It lasts
throughout a life time. Pleasure consists in the absence of pain than in positive gratification. It is
preeminently serenity of soul or repose (atarxia). Virtue is necessary condition for serenity.
Vices produce pain and are an impediment to the acquisition of the serenity of the soul. The
highest virtue is phronesis, the prudential art of calculating and measuring pleasure and pain.
Epicurean norm is self-centred and hedonistic. What is conducive to the purpose becomes the
norm of moral judgment.

Thomas Hobbes (1588-1679AD) explains all kinds of experiences, namely physiological,

emotional, intellectual and volitional in terms of physical motion. Pleasure sets in motion all
these of events while pain impedes them. It is reasonable to aim at pleasure for self-preservation
which also implies that humans must endeavour to establish peace among themselves which is
the first law of nature. Along with this, humans must be willing to forego their claim to have
everything. These laws of nature are dictates of reason which govern moral judgment and moral
experience. Thus there is openness to social consciousness and civil law in the social
utilitarianism of Hobbes. His norm for moral judgment can be interpreted as self-preservation or
civil law. Civil law aims at the common good. His insight is that moral good is based on human
interrelatedness. Both these theories are termed as ‘ethically hedonistic’.

Aristotle (384 BC) states that every thing aims at perfection as the ‘good’. In the attainment of
perfection, humans achieve happiness. The highest good consists in the attainment of perfect
exercise of properly human activities. These human activities are moral and intellectual virtues.
Virtue is the mean or middle between two extremes, (e.g.) courage is the mean between
foolhardiness and cowardice. Virtue is a constant disposition of the soul. While moral virtues
perfect the will, intellectual virtues perfect the mind. Aristotle lists five intellectual virtues. 1) the
art of know-how (tekne-later technology) 2)prudence(phronesis) 3) demonstrative
reason(episteme) 4)intuitive reason(nous) and 5) wisdom(sophia). The cardinal moral virtues are:
1) courage, 2) temperance, 3) justice and 4) wisdom. In the philosophical contemplation of
wisdom, does consist the supreme goodness and perfect happiness. Hence practice of virtues
becomes the norm of moral judgement.

Jeremy Bentham (1748-1832AD) a major figure in the history of ethics emphasizes utility,
which is that property in any object whereby it tends to produce benefit, advantage, pleasure,
good and happiness to the party whose interest is considered. The British utilitarian movement
originated with Bentham since it was he who applied the utilitarian principle to civil legislation
and morals for the first time. It is measured by the degree of conduciveness to the greater
happiness of the greatest number of humans. He states that humans are moved to action by the
attraction of pleasure and the repulsion of pain. By pleasure he not only means sensual pleasure
but also aesthetic, intellectual and benevolent satisfaction. His famous’ felicific calculus’ enables

5
humans to decide what concrete action to perform or avoid so as to find the greatest amount of
happiness. Any moral action results in happiness based on the following seven factors. ‘the
intensity of pleasure, its duration, its certainty or uncertainty, its propinquity or remoteness, its
fecundity of further pleasurable sensations, its purity from unpleasant sensations, and its extent
or number of people affected. The norm of moral judgement is pleasure understood in the light
of his ‘measure of utility’. Bentham’s ideas represent personal utilitarianism.

John Stuart Mill (1806-1873AD) is even more explicit than Bentham when he states that ‘the
general principle to which all rules of practice ought to conform and the test by which they
should be tried is that of the conduciveness to the happiness of mankind or rather of all sentient
beings’. He defines utility as the ‘Greatest Happiness Principle’ as the foundation of moral
experience. Actions are right in proportion as they tend to promote happiness, wrong as they tend
to produce the reverse of happiness. By happiness he means pleasure and the absence of pain.
According to Mill, what humans desire immediately is not their personal happiness but common
happiness. Besides there is not only a quantitative difference between pleasures but also a
qualitative one. And it is virtue which is conducive to common happiness. He associates the
utility principle with the notion of justice. The norm of moral judgement in the case of Mill
would be the ‘conscientious feelings of mankind’. Hence Mill may be designated as
representative of social utilitarianism.

DEONTOLOGICAL THEORIES

The second set of moral theories is deontological which lays stress on duty or obligation. The
norm for moral judgement is based on the ‘rightness’ of a moral duty. Deontological theories like
the Divine Voluntarism of Ockham and Moral Positivism of Durkheim speaks of moral norm as
extrinsic to moral experience. But the Cosmism of the Stoics, the Moral Sense of Shaftsbury, the
Formal Rationalism of Kant, the Right Reason of Thomas Aquinas and the Human Nature of
Suarez locate the moral norm as intrinsic to moral experience.

William of Ockham (1290-1349AD): Divine freedom and omnipotence play an important role
in Ockham’s thought. Since moral order like the created order is contingent, what is good or bad
is in such a way as God commands or forbids it. By an absolute power God has established a
definite moral order and it is not likely to be changed. He speaks of ‘right reason’ and any
morally good will, a moral virtue or a virtuous act is always in conformity to it. Indeed for an act
to be a virtuous act, not only must it conform to right reason but also it must be performed
simply because it is good. It appears that on the one hand he posits the absolute will of God as
the foundation, norm and source of moral experience and on the other he proposes ‘right reason’
at least as the proximate norm of morality. According to Ockham, the ultimate and sufficient
reason to follow right reason is God’s will.

Emile Durkheim (1858-1917AD) For Durkheim, morality is a social phenomenon. Society is

not the sum of individuals but it is a kind of ideal. This ideal or ‘collective conscience’ of the
group is the source of religious and moral ideals. So morality has a social function and it consists
in the help it gives the individual to adapt themselves to live harmoniously with the mores of the
group. The norm for moral judgment would be precisely these mores of one’s social group.

6
Collective thought becomes the norm for the truth or falsehood .This kind of thinking in ethics is
called ‘Moral Positivism’.

The Stoics (4th cent BC onwards) According to the Stoics, reality consists of two principles, one
is active and the other passive which stand one to the other as the soul to the body. Good and evil
are two necessary parts, each subserving the perfection of the whole cosmos. All human actions
are necessitated by fate. Virtue consists in one’s internal conformity to the logos, or the comic
order. Virtue is the only good for humans desirable in and for itself and vice is its own
punishment. Humans are social beings and as citizens of the cosmos they must live according to
the Logos.

Lord Shaftesbury (1671-1713AD) As an ardent admirer of Aristotle, Shaftesbury insists on the

social nature of humans. Self-love as distinct from selfishness can be consistent with and
contribute to love of others or benevolence. Rectitude or virtue is the harmony of one’s passions
and affections under the control of the reason both with regard to oneself and with regard to
others. The emphasis is laid on character rather on actions. Virtue must be sought for its own
sake. His theory of ‘moral sense’ states that every human is capable of perceiving moral values
and distinguishing between virtues and vices. Moral concepts are connatural to humans but he
admits that moral sense may be darkened by bad customs and education.

Immanuel Kant (1724-1804AD) Kant is a landmark in the history of morality. Moral

knowledge does not depend exclusively on experience but contains apriori elements like
necessity and universality. But Kant attempts to show that these elements originate in practical
reason. He understands by practical reason the choices made in accordance with the moral law.
He discovers in practical reason the nature of moral obligation. The ultimate basis of moral law
cannot be anything else but pure practical reason itself. It is Kantian rationalism. Kant starts with
an analysis of the idea of ‘good will’. He discovers that a good will is a will which acts for the
sake of duty alone. It acts out of reverence for the moral law. It acts because duty is duty. Moral
law itself is the source of moral obligation. He further proceeds to formulate the universal form
as the principle to serve as the criterion for the moral judgment. Kant calls this universal form of
the moral law as the ‘categorical imperative’. The possible ground for categorical imperative
must be an end which is absolute and not relative. For Kant the supreme good is virtue, which is
nothing but making one’s will accord perfectly with the moral law. No other philosopher has
brought out better than he, the nature of the moral obligation, its independence of empirical
experience and its foundation in reason.

Thomas Aquinas (1224-1274AD) The most prominent Christian philosopher and theologian of
the Middle Ages speaks of God as the ultimate cause of everything. A certain plan and order
exists in the mind of God which he calls the ‘Eternal Reason’ or the Eternal Law. As manifest in
creation, he calls it the ‘Natural Law’ which can be known through human reason. Any act that
conforms to the plan of God is good; otherwise it is bad. The ultimate end of man is God
personalistically conceived. Human reason is the proximate homogenous norm of moral
experience.

Francis Suarez (1548-1617AD) The eternal law is a free decree of the will of God who lays
down an order to be followed. The principles of the natural law are self-evident and therefore

7
known immediately and intuitively by all normal human beings. For Suarez the moral good
consists in the conformity to human nature that is to rational nature as such. Human reason is
seen as a capacity to distinguish between acts which are conformed to human nature from those
which are not. And hence human reason not only becomes the foundation of moral experience
but also its standard.

The teleological theories approach moral experience and moral values as good, namely, the good
of the humans. The deontological theories approach moral experience and moral values as a
right, namely the obligation of the humans. There is a relation of reciprocity between the good
and the right. While the norm of the good is an ideal for the humans, the norm of the right is
moral consciousness itself. As human interrelatedness is the immediate ontological foundation of
the moral order and love is the existential foundation, the basis of moral activity, the norm for
moral judgement has to be located in the golden mean of Confucius, ‘do not do to others what
you do not want others do to you’, the golden rule of the New Testament, ‘do to others what you
want others do to you’ or in the categorical imperative of Kant, ‘so act as to treat humanity
whether in your own person or in that of any other always and at the same time as an end and
never merely as a means’ The norm of morality is constitutive of a person’s self-actualization as
a social being and its practical principle for moral judgment is the principle of universal love.
Theory and practice together form what is called moral experience.

1.7. MORAL DILEMMAS

The term ‘Moral dilemma’ is applied to any difficult moral problem. Dilemmas raise hard moral
questions. In the context of relevance of morality, moral philosophers state moral dilemma when
one moral reason conflicts with another. Moral reasons normally conflict with religious or
aesthetic reasons. Bur moral dilemmas occur only when there is conflict between two moral
reasons. A moral reason is a moral requirement just in case it would be morally wrong not to act
on it without an adequate justification or excuse. E.g. X holds a weapon for Y; then X has a
moral reason to return it when asked for. Burt if X feels that Y would commit a heinous crime
with the weapon, then X has moral reason not to return the weapon.

1.8. MORAL PRINCIPLES

Normally a person of moral principle is associated with s fixed set of rules that ignores the
complexities of the situation and fails to adapt one’s behviour to changing circumstances. The
morality of principles is contrasted with the morality of sensibility which lays stress on virtue as
sympathy and integrity. But a general sense of moral principle indicates some factor that is
generally relevant to what ought to be done. Moral principles can then be regarded as statements
picking out those factors of situations that can be appealed to as moral reasons. Correctness of
universal moral principles is taken as a condition of the correctness of particular moral
judgments. Ultimate moral principles and their correctness is a necessary condition of the
correctness of all other moral judgments. Without some ultimate moral principles, moral
judgments cannot be justified.

1.9. MORAL SENTIMENTS

8
Moral sentiments are a subset of affective phenomena like feelings, dispositions and attitudes
that are more or less intimately related to moral phenomena. Moral sentiments are varied and
result in different responses to moral phenomena. There are cognitivist and non cognitivist
theories of emotion which also apply to moral sentiments. Cognitivists (Nussbaum: 2001)
identify emotions with evaluative judgments. Noncognitivists (William James: 1842-1910) view
emotions are essentially felt experiences different in kind from that of beliefs and judgments.
Contemporary noncognitivists (Prinz: 2004) believe that sentiments are not properly amenable to
assessment in terms of truth or falsehood. Philosophers have debated the role of moral sentiment
in moral deliberations and judgments, moral motivation and moral responsibility. Today moral
philosophers are especially concerned with the role of moral sensibility, a capacity for
experiencing or disposition to experience feelings, emotions, honour, pride and shame relative to
the role of reason.

Philosophical interest in the affective aspects of one’s moral experience is not limited to any
epoch like the moral developments in the 18th century British moral philosophy. Right from the
early Greek thought, one finds a concern with the place of feelings, emotions and affective
attitudes generally in the constitution and care of the psyche or soul. . For Plato and Aristotle
human excellence requires that one’s soul is properly constituted in the relation of the rational,
desiderative and appetitive parts- the latter comprising the domain of sentiments and emotions.
Proper constitution of the soul is an achievement of the harmony among all the three. All affects
of the soul have ethical import even if they do not have ethical content.

1.10. DYNAMICS OF MORAL EXPERIENCE

In the evolutionary vision of the human community, the question of universal validity of moral
norm raises questions. The dynamic becoming of the human order relativizes any absolute norm
for moral experience. Authors like Charles Darwin (1809-1882AD), Pierre Teilhard de Chardin
(1881-1955AD) Sri Aurobindo (1872-1950AD) with much evidence from biology, science and
philosophy emphasize the dynamic and changing consciousness of the human and corresponding
moral order. Hence the structure of moral experience must be understood in the sense of what
constitutes the constant of moral experience and what makes the variable. While moral
consciousness in a univocal sense remains the constant, immediate data in an absolute manner,
the same moral consciousness in specific and particular contexts of the moral law becomes the
relative norm of moral experience. While metaphysical certitude is possible and is in fact
existentially operative with regard to the immediate data of moral experience, moral certitude is
sufficient with regard to the specifications of the moral law.

1.11. LET US SUM UP

Humans in search of realization base their moral experience in the ontological foundation of
moral obligation which is nothing but human interrelatedness and the norm for moral good is
nothing but the social character of the human community. Moral precepts and sentiments as self-
evident factors regulate moral experience. By continuously becoming human and moral persons
and progressively developing human and moral consciousness, moral experience is
particularized and concretized. This process involves both moral intuition and reflection on
human and moral experience. Love is the form of all moral precepts and norms.

9
Check Your Progress II

Note: a) Use the space provided for your answer.

b) Check your answers with those provided at the end of the unit.

1) Name some of the important ethical theories.

………………………………………………………………………………………………………
………………………………………………………………………………………………………
………………………………………………………………………………………………………
………………………………………………………………………

2) Write a short note on moral sentiments.

.

………………………………………………………………………………………………………
………………………………………………………………………………………………………
………………………………………………………………………………………………………
………………………………………………………………………………………………………
………………………………………………………………

1.12. KEY WORDS

Moral consciousness: Moral consciousness or rectitude deals with what is right and the right
thing to do.
Moral dilemmas: Moral dilemmas occur only when there is conflict between two moral reasons.
A moral reason is a moral requirement just in case it would be morally wrong not to act on it
without an adequate justification or excuse.
Moral sentiments: Moral sentiments are a subset of affective phenomena like feelings,
dispositions and attitudes that are more or less intimately related to moral phenomena. Moral
sentiments are varied and result in different responses to moral phenomena.
Moral Principle: A general sense of moral principle indicates some factor that is generally
relevant to what ought to be done.

1.13. FURTHER READINGS AND REFERENCES

Bonar, James. Moral Sense. New York: Macmillan, 1930.

Daiches, Raphael. The Moral Sense. London: Oxford University Press, 1947
Durkheim, E. Sociology and Philosophy. Glencoe: Free Press, 1953
Stuart, Henry. Moral Experience: An Outline of Ethics for Class Teaching. London: Sanborn
Press, 2007

1.14. ANSWERS TO CHECK YOUR PROGRESS

10
Answers to Check Your Progress I

1. Moral experience begins with moral consciousness or moral sense. In fact moral
consciousness and moral experience are used as synonyms by many. But it is good to distinguish
between the two. Experience is a generic term in the sense that whatever affects a person can be
called an ‘experience’. It can be an emotion like love or hatred. It can be active or passive like
love for a friend or love of a friend. One can speak of one’s progress in studies as ‘knowledge
experience’. Any experience leaves behind an impression or memory. Such impressions or
memories cumulatively add up to one’s experience. The totality of such experiences contributes
to the formation of a human personality.

2. A philosophical understanding of moral experience invites us to explore the meaning of terms

such as ‘good or bad’, ‘right or wrong’. There are different approaches to moral experience.
Linguistic analysis of moral experience serves as a useful method to understand moral problems.
Meta-ethical theories like logical positivism, emotivism and intuitionism do not actually solve
ethical problems but contain very precious insights for understanding moral experience,
particularly with regard to moral ideal or moral value which cannot be reduced to non- moral
value. Moral experience is made up of specific moral actions. Moral actions issue from moral
values. And the totality of moral values can be called the moral order.

Answers to Check Your Progress II

1. These theories may generally be classified as teleological (from the Greek word, ‘telos-end’)
and deontological (from the Greek word ‘deon-that which is binding, duties). Teleological
theories propound ‘ethical egoism’, represented by hedonism of Epicurus and Thomas Hobbes,
‘eudemonism’ of Aristotle and ‘ethical altruism’ or Utilitarianism represented by Jeremy
Bentham and John Stuart Mill.

2. Moral sentiments are a subset of affective phenomena like feelings, dispositions and attitudes
that are more or less intimately related to moral phenomena. Moral sentiments are varied and
result in different responses to moral phenomena. There are cognitivist and non cognitivist
theories of emotion which also apply to moral sentiments. Cognitivists (Nussbaum: 2001)
identify emotions with evaluative judgments. Noncognitivists (William James: 1842-1910) view
emotions are essentially felt experiences different in kind from that of beliefs and judgments.
Contemporary noncognitivists (Prinz: 2004) believe that sentiments are not properly amenable to
assessment in terms of truth or falsehood. Philosophers have debated the role of moral sentiment
in moral deliberations and judgments, moral motivation and moral responsibility. Today moral
philosophers are especially concerned with the role of moral sensibility, a capacity for
experiencing or disposition to experience feelings, emotions, honour, pride and shame relative to
the role of reason.

11
UNIT 2 VIRTUES AND VICES

Contents

2.0 Objectives
2.1 Introduction
2.2 Meaning of Virtue
2.3 Socrates: Virtue is Knowledge
2.4 Plato’s Four Cardinal Virtues
2.5 Aristotle’s Conception of Virtue
2.6 Hindu Virtues
2.7 Virtues in Islam
2.8 Vices
2.9 Let us Sum Up
2.10 Key Words
2.11 Further Readings and References
2.12 Answers to Check your Progress

2.0 OBJECTIVES

In this unit we are going to study Virtues and Vices from an ethical point of view. After
understanding the meaning of virtue, we make an effort to grasp the Socratic, Platonic and the
Aristotelian conception of virtue. Then we shall attempt to see virtues in Hinduism and Islam. By
the end of this unit you should be able to:
• Grasp the meaning of virtue
• Understand the virtues according to Socrates, Plato and Aristotle the three main Greek
Philosophers
• Appreciate the virtues in Hinduism and Islam

2.1 INTRODUCTION

We are now in III Block after you have studied the general approach to Ethics: Western and
Indian. In the first unit you have seen how experience is the teacher of life. Here we focus upon
virtues. What are the virtues? They may be defined as the habits that characterize the human
personality which is on the quest for final fulfillment in specifically human happiness. As
individuals and as groups, human beings search for happiness. The means to attain this goal was
discovered by the Greeks to be in the cultivation of virtue. In Indian philosophies also there are
qualities contributing to human well-being; however, quite often instead of focusing on human
happiness as such, Indian concepts of virtue are intertwined with the concept of salvation and
after life. Something similar happened in Western thought after Greek philosophy met the
Christian Revelation. In the present unit however we shall not be dealing specifically with the
religious and theological links but only with those elements that fall under the general purview
and more or less universal survey of human reason.

2.2 MEANING OF VIRTUE

1
The Greek term for virtue is arête which was used for excellence of any kind. But generally the
excellence referred to is an excellence belonging to human person so that the virtues may be
described as the forms of human excellence.‘Virtue’ which comes from the Latin virtus means
moral excellence. A virtue is a character trait or quality valued as being good. Personal virtues
are characteristics valued as promoting individual and collective well-being, and thus good by
definition. The opposite of virtue is vice. In ethics, ‘virtue’ is used with two somewhat different
meanings. (a) A virtue is a quality of character – a disposition to do what is right in a particular
direction, or to perform one of the more universal duties. (b) A virtue is also a habit of action
corresponding to the quality of character or disposition. We may refer to the honesty of a human
person, or to the honesty of his dealings equally as virtues.

Virtues can be placed into a broader context of values. Each individual has a core of underlying
values that contribute to our system of beliefs, ideas and/or opinions. Integrity in the application
of a value ensures its continuity and this continuity separates a value from beliefs, opinion and
ideas. In this context a value (e.g., Truth or Equality or Creed) is the core from which we operate
or react. Societies have values that are shared among many of the participants in that culture. An
individual's values typically are largely, but not entirely, in agreement with their culture's values.
Individual virtues can be grouped into one of four categories of values: Ethics (virtue - vice,
good - bad, moral - immoral - amoral, right - wrong, permissible - impermissible) Aesthetics
(beautiful, ugly, unbalanced, pleasing) Doctrinal (political, ideological, religious or social beliefs
and values) Innate/Inborn (inborn values such as reproduction and survival).

Laird has divided virtues into three classes: (a) There are virtues of what he calls, ‘the righteous
quality’. A virtue of this kind consists in the habit of performing a duty of a particular kind and
in the quality of character which leads to this kind of action. The only distinction that can be
made between virtuous conduct of this kind and right conduct is that the term ‘virtuous conduct’
emphasizes the habitual performance of what is right.
(b) There are virtues of the ‘requisite quality’. These are necessary to a virtuous character, but
are also found in bad characters, and indeed may tend to increase the wickedness of the bad.
Such virtues include prudence and perseverance. The villain who is persevering in his villainy is
a worse man than the villain who is hesitant.
( c) There are virtues of the ‘generous quality’. These are chiefly of an emotional kind and they
add something not strictly definable, but of the nature of beauty or of moral intrinsic value, to
actions that are in other respects right. They sometimes even give a strange quality of nobility to
conduct that is morally wrong. We find this in the adventurous courage sometimes attributed to a
brigand chief and in the loyalty of often shown to people utterly unworthy of that loyalty. Virtues
of this kind seem to have some intrinsic value; this at least is suggested by the value that we
assign to these virtues in the characters of people where no good result follows from the presence
of the virtue in their actions.

Of the three classes, virtues of the ‘righteous quality’ are the most important in the moral life.
Virtues of the ‘requisite quality’ are clearly subordinate to the virtues of the ‘righteous quality’,
for they are of value only when they accompany such virtues. Virtues of the ‘generous quality’
depend more on the natural endowments than the other two classes do, and are hardly to be
acquired merely by the conscientious doing of one’s duty. Virtues of this quality have an appeal

2
that is perhaps more aesthetic than moral, but they do give to goodness a colour and an
adventurous atmosphere which are sometimes sadly lacking in those whose virtues are merely of
the righteous quality. Those who think of virtue as being something more than doing one’s duty
appear to be thinking often of some virtue of this kind, and these virtues do have about them a
richness of emotion and a picturesqueness to which few people attain in the moral life.

2.3 SOCRATES: VIRTUE IS KNOWLEDGE

The core of Socrates’ ethics is the concept of virtue. Virtue, according to Socrates, is the deepest
and most basic propensity of man. This virtue is knowledge. “… if there exists any good thing
different, and not associated with knowledge, virtue will not necessarily be any form of
knowledge. If on the other hand knowledge embraces everything that is good, we shall be right
to suspect that virtue is knowledge.” If virtue is knowledge it can be known and consequently
taught. This is the meaning of the imperative “know yourself.” Know yourself means bring your
inner self to light. Through knowledge human gains possession of oneself whereby one becomes
one’s own master.

According to Socrates virtue is the highest aim and greatest good one has to seek in life. He also
insisted that if it is to be highest aim and the greatest good it must have universal consistency and
be the same for all. Now, what is universally consistent and the same for all is knowledge which
is obtained through concept by the use of reason common in all. The relation between virtue and
knowledge is inseparable. For, Socrates thinks that health, wealth, beauty, courage,
temperance etc., which are customarily considered to be various forms of good, are good only
if they are guided by wisdom; if guided by folly they could be considered forms of evil.

Ethics, according to Socrates, has yet another dimension. It does not stop at mere acquisition of
the knowledge of the ideas of good. The knowledge of the idea of the good aims at controlling
all other ideas and ultimately guides the whole man, including his will and feeling, and
necessarily leads him to good actions. Hence ethical knowledge tends to culture the soul which
ultimately leads the soul towards regaining its pure, pristine glory. For Socrates this is the reason
for believing that “no one does wrong knowingly” and “that knowledge is virtue.”

Socrates says that virtue or goodness is one, although practices differently in different forms of
good. In Plato’s Protagoras Socrates says that although wisdom, temperance, courage, justice
and holiness are the principal forms of virtue, there is one single reality which underlies them all.
Yet on another occasion, in Plato’s Meno, we find Socrates looking for one virtue which
permeates all other virtues.

Socrates explained this by means of an example of a healthy body. According to him all kinds of
bodily excellence follow from one single health of the body, similarly, all kinds of virtue follow
from the health of the soul. What is meant by the health of the soul? The soul has different
functions. The health of the soul follows from orderly arrangement of these different functions.
In Plato’s Gorgias, we see Socrates saying that the functions of the soul are reasoning, temper,
and desire. The function of reasoning aims at attaining wisdom, temper means the courage, and
desire is the soberness. The health of the souls depends on the organized relation that these
functions hold to each other. An orderly arrangement of these functions is something like the

3
following. Wisdom commands and temper assists in the execution of these commands, while
desire furnishes the material basis for the actualization of these commands. The aim of the
oneness or unity of the virtue is the ultimate happiness of the individual. “A successful
functioning of the harmonious activities under the regulation of reason yields happiness.” Thus
the Socratic notion of virtue as one means is “the self of a good man is an organic unity of all its
functions.”

The Socratic notion of virtue as one leads us finally to conclude that there is one Idea of the
Good which underlies all the ethical activities of man which are intrinsically good. Socrates
speaks in the Republic of Plato that
…in the region of the known the last thing to be seen and hardly seen is the idea of good, and
that when seen must need point us to the conclusion that this is indeed the cause for all things of
all that is right and beautiful, giving birth in the visible world to light, and author of light and
itself in the intelligible world being the authentic source of truth and reason, and that anyone who
is to act wisely in private or public must have caught sight of this.

Check your progress I

Note: a) Use the space provided for your answer.

b) Check your answers with those provided at the end of the unit.

1) What is the meaning of virtue?

………………………………………………………………………………………………………
………………………………………………………………………………………………………
………………………………………………………………………………………………………
………………………………………………………………………………………………………
…………………………………
2) Explain the Socratic dictum “Virtue is Knowledge”.
………………………………………………………………………………………………………
………………………………………………………………………………………………………
………………………………………………………………………………………………………
………………………………………………………………………………………………………
………………………………………………………………

2.4 PLATO’S FOUR CARDINAL VIRTUES

The four virtues which Plato described in the Republic were later called the cardinal virtues. The
word ‘cardinal’ is a derivative of the Latin word ‘cardo’, meaning a hinge, and the cardinal
virtues are the virtues by which the moral life is supported as a door is supported by its hinges.
Plato describes the four cardinal virtues in The Republic:
Wisdom (calculative) - see the whole
Courage (spirited) - preserve the whole
Moderation (appetitive) - serve the whole
Justice (founding/preserving virtue) - "mind your own business" i.e. "tend to your soul"/"know
yourself"

4
Plato defines how an individual can attain these virtues: Wisdom comes from exercising reason;
courage from exercising emotions or spirit; moderation (sometimes "temperance") from
allowing reason to overrule desires; and from these justice ensues, a state in which all elements
of the mind are in concord with one another. Justice is described by Plato to be the founding and
preserving virtue because only once someone understands justice, can he or she gain the other
three virtues, and once someone possesses all four virtues, it is justice that keeps it all together.
Courage is the virtue that will be found in Kings and Queens. Wisdom will be found in the
Philosopher Kings and Queens and the guardians. Moderation and justice will be found in all of
the above and the artisans.

2.5 ARISTOTLE’S CONCEPTION OF VIRTUE

Aristotle said that the moral end is ‘eudaimonia’, which may be translated as happiness, and he
said that ‘eudaimonia’ consisted in the exercise of a person’s soul in accordance with virtue. To
put it in Aristotle’s own terminology, ‘eudaimonia’ is the end or what was later called the final
cause of the moral life, while virtue is what was later called the form or the formal cause of the
moral life. The form is analogous to the conception of his picture in the mind of an artist which
guides and limits one’s activity as one works, and which gives shape to one’s creation. Aristotle
defined virtue as a habit of choice, the characteristic of which lies in the observation of the mean
or of moderation, as it is determined by reason or as the practically prudent person would
determine it.

Aristotle regarded virtue as primarily a habit of action, and so it was with him only secondarily a
quality of character. Virtue is not a mere habit, but a habit of choice. Aristotle defined choice as
the deliberate desire of things in our power after consideration of them by the intellect. Choice
accordingly is in some sense free for it deals with things in our own power, and it is when such a
deliberate choice is repeated that it becomes the habit of action which we call a virtue. The
choice, for example, of doing what is right in the face of pain becomes, when habitual, the virtue
of courage. The mere doing of single good actions may be accidental or merely impulsive; it is
the habitual choice that counts as virtue.

The point in Aristotle’s definition which has been most discussed is his notion of the mean or
middle course. A virtue is regarded as if it were a middle position between two vices; courage for
example, is the middle position between rashness and cowardice, and liberality is the middle
position between extravagance and miserliness. The place of the mean relative to the vices at the
extremes depends on the circumstances of each individual. A soldier’s courage should be nearer
to rashness than that of a statesman, for it his business to take risks which it would be criminal on
the part of a statesman to take. This conception is obviously in agreement with the Greek
emphasis on proportion and harmony in art, as expressed in the maxim ‘Nothing too much’ or
virtue lies in the middle.

Check your progress II

Note: a) Use the space provided for your answer.

5
 b) Check your answers with those provided at the end of the unit.

1) Explain the four Cardinal virtues according to Plato.

………………………………………………………………………………………………………
………………………………………………………………………………………………………
………………………………………………………………………………………………………
………………………………………………………………………………………………………
………………………………………………………………
2) Explain Aristotle’s conception of virtue.
………………………………………………………………………………………………………
………………………………………………………………………………………………………
………………………………………………………………………………………………………
………………………………………………………………………………………………………
………………………………………………………………

2.6 HINDU VIRTUES

Hinduism, or Sanatana Dharma has pivotal virtues that everyone keeping the Dharma is asked to
follow. For they are distinct qualities of manusya (humankind), that allow one to be in the mode
of goodness. There are three modes of material nature (guna), as described in the Vedas and
other Indian Scriptures: Sattva (goodness, creation, stillness, intelligence), Rajas (passion,
maintenance, energy, activity), and Tamas (ignorance, restraint, inertia, destruction). Every
person harbours a mixture of these modes in varying degrees. A person in the mode of Sattva has
that mode in prominence in one’s nature, which one obtains by following the virtues of Dharma.

The modes of Sattva are the following: Altruism: Selfless Service to all humanity; Restraint and
Moderation: This is having restraint and moderation in all things. Sexual relations, eating, and
other pleasurable activities should be kept in moderation. Some orthodox followers also believe
in sex only in marriage, and being chaste. It depends on the sect and belief system, some people
believe this means celibacy... While others believe in walking the golden path of moderation, i.e.
not too far to the side of forceful control and total abandon of human pleasures, but also not too
far to the side of total indulgence and total abandonment for moderation. Honesty: One is
required to be honest with oneself, honest to the family, friends, and all of humanity.
Cleanliness: Outer cleanliness is to be cultivated for good health and hygiene; inner cleanliness is
cultivated through devotion to god, selflessness, non-violence and all the other virtues; which is
maintained by refraining from intoxicants. Protection and reverence for the Earth. Universality:
Showing tolerance and respect for everyone, everything and the way of the Universe. Peace: One
must cultivate a peaceful manner in order to benefit oneself and those around him. Non-
Violence/Ahimsa: This means not killing, or not being violent in any way to any life form or
sentient being. This is why those who practice this Dharma are vegetarians because they see the
slaughter of animals for the purpose of food as violent, when there are less violent ways to
maintain a healthy diet. Reverence for elders and teachers: This virtue is very important to learn
respect and reverence for those who have wisdom and those who selflessly teach in love. The
Guru or spiritual teacher is one of the highest principals in many Vedic based spiritualities, and
is likened to that of God.

6
2.7 VIRTUES IN ISLAM

In the Muslim tradition the Qur'an is, as the word of God, the great repository of all virtue in
earthly form, and the Prophet, particularly via his hadiths or reported sayings, the exemplar of
virtue in human form. The very name of Islam, meaning "acceptance," proclaims the virtue of
submission to the will of God, the acceptance of the way things are. Foremost among God's
attributes are mercy and compassion or, in the canonical language of Arabic, Rahman and
Rahim. Each of the 114 chapters of the Qur'an, with one exception, begins with the verse, "In the
name of God the Compassionate, the Merciful". The Arabic for compassion is rahmah. As a
cultural influence, its roots abound in the Qur'an. A good Muslim is to commence each day, each
prayer and each significant action by invoking God the Merciful and Compassionate, i.e. by
reciting Bi Ism-i-Allah al-Rahman al-Rahim. The Muslim scriptures urge compassion towards
captives as well as to widows, orphans and the poor. Traditionally, Zakat, a toll tax to help the
poor and needy, is obligatory upon all Muslims (9:60). One of the practical purposes of fasting or
sawm during the month of Ramadan is to help one empathize with the hunger pangs of those less
fortunate, to enhance sensitivity to the suffering of others and develop compassion for the poor
and destitute.

The Muslim virtues are: prayer, repentance, honesty, loyalty, sincerity, frugality, prudence,
moderation, self-restraint, discipline, perseverance, patience, hope, dignity, courage, justice,
tolerance, wisdom, good speech, respect, purity, courtesy, kindness, gratitude, generosity,
contentment, etc.

2.8 VICES

Vice is a practice or a habit considered immoral, depraved, and/or degrading in the associated
society. In more minor usage, vice can refer to a fault, a defect, an infirmity or merely a bad
habit. Synonyms for vice include fault, depravity, sin, iniquity, wickedness and corruption. The
modern English term that best captures its original meaning is the word vicious, which means
"full of vice". In this sense, the word vice comes from the Latin word vitium, meaning "failing or
defect". Vice is the opposite of virtue.

The term vice is also popularly applied to various activities considered immoral by some: a list of
these might include the abuse of alcohol and other recreational drugs, gambling, smoking,
recklessness, cheating, lying and selfishness. Behaviors or attitudes going against the established
virtues of the culture may also be called vices: for instance, effeminacy is considered a vice in a
culture espousing masculinity as an essential element of the character of males.

THE CHRISTIAN VICES

Christians believe that there are two kinds of vice: those which originate with the physical
organism as perverse instincts (such as lust), and those which originate with false idolatry in the
spiritual realm. The first kind of vice, although sinful, are believed to be less serious than the
second. Some vices recognized as spiritual by Christians are blasphemy (holiness betrayed),
apostasy (faith betrayed), despair (hope betrayed), hatred (love betrayed) and indifference
(scripturally, a "hardened heart"). Christian theologians have reasoned that the most destructive

7
vice equates to a certain type of pride or the complete idolatry of the self. It is argued that
through this vice, which is essentially competitive, all the worst evils come into being. In Judeo-
Christian creeds it originally led to the Fall of Man, and as a purely diabolical spiritual vice, it
outweighs anything else often condemned by the Church.

The Roman Catholic Church distinguishes between vice, which is a habit inclining one to sin,
and the sin itself, which is an individual morally wrong act. Note that in Roman Catholicism, the
word "sin" also refers to the state which befalls one upon committing a morally wrong act; in this
section, the word will always mean the sinful act. It is the sin, and not the vice, which deprives
one of God's sanctifying grace. Thomas Aquinas taught that "absolutely speaking, the sin
surpasses the vice in wickedness". On the other hand, even after a person's sins have been
forgiven, the underlying habit (the vice) may remain. Just as vice was created in the first place by
repeatedly yielding to the temptation to sin, so vice may be removed only by repeatedly resisting
temptation and performing virtuous acts; the more entrenched the vice, the more time and effort
needed to remove it. Saint Thomas Aquinas says that following rehabilitation and the acquisition
of virtues, the vice does not persist as a habit, but rather as a mere disposition, and one that is in
the process of being eliminated.

Dante's seven deadly vices are: Pride or vanity — an excessive love of the self (holding the self
outside of its proper position regarding God or fellows; Dante's definition was "love of self
perverted to hatred and contempt for one's neighbor"). In the Latin lists of the Seven Deadly
Sins, pride is referred to as superbia. Avarice(covetousness, greed) — a desire to possess more
than one has need or use for (or according to Dante, "excessive love of money and power"). In
the Latin lists of the Seven Deadly Sins, avarice is referred to as avaritia. Lust — excessive
sexual desire. Dante's criterion was that "lust detracts from true love". In the Latin lists of the
Seven Deadly Sins, lust is referred to as luxuria. Wrath or anger — feelings of hatred, revenge
or denial, as well as punitive desires outside of justice (Dante's description was "love of justice
perverted to revenge and spite"). In the Latin lists of the Seven Deadly Sins, wrath is referred to
as ira. Gluttony — overindulgence in food, drink or intoxicants, or misplaced desire of food as a
pleasure for its sensuality ("excessive love of pleasure" was Dante's rendering). In the Latin lists
of the Seven Deadly Sins, gluttony is referred to as gula. Envy or jealousy - resentment of others
for their possessions (Dante: "love of one's own good perverted to a desire to deprive other men
of theirs"). In the Latin lists of the Seven Deadly Sins, envy is referred to as invidia. Sloth or
laziness - idleness and wastefulness of time and/or other allotted resources. Laziness is
condemned because it results in others having to work harder; also, useful work will not be done.
Sloth is referred to in Latin as accidie or acedia.

Check your progress III

Note: a) Use the space provided for your answer.

b) Check your answers with those provided at the end of the unit.

1.List the Hindu and Islamic Virtues.

………………………………………………………………………………………………………
………………………………………………………………………………………………………

8
………………………………………………………………………………………………………
………………………………………………………………………………………………………
………………………………
2. What is a vice? Which are the seven deadly vices?
………………………………………………………………………………………………………
………………………………………………………………………………………………………
………………………………………………………………………………………………………
………………………………………………………………………………………………………
………………………………..

2.9 LET US SUM UP

‘Virtue’ which comes from the Latin virtus means moral excellence. A virtue is a character trait
or quality valued as being good. Personal virtues are characteristics valued as promoting
individual and collective well-being, and thus good by definition. The opposite of virtue is vice.
While for Socrates knowledge is virtue, for Aristotle virtue lies in the middle; and Plato speaks
of the four cardinal virtues on which rest all the moral virtues. Every religion advocates a
virtuous life and shuns vices. We have seen how Hinduism and Islam stress on various moral
virtues and point a way to salvation. On the other hand, by looking at the vices and the seven
deadly sins we have understood the way Christianity advocates a virtuous life. Hence the
message of all the three religions: Live virtuously and avoid all the vices.

2.10 KEY WORDS

Arete: Greek term for excellence of any kind.

Virtue: Latin term for moral excellence
Vitium: Latin term for vice, meaning defect.
Cardinal comes from the Latin ‘cardo’ meaning hinge. So cardinal means the main on which
others are hinged.

2.11 FURTHER READINGS AND REFERENCES

Lillie, William. An Introduction to Ethics. New Delhi: Allied Publishers Private Limited, 1984.
Olivera, George. Virtue in Diverse Traditions. Bangalore: Asian Trading Corporation, 1998.
Guthrie, W.K.C. Socrates. Cambridge University Press, 1971.
Singer, Peter(Ed.). A Companion to Ethics. Cambridge: Blackwell Publishers, 1995.

2.12 ANSWERS TO CHECK YOUR PROGRESS

Check your progress I

1. The Greek term for virtue is arête which was used for excellence of any kind. But generally
the excellence referred to is an excellence belonging to human person so that the virtues may be
described as the forms of human excellence.‘Virtue’ which comes from the Latin virtus means
moral excellence. A virtue is a character trait or quality valued as being good.

9
Personal virtues are characteristics valued as promoting individual and collective well-being, and
thus good by definition. The opposite of virtue is vice. In ethics, ‘virtue’ is used with two
somewhat different meanings. (a) A virtue is a quality of character – a disposition to do what is
right in a particular direction, or to perform one of the more universal duties. (b) A virtue is also
a habit of action corresponding to the quality of character or disposition. We may refer to the
honesty of a human person, or to the honesty of his dealings equally as virtues.

2. Virtue, according to Socrates, is the deepest and most basic propensity of human. This virtue
is knowledge. If virtue is knowledge it can be known and consequently taught. This is the
meaning of the imperative “know yourself.” Know yourself means bring your inner self to light.
Through knowledge man gains possession of himself whereby he becomes his own master.
According to Socrates virtue is the highest aim and greatest good one has to seek in life. He also
insisted that if it is to be highest aim and the greatest good it must have universal consistence and
be the same for all. Now, what is universally consistent and the same for all is knowledge which
is obtained through concept by the use of reason which is common in all. The relation between
virtue and knowledge is inseparable. For, Socrates thinks that health, wealth, beauty,
courage, temperance etc., which are customarily considered to be various forms of good, are
good only if they are guided by wisdom; if guided by folly they could be considered forms of
evil.

Check your progress II

1. Plato describes the four cardinal virtues in The Republic. They are: wisdom, courage,
moderation, justice. Plato defines how an individual can attain these virtues: Wisdom comes
from exercising reason; Courage from exercising emotions or spirit; Moderation (sometimes
"temperance") from allowing reason to overrule desires; and from these Justice ensues, a state in
which all elements of the mind are in concord with one another. Justice is described by Plato to
be the founding and preserving virtue because only once someone understands justice can he or
she gain the other three virtues, and once someone possesses all four virtues it is justice that
keeps it all together. Wisdom is the virtue that will be found in Kings and Queens. Courage will
be found in the Philosopher Kings and Queens and the guardians. Moderation and justice will be
found in all of the above and the artisans.

2. Aristotle defined virtue as a habit of choice, the characteristic of which lies in the observation
of the mean or of moderation, as it is determined by reason or as the practically prudent man
would determine it. Aristotle regarded virtue as primarily a habit of action, and so it was with
him only secondarily a quality of character. Virtue is not a mere habit, but a habit of choice. The
point in Aristotle’s definition which has been most discussed is his notion of the mean or middle
course. A virtue is regarded as if it were a middle position between two vices; courage for
example, is the middle position between rashness and cowardice, and liberality is the middle
position between extravagance and miserliness. The place of the mean relative to the vices at the
extremes depends on the circumstances of each individual. A soldier’s courage should be nearer
to rashness than that of a statesman, for it his business to take risks which it would be criminal on
the part of a statesman to take. This conception is obviously in agreement with the Greek
emphasis on proportion and harmony in art, as expressed in the maxim ‘Nothing too much’ or
virtue lies in the middle.

10
Check your progress III

1. The Hindu virtues are: altruism- selfless Service to all humanity, restraint and moderation,
honesty, cleanliness, protection and reverence for the earth, universality, peace, non-
violence/ahimsa, reverence and respect for elders and teachers. The Muslim virtues are: mercy,
compassion, prayer, repentance, honesty, loyalty, sincerity, frugality, prudence, moderation, self-
restraint, discipline, perseverance, patience, hope, dignity, courage, justice, tolerance, wisdom,
good speech, respect, purity, courtesy, kindness, gratitude, generosity, contentment, etc.

2. Vice is a practice or a habit considered immoral, depraved, and/or degrading in the associated
society. In more minor usage, vice can refer to a fault, a defect, an infirmity or merely a bad
habit. Synonyms for vice include fault, depravity, sin, iniquity, wickedness and corruption. The
modern English term that best captures its original meaning is the word vicious, which means
"full of vice". In this sense, the word vice comes from the Latin word vitium, meaning "failing or
defect". Vice is the opposite of virtue. The seven deadly vices are: pride or vanity, avarice, lust,
wrath or anger, gluttony, envy or jealousy and sloth or laziness.

11
UNIT 3 ANAYLYSIS OF HUMAN ACTION

3.0 Objectives
3.1 Introduction
3.2 Understanding of Human Act
3.3 The Constituent Elements of Human Act
3.4 Impediments for Human Act
3.5 Factors Determining the Morality of Human Acts
3.6 Determinism and Indeterminism
3.7 Let Us Sum Up
3.8 Key Words
3.9 Further Readings and References
3.10 Answers to Check Your Progress

3.0 OBJECTIVES

The main objectives of this unit are:

• Ethics, as a science of morality, judges human conduct which is basically made up of

human actions. So having a correct understanding of the notion of human act is the first
aim of this unit.

• Secondly, this unit highlights the obstacles that could possibly obstruct the performance
of a human act.

• Thirdly, it is very important to analyse the factors that generally influence the morality of
human action.

• Lastly, this unit endeavours to comprehend the theories of determinism and

indeterminism as they are closely associated with the analysis of human action.

3.1 INTRODUCTION

Humans are said to be evaluative in nature. Whenever a person does something we find others
analysing his/her behaviour and commenting that it was good, bad or at times indifferent. Ethics
is said to be a philosophical treatise which studies human behaviour and tries to determine
whether the act performed was morally right or wrong. It cannot content itself with simply
registering facts; it attempts to reflect on the meaningfulness or meaninglessness of such facts,
establish or reject them on a rational basis, understand their implications, draw relevant
consequences and, above all, intuit their ultimate cause. There is a continuous effort made for
studying our own moral beliefs and our moral conduct and striving to ensure that we, and the
institutions we help to shape, live up to standards that are reasonable and morally based. This
contributes towards establishing sound moral foundation on which people build their lives.
Hence one can reasonably aver that Ethics represents a broad framework for determining a core
value system one uses for our day to day existential situation.

1
The above discussion raises an essential question: How we judge certain actions as good or right
whereas others are regarded as bad or wrong? Any attempt to provide an adequate answer to this
query brings us to the analysis of a basic question: What is human action?

3.2 UNDERSTANDING OF HUMAN ACT

Scholastic philosophy outlines a distinction between Actus Hominis and Actus Humanus i.e.
‘Acts of Man/Human’ and ‘Human Acts’ respectively. Not every act that a human being does is
a typically human act. Human activities, like the circulation of blood, heart beat, over which
normal people in general have no control are not classified as human acts. Such acts which are
beyond the control of humans and those which they share in common with animals are called as
‘Acts of humans’. Acts of humans, then, are involuntary and therefore, not morally responsible
for them.

On the other hand a ‘Human Act’ is one which proceeds from knowledge and from consent of
free will. Or in other words it is an act which emanates from the will with a knowledge of the
end or goal to which the act leads. The Human act is to be distinguished from acts of humans
which are performed without intervention of intellect and free will. An act is termed as
distinctively a human act which is voluntary in character, that is, the human person under
consideration could have done it differently if s/he had so willed or chosen. It is an act which is
in some way under the control or direction of the will, which is proper to humans. Such an act is
performed by a person deliberately and intentionally in order to realize some foreseen end/s.
Thus one can rightly assert that a voluntary act proceeds from the will with the apprehension of
the end sought, or, in other words, is put forth by the will solicited by the goodness of the object
as presented to it by the intellect. Such acts, moreover, proceed from the will's own
determination, without necessitation, intrinsic or extrinsic.

3.3 THE CONSTITUENT ELEMENTS OF HUMAN ACTS

Constituent elements of the human act refer to the inner causes or the constituting elements
which generate a human person to undertake a certain act. The understanding of the human act
indicates that there are two essential elements which constitute a human act: The Intellectual
Element and The Volitive Element.

The Intellectual Element

Knowledge is one of the important qualities which distinguish humans from other sentient
beings. Absolute truth in all situations and matters might be beyond human capabilities. But we
humans can attain truth and that not all truths are relative are undeniable facts, as Epistemology
will have established. The denial of such assertions only results in re-asserting them, by the very
act itself. Universal scepticism and absolute relativism are found to be self-contradictory and as
such are philosophically untenable doctrines.

The faculty of willing can make a choice for something and seek it only when it is first known.
This act of knowing is undertaken by the faculty of the intellect. The human act is voluntary
when its different elements and its implications are sufficiently known by the agent or the doer

2
prior to the operation of the will. This process of knowing entails certain important conditions:
(i) adequate knowledge of the aspired object, (ii) attention to the action by which the particular
object is to be pursued and (iii) judgement on the value of the act.

The fulfilment of the above elements is found to be essential, for, human person cannot
consciously and freely will something without having proper knowledge about what the object
one is concerned with and therefore conscious of the act one is to perform in order to achieve the
desired aim. It is also required that one evaluates the action undertaken in its concrete nature as a
desirable good or an undesirable evil. Such an appraisal includes judgement on the moral or
ethical value of the act.

Furthermore, the goodness or the badness of a particular human act is judged only under those of
its aspects which are sufficiently known. For instance a person who robs and kills a person not
knowing him to be his brother, he is guilty of criminal injury but not culpable of offence of
fratricide.

However, from the above discussion one should not presuppose that we have full knowledge of
the act and its implications every time we undertake a human act. There is still room left for
mistakes. What we affirm here is that with right effort the person can have sufficient knowledge
of the object and its other considerations which are essential for the making of a human act.

The Volitive Element

Another important characteristic which sets apart the human person from animals is that of
voluntariness or what we commonly designate as free will. It is the task of the intellect to
conceptualize the good, to propose it to the will as something desirable, and to judge the
suitability of the means in its attainment. This awareness which is based on certain amount of
reflection is very important in the analysis of the human act. It can occur in varying degrees
depending on which, they can affect the morality of the act. However, just this awareness is
insufficient for the production of the human act. It is required that the presented good is willed
freely by the person. The volitive dimension points that the will can freely make a choice of the
concrete object in which the good is sought. Thus when we hold a person morally responsible for
his/her action, we assume that the act was done freely, knowing and willingly. The idea of
responsibility would seem then to connote and presuppose that of free will.

If a human person for some valid reason is not free to choose what he/she would like according
to his/her insight and will, but has to act against one’s will, his/her action is not free and
consequently such an act cannot be designated as a human act. For instance a mentally disturbed
person feels compelled to do something again and again but he/she is conscious of the object one
is concerned with and also the end of the action with which the object is pursued, yet such an act
will not be voluntary because its execution is done with psychic compulsion and not with free
will. So an act to be a free act and consequently a human act, it is to be done without any internal
or external compulsion. The degree of compulsion determines to a large extent the voluntariness
of the action and consequently the culpability of the person. For instance a high degree of
compulsion may almost render the act involuntary and subsequently reduce the degree of
culpability.

3
One must note that anything that is an object of the will, we call the thing willed. But not
everything that is willed is necessarily an effect of the will; for e.g. the setting of a house on fire
which is not caused, but desired by someone, is something willed but is not the effect of the will.
Thus when what is willed is both the object and the effect of the will, we call it voluntary.

One can conclude the discussion on the two constitutive elements of the human act: intellectual
and volitive, by affirming the essential union of the knowledge and will in the generation of the
human act.

Process involved in a Voluntary Act

Very often a voluntary act, performed by an agent knowingly and freely in order to realize some
foreseen end, is not a spontaneous reaction. It involves a dynamic process. Voluntary action has
its advent in the mind. It begins with a feeling of want or a craving or a desire which is either real
or ideal. Such an impulse, though to a certain extent painful, is mixed with pleasure which arises
from the anticipation of satisfaction of this craving by the attainment of the desired object. The
person also has awareness of the means that are required to attain the proper object. In a simple
action, where there is no conflict of motives, the choice is easily made and the desired action is
performed. However, in our daily course of living many of our actions are of a complex nature
which often involves a conflict of motives thereby causing difficulty in the matter of choice that
eventually delays decision and the performance of the act. Hence, when the self is confronted
with divergent and competing motives the mind experiences a challenge generated by conflict of
motives. In order to tackle this, the mind deliberates on the merits and demerits of the different
courses of action that are available. After weighing the advantages and disadvantages the mind
chooses a particular motive and a particular action to achieve the end. This act of selection of one
motive to the exclusion of others results in decision. The decided motive is subjectively
evaluated as the strongest motive among the others. The decision phase is often converted
immediately into action and the decision is actualised. However at times the decision might be
postponed for a future fulfilment in which case there is scope for resolution. Resolution refers to
the capacity of remaining committed to the decided motive. The state of decision or resolution
gives way to the actual performance of a bodily action which is technically designated as a
human act. The undertaking of the external bodily action produces changes in the external world,
certain of these are foreseen consequences whereas many others are unforeseen consequences.

Check Your Progress I

Note: a) Use the space provided for your answer

b) Check your answers with those provided at the end of the unit

1) What is human action? Explain the relationship between the intellectual element and the
volitve element in the performance of human action.

4
 …………………………………………………………………………………..
…………………………………………………………………………………..
…………………………………………………………………………………..
………………………………………………………………………………….
…………………………………………………………………………………..
………………………………………………………………………………….
…………………………………………………………………………………..
…………………………………………………………………………………..
………………………………………………………………………………….

3.4 IMPEDIMENTS FOR HUMAN ACTS

In the process of performing a human act the individual might encounter certain obstacles which
though may not nullify the human act and make it involuntary but they may reduce the
imputability or culpability of the individual, thereby making him less responsible for the
particular act. In this section, we shall elaborate some of the main impediments which might
affect either the intellectual or the volitive constituent (or both together) of the human action.

Ignorance: This to a great extent affects the intellectual dimension of the human act. It is
elucidated as lack of adequate knowledge in an individual with regard to the nature or moral
quality of an act one is performing or proposes to perform. Ignorance is mainly of two
categories: Invincible ignorance and Vincible ignorance. The former is explained as that
ignorance which cannot be dispelled by reasonable diligence a prudent individual would be
expected to exercise in a given situation. Such ignorance almost renders the act performed as
involuntary and consequently the individual may not be imputable for the act for what is
unknown cannot be the object of volition. On the other hand, Vincible ignorance is that which
could be eliminated by the application of reasonable diligence. Here the agent has not put in
enough effort to gain the required knowledge and as such the concerned person is culpable or
imputable for the act performed under such type of ignorance. However the degree of
imputability depends on the extent of the individual’s cupable negligence.

Passion: It is often connoted as a powerful or compelling emotion or feeling for instance an

experience of strong hate or sexual desire. Passion is said to be a strong tendency towards the
possession of something good or towards the avoidance of something evil. The more the
intensity of the emotions, the less the capability for making balanced and objective deliberation.
Thus passion is considered as an obstacle to human act. One can enumerate two main kinds of
passions: Antecedent and Consequent. The former refers to passion elicited without the consent
of the will. Here the person might not be fully responsible for the passion and as such the
culpability is much less if not fully absent. Consequent passion is passion which is within the
control of the will, therefore the agent is responsible for the arousal of the passion and as such
imputable for the act.

Habit: Habit is an acquired tendency for doing something as a result of repeated practice. It may
be voluntary or involuntary, depending on whether it was imbibed with consent of a person or
without. Habits usually do not render an act non-human, because though they exert certain

5
coercion they can be overcome by a committed effort. As such imputability of acts from habit
increases or decreases depending upon the effort exerted.

Fear: It is defined as the shrinking back of the mind on account of an impending evil considered
to be difficult to avoid or even impossible at times. Fear may be grave or mild according to
whether it is caused by a grave evil whose avoidance is rather difficult if not impossible, or only
by a mild evil which can be easily avoided. Fear is characterised as highly grave when it
exercises great deterrence on an average person for e.g. fear of killing. Fear is relatively grave
when the threatened evil is generally considered as objectively slight but it scares a particular
person subjectively depending on the person’s emotional disposition. Fear hampers the use of
reason and as such destroys voluntariness. Fear in general does not fully destroy the
voluntariness of action but merely reduces its gradation and as such usually lessens its
culpability. Only in extreme cases when the highly grave fear totally impairs the two constitutive
elements the act done out of fear may be regarded as involuntary.

3.5 FACTORS DETERMINING THE MORALITY OF HUMAN ACTS

Analyzing the morality of the human act is said to be a complex enterprise since it is affected by
so many conditions which are within and without. Most of the moralists agree that to judge the
goodness or badness of any particular human act, three elements must be weighed from which
every act derives its morality. They are: the Object of the act, the Circumstances surrounding
the act, and the End or Intention that the one performing the act has in mind.

The Object of the Human Act

It is that which the action of its very nature tends to produce. Or in other words it refers to the
effect which an action primarily and directly causes. It is necessarily the result of the act without
taking into account the circumstances or the end. For example the object of setting fire to hut of a
slum-dweller is to burn whereas the end might be revenge. The object is usually regarded as the
primary factor for moral judgement of a human act. From the viewpoint of object an act is
generally classified as morally good, bad or indifferent. For a morally good act, the object of it
must be good.

The Circumstances contextualising the Human Act

These include all the particulars of the concrete human action which are capable of affecting its
morality. They are such things as the person involved, the time, the place, the occasion, which
are distinct from the object, but can change or at times even completely alter its moral tone.
Circumstances can make an otherwise good action better for e.g. giving food to a person who is
almost dying of starvation. They can make good an act which is otherwise indifferent, for e.g.
sitting with a person who is feeling lonely. But they can also make worse an act which is evil in
its object for e.g. robbing a beggar from his/her only meal of the day. Since all human actions
occur in a particular context i.e. at a certain time and at a certain place, the circumstances must
always be considered in evaluating the moral quality of any human act.

The End or the Intention of the Agent in performing a Human Act

The end or intention of a human act is the purpose that prompts one to perform such an act.
Every human act, no matter how trivial, is done with some intention. It is the reason for which

6
the agent performs a particular act. It is the effect that the agent subjectively wills in his/her
action. At times it can so happen that the intention of the agent coincides with the object of the
human act, for e.g. offering a glass of water to a thirsty person to quench thirst. However at other
times both of them might be different. For e.g. a captured spy may commit suicide in order to
safeguard the secrets of the country. A human act to be morally good the agent or doer must have
a good intention—he must want to accomplish something that is good in one way or another.

The end too can affect the morality of the human act just as circumstances do. A good intention
can make better an act which is good in its object, for e.g. helping a poor person to start a small
business with the intention of making him independent. Also the end can worsen a act which is
already evil in its object, for e.g. killing the father, who is the only breadwinner in the family, so
that his children might be on the street. To a great extent many of the actions that we do which
otherwise might be indifferent morally in themselves, but they receive their moral quality from
the intention behind them.

According to the moralists a human act is said to be morally good when it is good in its object,
circumstances and also in the intention, for it is believed that an action is good when each of
these three factors is conformed to order (Bonum ex integra causa). If even one of these
determinants is contrary to order, the action will be bad, at least in part (Malum ex quocumque
defectu).

3.6 DETERMINISM AND INDETERMINISM

The question of free will or human freedom in the matter of making a moral choice, has been an
issue which is discussed and deliberated by philosophers down the centuries. And the complexity
of problem makes it rather difficult to take a stand in the category of ‘Either Or.’ The problem is
formulated thus: Determinism versus Indeterminism. Immanuel Kant has given a sound
articulation to this issue in his, Critique of Practical Reason. He states thus: The concept of
freedom is the stone of stumbling for all empiricists, but at the same time the key to the loftiest
practical principles for critical moralists, who perceive by its means that they must necessarily
proceed by a rational method.

Determinism

Determinism is a theory which explains that all human action is conditioned entirely by
preceding events, and not by the faculty of the Will. In philosophy, the theory is based on the
metaphysical principle that an uncaused event is rather impossible. The success of scientists in
discovering causes of certain behaviour and in some cases effecting its control tends to support
this doctrine. The deterministic view seems to be very much at home with the scientific temper
because the subject matter of any science rests on the principle of causality which asserts that
every event has a cause and the aim of science is to find a causal explanation for anything that
happens within the domain of that science. Accordingly one can enumerate different categories
of determinism based on a particular science. We have the theory of Physical determinism
stating that human interaction can be reduced to relationships between biological, chemical, or
physical entities. This has its origin in the Atomism of Democritus. Theological determinism is
the theory, which posits that there is God, omnipotent and omniscient, who is determining all

7
that humans will do, either by knowing their actions in advance or by decreeing their actions in
advance. German philosopher Leibniz with his theory of monads advocated a form of theological
determinism. He averred that the monads (the simple, indivisible elements) seek their own
perfection through a ‘preestablished harmony’ instituted by God ‘the Prime Monad’.
Psychological determinism posits that we all possess certain mental qualities which govern our
life. Freud, with his psychoanalytic theory, expressed a form of psychological determinism that
all we do is due to mental factors some of which we are conscious but most of them are beyond
our conscious states. Biological determinism is the idea that all behaviour, belief, and desire are
fixed by our genetic endowment.

In summary we can say that in general, determinism is a doctrine which in some way holds the
stance that there is no such thing as free choice for any choice that we make is already
conditioned by a set of causes or is settled prior to our act of choosing. As such, the person
cannot be held morally accountable or responsible for his/her act.

Indeterminism

Indeterminism is a theory, though not denying the influence of behavioural patterns and certain
extrinsic forces on human actions, insists on the reality of free will or the capacity of the humans
to make a free choice. This view asserts that humans are an exception to the rigid determinism
that occurs in nature. Indeterminists accept the principle of causality but aver that human free
will or human choices are not totally bound by the causal law. Some of the proponents of this
view try to seek support for their claim by appealing to the Physicist Werner Heisenberg’s
‘Principle of Indeterminacy’ which shows that randomness in the universe is compatible with
science. He questions whether it is possible to determine an objective framework through which
one can distinguish cause from effect. But one must also note that according to some other
thinkers Heisenberg’s principle has little to do with choice or free will. Attempts have been also
made to use the indeterminism of the latest theory of quantum mechanics, which postulates
irreducible physical indeterminacy, to buttress the claim that human actions to a great extent are
grounded in free will.

Efforts have been made to reconcile free will with determinism by introducing the theory of soft
determinism. This doctrine posits humans are free from external coercion and as such are
indetermined but they cannot make a free choice against their individual characters. In other
words it asserts that a person is free physically but psychologically he/she is determined.
However this reconciliatory tone too has been questioned: if a person is internally or
psychologically determined can we really hold that the person is free?

Another theory, which so to say strives to provide a mediating proposal to the problem of
determinism and free will, is that of self-determinism. It accepts the causality principle and
affirms that nothing can happen without a cause. Hence our so called free acts are also caused
but they are caused by the very person as a self-governing or free agent, so that agent could have
acted otherwise and freely choose not to do so. Self-determinist believes that though humans are
strongly influenced by the motives and as such are called to deliberate between them, still they
are not necessitated by them either way, they can make their own choices.

8
In concluding this section on determinism and indeterminism one has to note that the position or
the view one holds will obviously affect one’s interpretation of moral responsibility or
accountability.

Check Your Progress II

Note: a) Use the space provided for your answer
b) Check your answers with those provided at the end of the unit

1) Explain the factors that affect the morality of human action.

…………………………………………………………………………………..
…………………………………………………………………………………..
…………………………………………………………………………………..
………………………………………………………………………………….
………………………………………………………………………………….
2) Comment on the theories of determinism and indeterminism in the context of the analysis of
human action.
………………………………………………………………………………….
…………………………………………………………………………………..
…………………………………………………………………………………..
………………………………………………………………………………….
………………………………………………………………………………….

3.7 LET US SUM UP

Human action is explained as an act which proceeds from prior knowledge and free will. It
differs from ‘acts of humans’ which result without the intervention of intellect and free will and
as such normally they are beyond human control. From the understanding of human action we
deduce the two constituent principles viz, volitive and intellectual which are essential in its
constitution. The human action is not a spontaneous reaction but rather a gradual process
beginning in the mind and ending by producing certain external consequences. In this process it
encounters certain obstacles which obstruct the imputablility of the agent performing the act. The
morality of the human action depends on three main determinants: object, circumstances and
intention. The theories of determinism and indeterminism are closely related to the analysis of
human action.

3.8 KEY WORDS

Preestablished Harmony: It is a term from art which is used by Leibniz. It refers to the order in
the monads that is installed by God in advance in such a way that each subsequent state is a
consequence of the preceding one.

Universal Skepticism: It is elucidated as the philosophical doctrine which doubts that we can
have any certitude in knowledge

Fratricide: It is defined as deliberate killing of ones sister or brother.

9
3.9 FURTHER READINGS AND REFERENCES

Beauchamp, Tom L., Philosophical Ethics: An Introduction to Moral Philosophy. Boston: Mc

Graw Hill, 2001.

Billington, Ray. Living Philosophy: An Introduction to Moral Thought (3rd ed.). London:
Routledge, 2003.

Composta, Dario. Moral Philosophy and Social Ethics. Bangalore: TPI, 2000.

Dennett, Daniel C. Freedom Evolves. New York: Viking Press, 2003.

Frankena, William. Ethics (2nd ed.). New Jersey: Prentice Hall Inc., 1973.

Gonsalves, Milton A. Fagothey’s Right and Reason (7th ed.). London: The C. V. Mosby
Company, 1981.

Hare, R.M. Moral Thinking. Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1981.

Johnson, Oliver A. Ethics: Selection from Classical and Contemporary Writers (3rd ed.). New
York: Holt, Rhinehart and Winston, Inc., 1974.

Kadankavil, Thomas. Ethical World: A Study on the Ethical Thought in the East and the West.
Bangalore: Dharmaram Publications, 1995.

Kane, Robert. The Significance of Free Will. New York: Oxford University Press, 1996.

Sinha, Jadunath. A Manual of Ethics. Calcutta: New Central Book Agency, 1986.

Taylor, Paul W. Problems of Moral Philosophy: An Introduction to Ethics (2nd ed.). California:
Dickenson Publishing Company, Inc., 1972.

Williams, Clifford. Free Will and Determinism: A Dialogue. Indianapolis: Hackett Publishing
Co., 1980.

3.10 ANSWERS TO CHECK YOUR PROGRESS

Answers to Check Your Progress I

1. Human act is elucidated as that act which an agent performs with knowledge and free will. It
is an act which results from the integration of reason and will and so is not determined. The act is
within the control of the agent and therefore it is distinguished from ‘acts of humans’ over which
the agent has no power, for e.g. digestion.
The intellectual and the volitive elements functions in co-operation in the production of human
action. The faculty of willing can make a choice freely for a particular alternative only when the

10
intellect provides adequate knowledge of the aspired object, indicates the action by which the
object is to be pursued and also provides some sort of judgement on the value of the act.
Therefore when we hold a person accountable or responsible for a specific action we presume
that the concerned act was performed knowingly, willingly and freely. Any sort of compulsion
reduces the voluntariness of the action and its eventual culpability. At times if the degree of
coercion is extremely high then it can even render an act involuntary.

Answers to Check Your Progress II

1. Moralists have outlined three main factors which, to a great extent, define the morality of a
human act. These determinants include: the Object of the act, the Circumstances surrounding
the act, and the End or Intention that the one performing the act has in mind. Object refers to
the effect that an action primarily and directly causes. This is considered as the primary
factor for moral judgement. Circumstances include all the particulars, surrounding the human
action, which have somehow the capacity to affect its morality. The end or intention refers to
the reason or the purpose for which the agent chooses to perform a particular action. So while
judging the morality of a particular action all these three factors are to be evaluated not in
isolation but in an integral framework.

2. A voluntary human action is believed to be performed by an agent with prior knowledge and
free will. Is human will really free? This is a question that is deliberated by the ethical
thinkers for a long time without arriving at an exhaustive solution which is agreed by all
without any reservation. The determinists, basing themselves on the metaphysical principle
that uncaused event is impossible, appear to be convinced that human action is wholly
controlled by preceding events. Their stand is rather strengthened by the scientific temper
which is primarily based on the principle of causality which leaves no room for any chance
or ‘free’ happening. On the other hand indeterminists, without denying the principle of
causality, aver that humans are specifically blessed with the capacity of free will and that
their choices are not totally bound by the causal law. Self determinism seems to be a midway
path between the two extremes. It affirms that nothing happens without a cause. Even our so
called free acts are caused by the very person as a self-governing or free agent who chooses
to act in that particular way.

11
UNIT 4 NORM OF MORALITY

Contents

4. 0 Objectives
4. 1 Introduction
4. 2 Norm of Morality – Basic Understanding
4. 3 Conscience as Subjective Norm of Morality
4. 4 Norm as Given by Intuition
4. 5 Law as Norm
4. 6 Pleasure as Norm
4. 7 Let us Sum up
4. 8 Key Words
4. 9 Further Readings and References
4. 10 Answers to Check Your Progress

4. 0 OBJECTIVES

In this unit we explain the basic understandings of the norms of morality in general and go in
detail to the different particular norms of morality. As particular norms we see Conscience as
subjective norm of morality and Intuition, Law and Pleasure as the objective norms of morality.
By the end of this unit you should be able to:

• Explain What norms of Morality means

• Discern between good and evil by the use a well-formed conscience
• Understand what Law means and its use in day today life
• Judge the Intuitions in moral judgement
• Evaluate the pleasure seeking philosophy we have in the present day life situations
• Apply the norms of morality positively in our personal life

4. 1 INTRODUCTION

This is an attempt to understand the norms of Morality in general. Norm is a rule or standard for
our judgement. It remains as a standard or rule with which we can judge our actions as good or
bad. For this we compare the human acts with the norms and come to our conclusion.

In ethics we can find two kinds of norms: the subjective norm of morality and the objective
norms of morality. In the subjective norm of morality, the moral authority dwells within the
individual. In ethics, conscience can be understood as the subjective norm of morality.

Objective norm is the standard for an objective evaluation of the human acts. In this group we
can see Intuition, Law and Pleasure as the objective norms of morality.

4. 2 NORM OF MORALITY – BASIC UNDERSTANDING

1
A norm or criterion is a Standard of Judgement. “It is a rule or standard by which principles,
facts, statements and conduct are tested, so as to form a correct judgement concerning them”. In
ethics a moral criterion is a rule or standard by means of which we are able to discriminate
between what is morally good and morally evil and to arrive at a correct judgement that a
particular act is morally good or morally evil.

The moral criterion presupposes the existence of an objective moral ‘standard’ or norm with
which the particular act can be compared. With the moral norm, human beings can test the
morality of the act and judge whether it be good or evil. In general a norm is an authoritative
standard, which gives as a pattern or model to which things of similar nature must conform. Thus
a judgement can be described as a comparison of an act with the standard or norm. When the act
conforms to the norm of morality, we judge the act to be good and when we find that the act
deviates from the norm, we judge the act to be evil.

QUALIFICATIONS OF THE NORM

In order to be effective as a moral criterion or standard of judgement, a norm of morality should

have the following qualifications:

1. The Norm needs to be Unchangeable

The basic and fundamental nature of morality is its stability. If the norm is changing and
fluctuating, the morality would be lacking its fundamental stability. Such a norm would not be a
reliable standard, because in such cases human beings can never be certain of the morality of
his/her acts.

2. The Norm needs to be Universal

The norm is meant to everybody. It is not for a particular group or class of persons. It should be
applicable to all human beings. Everybody should feel himself or herself bound to the moral law.
Nobody can be exempted from this obligation.

3. The Norm needs t be Accessible to all

The universal accessibility of the norm is an essential nature of it. Everybody must be able to
know at least the fundamental principles of morality. It will help them to lead a moral life.
Unless the norm of morality is accessible to all, they can never arrive at knowledge of the
fundamental principles of morality because all moral principles naturally flow from the norm.

4. The Norm needs to be Applicable to all Conditions of Life

If only the norm is within the mental reach of every individual, they would be able to make all
their actions conform to the norm of morality. In other case, such a norm could not serve a
standard for every individual in all his/her actions.

5. The Norm needs to be of single Standard

2
Although there are many moral actions for human beings, morality remains always as one. Since
every human beings have the same human nature, the moral standard of all human beings must
be the same. Thus there cannot be one norm for a particular group of persons or actions and
another norm for a different group of persons or actions.

4. 3 CONSCIENCE AS SUBJECTIVE NORM OF MORALITY

Conscience is the subjective norm of morality in which we trace the moral authority inside the
individual. It is not something that directs from outside. Conscience is an ‘inner voice’ as
described by Mahatma Gandhi which directs one by telling what to do or what not to do.
Conscience can be defined as the subjective awareness of the moral quality of one’s own actions
as indicated by the moral values to which one subscribes.

In the opinion of Butler, an English moral philosopher, conscience has got two different aspects:
a cognitive or reflective aspect and an imperative or authoritative aspect. In the cognitive or
reflective function of conscience discerning the goodness and badness of the human action is
important. It considers characters, actions, intentions and motives with the special aim of
discovering their goodness and badness. In the imperative or authoritative aspect the decision is
important. Here conscience does not merely give arguments for one action rather than another,
but it decides in favour of one action.

Acts of Conscience

The feeling of remorse has always been connected with conscience. It is a deep regret for a
wrong committed. Conscience not only makes judgement over certain actions that we have done
as right or wrong, but it arouses a peculiar feeling of pain that is extremely unpleasant. This pain
of conscience or feeling of remorse is identified by moralists as one of the reasons of avoiding
wrong actions.

Antecedent and Consequent Conscience

Conscience can be divided into antecedent conscience and consequent conscience. Antecedent
conscience deals with future actions whereas consequent conscience deals with the past actions.
Conscience that acts as a guide to future actions, prompting to do them or avoid them can be
defined as an antecedent conscience. Conscience which is acting as a judge to our past actions,
the source of our self-approval or remorse is known as consequent conscience. In ethics
Antecedent conscience, which is a guide to our future action, is more important. The acts of
Antecedent Conscience are divided into four. They are: a). First one is the mental act of a
‘command’ whereby one senses that a particular act is ‘to be done’. It is an imperative and the
individual is not free not to do the act. b) Second one is the act of ‘forbidding’ whereby one
senses that a particular act is ‘not to be done’. It is an obligation to avoid such acts. Doing of
such act is an immoral act. c) Third one is that of the act of ‘permitting’ in which one regards an
act as ‘allowed’ by one’s own moral values. d) Fourth one is the act of ‘advising’ in which one is
aware that an act is either probably better to do or probably worse to do.

3
Division of Conscience

The judgement of the conscience can be understood as the judgement of the intellect. The human
intellect can be mistaken either by adopting false premises or by drawing an illogical conclusion.
Because of this there can be different consciences such as correct, erroneous, doubtful, certain,
perplexed and scrupulous consciences. A correct conscience judges as good what is really good,
or as evil what is really evil. Whereas an erroneous conscience judges as good what is really
evil, or as evil what is really good. A certain conscience judges without fearing that the opposite
may be true. A doubtful conscience either hesitates to make any judgement at all or does make a
judgement but with misgivings that the opposite may be true. A perplexed conscience belongs
to one who cannot make up his/her mind. Such persons remain in a state of indecisive anguish,
especially if s/he thinks that s/he will be doing wrong whichever alternative he chooses. A
scrupulous conscience torments its owner by rehearsing over and over again doubts that were
once settled. S/he finds new sources of guilt for old deeds that were best forgotten, striving for a
kind of certainty about one’s state of soul that is beyond our power in this life.

Check your progress I

Note: a) Use the space provided for your answer.

b) Check your answers with those provided at the end of the unit.

1) What are Antecedent and Consequent Conscience?.

………………………………………………………………………………………………………
………………………………………………………………………………………………………
………………………………………………………………………………………………………
………………………………………………………………………………………………………
………………………………………………………………
2) What are the different Consciences?

………………………………………………………………………………………………………
………………………………………………………………………………………………………
………………………………………………………………………………………………………
………………………………………………………………………………………………………
………………………………………………………………

4. 4 NORM AS GIVEN BY INTUITION

In intuition, the basic human reasoning process is questioned. An Intuition can be defined as ‘the
immediate apprehension of an object by the mind without the intervention of any reasoning
process’. A moral intuition is one that apprehends some moral objects immediately, without
there being any reasoning about it. Ethical intuitionism is here taken to be the view that normal

4
human beings have an immediate awareness of moral goodness and moral values. Some of the
exponents of this theory have contended that the awareness in question can only be conceived
satisfactorily as a form of sense perception.

Objects of Moral Intuitions

There are three possible objects of moral intuitions:

a) Perceptional or Individual Intuitionism

The first object of moral intuition is known as ‘perceptional intuitionism’ or ‘individual

intuitionism’. It is the theory that holds that the only way of knowing rightness and wrongness is
by such intuitions of the rightness or wrongness of individual actions. We may know directly that
one particular act, such as the assassination of Caesar by Brutus, is right. To have this intuition
does not imply that political murder would be right in any other case.

b). Dogmatic Intuitionism

Second one known as ‘Dogmatic Intuitionism’ is the theory which holds that this is the only way
of knowing the rightness or wrongness of actions. We may know directly without reflection that
certain class or kind of actions is right or wrong; for example that telling the truth is always right.

c). Universal Intuitionism

Third one is the ‘Universal Intuitionism’ which deals with universal principles of ethics. We may
know directly some moral principle by which we can judge actions to be right or wrong. We may
know intuitively for example that any action that treats a man merely as a means is always
wrong.

Objections to the Intuitionism

There are certain objections to all these three kinds of intuitionism: a) It is true that there are
always some actions and some classes of actions and some principles that we can know
intuitively to be right or wrong. This is by no means true of every action or every class of action
or every moral principle. b) In the human life there will always be occasions of some unusual
circumstances. It may be true that intuition of all three kinds works fairly well in normal
circumstances. But it does not work in unusual cases. It is self evident that we should speak the
truth until we come to the unusual case where our doing so seems likely to involve the sacrifice
of innocent lives. c) Infallibility of intuitionism always creates problem. People make mistakes in
their intuitions. Use of the term ‘intuition’ by religious people and mystical philosophers
suggests that there is something infallible about intuition. It can be dangerous to humanity. d)
Intuitionism fails as an ethical theory, because in every case it is possible to give a reason for
what an intuition dictate. Once rationalization starts, the basis of intuitionism itself fails.

Check Your Progress – II

5
Note: a) Use the space provided for your answer.

b) Check your answers with those provided at the end of the unit.

What are the Objects of Moral Intuition?

………………………………………………………………………………………………………
………………………………………………………………………………………………………
………………………………………………………………………………………………………
………………………………………………………………………………………………………
………………………………………………………………

What are the Objections to the Intuitionism?

………………………………………………………………………………………………………
………………………………………………………………………………………………………
………………………………………………………………………………………………………
………………………………………………………………………………………………………
………………………………………………………………

4. 5 LAW AS NORM

Law is one of the most important norms of morality which controles the human judges from
outside.

General Notion of Law

In accordance with the field of action it is found, the term law appears in threefold meaning:
a). In its widest and most general sense, a law is the rule or norm according to which something
is drawn toward an action or restrained from an action. All beings in this universe are governed
by laws in this sense. For example, the law of electricity, of light, of heat, of gravity, of motion
..etc…b). In a more restricted sense, a law is the rule or norm which governs the free actions of
rational beings in any field of practical endeavour. Such laws refer to the techniques of the
various crafts or arts. For eg. Painting, games, sports, architecture, construction ..etc… c). In its
strictest or ethical sense, the term law means the rule or norm governing the free actions of man
relative to moral obligation. The violation of law in this sense involves moral delinquency or sin.

The Nature of Law

A law is defined by St Thomas Aquinas as an “ordinance of reason directed toward the common
good and promulgated by the one who has the care of the community”. a). Law is an ordinance
of reason. ‘Ordinance of reason’ is the formal cause of the law. By this we mean that a law is a
directive demanding a definite course of action. They are not free to accept or reject this
ordinance, but are subject to a moral constraint to carry out the injunction demanded by the
ordinance and contained in it. A law can only be given to rational beings, with the purpose of
controlling their human acts. Since the law belongs to the rational order, in order to be a true law,
it cannot command anything contrary to reason. b) A law is directed towards common good. The

6
final cause of the law should be common good. It cannot be directed to promote the private
welfare of individuals or relatively small groups within a community. It should be directed
towards the welfare of the community as a whole. Thus a law has the public welfare as its
objective. c) A law should be promulgated. The promulgation of the law is the material cause of
the law. d) The promulgation of the law should be done by the one who has the care of the
community. This legislator is the efficient cause of the law. Laws are matters of public authority
and jurisdiction, and only the bearer of the supreme public authority and jurisdiction has the
authority to enact a law affecting the common good of all.

Kinds of Laws

Laws can be observed from different standpoints and correspondingly we distinguish between
different kinds of laws.
A). From the viewpoint of Obligation we distinguish four kinds of laws: affirmative, negative,
permissive and punitive.
a). An affirmative law is a law of ‘command’ obligating a person to perform a definite positive
act. E.g. The state commands citizens to pay taxes in support of the government.
b). A negative law is a law of’ prohibition’ obligating a person to refrain from performing a
definite act. For e.g. The Decalogue forbids adultery and murder.
c). .A permissive law is one which allows a person to perform a certain act without hindrance
from others.
d). A punitive or penal law is one which imposes penalty upon violation. The law itself may
stipulate the exact penalty, or it may be left to the discretion of the judge.
B). From the viewpoint of the Legislator we distinguish law into divine and human laws.
a). Divine law emanate from God as the legislator. The laws contained in the Decalogue were
given by God directly.
b). Human laws are enacted by legitimate human authority. For eg. The state authority establish
laws for its subjects.
C). From the viewpoint of Duration law is divided into eternal and temporal.
a). Eternal law is the plan of God’s wisdom directing all created things toward the realization of
their natural end.
b). Temporal laws are those enacted, not from eternity, but in time by temporal authority. For.
E.g. By state through legislative or responsible channels.
D). From the viewpoint of Promulgation law can be divided into natural and positive.
a). Natural law is law in so far as it is manifested by the natural light of human reason reflecting
on the fundamental principles of morality.
b). Positive law is a law enacted by legitimate authority, such as the state, supplementing the
provisions of natural law and made in view of the special need of the community.

4. 6 PLEASURE AS NORM

From the very beginning of human history there had been people who considered pleasure as the
supreme good of human life. For them pleasure is the only norm of morality. They believed that
every human activity is prompted by a desire of seeking pleasure.

Hedonism

7
The word hedonism has its root in Greek word ‘hedone’ which means ‘pleasure’. Hedonism is
one of the oldest, simplest and most earthly of ethical theories. It is the ethical theory which
teaches that pleasure is the only mark of good life and those who desire to lead a good life must
seek pleasure by all means. Historically the beginning of hedonism can be sought in the
philosophy of Cyrenaics and the Epicureans. We find hedonism first proposed by Aristippus, the
leader of Cyrenaic school, who identified happiness with pleasure. According to him pleasure is
the only mark of good life and all pleasures are essentially alike though they differ from the point
of view of intensity.

Epicureans also attached importance to pleasure but they did not give much significance to the
momentary pleasure. For Epicures the end of life is not intense pleasure, but an abiding peace of
mind, a state of cheerful tranquillity. Above all we must avoid fear of the gods and fear of death.

In India too we had the philosophy of the Charvak whih stated that the pleasure of the moment
should be sought. It taught people to eat, drink and be happy for tomorrow we may die.

Hedonistic theory was revived during the Renaissance, and was propounded in England during
the seventeenth century by Thomas Hobbes (1588-1679) and John Lock (1632-1704). Later
exponents of the pleasure theory were Bentham (1748-1832) and John Stuart Mill (1806-1873).

Check your progress II

Note: a) Use the space provided for your answer.

b) Check your answers with those provided at the end of the unit.

1) What is the nature of Law?

………………………………………………………………………………………………………
………………………………………………………………………………………………………
………………………………………………………………………………………………………
………………………………………………………………………………………………………
………………………………………………………………
2) What is Hedonism?

………………………………………………………………………………………………………
………………………………………………………………………………………………………
………………………………………………………………………………………………………
………………………………………………………………………………………………………
………………………………………………………………

4. 7 LET US SUM UP

8
In this unit we have explained the basics of the norms of morality in general and have gone in
detail to the different particular norms of morality. As particular norms we see Conscience as
subjective norm of morality and Intuition, Law and Pleasure as the objective norms of morality.
In the subjective norm of morality, the moral authority dwells within the individual.
Objective norm is the standard for an objective evaluation of the human acts. The moral criterion
presupposes the existence of an objective moral ‘standard’ or norm with which the particular act
can be compared. With the moral norm, human beings can test the morality of the act and judge
whether it is good or evil. In general a norm is an authoritative standard, which gives us a pattern
or model to which things of similar nature must conform. Thus a judgement can be described as
a comparison of an act with the standard or norm. When the act conforms to the norm of
morality, we judge the act to be good and when we find that the act deviates from the norm, we
judge the act to be evil.

4. 8 KEY WORDS

Norm – Norm is a rule or standard of judgement.

Conscience – It is the subjective awareness of the moral quality of one’s own actions as
indicated by the moral values to which one subscribes.
Intuitionism – The immediate apprehension of an object by the mind without the intervention of
any reasoning process.
Law – An ordinance of reason directed toward the common good and promulgated by the one
who has the care of the community.
Hedonism – The theory that teaches that pleasure is the only mark of good life.

4. 9. FURTHER READINGS AND REFERENCES

Bittle, C. N. Man and Morals. Milwaukee: The Bruce Publishing Company, 1950).
Composta, D. Moral Philosophy and Social Ethics. Bangalore: TPI, 1988.
Fagothey, A. Right and Reason. Ethics in Theory and Practice. Saint Louis: Mosby Company,
1972.
Finance, J. An Ethical Inquiry. Roma: Editrice Pontificia Universita Gregoriana, 1991.
Kavanagh, J. Manual of Social Ethics. Dublin: M. H. Gill and Son, 1956.
Lillie, W. An Introduction to Ethics. New Delhi: Allied Publishers, 1986.
Mackenzie, J. S. A Manual of Ethics. Delhi: Surjeet Publications, 2000.
Varghese, K. K. Michelangelo and the Human Dignity. An Anthropological Reading of the
Sistine Frescoes. Bangalore: Asian Trading Corporation, 2005.
Varghese, K. K. Personalism in John Paul II. An Anthropological Study of his Social Doctrines.
Bangalore: Asian Trading Corporation, 2005.

4. 10. ANSWERS TO CHECK YOUR PROGRESS

Answers to Check Your Progress I

1. Conscience can be divided into antecedent conscience and consequent conscience. Antecedent
conscience deals with future actions whereas consequent conscience deals with the past actions.
Conscience that acts as a guide to future actions, prompting to do them or avoid them can be

9
defined as an antecedent conscience. Conscience which is acting as a judge to our past actions,
the source of our self-approval or remorse is known as consequent conscience. In ethics
Antecedent conscience, which is a guide to our future action, is more important. The acts of
Antecedent Conscience are divided into four. They are: a). First one is the mental act of a
‘command’ whereby one senses that a particular act is ‘to be done’. It is an imperative and the
individual is not free not to do the act. b) Second one is the act of ‘forbidding’ whereby one
senses that a particular act is ‘not to be done’. It is an obligation to avoid such acts. Doing of
such act is an immoral act. c) Third one is that of the act of ‘permitting’ in which one regards an
act as ‘allowed’ by one’s own moral values. d) Fourth one is the act of ‘advising’ in which one is
aware that an act is either probably better to do or probably worse to do.

2. The judgement of the conscience can be understood as the judgement of the intellect. The
human intellect can be mistaken either by adopting false premises or by drawing an illogical
conclusion. Because of this there can be different consciences such as correct, erroneous,
doubtful, certain, perplexed and scrupulous consciences. A correct conscience judges as good
what is really good, or as evil what is really evil. Whereas an erroneous conscience judges as
good what is really evil, or as evil what is really good. A certain conscience judges without
fearing that the opposite may be true. A doubtful conscience either hesitates to make any
judgement at all or does make a judgement but with misgivings that the opposite may be true. A
perplexed conscience belongs to one who cannot make up his/her mind. Such persons remain in
a state of indecisive anguish, especially if s/he thinks that s/he will be doing wrong whichever
alternative he chooses. A scrupulous conscience torments its owner by rehearsing over and
over again doubts that were once settled. S/he finds new sources of guilt for old deeds that were
best forgotten, striving for a kind of certainty about one’s state of soul that is beyond our power
in this life.

Answers to Check Your Progress II

1. A law is defined by St Thomas Aquinas as an “ordinance of reason directed toward the

common good and promulgated by the one who has the care of the community”. a). Law is an
ordinance of reason. ‘Ordinance of reason’ is the formal cause of the law. By this we mean that a
law is a directive demanding a definite course of action. They are not free to accept or reject this
ordinance, but are subject to a moral constraint to carry out the injunction demanded by the
ordinance and contained in it. A law can only be given to rational beings, with the purpose of
controlling their human acts. Since the law belongs to the rational order, in order to be a true law,
it cannot command anything contrary to reason. b) A law is directed towards common good. The
final cause of the law should be common good. It cannot be directed to promote the private
welfare of individuals or relatively small groups within a community. It should be directed
towards the welfare of the community as a whole. Thus a law has the public welfare as its
objective. c) A law should be promulgated. The promulgation of the law is the material cause of
the law. d) The promulgation of the law should be done by the one who has the care of the
community. This legislator is the efficient cause of the law. Laws are matters of public authority
and jurisdiction, and only the bearer of the supreme public authority and jurisdiction has the
authority to enact a law affecting the common good of all.

10
2. The word hedonism has its root in Greek word ‘hedone’ which means ‘pleasure’. Hedonism is
one of the oldest, simplest and most earthly of ethical theories. It is the ethical theory which
teaches that pleasure is the only mark of good life and those who desire to lead a good life must
seek pleasure by all means. Historically the beginning of hedonism can be sought in the
philosophy of Cyrenaics and the Epicureans. We find hedonism first proposed by Aristippus, the
leader of Cyrenaic school, who identified happiness with pleasure. According to him pleasure is
the only mark of good life and all pleasures are essentially alike though they differ from the point
of view of intensity.

11
UNIT 5 NATURAL MORAL LAW

Contents
5.0 Objectives
5.1 Introduction
5.2 The Ethical Phenomenon
5.3 Natural Law (Definition)
5.4 Reason and Morality
5.5 Universality and Natural Law
5.6 Natural Law and Change
5.7 Natural Law and Human Dignity
5.8 Natural law and the Concept of Intrinsic Evil
5.9 Criticism of Natural Law
5.10 Let Us Sum Up
5.11 Key Words
5.12 Further Readings and References
5.13 Answers to Check Your Progress

5.0 OBJECTIVES

It is to understand the phenomenon of morality, to define natural law, to understand its nature,
i.e. its universality and particularity, change of natural law, the relation of natural law to
particular laws, its relation to human dignity, to the concept of intrinsic evil and to understand
the criticism of natural law and to answer it.

5.1 INTRODUCTION

Knowledge of natural law is as widespread as humankind itself. So also is its critique. The task
here is to reflect on natural moral law. I intend to proceed as follows. I give first a brief
description of the concept of natural law. Then some of the basic criticisms of natural law will
be enumerated. And finally I will try to answer some of those criticisms. That will constitute
this unit on natural moral law.

5.2 ETHICAL OR MORAL PHENOMENON

In the light of natural reason man distinguishes between good and bad. According to theoretical
reason, wonder over the very existence of things is the beginning of all knowledge. The
“prescribing character” or the “ought” character of the good is the primordial ethical
phenomenon and ethics begins from that primordial phenomenon, and practical reason has also
its origin here. The difference between good and bad is in the nature of the good. The good
urges the human subject towards that which ought to be, and the bad pulls in the opposite
direction. The good makes a claim on man, and he who has understood this has understood the
contradiction between good and bad.

Ratio boni (the reason of the good or the call of good) is that all men desire the good. All men
desire the good precisely because the good manifests itself as desirable. Whoever understands

1
the ratio boni also understands the ought character of the good. He also understands
simultaneously the highest norm of morality, namely good is to be done and evil to be avoided.
The supreme norm of natural law: do good and avoid evil, is born from or based on the ought
character of the good.

Good is to be done and evil is to be avoided. The power of the good to lead man to the good
manifests itself in the judgement of practical reason urging man to realize the good. The validity
(Gültigkeit) of all the norms of practical reason rests on the primordial insight (Ureinsicht) into
the meaning (Sinn) of the good. This is open to all men. That is to say, the light of the good is
available to all men.

5.3 NATURAL LAW (DEFINITION)

The supreme principle of ethics or morality is: good is to be done and evil to be avoided. And
that one principle is grounded in the ought character of the good. It is from this one principle
that practical reason draws all its other individual norms. All the individual laws of natural law,
to the extent they refer to the one supreme principle of natural law (do good and avoid evil),
participate in the reasonability of the supreme principle.

The presuppositions of any moral philosophy are a) the capacity of practical reason to perceive
truth and, b) a substratum (rudimentary basis) of human nature that remains the same through all
historical changes. A genuine ethical theory must believe in the universal validity of its
principles.

Natural law presupposes that there is a common human nature which is constant. It is from that
human nature that ethical principles are drawn. Thus the objective foundation of natural law is
the nature of man. Natural law exists before practical reason, i.e. practical reason discovers it
because natural law is grounded in the basic structure of being man. Natural law, unlike
emotivism, (i.e., the theory that morality is a question of emotion), is based on the being of man,
on the nature of being human.

Natural law, or the phrase “by nature”, expresses the minimum presuppositions for being an
ethical subject, that is, freedom and reason. Without these, one cannot be an ethical subject.
Natural law understood as the minimum pre-suppositions for being human is same for all, in
every culture and age. These minimum conditions are protected by the negative commands of
natural law.

Natural law as an ethical theory proposes principles that are valid for all people because it
contains minimum indications for being human and it defends the most basic sector
(unhintergehbarer Raum) of a human being. The minimum of natural law that is common to all
men is applicable everywhere and is independent of revelation or divine intervention. It is
available to any man as man.

2
Natural law as a moral philosophy is against relativism and believes in the truthfulness and
universal validity of moral norms. One needs natural law to be able to criticize the ideologies of
one’s society. In the absence of natural law one will be forced to give equal value to both
cannibalism and a democratically ordered society. Natural law must be the basis for individual
moral laws and civil law, and it should de independent of any religious foundation. It should be
accessible to any man as man.

Thomistic natural law is a combination of natural reason and the natural inclinations of human
towards a fulfilled life (gelungenes Leben). Natural law and human life goals are given in the
very nature of man. There are goals in human life and the inclinations lead man to them. The
goals are recognized as good by practical reason naturally, i.e. without any other aid.

The inclinations point to the goals that lead to fulfillment in life. And knowledge of good and
evil follows the order of the inclinations. There are principally three types of inclinations in
man: The first level inclinations are those inclinations in common with all substances. These
concern self-preservation. The second level inclinations are inclinations in common with all
living beings. These concern social living, procreation and education of the young. Third level
inclinations are inclinations that are specific to man. They concern striving for knowledge which
include knowledge about God, and desiring to live in fellowship with others. The desire to live
in fellowship calls for avoidance of ignorance. The same includes the inclination not to hurt
one’s fellowmen.

The inclinations in man correspond to the dictates of practical reason. But what is the precise
relationship between the two? Interpreters of Thomas, the midieval philosopher, have proposed
three types of relationship between the inclinations and practical reason: The inclinations are
just a frame-work. Practical reason is decisive. There is a relationship of practical reason
informing the inclinations. And finally there is the position that the inclinations give detailed
goals of life and practical reason just approves them. Eberhard Schockenhoff, a German ethicist,
is of the view that practical reason cannot be seen as just a ratifying agent. Nor can it be that the
inclinations are an unlimited amount of raw material to be given form by practical reason.
According to Schockenhoff, the supreme law of practical reason diversifies into individual
ethical norms and together with the inclinations they form a unity informed by reason. Reason is
like a music conductor who fine-tunes the inclinations. Or again, reason is like an author who
transforms the rough draft of a book (inclinations) into a coherently written book. Reason
informs the inclinations and they become norms of the actions of men.

Natural inclinations show the fulfillment image (Vollendugsgestalt) of being human only in an
outline. Reason has to devise the means towards that goal, i.e.evolve norms for the conduct of
men to realize the goal. Man must, in the light of reason, choose concrete actions to realize the
life goals. To view the inclinations as giving in detail the norms of behaviour is to go against the
reservation Thomas himself had about them. It is to read into Thomas what later Scholastics
(philosophers between 9th and 14th centuries) said after two to three centuries.

Only those inclinations that are according to reason belong to natural law. The one supreme
principle of natural law, namely, do good and avoid evil, splits into many individual norms so as
to lead the inclinations to the fulfillment of human life.

3
5.4 REASON AND MORALITY

Human obeys a law because it is reasonable. Every law must have reason in it. The vis
obligandi (the obligating or compelling power) of a law (Gesetz) does not come from outside
itself but from the internal obligating character of reason itself. According to Thomas Aquinas
the regula et mensura (rule and measure) of human acts is reason. The only criterion of morality
is whether a human act is according to reason or not, i.e. if reason sanctions it or not.

The origin and validity of moral values come from practical reason. This is because it is reason
that makes a law that which it is. Without reason there is no law. Reason and its law of non-
contradiction finally decide about the content of any moral system. An immoral act is one that
contradicts reason. It militates against reason. And it cannot be that a moral value is an
importance in one place and a non-importance or its contradiction in another place.

There are two aspects in the faculty of reason in human, namely, theoretical reason and practical
reason. One is not subordinate to the other. They are not two faculties in human but a single
capacity of the self that is directed towards different objects: theoretical reason is directed
towards truth in itself for its own sake, whereas practical reason is directed towards truth in so far
as it has to be realized, acted upon.

The fact that both are faculties of the same soul does not rob them of their distinctiveness. These
two have their own specific goals (Ziele). They are not subordinate to each other but they
complement each other. The distinctiveness of both is shown in the fact that each has its own
non-demonstrable first principles (unbeweisbare Prinzipien). They deduce from their own
sources.

Theoretical and practical reason are complementary in the sense that the objects of their
orientation can fall either in the field of theoretical reason or practical reason. The object of
theoretical reason is the truth in itself. The object of practical reason is the good. The object of
theoretical reason is truth in so far as it is worthwhile longing for. The object of practical reason
is the good that has been discovered under the aspect of truth or as truth.
The first principles of theoretical reason are not provable. They are self-evident and they are
understood by intuition. So also are the first principles of practical reason. Practical reason
possesses its own naturally known and non-provable principles. They are not deduced or
borrowed from theoretical reason. The first principles of practical reason are the first principles
of natural law. They cannot be proved. They are intuitively known.

It belongs to practical reason to seek for the good in the light of its highest principle (do good
and avoid evil). But it does not end there. It seeks further the ways or means to realize the good.
Both functions belong to practical reason. Practical reason reaches the fullness of its activity to
the extent it commands the recognized good to be realized. This is also called the law character
of practical reason, i.e. practical reason commands the recognized good to be executed. That is
the difference of the universal propositions of practical reason from those of theoretical reason.

4
The judgements of practical reason do not have the same degree of certainty as those of
theoretical reason because the judgements of practical reason deal with contingent events. That
does not mean that they are not valid.

5.5. UNIVERSALITY AND NATURAL LAW

One can think about and practice a universal ethic only if one presupposes the universal validity
and reach of reason in all men. There is a human nature that does not change. So too, there is an
unchanging natural law.

Only the top-most principles (oberste Prinzipien) of practical reason and their conclusions are
universally valid. The supreme principles of practical reason are valid for all because they are
grounded in the very reasonability (Vernunftfähigkeit) of human beings. Secondary natural laws
are those laws that flow from the first three: do good and avoid evil, the golden rule (do unto
others what you would like them to do to you) and love of neighbour. The negative laws of the
Decalogue (the ten commandments as contained in the Bible) also belong to them. These laws
are known to all men. But they admit of exceptions. The findings of theoretical reason and their
conclusions are valid for all (like: the angles of an equilateral triangle are equal). That is not the
case with practical reason. Except for the first or supreme principles, the findings of practical
reason are contingent, i.e. they are not necessarily valid for all.

Once reason discovers a truth, it is valid for all. “It corresponds completely to the structure of
historical perception of truth that such crossing of boundaries occurs in a particular time and
place. Once such a discovery or crossing has taken place in the thought of the human spirit, it
belongs to the permanent possession of mankind and is valid everywhere” (Schokenhoff,
Naturrecht, p. 139). Truth once discovered is truth for all and it is independent of historical
particularities. It is not dependent on being historically recognized. It transcends historical times
and epochs. According to Max Scheler, as soon as a value is discovered, its validity is for all
people of all time. It is so because an essential aspect of reality has been discovered. E.
Troeltsch (another German philosopher) is of the same view.

Not all the commands of practical reason possess the trait (Bewandnis) of a law. Only the
universal propositions/commands possess that. It is the aim of Summa Theologica I-II,
Quesstion 94, articles 4 and 5 of Thomas Aquinas to show that the universal natural law
branches (auffächert) into individual concrete norms.

It is practical reason that discovers the universal natural laws. It is again practical reason that
discovers the non-universal norms applicable to particular situations. Thus there are grades in
the judgements or laws of practical reason.

If it is true that there is a universal concern of reason, then it shows itself on the international
level as the international human rights issue. Natural law expresses the dignity of the human
person. Natural law lays the foundation for rights and duties. To that extent natural law is
universal and its authority is over all men. The idea that there is a right which belongs to all

5
human beings is the possession of mankind itself. That it has not been respected at all times does
not invalidate it.

Check Your Progress I

Note: a) Use the space provided for your answer.

b) Check your answers with those provided at the end of the unit.

1) What is natural Law?

………………………………………………………………………………………………………
………………………………………………………………………………………………………
………………………………………………………………………………………………………
………………………………………………………………………………………………………
………………………………………………………………………………………………………
………………………………………………………

2) Why is natural law universally valid?

………………………………………………………………………………………………………
………………………………………………………………………………………………………
………………………………………………………………………………………………………
………………………………………………………………………………………………………
………………………………………………………………

5.6 NATURAL LAW AND CHANGE

The different grades of certainty of the norms of practical reason and the diminishing certainty of
individual concrete norms in different situations lead us to believe that natural law is an outline,
formed by the supreme principles, within which reason has to find individual norms. Natural
law is not a closed system with fixed norms. Only those norms that carry the tag “according to
nature” are unchangeable. What concrete actions are to be classified as murder, theft and
adultery will differ according to both divine and human norms/considerations.

Ethics transcends history. However, its individual norms need not be valid for every situation.

The changeability and non-universality of the norms of practical reason are not due to the inborn
incapacity of some men to perceive moral norms nor is it due culpable ignorance. It is due to the
contingency and diversity of situations. Besides, human nature changes in a certain sense. There
are many laws of nature to which both human laws are added so as to make the true meaning of
the laws correspond to the changed situation. For example, the law of not hating one’s
neighbour was added to the prohibition of murder. In the same way to the prohibition of not
stealing. Practical reason knows the universal laws and draws out concrete norms for the
realization of the universal in the particular situation. That these concrete norms vary from place
to place and do not possess the same degree of certainty of the universal norms is not a weakness

6
or deficiency of natural law. It is, rather, due to the fact that reason is a finite reality, and
concrete situations do not offer a greater degree of certainty.

Reason finds particular norms for particular situations. The experience of wise and sensitive
men play a crucial role here. There are exceptions to the universal laws in particular situations.
For example, it is universally accepted that borrowed things or goods given for safe-keeping
must be returned. But one would not easily return the weapon of a man who is drunk and is
intent on killing someone.

According to Eberhard Schockenhoff, a German ethicist, a list of laws that will not accommodate
to changing situations is an unreasonable thing (Unding). It is impossible to write a catalogue
of human rights that is valid for all time because it is impossible to get a view of the total.
Natural law is not a finished catalogue of rights. It is rather the power of reason which discovers
universal principles. These principles will take different forms in different cultures.

Natural law is opposed to historicism which believes that human is an evolving creature and
what he is will only be revealed by his history. Historicism does not believe in the existence of
an unchanging human nature. One has to counter historicism and say that there is a common
metaphysical human nature and it is visible only in historical forms. That nature remains
essentially same all through history. The moral norms which man discovers also takes place in a
historical situation. But that fact does not contradict the existence of a common nature nor
universal moral laws.

History is an essential dimension of human and human nature. Because of that, that which is
permanent in human and one’s nature can only be observed in historical manifestations. Human
lives in history. One does not become human on account of history. One makes history on
account of one’s nature, on account of one’s body-soul structure.

Nature and history are not opposed to each other. Human is a historical being, i.e. one realizes
oneself in history as a finite being. Human’s reason is also a historical reality in the sense that it
realizes itself in a historical context. It does not live in the realm of the pure spirit. History is
essential to human and one’ nature. Thus natural rights, i.e. the idea of a moral criterion of good
and evil that transcends all times and ages, must manifest itself in history. However, the
dependence of reason on historical situations does not nullify its capacity to discover truth nor
does it mean that a truth discovered in a historical context is valid only for that period.

Reason holds on to what has been achieved as experience (Erfahrung) in history. The same
reason holds man open to the new of every situation. With reason man lives in history. The
same reason enables man to transcend history.

The flood of historical events and changes can make natural law appear as relative. It is true that
an ethical insight is valid for all time. But its historical realization is often linked to
compromises in concrete situations.

5.7 NATURAL LAW AND HUMAN DIGNITY

7
There is a core sector/aspect (unhintergehbarer Schutzraum) in a human being. That centre is
the person, the source of morality, and it is the aim of morality to protect that sector. The
minimum requirements of natural law are the minimum requirements of human right and human
dignity. That is to say that there is a basic requirement for being moral. So too there is a basic
requirement for demanding and accepting human dignity and right. Human dignity and the
rights that flow form it are universal and it can be demanded from any person or government.
Respect for human dignity is not just respect for the spiritual powers and convictions of human.
It is a respect for the totality of human, body and soul. Human lives one’s life not as an angel
but as an embodied being in this world.

In natural law, right and morality are closely related. Rights are the moral claims an individual
makes on another human being or human beings. To the extent that natural law thinking sees
rights arising from the supreme principles of practical reason and since morality itself is
grounded in practical reason, rights are closely related to morality. Human rights and ethics
belong together. They protect the elementary goals and values of life. Human rights are, like
values, a historical manifestation of the principles of practical reason.

Human rights are the minimum conditions, in every age, under which a human being can be seen
as an ethical subject and can be held responsible for his deeds. Natural human rights represent
the minimum of being ethical. But it can learn from any anthropology that visualizes a fuller
human life.

Natural human right is the knowledge of a law, a moral law that is independent of human
domination or despotism. International human rights built on the basis of natural rights. Natural
rights point beyond themselves. They point to the wealth of religions and the way they propose
to fulfill human life.

The state upholds the rule of law (Rechtsordnung). Rule of law aims at the realization of a life
worthy of a human being. It guarantees the minimum space a human being needs to realize
himself as an ethical being. Rule of law recognizes the inalienable rights of the person and his
duty in the community.

Human rights presuppose freedom and are grounded in reason. Precisely because of that a
change in the concept of right or the discovery of new rights is possible. According to new
insights and new situations, rights (civil rights) can change. Civil rights are grounded in natural
rights. According to Ernst Wolfgang Böckenförde, (a German ethicist), natural law and rights is
a way of thinking of the practical reason. In the light of the fundamental goals of human life, it
legitimizes the existing human rights. It also criticizes them and paves the way for progress in
human rights.

5.8 NATURAL LAW AND CONCEPT OF INTRINSIC EVIL

If there is something intrinsically valuable, then it stands to reason to believe that there is also
something intrinsically evil, because to attack the intrinsically good will be to create an
intrinsically evil deed. It is inevitable to use the term “intrinsic evil” when it concerns the mutual
respect man has to show to the ethical subject.

8
The idea of intrinsic evil is not a special teaching of the Church. It is the common property of a
moral tradition starting with Aristotle and continuing in the teachings of Augustine, Thomas,
Kant and all the non-utilitarians, i.e. deontological ethicists of today.

One should never do an intrinsically evil act. An intrinsically evil act is one that attacks or
violates the absolute right, i.e. inalienable right of another person, independent of the fact what
benefit such a violation will have for the community as a whole. An intrinsically evil act attacks
the minimum conditions necessary for being human. This minimum condition is the possibility
for free self-determination as an ethical subject. An intrinsically evil act attacks the personal
centre. Ready examples are rape and torture.

The negative commands of natural law prohibits intrinsically evil acts. Just as the concept of
human dignity may not be able to enumerate all the laws needed to protect human dignity, so too
the concept of intrinsic evil may not be able to produce an exhaustive list of intrinsically evil
acts. The concept of intrinsic evil will remind man of something which he should never do,
without enumerating in detail what man should avoid as intrinsic evil in every age/epoch.

Rape, murder (killing of innocent and harmless human beings), torture, infidelity to one’s word
(breach of promise) and sexual infidelity in marriage are some of the intrinsic evil acts. The evil
of rape consists in the fact that it violates the dignity of a human being. That dignity is rooted in
freedom and reason. Rape is never in harmony with the respect that is due to a human being.

The innocent has a right, an inalienable right, not to be offered as a means for the greater good of
the community. It is the dignity of the other and the “in itself” value of the other
(Selbstzwecklichkeit) that are the ontological grounds for loving man as our neighbour for his
own sake. Torture of the innocent is one of the intrinsic evils that cannot be done for any other
good. Its evil consists in the fact that it violates the absolute right, the right of the individual to
determine himself (Selbstbestimmung). Torture militates against the dignity of the innocent.

One is not responsible for the evil consequence of one’s good deed. For example, if one refuses
to kill an innocent person, the enemy will kill 200 or 2000 other innocent people.

The prohibition of killing the innocent is valid in normal situations, and not in borderline cases
and fictitious circumstances. There may be exceptions to the prohibition. For example, the
killing of one’s wounded fellow soldier so as to prevent him from falling into enemy hands
which would mean torture and death. So also the killing of a man who cannot be extricated from
a burning car after an accident. But even these killings are against the dictum: thou shall not kill.
The body is the manifestation of a person. The prohibition to kill refers to the bodily existence
of man. Man is called to be a reasonable being. But he cannot exist reasonably without a body.
Thus the command not to kill is a call to respect the dignity of man as a bodily existing being.

In this context Schockenhoff refers to both teleologism and deontologism. For one, remaining
faithful to teleologism, it is not possible to defend the concept of intrinsic evil. Teleologists may
respect the command not to kill the innocent. But that is not out of the conviction that there are

9
intrinsically evil acts, but because they feel that respecting the command not to kill the innocent
will bring more benefit to society in the long run. Both teleologism and deontologism are
complementary. While deciding about goods other than human beings, teleologism is in order.
But while deciding about human beings, their dignity, etc., deontologism is absolutely necessary.

It is only by holding on to intrinsically evil acts that one can, in the long run, fight against
terrorists and blackmailers.

5.9 CRITICISM OF NATURAL LAW

In the light of the supreme moral principle, - good is to be done and evil to be avoided - practical
reason orders the inclinations. The ordering function of practical reason depends on the order of
the inclinations in setting up the ordo praeceptorum. The inclinations are pre-moral. Practical
reason orders them to the fulfillment goal of man. The inclinations receive their moral quality
through reason to the extent that reason invests in them the criterion of good and bad.

That there are certain basic drives in human is undeniable. Modern human, with one’s improved
knowledge over descriptive or positive sciences, is in a better position to understand the
drives/inclinations than Aquinas was in the thirteenth century.

The second criticism of Thomistic natural law is that it commits the fallacy of petitio principii. It
reasons as follows: The concept of nature is an empty shell that is filled with arbitrary (beliebig)
contents from sociology or anthropology, and the content is invested with the dignity of being
ethical. Petitio principii is precisely the fact that, instead of proving the ethical dignity of the
content, it is presupposed that the arbitrarily filled content of the concept of nature is ethical.

But the very existence of different grades of truth in the concept of natural law contradicts this
accusation of petitio principii. If the content of the term nature was filled arbitrarily and then
given ethical dignity, then every element of the content must have the same degree of certainty.
That is not the case with Thomistic natural law. It is not true that Aquinas fills the empty shell of
the concept of nature with any content. Rather he enumerates the basic presuppositions of
morality in the concept of nature. And they are: Man is a being of reason and he is responsible
for his being. He, as a rational creature, ought to recognize the “good and true” for the very
being of man, and that very recognition brings man to his integral fulfillment. Human’s
inclinations have an orientation towards the good and the true, and reason recognizes the good
and the true and approves them. Finally, human realizes oneself as a body-soul reality
necessarily in relation with other human beings and in harmony with the orientation of his soul
towards the good and the true. These presuppositions are not just arbitrary principles
(Festlegungen) from which man draws again arbitrary norms. Rather these are the very
conditions that make morality possible at all.

The third criticism is that Aquinas has an unhistorical/unchanging understanding of human

nature. The answer to this is that Thomas does concede change in human nature. That is evident
in the two levels of practical reason. The second level does admit of change of norms in
different situations and a change in human nature in the sense of living human life differently in

10
different epochs/ages. When Aquinas speaks of a change in human nature he does not mean that
man becomes something other than human.

Human’s nature changes but an unchanging element is presupposed in every age and culture.
This is evident from the concept of human dignity which is valid for all generations. Human’s
dignity does not increase or decrease with the passage of time. That man has certain rights on
account of his dignity will also remain stable. What will change is only the way the rights are
realized. For example, ladies had no voting rights in certain epochs.

Human’s nature changes, i.e. it manifests itself in different ways in different cultures. The cave
human’s being human is different from the urban human’s being human. But they both remain
humans. Human’s nature has to manifest itself in a particular culture. But no culture exhausts it.
Human’s nature transcends all historical manifestations.

5.10 LET US SUM UP

Our understanding of natural law has shown that there is an essential relationship between moral
values and reason. The good manifests itself to reason. Or, it is only in the light of reason that
the good becomes visible. The vis obligandi of any law is that it is reasonable. And the essence
of moral evil is that it is against the order of reason.

Natural law is the law discovered by reason in human. Natural law is inherent in the nature of
human, the core of which does not change. The basis of every good positive law is natural law.
So also, every human right is based on natural law. One cannot understand the concept of
intrinsic evil without natural law. The discovery of the good leads to the discovery of the evil in
itself.

Check Your Progress I

Note: a) Use the space provided for your answer.

b) Check your answers with those provided at the end of the unit.

1) Does natural Law change?

………………………………………………………………………………………………………
………………………………………………………………………………………………………
………………………………………………………………………………………………………
………………………………………………………………………………………………………
………………………………………………………………………………………………………
………………………………………………………

2) What is intrinsic evil?

………………………………………………………………………………………………………
………………………………………………………………………………………………………
………………………………………………………………………………………………………

11
………………………………………………………………………………………………………
………………………………………………………………

5. 11. KEY WORDS

Law: Law is a system of rules, usually enforced through a set of institutions.

Nature: The word nature is derived from the Latin word natura, meaning “birth.” Natura was a
Latin translation of the Greek word physis, which originally related to the intrinsic characteristics
that plants, animals, and other features of the world develop of their own accord.

5.12. FURTHER READINGS AND REFERENCES

Curran, Charles and McCormick, Richard A., eds. Readings in Moral Theology. No. 7. New
York/Mahwah: Paulist Press, 1991.
Fuchs, Joseph. Natural Law. Tr. Helmut Recter and John A. Dowling. Dublin, Gill and Son,
1965.
Podimattam, Felix. Relativity of Natural Law in the Renewal of Moral Theology. Bombay:
Examiner Press, 1970.
Schockenhoff, Eberhard. Natural Law and Human Dignity : Universal Ethics in an Historical
World. Tr. Brian McNail. Washington DC: The Catholic University of America Press,
2003.
Schockenhoff, Eberhard. Naturrecht und Menschenwürde: Universale Ethik in einer
geschichtlichen Welt. Mainz: Matthias-Gruenewald-Verlag, 1996.

5.13. ANSWERS TO CHECK YOUR PROGRESS

Answers to Check Your Progress I

1. It is the moral law discovered by reason in the rational nature of man.
2. Natural law is universally valid because it is based on a human nature that is universally the
same.

Answers to Check Your Progress II

1. The most basic natural law does not change. Its application to individual situations change.
2. An intrinsically evil act is one that attacks the absolute right of another human being, no
matter what the social benefit of that act is. Just as reason perceives the most basic natural law,
so too it perceives certain acts as intrinsically evil.

12