Tab 1
THE HUMAN ACT
Lesson 1:
The Meaning of Human Act
Act of Man Vs Human Act
• Fr. Coppens (2017)
“Human acts are those of which a man is master, which he has the power of doing or
not doing as he pleases.”
• Panizo (1964)
“Human acts are those acts which proceed from man as a rational being.”
Act of Man Vs Human Act
• Actions committed by unconscious and insane persons, infants, or by those who are
physically forced to do something, are not considered as human acts but act of man.
• Actions which merely happen in the body or through the body without the awareness
of the mind or the control of the will are not human acts but merely acts of man.
The Determinants of the Morality of Human Act
• Three things to consider to know whether an individual human act is morally good
according to Rev. Coppens S.J. are:
a. the object of the act;
b. the end or purpose; and
c. its circumstances.
a. The Object of the Act
• The object of an act is the thing done.
• The act itself.
• For an individual human act to be good, its object, whether considered in itself as
further specified, must be free from all defect; it must be good, or at least indifferent.
• The following are instances: honoring one’s parent, going to mass on days of
obligation, saving human life, respecting others’ rights and property, having pure acts
and thoughts, being true to marital commitments, telling the truth, etc.
b. The End or Purpose
• The purpose intended by the agent.
• It is the end of the workman or agent.
• No matter how good the object of an act may be if the end intended is bad, the act is
thereby vitiated, spoiled, or impaired.
• The end, or purpose is the intention of the acting subject, or what inspires the acting
subject.
• The guiding rule is the end does not justify the means.
c. The Circumstances
• The circumstances of time, place, and persons have their part in determining the
morality of an individual act.
• The moral character of an act may be so affected by attendant circumstances, that
good in itself may be evil when accompanied by certain circumstances; for instance, it is
good to give a drink to the thirsty, but if the thirsting man is morally weak, the drink is
intoxicating, the act may be evil.
• The circumstances, including the consequences, refer to the time, place, person,
and conditions surrounding the moral act. They increase or diminish the moral
goodness or evil of human acts.
The Determinants of the Morality of Human Act
• A morally good act requires the goodness of the object, of the end, and of the
circumstances together. An evil end corrupts the action, even if the object is good in
itself (such as praying and fasting “in order to be seen by men”).
• For an act to be good, all three determinants must be without flaw, according to the
received axiom: “Bonum ex integra causa, malum ex quocumque defectu” – “A thing to
be good must be wholly so; it is not vitiated by any defect.”
Lesson 2:
Accountability of Moral Act
Bases of Moral Accountability
• Says Fr. Coppens (2017):
“When I perform a free act -- one which I am able to do or not to do, as I choose – the
act is evidently imputable to me: If the thing is blameworthy, the blame belongs to
me; If it is praiseworthy, I am entitled to the praise. Every human act, therefore, since
it is a free act, is imputable to him who performs it.
Every human act is a free act so it is imputable to him/her who performs it.”
To whom are we accountable?
For violation of government laws…
• People are held accountable directly to the government, and indirectly to the people.
For violation of moral standards…
• Under Christian natural law ethics, God is deemed the author of the law, hence
violators are accountable to God.
• For nontheistic morality, violators are accountable solely to themselves.
Bases of Moral Accountability
• There are three bases for moral accountability, namely:
1. Knowledge
• Human act must be done knowingly.
• For you to be morally responsible for your act, you must, first, have knowledge, that
is, you are in possession of a normal mind.
• Knowledge is “the awareness of or familiarity with a fact, situation, or truth, and
veiled through experience or disclosed in dialogue or encounter with persons or things.”
2. Freedom
• The act is freely done.
• This happens when you can exercise your power of choice.
• Your freedom should not be impaired by an irresistible force or uncontrollable
fear.
3. Voluntariness
• It must be done voluntarily (intentional or negligent).
• An act is voluntarily intended when it is done with the aim, purpose, or goal of
attaining a result.
• An act is negligent when it is done voluntarily, but without care or precaution in
avoiding the happening of a foreseeable event.
• You can be morally liable either by intentional act or negligent failure to exercise care
and precaution.
• “A voluntary act proceeds from the will and depends upon the will for its performance.”
• When something is done by accident, this is referred to as fortuitous event, act of
God.
• The degree of moral accountability depends on the degree or extent of knowledge,
freedom, and voluntariness.
• Addiction of whatever kind, e.g. drugs, sex, power, money or property, weaken all
three bases: knowledge, freedom, and voluntariness, so that instead of eliminating them
“like dregs of civilization,” they should be treated with compassion, however, not
condoning their acts.
Modifiers of Human Act
• The factors which either increase or decrease accountability.
• These are analogous to exempting, mitigating, aggravating and justifying
circumstances in criminal law.
• They affect the mental or emotional state of a person to the extent that the
voluntariness involved in an act is either increased or decreased (Panizo, 1964).
• They are as follows:
1. Ignorance
2. Passions
3. Fear
4. Violence
1. Ignorance
• The “absence of knowledge.”
• There are various degrees of ignorance. Traditional ethics classifies them as vincible,
invincible, affected, and supine or gross ignorance.
• When it cannot be overcome by the due amount of diligence, it is invincible;
otherwise, it is vincible.
• The latter is said to be gross or supine when scarcely an effort has been made to
remove it.
• If a person deliberately avoids enlightenment in order to sin more freely, his ignorance
is affected.
• The basic rule is invincible ignorance, one that is beyond one’s ability to overcome, is
entirely involuntary, and hence removes moral responsibility; vincible ignorance does
not free us from responsibility.
2. Passion
• It refers to positive emotions like love, desire, delight, hope, and bravery and negative
emotions like hatred, horror, sadness, despair, fear, and anger.
• Antecedent passions are those that precede the act, do not always destroy
voluntariness, but they diminish accountability for the resultant act.
Antecedent passions are those that precede reason and are not based on judgment;
they are immediate and instinctive responses. For instance, an antecedent passion may
involve the immediate fear felt when faced with danger, without prior deliberation or
reasoning about the situation.
• In criminal law, the Commission of a criminal act “with passion and obfuscation”
means the perpetrator is blinded by his emotions lessening his accountability from
maximum to medium or from medium to minimum.
• Consequent passions are those that are intentionally aroused and kept. They do not
lessen voluntariness, but may increase accountability (Panizo, 1964).
In the context of emotions or passions, "consequent passion" refers to a feeling that is
deliberately aroused by the will, meaning the person is responsible for the passion and
its consequences. It contrasts with "antecedent passion," which arises spontaneously
without deliberate intention.
3. Fear
• The disturbance of the mind of a person due to an impending danger or harm to
himself or loved ones.
• Acts done with fear is voluntary, but acts done because of intense or uncontrollable
fear or panic are involuntary.
4. Violence
• Refers to any physical force exerted on a person by another free agent for the purpose
of compelling said person to act against his will.
• Actions performed by persons subjected to violence or irresistible force are
involuntary and not accountable.
Moral Accountability for What Could Have Been
• It is termed as sin of omission.
• Whatever one fails to do but which should have been done is also imputable to him.
• This refers to failure to act despite knowledge of being free, therefore different
from negligence or lack of foresight.
• It is intentionally not doing same thing when one should have done it.
• It is failing to act as a Good Samaritan when one should have acted as such.
Tab 2
Lesson 3: Feeling as a Modifier of Moral Decision-Making
Feelings in Decision Making
• Feeling, in general, is an emotional state or reaction, experience of physical sensation, like
feeling of joy, feeling of warmth, love, affection, tenderness, etc.
How do feelings affect moral decision-making?
Feelings in Decision-Making
• Several studies conclude that up to 90% of the decisions we made are based on emotion. We
use logic to justify our actions to ourselves and to others.
• Actual emotional states can influence the process of moral reasoning and determine moral
judgment.
• Feelings are instinctive and trained responses to the moral dilemma. They can be obstacles to
making the right decisions but they can also help in making the right decisions.
• Positive effects of feelings or emotions in decision-making:
✓ A total emotional decision is very fast in comparison to rational decision. This is reactive
(and largely subconscious) and can be useful when faced with immediate danger, or in
the decision of minimal significance.
✓ Emotions may provide a way for coding and compacting experience, enabling faster
response selection. This may point to why experts’ “gut” level decisions have high accuracy
rates.
✓ Decisions that start with logic may need emotions to enable the final selection, particularly
when confronted with near equal options.
✓ Emotions often drive us in directions conflicting with self-interest.
• Negative effects of feelings or emotions in decision-making:
✓ We make quick decisions without knowing why, and then create rational reasons to justify a
poor emotional decision.
✓ Intensity of emotions can override rational decision-making in cases where it is clearly
needed.
✓ Immediate and unrelated emotions can create mistakes by distorting and creating bias in
judgments. In some cases, this can lead to unexpected and reckless action.
✓ Projected emotions can lead to errors because people are subject to systemic inaccuracy
about how they will feel in the future.
Moral Statements as Expression of Feelings
✓ According to some linguistic philosophers, called “emotivist” the statement “stealing is wrong”
is not a statement of fact, it is an expression of desire or emotion.
✓ The rule or maxim “Stealing is wrong” means “I desire that you do not steal.”
✓ An emotional statement is not verifiable like a factual statement.
Examples:
• “Pedro stole my cat.” (Verifiable. It can be established by evidence.)
• “Pedro’s act of stealing my cat is morally wrong” which is equivalent to “I desire that Pedro
should not steal” (Not verifiable)
Moral Statements as Expression of Feelings
• Emotivism
– is the view that moral judgments do not function as statements of fact but as expressions of
the speaker’s or writer’s feelings.
– The emotivist thus says that ethical statements being emotional expressions are not
verifiable.
– Emotional expressions are not assertions of what is true or false. They are like expressions
of taste.
Aspect Explanation
Theory Name Emotivism
Main Idea Moral statements express feelings or desires, not facts
Type of Statement Emotional or expressive, not factual
Example of Factual “Pedro stole my cat.” ✅ Verifiable (can be proven true or
Statement false)
❌
Example of Moral “Pedro stealing my cat is wrong.” = “I disapprove of Pedro
Statement stealing” Not verifiable
Verifiability Moral statements cannot be proven true or false like
facts can
Purpose of Moral To express approval or disapproval (“Boo to stealing!”)
Language
Analogy Like saying “I hate broccoli” — a statement of taste or
feeling
Famous Interpretation “Stealing is wrong” = “I desire that you do not steal”
Truth Value No objective truth value — just emotional reaction
Managing Feelings
• Aristotle wrote:
“Anyone can get angry --- that is easy --- but to do this to the right person, to the right extent, at
the right time with the right motive, and in the right way, this is not for everyone, nor it is easy.”
Your anger should not be displaced. The moral person manages his/her feelings well.
Lesson 4: Reason and Impartiality as Minimum Requirements for Morality
Requirement of Morality
✓ The minimum requirements of morality are reasons and impartiality.
– Moral judgments must be backed up by good reason and impartiality.
– Morality requires the impartial consideration of each individual’s interests.
✓ Reason and impartiality
– Refer to a mental activity following the basic principle of consistency, the lack of contradiction
between one idea and another.
– It is a process of deriving a necessary conclusion from premises, avoiding all forms of
deception or fallacy of reasoning.
– Coherent reasoning is needed to establish the truth and meaningfulness of moral
judgments.
– “Morality requires impartial consideration of each individual’s interest.” BIASES MUST BE
SUSPENDED!
🔁 Summary in Simple Terms: `
Concept What It Means
Reason Morality must be logical and well-explained
Impartiality Everyone’s interests count — no unfair favoritism
Scott Rae’s 7 Steps of Moral Reasoning
1. Gather the facts and information.
– Ask: do you have all the facts that are necessary to make a good decision? What do
we know? What do we need to know?
2. Determine the ethical issues, similar to “statement of the problem.”
– Moral values and virtues must support the competing interests (what create the
dilemma) in order for an ethical dilemma to exist.
3. Determine what virtues/principles have a bearing on the case. (Identifying the
relevant factors)
– Determine if some should be given more weight than others.
4. List the alternatives or develop a list of options.
– It will help you come up with a broader selection of ideas.
5. Compare the alternatives with the virtues/principles.
– This step eliminates alternatives as they are weighed by moral principles which have a
bearing on the case.
6. Consider the consequences or test options.
– In general, the following may be used to test the options (Davis, 1999):
a. Harm Test
b. Publicity Test
c. Defensibility Test
d. Reversibility Test
e. Colleague Test
f. Professional Test
g. Organization Test
7. Make a decision.
– Choose the solution with the least number of problems/painful consequences.
Step What to Do Key Questions / Notes
1. Gather the facts Collect all necessary Do you have all the facts? What do you
information know? What do you still need to find
out?
2. Determine the ethical Identify the moral What values or virtues are in conflict?
issues problem or dilemma What makes this an ethical dilemma?
3. Identify relevant Find which moral Which virtues or principles are
virtues/principles principles apply involved? Should some be prioritized?
4. List alternatives Generate possible Brainstorm many possible solutions or
options or courses of responses.
action
5. Compare alternatives Weigh each option Which options align best with the key
with virtues/principles against moral values moral principles?
6. Consider Test options using Use tests like: Harm Test, Publicity
consequences various ethical tests Test, Defensibility Test, Reversibility
Test, Colleague Test, etc.
7. Make a decision Choose the best Pick the option with the fewest
solution negative consequences or problems.
● Get the full picture
● Understand the ethical conflict
● Know what values matter most
● Think of different solutions
● Check each option against what’s right
● Predict the results
● And finally, choose the best action
Lesson 5: Differences Between Reason and Will
The Intellect and Will
• The moral person is endowed with an intellect and will.
• The will is what “disposes” what the “intellect proposes”.
• Reason conducts the study, research, investigation, and fact-finding.
• Will is the faculty of the mind that is associated with decision-making. It’s the one that says
yes or no.
• Jean Paul Sartre, the French philosopher, and the most popular existentialist was saying that
an individual person is nothing until he/she starts making decisions.
The Intellect and Will
• Free will is the capacity of rational agents to choose a course of action from among various
alternatives.
– It is the ability to choose between different possible courses of action unimpeded, the power
or right to act, speak, or think as one wants.
– One is free to the degree that he has energy, that is, physically free to the degree that he is
physically strong: materially or economically free to the degree that he is materially or
economically strong, and so on.
Concept Explanation
Intellect The thinking part of the mind — it proposes ideas, studies, reasons,
and investigates facts.
Will The choosing part of the mind — it decides ("yes" or "no") based on
what the intellect presents.
Relationship The intellect proposes → the will disposes (decides what to do
about it).
Free Will The ability to choose freely among various options without being
forced.
Freedom Defined The power or right to act, speak, or think as one wants.
As
Types of - Physical freedom = physical strength - Material/Economic freedom
Freedom = material/economic strength
Sartre’s View “A person is nothing until they start making decisions.”
Decision-making creates identity.
Moral Person Someone who uses reason and will to make informed and free moral
decisions.
Tab 3
1. Vincible Ignorance
● Definition: Ignorance that can be overcome with reasonable effort.
● Moral effect: Lessens guilt but does not excuse it entirely.
● Example: Not knowing a law because you didn’t bother to look it up.
2. Invincible Ignorance
● Definition: Ignorance that cannot be overcome even with effort; no reasonable way to
know the truth.
● Moral effect: Excuses moral responsibility.
● Example: A remote tribe never taught modern moral laws.
3. Affected Ignorance
● Definition: Deliberate ignorance — the person intentionally avoids knowing the truth to
escape guilt.
● Moral effect: Increases guilt.
● Example: Choosing not to ask questions so you can later say “I didn’t know.”
4. Supine (or Gross) Ignorance
● Definition: Ignorance due to lazy negligence — a person could’ve easily known but
didn’t care.
● Moral effect: Does not excuse and may even increase guilt.
● Example: Failing to read safety warnings because of laziness.
1. Knowledge
● Ask: Did the person know what they were doing?
● Signs it’s missing: The person was ignorant, unaware, mentally impaired, or confused
about the facts or consequences.
● Example: Accidentally doing something without realizing it.
2. Freedom
● Ask: Did the person freely choose to do the act?
● Signs it’s missing: The person was forced, threatened, under duress, or controlled by
uncontrollable fear.
● Example: Acting under threat or coercion.
3. Voluntariness
● Ask: Did the act come from the person’s will with intention or negligence?
● Signs it’s missing: The act was accidental, reflexive, or done without proper
care/precaution (negligence).
● Example: Forgetting to lock a door due to carelessness or accidentally breaking
something.
How to decide in a scenario:
● If someone didn’t understand what was happening → Knowledge missing
● If someone was forced or had no real choice → Freedom missing
● If someone did something accidentally or without care → Voluntariness missing
🧭 Scott Rae’s 7 Steps of Moral Reasoning
1. Gather the Facts
○ Ask: Do I have all the necessary information to make a good decision?
○ What do we know? What do we still need to know?
2. Define the Ethical Issues
○ Identify the core moral dilemma or conflict.
○ Ask: Which moral values or virtues are in tension here?
3. Identify the Relevant Principles or Virtues
○ Determine which moral principles apply.
○ Some virtues (e.g., honesty, justice, compassion) may carry more weight
depending on the case.
4. List the Alternatives
○ Brainstorm all possible courses of action.
○ Consider even the less obvious options to expand your view.
5. Compare the Alternatives with Moral Principles
○ Test each option: Does it align with the identified virtues/principles?
○ Eliminate those that violate ethical standards.
6. Evaluate the Consequences (Test the Options)
Use tests like:
○ Harm Test: Does it cause unnecessary harm?
○ Publicity Test: Can I defend this decision publicly?
○ Defensibility Test: Would I be comfortable explaining this to others?
○ Reversibility Test: Would I be okay if the decision were made against me?
○ Colleague/Professional Test: Would peers/professionals agree?
○ Organization Test: Is this in line with institutional values?
a. Harm Test
Ask: Does this option do less harm than the alternatives?
● Evaluate who might be hurt and how.
● Consider both short- and long-term effects.
b. Publicity Test
Ask: Would I be comfortable if this decision were made public?
● Imagine your decision on the news or social media.
● If you'd feel ashamed or embarrassed, it may not be the right choice.
c. Defensibility Test
Ask: Could I defend this decision to a critical audience?
● Would your reasoning stand up to scrutiny by peers or superiors?
● Requires logical, ethical, and factual support.
d. Reversibility Test
Ask: Would I still think this is a good choice if I were the one affected by it?
● This test checks fairness and empathy by switching perspectives.
e. Colleague Test
Ask: What would my colleagues say about this decision?
● Consider how respected peers or mentors would judge your choice.
● Helps reveal any potential blind spots.
f. Professional Test
Ask: Is this decision consistent with my profession’s ethics and standards?
● Align with codes of conduct, legal duties, and professional integrity.
g. Organization Test
Ask: Is this action in line with my organization’s values and policies?
● Consider how well your decision fits the mission, rules, and culture of your workplace.
7. Make a Decision
○ Choose the most ethically sound option.
○ It should result in the least harm, align with your moral convictions, and be
sustainable in practice.
