Chapter III HUMAN ACT

Focus Questions:

1. How does human act differ from act of man?

2. What are the three bases of moral accountability?
3. Which can modify moral accountability?
4. How can a feeling be a modifier in moral decision-making?
5. What is meant by reason and impartiality as minimum requirements for morality?

Lesson 1 The Meaning of Human Act

Intended learning Outcomes:

1. Explain the meaning of human act, the morality and accountability of human act

ABSTRACTION

Act of Man versus Human Act

After studying the nature of the moral agent, the next thing to do is study the nature of human
act itself. Says Fr. Coppens, (2017) “(h)uman acts are those of which a man is a master, which he has the
power of doing or not doing as he pleases.” In the words of Panizo, (1964) “(h)uman acts are those acts
which proceed from man as a rational being.” Observing prescribed diet, tutoring the slow learners and
preparing for board exams are examples of human acts. In other words, human acts are the acts of a
moral agent. Hence, “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 acts of man.” Likewise,
“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.” Examples of acts of m an are
breathing, blinking of the eyes, dilation of pupil of the eye, perspiring and jerking of the knee.

The Determinants of the Morality of Human Act

In this book earlier cited, Rev. Coppens, S.J. says that to know whether an individual human act
is morally good, three things are considered. These are called the determinants of morality, namely, a)
the object of the act, b) the end, or purpose, and c) its circumstances.

For an act to be morally good, all three determinants must be without a flaw, according to the
received axiom: -- “A thing to be good must be wholly so; it is not vitiated by any defect.”

The object of an act is the thing done. In reality, it is not distinct from the act itself; for we
cannot act without doing something, and that thing that is done is the object of the act; say, of going,
eating, praising, etc. the act or object may be viewed as containing further specification – e.g., going to
church, praising God, eating meat. Now, an act thus specified may, when considered in itself, be good,
bad, or indifferent; thus, to praise God is good in itself, to blaspheme is bad in itself, and to eat meat is in
itself an indifferent act. But for an individual human act to be good, its object, whether considered in
itself or as further specified, must be free from al defect; it must be good, or at least indifferent.

The end, or purpose intended by the agent is the second determinant of an act’s morality. The
end here spoken of it is not the end of the work, for that pertains to the object, but 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 there vitiated, spoiled or impaired. Thus, to praised God is good in itself, but, if in so acting the
intention would be play the hypocrite, the act is morally bad. This holds true whether the vicious end is
the nearest, remote or last end; whether it be actually or only virtually intended. On the other hand, a
good end, though ever so elevated, cannot justify a good act; in other words, we are never allowed to do
evil that good may result from there. Robin Hood robbed the rich and distributed the money to the poor.
No matter how noble Robin Hood’s intention was for robbing the rich, his act of robbing the rich is not
morally acceptable.

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 an act
good in itself may be evil when accompanied by certain circumstances; for instance, it is good to give
drink to the thirsty, but if the thirsty man is morally weak, and the drink is intoxicating, the act may be
evil. (Coppens, 2017)
The object of the act is the act itself. The following are instances using the name of God with
reverence, sincerely invoking God’s name or the names of the saints (the evil object is using the name of
God an d the saints in vain), honoring one’s parent, going to Mass on days of obligation, saving human
life; respecting other’s right and property, having pure acts and thoughts, being true to marital
commitments, telling the truth, etc.

The end, or purpose is the intention of the acting subject, or what inspires the acting subject. For
example, rendering free service to neighbor with the intention of boasting about it. Or helping a
neighbor inspired by love of God. The first instance is immoral, while the second is moral. The guiding
rule is the end does not justify the means. The intention of helping a neighbor, say giving food, by
stealing the food from another neighbor, is never justified. This is what robin Hood did. He stole from the
rich and gave it the poor. Of course, no matter how good his intention was, i.e. to help the poor, his
stealing is not made right by his good intention.

The circumstances, including the consequences, refer to the time, place, person, and conditions
surrounding the moral act. They either increase or diminish the moral goodness or evil of human acts.

A morally good act requires the goodness of the object, of the end, and of the circumstances
together. An evil act corrupts the action, even if the object is good in itself (such as praying and fasting
“in order to be seen by men”).

APPLICATION

1. Can act of man be considered human act if the action is carried out with malice? Why or why
not?
2. Illustrate with at least 3 examples “the end does not justify the means.”
3. Robin Hood robbed the rich and gave the money to the poor. Was his act justified? Explain your
answer.
4. Relate in instance when you acted like Robin Hood. Was your act justified?
5. Among the three determinants of the morality of the human act, which did the Greatest Teacher
focus on when taught his followers the following:
 When you fast, don’t be like the hypocrites, with sad faces; they disfigure their faces,
that they may be seen by men to be fasting. (Matthew 6:16)
 “So when you give to the needy, do not sound a trumpet before you, as the hypocrites
do in the synagogues and on the streets to be praised by men.” (Matthew 6:2)
 …when you pray, go into your room, close the door and pray to your Father, who is
unseen… (Matthew 6:6)
6. Time, place, person, and conditions surrounding the moral act may either increase or diminish
the moral goodness or evil of a human act. Illustrate this with at least 3 examples.
e.g. stealing money from your mother’s wallet and stealing money (wallet) inside the church or a
place of worship.

KEY TAKEAWAYS
 A human act is an action that is considered to be carried out voluntarily, whereas an act
of man is an involuntary action.
 A human act is an act on which an individual can make a conscious decision whether or
not to carry out that act. An act of man is the natural act of vegetative and sense
faculties such as digestion, the beating of the heart, growing, bodily reactions and visual
or auditory perceptions.
 For an individual human act to be moral, its object must be free from all defects; it must
be good, or at least indifferent. The end or purpose intended by the agent for that act
must likewise be good.
 Circumstances surrounding the human act such as time, place, person, and conditions
surrounding the moral act may either increase or diminish the moral goodness or evil of
a 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.
Lesson 2 Accountability of Moral Act
Intended Learning Outcomes:

1. Discuss the three bases of moral accountability

2. Give examples of modifiers of human act

ABSTRACTION

Best 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.

To whom are we accountable? For violation of government laws, people are held accountable
directly to the government, and indirectly to the government, and indirectly to the people. How about
violations of moral standards? Under Christian natural ethics, God is deemed the author of the law,
hence violators are accountable to God. For non-theistic morality, violators are accountable solely to
themselves.

There are three bases for moral accountability, namely: knowledge, freedom and
voluntariness. These are the necessary conditions for the accountability of actions. First, a human act
must be done knowingly; second, it must be done freely and third, it must be done voluntarily
(intentional or negligent). To be credited for a good act or held morally liable or responsible for an evil
act, a person must have done it knowingly, willingly and voluntarily. Determining g moral liability is
analogous to determining criminal liability. In criminal law for instance, for you to be liable you must
have done the criminal act knowingly, freely and willingly. So similarly, in ethics, for you to be morally
liable, you must have done the unethical act knowingly, freely and willingly or voluntarily.

In other words, for you to be morally responsible for your act, you must, first have knowledge,
that is, you are in possession of a normal mind; you are not insane or totally ignorant, sleep-walking due
to somnambulism. Knowledge is “the awareness of or familiarity with a fact, situation or truth,
unveiled through experience or disclosed dialogue or encounter with persons or things.” Knowledge
that stealing is wrong is the awareness of what stealing is all about, that is, taking the property of
another without consent, as well as the awareness of violating property rights, and all other unpleasant
consequences of violating other’s rights. Knowledge that stealing is wrong is the awareness of what
makes stealing wrong.

To have genuine knowledge, your mind must be normal, not impaired or vitiated, by mental
conditions or ignorance.

Secondly, the act is freely done. This happens when you can exercise your power of choice. If the
act you intend to do is a choice between stealing or not stealing, then you must have the freedom to
choose which to do. Your freedom should not be impaired by an irresistible force or uncontrollable fear.
If the act you intend to choose is testifying as to your personal knowledge, what you saw, heard, etc., you
should be free to do so, without being subjected to an uncontrollable fear of being silenced by death.

Thirdly, the act must be voluntary, that is, the act is either 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 purely by accident, this is referred to as fortuitous event, act of God.

Judas was morally accountable for having betrayed Jesus. He had knowledge. He knew what he
was doing. Jesus said “one of you will betray me.” He freely chose to betray Jesus tempted by the
thought of 30 pieces of silver. He voluntarily and intentionally did it. He led the soldiers to the Garden of
Gethsemane and kissed Jesus to signify to the soldiers that he was the one to be arrested.
For instance, stealing is immoral. To be liable for this moral act, you must do it knowing that it is
immoral, you do it freely, that is, you are not forced or coerced, and voluntarily, that is, with the
intention to do it. Sideswiping a pedestrian causing his death is immoral if the incident happens to your
negligence, like driving under the influence of liquor, texting while driving, or driving without license.
Accidentally, dropping a gun causing the gun to fire and hit and kill someone won’t make anyone
accountable, unless you have been negligently playing with the gun. Indiscriminate firing of gun during
New Year merry making leading to death of someone is criminal negligence and immoral.

Ultimately, it can’t be said that your 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

There are various factors which either increase or decrease accountability. They are called
modifiers of human acts. 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.” They are as follows: 1) ignorance,
2) passions, 3) fear, and 4) violence. (Panizo, 1964)

Ignorance is the “absence of knowledge.” There are various degrees of ignorance. Traditional
ethics classifies them as vincible, invincible, affected, and supine or gross ignorance. “Ignorance,
whether of the law or of the facts, is either vincible or invincible. 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; and 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.

Passion refers to positive emotions like love, desire, delight, hope and bravery and negative
emotions like hatred, horror, sadness, despair, fear, and anger. “Antecedent passions those that precede
the act, do not always destroy voluntariness, but they diminish accountability for the resultant act. 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).

Fear is the disturbance of the mind of a person 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.

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 person 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. Pilate had the case of Jesus
Christ investigated and found Him innocent. He could have set Jesus free but he did not. Withholding an
information could have prevented a disaster. Damaging consequences could have been avoided.

APPLICATION

1. A nurse unknowingly gave a patient an overdose of medicine. Is the nurse accountable for her
action? Explain your action.
2. A teacher was vindictive in giving the grade of student A who happens to question a lot and
unfortunately expose teacher’s lack of subject matter mastery. Is the teacher accountable for not
giving student A the grade he truly deserves. Explain your answer.
3. Schools in the city have already suspended classes due to an incoming typhoon except school B
which was waiting for the decision for the school President. Student C wrote on Facebook –
“That God-damn stupid principal and Asst. Principal. When are they suspending classes? When
all students are wet and sick!!!!???”
Was the student who wrote those in Facebook accountable? Explain your answer.
4. In Euripides’ play Medea is a proud, powerful, self-driven woman who strives to avenge an act
committed by her husband, Jason. Jason has recently left Medea for another woman. This
crushes Medea, as she has sacrificed much foe Jason, and truly believes that they are lovers
meant to be together for life. She enters a long period of mourning, and becomes inconsolable
by even her closest of friends. Eventually her sadness turns to anger, and she begins seeking for
revenge for the wrong she has been done. Medea immediately begins plotting against Jason, and
devices a plan, which she believes, will hurt him in the worst possible way. She decides to kill
everyone close to him, including the children they have together, and destroy any legacy that
may survive him. She carefully draws out every detail of the plan, ensuring its completion.
Medea is successful in this aspect, as she is able to carry out everything she plans on … Medea is
forced to battle not only those around her, who beg her not to take the lives of her children, but
she must fight her conscience as well. In the end, Medea kills her own children. (Source:
https://www.megaessays.com/viewpaper/36254.html)
Is Medea accountable for her acts? What modifies or decreases her accountability, if any?

KEY TAKEAWAYS
 There are three bases for moral accountability, namely: knowledge, freedom and
voluntariness.
 These are the necessary conditions for the accountability of actions: 1) a human act
must be done knowingly; 2) it must be done freely and 3) it must be done voluntarily.
 Modifiers of human acts either increase or decrease accountability. These are analogous
to exempting, mitigating, aggravating and justifying circumstances in criminal law.
 “These modifiers of human act affect the mental or emotional state of a persons to the
extent that the voluntariness involved in an act is either increased or decreased.”
 The modifiers of human act are: 1) ignorance, 2) passion, 3) fear and 4) violence.
 Ignorance can be vincible, invincible, affected and supine or gross.
 Invincible ignorance cannot be overcome by due amount of diligence while vincible
ignorance can be overcome. 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.
 Gross or supine ignorance exist when scarcely an effort has been made to remove it
while affected ignorance exists when a person deliberately avoids enlightenment in
order to sin more freely.
 Antecedent passion decreases moral accountability while consequent passion does not
decrease voluntariness so increases moral accountability.
 Acts done with fear is voluntary, but acts done because of intense or uncontrollable fear
or panic are involuntary.
 Actions performed by person subjected to violence or irresistible force are involuntary
and, therefore, the person is not accountable.

Lesson 3 Feeling as a Modifier of Moral Decision-Making

Intended Learning Outcome:

1. Explain the role of feelings in moral decision making

ABSTRACTION

Feelings in Decision-making

Feelings, 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 they affect moral decision
making? “Several studies conclude that up to 90 percent of the decisions we made are based on
emotion. We used logic to justify our actions to ourselves and to others.” Researchers also show that
“actual emotional states can influence the process of moral reasoning and determine moral judgment.”
Feelings are instinctive and trained response to moral dilemma. They can be obstacles to making
right decisions but they can also help in making right decisions.

Are there advantages of emotional decision making? According to recent research, feelings or
emotions have positive effects on decision making. Some re identified as follows:

 A totally emotional decision is very fast in comparison to a rational decision. This is

reactive (and largely subconscious) and can be useful when faced with immediate
danger, or in decisions of minimal significance.
 Emotions may provide a way for coding and compacting experience, enabling fast
response selection. This may pint to why expert’s “gut” level decisions have high
accuracy rates.
 Decisions that start with logic may need emotions to enable the final selection,
particularly with confronted with near equal optons.
 Emotions often drive us in directions conflicting with self-interest.

Emotional decision making can also come with a number of negatives.

 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 systematic
inaccuracy about how they will feel in the future.”
(Source:DecisionInnovation(file://Users/macos/Downloads/
Emotional120Decision20Making.htmlaccessed, 2-3-2018)

Moral statements as expressions of feelings

Are moral statements or values mere expressions of feelings or emotions as claimed by the
linguistic philosophers, called (emotivists) the statement “stealing is wrong” is not a statement of fact, it
is an expression of a desire or emotion. The rule or maxim “Stealing is wrong” means “I desire that you
do not steal.” An emotional statement is not verifiable. The following explains this ethical theory:

Emotivism,.. is the view that moral judgements do not function as statements of fact but rather
as expressions of the speaker’s or writer’s feelings. According to the emotivist, when we say, “You
acted wrongly in stealing that money,” we are not expressing any fact beyond that stated by
“You stole that money.” It is, however, as if we stated this fact with a special of abhorrence, for in
saying that something is wrong, we are expressing our feelings of disapproval toward it.
Emotivism was expounded by A.J. Ayer in Language, Truth and Logic (1936) and developed by
Charles Stevenson in Ethics and Language (1945) The emotivist thus goes further by saying that
ethical statements being emotional expressions are not verifiable. Emotional expressions are not
assertion of what is true or false. They are like expressions of taste. There is no dispute on
matters of taste. “De gustibus non disputandum est.” One cannot argue with one’s taste,
emotions.

It may be said that an analogy between legal and moral statement may be made to show that
mora statements may be treated like a factual statement. In criminal law, the allegation that “Juan’s act
of stealing is wrong” may be established by evaluating the act in the light of the elements of the crime of
stealing under the law. For instance, the law provides that stealing is taking the property of another
without the latter’s consent. So, if there is evidence that Juan has taken a property, that the property
belongs to someone else, that the taking is without consent, then it can be decided that a crime of theft
is committed; in other words, the statement has been verified.

What then would prevent one in applying the same procedure in establishing the truth or
falsehood of a moral statement. For instance, the moral principle or rule is “stealing is wrong” that it is
explained by moral or ethics teachers that the statement is meant to be referring to an act of taking
someone else property without the owner’s consent. May not someone’s act of stealing be verified by
finding out if the actor has indeed taken someone’s property with the latter’s consent? And that,
therefore, his act may be judged as wrong?
The emotivist will still argue that such argument only proves that a certain individual act has
characteristic that can be described as stealing. It does not make the statement “stealing is wrong” as
factual statement, which is correct, since all maxims or rules are non-factual and only the particular
instances evaluated on the basis of these rules would be considered as factual.

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, that is not for everyone, nor it is easy. (Book II,
Nicomachean Ethics). In other words, your anger should not be displaced. The moral person manages
his/her feelings well.

KEY TAKEAWAYS

 Feelings can be obstacles to making right decisions but they can also help in making the
right decisions.
 Feelings can help persons in making the right decisions if they are reasonably managed.
 Acting on one’s convictions imply involvement of both reason and feeling.
 One teaches effectively when he/she touches the heart. This is the main feature of value
education that works.

Lesson 4 Reason and Impartiality as Minimum Requirements for Morality

Intended Learning Outcomes:

1. To define reason and impartiality as minimum requirements for morality

2. To apply the 7-step moral reasoning model and the value clarification process

ABSTRACTION

The minimum requirements of morality are reason and impartiality. “Moral judgments must be backed
up by good reason and impartiality. “Morality requires the impartial consideration of each individual’s
interests.” Moral judgments, or resolving a dilemma of moral judgments must be backed by good reason.

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 necessary conclusion from
premises, avoiding all forms of deception or fallacy of reasoning. It avoids ad hominem, by not attacking
the personality of the opponent and instead directing one’s argument against his idea. Examples of
argumentum ad hominem are #1,4,8, and 9 in the Activity phase of this Lesson. Reason avoids ad
misericordiam, appeal to pity, appearing miserable does not improve an argument. Reason does not
resort to ad verecundiam, appeal to authority, one’s power and influence cannot make a wrong right.
Examples of argumentum ad verecundiam are #2,5,6,7 and 10. In other words, good reason include
consistent and coherent reasons.

A logical, impartial, objective reason avoids ambiguities like equivocation, circular reasoning,
amphibology, etc. Coherent reasoning is needed to establish truth and meaningfulness of moral
judgments. “Morality requires impartial consideration of each individual’s interest.” In arriving at a sound
moral judgment, you must listen to everyone trying to speak. Biases and prejudices must be placed
between bracket, suspended. Everyone’s message, silent or verbal, should be allowed to be unveiled.
Everyone has always something to tell. No one has a monopoly of the truth. A moral subject must be
seen from various perspectives and standpoints.

SCOTT RAE’S 7 STEPS OF MORAL REASONING

The following is another sample method of arriving at an ethical or moral decision, the 7 steps of
Scott Rae’s moral reasoning. (1996)

1. Gather the facts, information. “The simplest way of clarifying an ethical dilemma is to make sure
the facts are clear. 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.” “…. The competing
interest are what create the dilemma. Moral values and virtues must support the competing
interest in order for an ethical dilemma to exist. If you cannot identify the underlying values/
virtues then you do not have an ethical dilemma. Often people hold these positions strongly and
with passion because of the value/virtue beneath them.”
3. Determine what virtues/principles have a bearing on the case. This is similar to identifying the
relevant factors (internal and external). “In an ethical dilemma certain values and principles are
central to the competing positions. Identify these. Determine of some should be given more
weight than others. Ask what the source for the principle is – constitution, culture, natural law,
religious tradition… These supplement biblical principles.”
4. List the alternatives or develop a list of options. “Creatively determine possible courses of
action for your dilemma. Some will almost immediately be discarded but generally the more you
list the greater potential for coming up with a really good one. It will also 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 the moral principles which have a bearing on the case. Potentially the issue will
be resolved here as all alternatives except one are eliminated. Here you must satisfy all the
relevant virtues and values – so at least some of the alternatives will be eliminated (even if you
still have to go on to step 6). Often here you have to weigh principles and virtues – make sure
you have a good reason for each weighing.”
6. Consider the consequences or test the options. “If you disclosed the information directly
possible consequence include; - family feel alienated, cultural values have been violated – family
may take patient to another hospital – patient may ‘give up’ – patient might be happy they are
finally being told the truth.” If you continue withholding information possible consequences
include; -- patient finds out somehow and trust is compromised – family are happy cultural
values are being respected.
In general, the following may be used to test the options: (Davis, 1999)
 Harm test:
 Harm test: Does this option do less harm than the alternatives?
 Public test: Would I want my choice of this option published in the newspaper?
 Defensibility test: Could I defend my choice of this option before a congressional
committee or committee of peers?
 Reversibility test: Would I still think this option was a good choice if I were adversely
affected by it?
 Colleague test: What do my colleagues say when I describe my problem and suggest this
option as my solution?
 Professional test: What might my profession’s governing body for ethics say about this
option?
 Organization test: What does my company’s ethics officer or legal counsel say about
this?
7. Make a decision. “Ethical decisions rarely have pain-free solutions – it might be you have to
choose the solution with the least number of problems/painful consequences. Even when
making a “good” decision you might still lose sleep over it!”

Values Clarification

Moral reasoning either arrives at what is right or wrong, good or bad (valuable or not valuable).
The moral reasoning process may thus follow a model called values clarification.

Values clarification method as a part of the moral reasoning model consist of a series of
questions which one may ask himself or others in order to arrive at one’s true values, values that he
really possesses and acts upon. The following consists of the steps of the values clarification model:
(Raths, L. et al. 1978)

1. Choosing freely
“Did you choose this value freely? Where do you suppose you first got the idea?” or “Are you
the only one among your friends who feels this way?”
2. Choosing from alternatives
“What reasons do you have for your choice?” or “How long did you think about this problem
before you decided?”
3. Choosing after thoughtful consideration
“What would happen if this voice where implemented? If another choice was implemented?
Or “What is good about this choice? What could be good about the other choices?”
4. Prizing and being happy with the choice
“Are you happy about feeling this way?” or “Why is this important to you?”
5. Prizing and willing to affirm the choice publicly
“Would you be willing to tell the class how you feel? Or “Should someone who feels like you
stand up in public and tell people how he/she feels?”
6. Acting on the choice
“What will you do about your choice? What will you do next?” or “Are you interested in
joining this group of people who think the same as you do about this?”
7. Acting repeatedly in some pattern of life
“Have you done anything about it? Will you do it again?” or “Should you try to get other
people interested in this?"

To discover whether or not really values something, one may go through the process od asking
and answering the seven questions. First is choosing freely. Are you free to choose? Are you not under
duress? Second, are you choosing from alternatives? If there is only one option, you may not be able to
really choose what you really value. Third, are you choosing with a thoughtful consideration of the
alternatives? Why are you considering one of the alternatives as your choice and not the others? Fourth,
after making a choice, are you happy with it? Or are you having second thoughts? Fifth, are you willing to
let others know about your choice, affirm your choice publicly, and are happy to tell them about it?
Sixth, are you acting on your choice? If it is all about course in college, are you going to enroll and
seriously pursue it? Seventh, are you acting on it repeatedly? In other words, are you pursuing the
course and make it as your career? Would you repeat eating the food? Would you continue playing the
game, given the chance? And do you always abide by the principle you have chosen to follow? The
answers to these questions will ultimately reveal what you really value in life, they will clarify your
values.

The 7 questions can be summed up into 3 clarifying questions:

1. Dis you choose your action freely from among alternatives after thoughtfully considering the
consequences of each alternative;
2. Do you prize or cherish your choice by publicly affirming it and by campaigning for others to
choose it?
3. Do you act on your choice repeatedly and consistently? If the answers to the questions are
YES, then the moral choice or moral decision can be said to be a product of reason.

As a result of the process, one may discover an ideal priority of values. One may need to
recollect and re-orient oneself to genuine moral values.

Critique: Critique Responsibility

When a moral problem comes one’s way, which may be communicated as a silent or verbal
message, or through a happening or an incident, the serious response would be a process of moral
reasoning. One may use the aforementioned reasoning models. One may automatically apply classic or
traditional frameworks or norms. One may be legalistic or situationist. But one significant guide to the
moral reasoning process is what ethicist like Fr. Gorospe (1974) termed as “creative responsibility,”
which means has the following characteristics:

… First, a creative and fitting response involves some form of positive human action…
Second, to give a fitting human response in some form of positive action inevitably means
“create” a response. The creative responsibility is something to be discovered and created and is
best envisioned in concrete cases…

Third, a creative response means one has to choose from among many possible fitting
responses. It is impossible to find only one possible fitting response to a human situation….
Fourth, in order that creative response of the individual be authentic he must be in constant
dialogue with the community and culture in which he lives. Creative responsibility is not only
individual but collective; it is co-responsibility.
Creative responsibility is responding silently or verbally to a call and address an ethical problem
creatively by considering all possible points of view, thinking outside the box, using relevant frameworks.
There are always available norms or rules to follow, but one should apply them creatively, apply them in
a light situations and conditions and be ready to bend the rule where there is no other remedy in sight. It
is easier to understand this concept from a wider point of view, like that of a ruler or government. For
instance, the response of the government to the problem of drugs, like adopting the policy of killing
(murdering) the drug addict, upon the assumption that he/she is dangerous and useless being, is
uncreative and irresponsible.

One technique of coming up with a creative response is applying the phenomenological method
of suspending judgment, placing former knowledge, biases, prejudices, etc. between brackets, letting the
thing be or show itself as itself.

APPLICATION

1. Group case analysis. Using Scott Rae’s 7 step model on the business ethics case, how should the
salaries and benefits of a star employee be determined?
2. You are the newly elected mayor of your municipality. You got an IRA amounting to 20 million
pesos. You can work on 3 projects: 1) extension of the municipal hall; 2) construction of a
welcome arch boundary on the highway, and 3) scholarships for a out-of-school youths for
livelihood programs. Ranks these 3 projects from the most important to the least important. Do
you really value clarifying questions to test if you really value most your rank 1?
3. State in metaphorical statement Gorospe’s creative responsibility as an approach to a moral
problem, e.g. Creative responsibility is thinking without the box for the solution to a moral
problem.

KEY TAKEAWAYS
 The minimum requirements of morality are reason and impartiality
 Moral decisions should be arrived at by the use of reason
 The use of reason is exemplified in the 7-step model of Scott Rae and the value
clarification process.
 Fallacious reasoning such as ad hominem, ad verecundiam and ad misericordiam has no
place in moral decisions.

Lesson 5 The Difference Between Reason and Will

Intended Learning Outcome:

1. Distinguish between reason and will

ABSTRACTION

The moral person is endowed with an intellect and will. The “will” is what “disposes” what the
“the intellect proposes.” Reason conducts the study, research, investigation, fact-finding. It uses logic,
the principle of consistency, avoids fallacious reasoning to come up with a truthful and accurate
proposition. In a research study, the product or work of reason is the body of facts gathered, organized,
synthesized and evaluated. The job of the will is to make a decisive conclusion.

The will is the faculty of the mind that is associated with decision making. It’s the one that says
yes or no. this author says this, that author says that, all others are saying the same thing. Now, decide
with your will what you yourself should say or think.

Decision making which is an activity of the will can be developed. early in life, like children, one
should already be given the opportunity to exercise his will, like being trained to make choices from
alternative. Do you want to eat or not? Rice or bread? Coffee or tea? This is true of societies where a
culture of choice gives opportunities for the development of the will. A culture of spoon feeding does
not develop the will. Banking education, a method of teaching where the teacher simply deposits facts
and concepts and withdraw the same periodically during quizzes and tests without encouraging the
students to think and reflect, does not promote the development of the will.
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. What ultimately constitutes who a
person is are his/her decisions. The essence of being a person equals his/her bundle of decisions.
Apparently, the mark of the maturation of culture is manifested through the development of a culture of
moral strength or virtue, or will power, its free will. “Free Will” is the capacity of rational agents to
choose a course of action from among various alternatives.”

Free Will is the ability to choose between different possible courses of action unimpeded, the
power or right to act, speak, or think as one wants. It is the power of self-determination. When the will is
free, there is freedom.

To Hornedo (1972), the stuff of the free will is multi-dimensional power, energy, or strength. one
is free to the degree that 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.

Emphasis is made on what freedom is, and not on what is not. To say that one is free when there
is absence of obstacle is to give a picture of a weak person who cannot walk to get out his room despite
an open door. Freedom must not only be understood as the absence of obstacle; it must be an
autonomous energy. It is useless talking about being free to move, walk, if you have no strength to move
or walk. It is useless saying you are free to go to Manila by bus, if you have no money for your fare.
Freedom implies power, energy, strength in all human dimensions, as the stuff of freedom. A free person
is one who is physically healthy and strong, psychologically normal, financially stable. It is useless
shouting in the streets for “economic freedom” if one is economically weak. In terms of morality, moral
strength is moral freedom. Morally strong people would not allow a tyrant to thrive or last long. In the
words of Jose Rizal is the statement, “there can be no tyrants where there can be no slaves.”

The Courage to Be

“Purity of heart is to will one thing.” Says Kierkegaard. But to “will one thing” needs courage.
According to Paul Tillich (1952), “(c) ourage is self-affirmation ‘in-spite-of.’ that is in spite of that which
tends to prevent the self from affirming itself.” Courage is “the affirmation of being inspite of non-
being.” This implies affirming, accepting oneself inspite of one’s defects, lack, or imperfections, affirming
the world we live in spite all that it lacks. In specific terms, courage is affirming, allowing the drug addict
or drug dependent to live inspite of his drug addiction. “Our greatest glory is not never falling, but in
rising every time we fall.” Courage is not giving up because of setbacks and failures. It is keeping right on
keeping on. In politics, courage is affirming or accepting one’s people inspite of their ignorance, poverty.
Political will means the courage to promote the greatest good of the greatest number inspite of their
selfishness, greed and unruly behavior. Commitment, engagement, fidelity, authentic existence are all
forms of “affirmation of being inspite of non-being.” Courage is affirming the world inspite of its
tragedies. The last line in Desiderata says it so, “(w)ith all its sham, drudgery and broken dreams, it is still
a beautiful world.”

APPLICATION

1. St. Paul said: “I know the good to do but why is it that I do the opposite of the good that I
know?”
a) Do you experience the same? Does this mean unity of the intellect and will or lack of unity?
b) For individual persons to be truly moral, how should their intellect and the will function?
2. When is a person said to be weak-willed? Would you consider Governor Pontius Pilate weak-
willed? Why?
3. Interpret Robert Frost’s immortal lines in the context of making moral decisions.
Two roads diverged in a wood, and I –
I took the one less traveled by,
And that has all the difference.
4. Relate Kierkegaard’s “purity of heart is to will one thing,” Paul Tillich’s “courage is self-affirmation
‘im-spite-of’ and Hornedo’s stuff of free will as a multi-dimensional matter to leading a moral
life.

KEY TAKEAWAYS

 The moral person is endowed with an intellect and will.

 Reason conducts the study, research, fact-finding, investigation, and by using logic, to
arrive at a correct proposition.
 The will is the faculty of the mind that is associated with decision making. It’s the one
that says yes or no.
 The “will” is what “disposes” what “the intellect proposes.”
 Strengthening of the will calls for courage which is self-affirmation in-spite-of-non-being
(Paul Tillich). Purity of heart is to will one thing. (S. Kierkegaard).
 The stuff of free will is a multidimensional matter (Hornedo) – physical, economic,
political, etc. It is autonomous energy.