WEEK 6 Meaning of End. Human Beings do things because they have a reason for doing them.

. Hence the purpose of the action will contribute to defining the acts nature and shows the Agents capacity of his/her moral judgment. Definition of End: The end is the purpose or goal of an act. It is either the end of the act itself or the end of the doer. Definition of End of the Act: The completion or cessation of the activity in question. Most actions are identified by their natural end. Defintion of End of the Doer: The motive behind the action performed. It is assumed that a human actions purpose is thought up first before the its commission. When the action is accomplished, there is a cessation of activity. Meaning of End. Human actions are seen as first in intention but last in execution. Actions are the means for fulfilling ones wishes or intentions. Kinds of End Either the end of the doer is proximate and remote or intermediate and ultimate. 1. Proximate ends are those with a purpose which is desired to be accomplished immediately. Remote ends are the purpose which the doer wants done sometime later. 2. Intermediate ends are those that are sought for the sake of attaining something else. Ultimate ends are the desired for their own sake. Intermediate ends direct themselves to other intermediate ends or the ultimate end. When one reaches the ultimate end, the act is completed and no other activity is necessary. Action and Motivation The principles of human activity: 1. Every action is done for some end. Every person is motivated when that person does something whether it is important or not. An act with a purpose in mind is deliberate or intentional. Without a purpose: accidental. 2. Every action is intended toward an ultimate end. Every move is intended to accomplish something. The notion of activity already implies that there is an ultimate end which is the need of the Agent. 3. Every doer moves himself towards an end he/she believes is good. People wish only what they believe is good for them because it is assumed that what is good is suitable for people. No-one wishes anything assumed evil by them for its own sake. We actually do evil things for the sake of something we think is good, not for something bad. The End as Good People will always (it is assumed) act in order to attain something good in the end. Therefore, good is synonymous to the concept of end or purpose. 1. By nature, people dont want something perceived by them to be evil. 2. Only what is perceived to be good could qualify as the end or purpose of an action as either ultimate or intermediate end. Definition of Good by Aristotle: Anything which fits or suits a function. 1. Normative word that may be used in a moral or technical sense. If the action fits with human nature, then it is good or maka-tao. If the action does not fit with human nature, then it is bad or hindi maka-tao. Aristotle that the soul (form) is the essential component of the rational animal and hence, the good is that which fits the soul of the human person. 1. If the act is consistent with human reason then it fits the soul of the human person. It is in accord or in discord with the dictate of reason. People perform evil since they think it is good. One considers this as an apparent good. 1. Some people desire to steal because it would result in having something good in their hands. In this case, stealing is considered as instrumental to getting something good. Kinds of Good 4 Contrary Pairs of Good:

Essential and Accidental Essential goods satisfy the whole and basic needs of a human person. Accidental goods only satisfy the wants of a persons particular situations. 2. Real and Apparent Real goods are those with intrinsic value like healthy activities, healthy relationships or friendships, or healthy food. Apparent goods are those that are valued as intrinsically evil like unhealthy activities, unhealthy relationships or friendships, or unhealthy food. 3. Perfective and Non-perfective Perfective goods contribute to the inner growth of the person like education, virtuous activities or substances that perfect the person. Non-perfective goods are those that contribute to the appearance or convenience like clothes money, titles, or cars. 4. Perfect and Imperfect Perfect good is a good endowed with all the necessary and essential qualities that satisfy needs. Imperfect goods lack this perfect good and hence all material things are deemed imperfect. Kinds of Good Perfection is also viewed as either absolute or relative. Absolute perfection if it is complete in all its essential aspects like a geometric shape or a mathematical equation. Relative perfection is perfection is only complete in some of its aspects. Greatest Good All human action is toward the attainment of the Good. However, human life is directed toward the sum of all activities is directed towards the highest good the summum bonum. The summum bonum is That which can only be perfect in itself and is capable of satisfying all human desires and is the absolute final and Good which all men seek for its own sake. According to Aristotle the summum bonum is happiness. By absolutely final, we mean that which is sought for its own sake, and never as a means to something else... [and] no one wants happiness as a means to other things, or...as a means to anything else at all. The Meaning of Happiness Happiness is either objective or subjective. Objective Something having intrinsic worth and is capable of satisfying a human need. Subjective Psychological state of feeling after attaining that which is good. E.g. Food makes the human person happy. What is the objective object of happiness? The subjective object of happiness? Happiness is not a temporal state, but rather contributes to the perfection of the human person. It is a state of being. A state of perfection that derives from attaining the greatest good that makes the human person happy. As the possession of wealth makes a man rich, the attainment of the summum bonum, the nexus of all activity is simply, happiness. Natural and Supernatural Happiness Natural happiness is attained through the use of the human persons natural powers. Supernatural happiness is attained by the human person through his own powers and aided by the grace of God. Aristotle is only known to limit himself to natural happiness. St. Thomas Aquinas however, goes beyond the earthly life. So, Aristotles summum bonum is viewed as earthly happiness or natural happiness St. Thomas Aquinas summum bonum which cannot be sought as merely a means but as an Ultimate End is God. Augustine: Man is restless until it rests in God. This is taken as ones supernatural happiness. Joseph Buckley: Happiness is attained through the employment of his body and soul in a perfect way through the powers inherent in them. The Ultimate Purpose Aristotle asserts that the purpose of human life is the possession of all the goods that fit the nature of man. These values are both material and spiritual that contribute to man as human. They are hierarchical from lowest to highest. The highest is the intellect and the contemplation of truth. The fullness of knowledge comes from the practice of virtue. For Aristotle, happiness is not heaven sent but only through virtuous activity. Virtue is the effect of a man who has been trained well. Since happiness comes about from the fullness of the highest knowledge and the highest knowledge can only come about through virtue and virtue can be attained by good learning and exercise, thus, happiness is something that can only be attained by good learning and exercise.

1.

Man cannot reach God in this life since the human intellect can never grasp God. So, doing good is done by loving both God and neighbour and the practice of virtue. Doing good is happiness in itself.

WEEK 7 Determinants of Morality Bonum ex integra causa, malum ex quocumque. A thing is good from the perfection of its parts, evil from any defect of its part. Morally acceptable action must be perfect in all its parts. Determinants of morality are the basis for judging the morality of an action. The three determinants of morality: The end of the act. The end of the doer. The circumstances of the act. The End of the Act The end of the act is considered as the natural termination or completion of the action. E.g. The appeasing of hunger is the end of eating. The knockdown of our opponent is the end of our fight. The end of the act determines if the act is intrinsically or extrinsically good or evil. If the act complies with human nature and the natural law then it is good or bad if otherwise. If the act is neither good or bad then it is to be considered as extrinsically good or evil not because of the nature of the said action, but because of the surrounding circumstances that occur with them. Actions that are intrinsically evil are prohibited at all times. Actions that are intrinsically neutral but made evil extrinsically just need to be corrected. The End of the Act Pain or pleasure do not define the morality of an act. E.g. Painful sex can be moral or immoral. The End of the Doer The end of the doer is the motive of the doer. If there is no motive, then it is considered accidental. A good motive is truthful, prudent, temperate and just. The end does not justify the means. The means or the motive never justifies the end even if the end is good. An intrinsically evil means never justifies a good end. Principles of motive and action according to Glenn: 1. An evil act which is done on account of an evil motive is grievously wrong. 2. A good action done on account of an evil motive becomes evil itself. 3. A good action done on account of a good purpose acquires an additional merit. 4. An indifferent act may either become good or bad depending on the motive. Circumstance of the Act The elements that surround a given action. I.e. The doer, place, time, intensity. Denoted by the given pronouns: Who, what, where, with whom, why, how and where. Who The doer or recipient as well as the age, status, relation, education and social standing. Principles Concerning Accountability: Those who are morons, insane, senile, and children below the age of reason can not will their actions, and hence their actions are not accountable to them. The educated and trained have greater accountability than those who are not trained. People in authority have command responsibility and are accountable for the actions of those under their subordinates. Legal or blood relations. Circumstance of the Act What The quality and the quantity of the results. Where The location of the action. With whom Other people involved; companions or accomplices involved. Why How

 The manner in which the act was perpetrated. When What was going on during the time of the act. E.g. Killing a victim while the victim is asleep is more heinous than if the victim was awake. Principles Governing Circumstances Principles of how circumstances have a bearing on an evil action. 1. Circumstances may increase or decrease the wrongfulness of an evil act. 2. Circumstances may increase or decrease the merits of a good act. 3. Circumstances may withhold someone from doing a required action. 4. Circumstances do not prove a person is guilty of a crime or prove a persons merit. I.e. Presence with the murderer or the smoking gun hypothesis. The Morally Good Act A morally good act is sound in all three of its determinants. 1. The nature of the act. 2. The motive of the doer. 3. The circumstances surrounding the action. The moral person is just, weighs his action with the dictates of the law, and which fits the act with ones nature as a rational being. A virtuous and moral action is a just act the meaning of the phrase makatarungan, maka-tao, or maka-Diyos. The Relevance of Laws The law governs some acts as prohibited, permitted, or required. Hence, the law determines human behaviour. St. Thomas says that the law is for people who have weak characters. Laws are made so as to protect is members from those who wish to harm them. Punishments are made for breaking the law; punitive in nature, than rewarding. They compel people to comply for the sake of the community. Dura lex, sed lex. The law is harsh but it is the law. Definition of Law St. Thomas Aquinas notion of law. Law is an ordinance of reason , promulgated for the common good by one who has charge of society. Law is an ordinance of reason They are rational by nature and the product of serious thought. Law is promulgated Laws are made public, they can never be only in ones mind alone. Law is for the common good Laws are made so that the public welfare is maintained. Law is made by the one who has charge of the society Laws are made by those who are authorized to pass them. Kinds of Law The kinds of laws: 1. Divine Positive Laws Made known to men by the Ten Commandments to Moses on Mt. Sinai. Moral Law since they govern moral activities. Violation means the act is sinful or a sin. 2. Human Positive Laws Made known to men by other men in authority. These laws are passed by the State or the institutional Church. Passed in order to preserve the peace and to direct men towards the common good. Sometimes aim themselves to performing moral activity. Violation means the act is illegal or against the law. Made promulgated by the State in Civil and/or legal documents. If the Law is made in the Church, it is said to be a Canon Law. 3. Affirmative and Negative Laws Both the divine and the human positive laws are affirmative or negative. Affirmative if an action is required. Negative if an action is to not be done or is prohibited. Binding in Conscience The moral law comes from the natural law. The moral law is an inherent and essential tendency in human nature and is hence written in the hearts of men and regulate their inner nature. The moral law is enforced by personal commitment if it is void of state sanctions. The moral law is bound in ones conscience. Hence, the moral law is enforced by the Agent and spiritual conviction which carries spiritual punishment rather than the possible punishment of the body.

Human positive laws only cover externalized action and do not regulate inner thoughts and feelings or elicited actions that are not externalized. Human positive law does not bind ones conscience and are penal the law is enforced by police powers and justice has been done when punishment has been served. Properties of a Just Law In order for a human law to be just it must have the following properties: 1. Conform with divine laws. 2. Promotes the common good. 3. Not discriminate against certain individuals or groups. 4. Practicable. 5. Flexible. 6. Amendable. WEEK 8 Norm of Morality Properties that are important concerning the human act: 1. Voluntarily performed. (See week concerning human act) 2. We are Accountable for them. (See week concerning Moral Accountability) 3. Motivated. (See week concerning End of human acts) 4. Have moral weight. (See Week concerning human act and determinants of morality) We now concern ourselves with the rational basis of human actions; i.e. The moral normativity of human action. Definition of Norms Norms are standards of measurement. How do we measure the size, weight, length, duration, intensity, quantity, beauty, or temperature of phenomena? Whenever we make a judgment on something, we measure the size, weight, length, etc. of the phenomena in question. When one judges a moral action as well, there is a norm or standard which acts as the criteria that supports a judgment about a phenomena. The Norms of Morality Norms are the criteria of judgment about the sorts of persons we ought to be and the sorts of actions we ought to perform. (Richard M. Gula) Moral norms judge: 1. The quality of character who we ought to be or become and 2. the quality of the action what ought to be done. Take note: Quality of character takes precedence over the quality of actions since character (necessarily) determines the quality of the actions performed. The Norms of Morality Ought means duty or obligation. A person and the act performed should have that moral normative weight lest it fails the arbitrating standard or norm. Criteria of judgment means the criteria for which reason uses in order to determine the quality (moral or other quality) or quantity is such and such. Basis of Moral Judgment Moral judgment is based on the norms of morality. The 3 norms of morality are: 1. The Eternal Law the ultimate norm of morality. 2. The Natural Law the remote norm of morality. 3. Conscience the proximate norm of morality. The Eternal Law The ultimate plan of God for which He gives both animate and inanimate substance its natures. St. Thomas Aquinas says that the Eternal Law is the exemplar of divine wisdom as directing all actions and movements. St. Augustine says the Eternal Law is the divine reason or will of God commanding that the natural order of things be preserved and forbidding that it be disturbed. The ancient Greeks referred to the natural order of the created universe as a cosmos (beauty) for which natural order is also called the cosmic order. All creatures follow the demands of their respective natures. Natural Law The Natural Law is:

The operational tendencies of the human nature the chemical, biological, physiological, psychological, and rational properties of man as an organism. St. Thomas Aquinas says: The natural law is nothing else than the rational creatures participation of the eternal law *which+ provides the possibilities and potentialities which the human person can use to make life truly human. Paul Tillich says that natural law is the inner law essential to our created nature which demands that we actualize that which follows from it. The will of God for him is the command to become what one is, a person within a community of persons. Natural Law Natural law is the direction of human nature towards potential growth and self-fulfilment. Anything or any act coinciding to this direction is moral and anything or act contradictory to this direction is immoral. Anything coinciding to this direction assists in the integration of the human person. Anything contradicting this direction causes the disintegration of the human person. Characteristics of Natural Law Four characteristics: 1. Universal It is a nature shared by all rational animals though it may be realized differently in respect to every culture. 2. Obligatory The tendencies of our nature govern our desires and movements for integration; disobedience does not come without negative consequence. 3. Recognizable humankind as thinker does not only think externally but also internally and so one is capable of understanding what is expected of oneself and what is to be expected of others. 4. Immutable/Unchangeable Accidental changes occurs but human nature itself is substantially and essentially permanent and unchanging through time. Conscience Conscience is the discrimination and choice of a particular good in a given situation. People usually describe this moment as the voice of God or the guidance of the Holy Spirit. Conscience is the practical judgment of reason telling us what should be done because it is good, or what should be avoided because it is evil. Conscience is viewed as practical because it ought to manifest itself in practice. It is the judgment of reason since reason is assumed to have made a judgment on the grounds of what ought to be done because it is good and what ought to be avoided because it is evil. If reason performs them, then it is because they are performed from the dictate of reason. Conscience Moral decisions may require contemplation but conscience is usual viewed as being spontaneous and instantaneous and is hence considered as the voice of God. Conscience has 2 functions: 1. Before the acting it directs us to what is good and aversion to what is evil and 2. After the act, it either approves or reproves what was done. If the act was approved, then it is an approving conscience. If the act was disapproved, then it is a reproaching conscience. Approving consciences are rewarded with peace of mind, while reproaching consciences are punished with guilt or remorse. Types of Conscience The soundness of a conscience is not Heaven-sent, but is tempered though proper education and training. 5 basic types are portrayed: 1. Correct conscience its owner sees the good as good, [and] the evil as evil. This conscience is well trained, cultivated, has moral sensibility and comes about from good habits. This results from sound upbringing, education, habitual exercise, and law; emphasis on both nature (a priori) and nurture (a posteriori environment). 2. Erroneous conscience its owner sees the evil as good or the good as evil. This results from unsound upbringing, education, habitual exercise, and law. 3. Doubtful conscience its owner is unsure of what it ought to do; vascillates. 4. Scrupulous conscience its owner is too cautious and fearful of error. 5. Lax conscience its owner is apathetic or doesnt care about moral normativity. Compulsory Nature of Conscience Bernard Haring writes Our bond with the natural moral law is an exalted participation in the eternal law of God manifested by our conscience whose natural function it is to reveal our likeness to God. If ever ones conscience operates in the realm of truth and sound reason, then one ought to listen to it.

When conscience informs us to act rationally one judges that as the voice of God. Otherwise, it is to Haring, our own evil work. Conformity and Non-Conformity Conformity and non-conformity of the human action with the moral norms is the meaning of morality or the system of ethics. Aristotle asserted that that which is good is when the expected function of the thing or act is present. Morally good acts are in conformity to the expectation of the doer and nature of such action. Actions which do not conform to the norms of morality are already due to the acts or things themselves already contradicting the moral norms. What are actions which fit the function of the human person? What things also fit the function of the human person? Formal and Material Norms There are two aspects of moral norms that will be investigated: 1. Formal norms and 2. Material norms. Recall in the Aristotelean tradition (reality is dissected and abstracted on the ground and not inspired or recalled from the sky) that there is an essential aspect the form and the accidental and material aspect the matter. In respect to norms, there is a formal norm and it is related to the form of ones character what one ought to be. General directives of character development universal to all: be honest, direct, fortuitous, respectful, polite, etc. Material norms relate to the actions that one ought to do. Material norms determine if the act done in this specific time and space on account of its nature conforms to the formal norms. Formal and Material Norms E.g. In a city where It is wrong to take a life, the formal norm. A woman defended herself from a rapist which resulted in the death of the rapist. The formal norm is in effect at all instances - it is never right and is always wrong to take a life. However in determining if the formal norm was obeyed, we look if the circumstances present comply (the material norms) with the imperative: There was a victim and in self-defence she killed the attempted rapist. Question: Was it morally permissible in killing the attempted rapist? Why? The material norms permissible assumed are: a. You are a victim. b. Action of self-defence for self-preservation. c. Quality of the attacker is he is a rapist. The basis of the evaluation of the formal norm of it is wrong to take a life. inspires or provides the formal basis of human action, but looking at the circumstances and material norms guiding the community or self determines if the action performed was right or wrong. Formal and Material Norms If the material norms declare the killing or taking of an object as either murder or theft then consequently they violate the formal norms as well. Remember that formal objects are unchanging in time and space and are guided by natural law while material or accidental objects may change since they are guided by rational evaluation. Hence, reason is subsumed under the natural law. A way to view this nature is notion of fashion. The formal norm of One must dress well is present, but in reference to time and space it could either be a fig leaf, one piece of cloth, puffy sleeves, spaghetti straps, formal suit and tie, etc. Moral Relativism It is possible to have moral relativism because we are by nature finite and limited beings and hence we do not have the eyes of God to know morality with certainty. Morality is also culturally diverse, hence the relative view. Despite differences it is possible to have universal truths. Man seek what is good. Do not do unto others what you would not have done unto yourself. Punish evildoers and edify the courageous. Are these not universally asserted? The problem is how these universal truths are taken i.e. the material norm. Physicalism vs Personalism There are two criteria or views of how moral actions are to be judged from the basis of natural law: 1. Physicalism that the physical and biological nature of man determines morality.

Personalism that reason is the standard for moral judgment. In physicalism, if it goes against the human persons biological tendencies then it is immoral, but if it is coincident with ones biological tendencies, then it is simply considered moral. Mans nature is the criteria of judgment. In personalism, if it is rational or complicit with the dictates of reason, then it complies with the nature of man. They are not necessarily irreconcilable reason must accept the reality of the body whereas, it is understandable that the body must subject itself to the dictates of reason. The Order of Reason All things act in accordance with their God given nature. Human beings however, act in a way proper from the Gods gift of reason and free will. Humankind are not determined as the animals, plants, and elements natures are. As human beings, we are provided all of the possibilities in making human life worth living. We direct the animals, plants and soil for food, energy, housing, clothing, infrastructure, mediums, containers, etc. The physical, nor the biological orders can inform us what is right or what is wrong. However, they do provide the information necessary for the human person to achieve ones human goals.

2.