The greater the cognition and freedom. the greater the voluntariness ; and the greater the voluntariness. the greater the moral duty. ” – Alfredo Panizo MODIFIERS OF HUMAN ACTS a ) Ignorance B ) Passions degree Celsius ) Fear vitamin D ) Habit vitamin E ) Violence A ) IGNORANCE – Absence of cognition which a individual ought to possess “Ignorance of Law exempts no one” – implies that 1 who has done incorrect may non merely and straight claim ignorance as defence or justification or to be freed from countenance attached to the Law that was violated – implies that one should non move in the province of ignorance but ever strive to chase away it 1 ) Beatable Ignorance – signifier of Ignorance which can be easy remedied through ordinary diligence and sensible attempts 1. a ) Affected Ignorance – a individual possess this sort of Ignorance when a individual employs positive attempts to be nescient in order to be escape duty – it is Beatable Ignorance explicitly wanted = studied ignorance 2 ) Invincible Ignorance – sort of Ignorance which a individual possesses without being cognizant of it or miss the agencies to rectify it PRINCIPLES:
1 ) Invincible Ignorance renders an act nonvoluntary – a individual is non apt or can non be blameworthy if he is non cognizant of his ignorance or when there is nomeans of rectifying his ignorance 2 ) Beatable Ignorance does non destruct but lessens voluntariness and the corresponding answerability over the act – when a individual becomes cognizant of one’s ignorance. he/she has the moral duty to rectify it- and to move with this is a signifier of imprudence 3 ) Affected Ignorance though it decreases voluntariness. additions theaccountability over the attendant act – it interferes intellect – lessening voluntariness – it is willed to prevail – additions answerability – declining to rectify ignorance is malicious – and maliciousness is graver if ignorance is used as an alibi for non making the right thing
B ) PASSION – Either inclinations towards desirable objects ( positive emotions like love. desire. delectation. hope. courage etc ) or tendencies off from unwanted or harmful things ( negative emotions like horror. unhappiness. hatred. desperation. fright. choler etc ) Passions – psychic responses –neither moral nor immoral – nevertheless. adult male is bound to modulate his emotions and subject them to the control of ground 1 ) Antecedent Passions – precedes the act – predisposes a individual to move 2 ) Consequent Passions – those that are deliberately aroused and kept – voluntary in cause ; the consequence of the will playing the strings of emotion Principles: 1 ) Ancestor Passions do non ever destruct voluntariness but they diminish answerability for the attendant act – they weaken the will power without blockading freedom wholly – hence. offenses of passion are ever voluntary although answerability is diminished because it interferes with the freedom of the will
2 ) Consequent Passions do non decrease voluntariness but may even increase duty – consequent passions are direct consequences of the will which to the full consents to them alternatively of subordinating them to its control C ) FEAR – perturbation on the head of the individual – being confronted by an at hand danger or injury to himself. to his loved 1s or to his belongings – one is compelled to make up one’s mind to execute an act so as to avoid menace of future or at hand evil 1 ) Act done with fright – certain actions which by nature are unsafe or hazardous – in theses instances. fright is a normal response to danger – these actions are voluntary because the actor is in full control of his modules and acts inspite of fear- fright here is an replete for self-preservation ( we even fear new experiences or state of affairss ) ex.
Bing left entirely in a unusual topographic point. being asked to talk before a group of people 2 ) Act out of fright or because of fright – fear here becomes a positive force obliging a individual to move without careful deliberation – fright modifies the freedom of making. bring oning the individual to move in a certain preset mode. even without his full consent Ex. A kid – studies/reads his books – out of fright of his female parent A adult male – stops smoking – fright of undertaking malignant neoplastic disease Principles: 1 ) Acts donewith fright are voluntary – moving inspite of his fright and is in full control of himself 2 ) Acts done out of fright are merely voluntary although conditionally nonvoluntary – merely voluntary = individual remains in control of his modules – conditionally nonvoluntary = if it were non for the presence of something feared. the individual would non move or would move in another manner – Intimidating or endangering as individual with horror is an unfair act – Legally talking. Acts of the Apostless done out of fright – invalid Acts of the Apostless Ex.
Contract – made out of fright – rescindable – subsequently be annulled 3 ) Acts done because of intense fright or terror are nonvoluntary – terror – obscures the head – in this mental province. the individual is non expected to believe sanely D ) HABIT – lasting dispositions to move in a certain manner – enduring preparedness and installation Born of often repeated Acts of the Apostless or for moving in a certain mode – get the function of 2nd nature – moves a individual to execute certain Acts of the Apostless with comparative easiness Habit – non easy to get the better of or change – requires a strong-minded individual to rectify a wont Voluntary Habits – those caused by the repeat of voluntary Acts of the Apostless Involuntary Habits – a wont becomes such if the will is resolved to take it and there is a battle to get the better of it PRINCIPLES: 1 ) Actions done by force of wont are voluntary in cause. unless a sensible attempt is made to antagonize the accustomed disposition – Bad Habits – voluntary in cause because they are consequences of antecedently willed acts done repeatedly – every bit long as the wonts are non corrected. evil Acts of the Apostless done by force of wont are voluntary and accountable – can be non accountable – if a individual decides to contend his wont. For every bit long as the attempt towards this intent continues. actions ensuing from such wont may be regarded as Acts of the Apostless of adult male because the cause of such wont is no longer expressly desired E ) Violence
– any physical force exerted on a individual by another free agent for the intent of obliging the said individual to move against his will Ex. Bodily anguish. ill-treatment. mutilation. etc Principles: 1 ) External actions or commanded actions performed by a individual subjected to force. to which sensible opposition has been offered. are nonvoluntary and are non accountable – active opposition should ever be offered to an unfair attacker – if opposition is impossible and there is a serious menace to one’s life. a individual confronted by force cab offer intrinsic opposition
DETERMINANTS OF HUMAN ACT: 1. Act IN ITSELF – nature of the act itself ( rip offing is bad itself in its nature ) 2. Motivation OF THE AGENT ( intention/purpose ) 3. CIRCUMSTANCES Who=Person What=Quantity or quality Where=Place How=Manner. Means or instrument When=Time Why=Motive DETERMINING A GOOD ACTION ACT MOTIVE/END Good + good =GOOD Good + bad =BAD Bad + good =BAD Bad + bad =VERY BAD ETHICAL THEORIES 1. Deontological 2. Teleological 3. Divine Command Ethics 4. Virtues Ethical motives
DEONTOLOGY Deos – “what is adhering. right and proper” Duty-oriented entreaties to duties. Torahs. regulations or orders 1. STOICISM Stoics: nature is good Good – surrendering/denying/accepting nature or whatever happens Self-denial/simplicity/frugality Wrong- contradict nature Three moral strong beliefs: 1. Nature is innately good and adult male is portion of nature 2. Man does good by following nature and immorality by beliing 3. Man ought to accept everything that is go oning to him w/o inquiry in order to populate a good and placid life EPICTETUS: everything is governed by nature: determinism: things come as they do: “the kernel of good and evil prevarications in that attitude of the will”
: absolute obeisance – greatest virtuousness: surrender and repose
2. KANT’S DEONTOLOGICAL THEORY Immanuel Kant Morality is based on “A PRIORI” ( pre cognition ) of the jussive mood of human Acts of the Apostless Pure ground – consistence of valid cognition of the head Practical ground – valid cognition of the mind Footing: FREEWILL ?moral responsibility IMMORTALITY OF THE SOUL ? countenances EXISTENCE OF GOD ? ultimategiver of countenances Kant: good without any making is based on GOOD WILL “a individual with good will move with moral duty” ( businessman/politician ) KANT’S CATEGORICAL IMPERATIVE ? Like aureate regulation: bid every human rational agent to cons istently abide with moral responsibilities 1. Principle of Universality ? “Act merely on that axiom through which you can at the same clip will that it should go a cosmopolitan law” ( evil if it can non be universally willed. Sample: violent death ) 2. Principle of End in Itself ? “act in such a manner that you will ever handle humanity. whether in your ain individual or the individual of any other. ne’er merely as a agency. but ever
at the same clip as an terminal. ” ( self-preservation/selfrealization/charity )
3. CONVENTIONALISM OR CONTRACTARIAN THEORY THOMAS HOBBES What is good is agreed by the society through societal contract TELEOLOGICAL THEORIES Telos- terminal Consequence oriented theory Good is based on the consequence of the act 1. HEDONISM Hedos – pleasance “eat and be merry for tomorrow you will die” Good is personal experience of pleasance ARISTIPPUS – The greatest pleasure/ hurting is the greatest evil – The lone norm of finding what is good is “the most intense animal pleasance of the minute. ” – Sexual act between lovers give one of the most intense animal pleasance EPICURIUS – Man is material and religious ( decease is decomposition ) – Man by nature seek pleasance – “good and evil consist in esthesis but it should be directed by ground and virtuousness. – Real pleasance – moderateness decided by the head
– Prudence – wisdom and capacity to command oneself – Social unfairnesss beginning of hurting in human relation 2. UTILITARIANISM Greatest good for the greatest figure of people JEREMY BENTHAM – Good if it promotes greater good ( generic law/ofw ) – Bad – enduring – Quantitative utilitarianism – Utility or utility of an act
JOHN STUART MILL – Qualitative utilitarianism – Not the act and its terminal but more on the self-respect of the individual but the self-respect of the human agent. – “better to be dissatisfied than a hog satisfied” – Action is right if it promotes happiness/ bad-unhappiness –
VIRTUE ETHICS Virtue- moral pattern or action in conformance to a criterion of right Wisdom based on cognition of what is good Good is the ownership of moral characters or virtuousnesss Reason elevates and leads adult male to things true and good Aristotle: good is based on map: rational module of adult male achieves excellence through exercising of virtuousness: moral virtuousness is a consequence of wont: ARETAIC ETHICS ( ARETE – excellence or virtuousness ) : focal point on bosom and character of the moral agent: Virtue ethics- disposition/motivation or trait of being good: self-actualization – making good as a portion of being a rational animate being Golden mean or moderateness Socratess: INTELLECTUALISM ? cognition is virtue / virtuousness is knowledge: “know thyself” : unexamined life
is non deserving populating Plato: Philosophic LIFE -contemplation of true and good is best for life
DIVINE COMMAND THEORY Religious thought Rules and commandments provide moral counsel St. Thomas Aquinas: Natural jurisprudence
ETHICS OF CONSCIENCE Subjective norm of morality Based on natural jurisprudence Voice of God / interior voice / other self Practical judgement of ground Types:
1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6.
Right scruples – correct ethical rating good as good/ immorality as evil Erroneous – good as evil and evil as good Certain – house judgement of the cogency and morality of an action Doubtful/dubious – unsure Lax – bahala na / Scrupulous- sees evil or wrongness even though there is none