Ethics

Foundation of Moral Valuation

Prepared by
Helen Claire Manatad
Erwin Cangas
Teacher
THE ENDS OF HUMAN ACTS
End is the purpose or goal of an act. It is that which
completes or finishes an act.
Distinction between end of the act and end of the doer or
agent.
End of the act is the natural termination of an activity.
The end of eating is nourishment; of reading is
comprehension; of basketball is scoring a goal; of
jogging is physical exercise.
DISTINCTION CONTINUES……

End of the doer or agent is the personal purpose

intended by the person performing the act.
The end of the doer is called the motive.
The motive is the reason why a person performs an
act. It is the force that sustains the act and brings it to
completion.
He who eats aims to satisfy his hunger; the reader,
to relax himself; the basketball player, to win the
game; and the jogger, to maintain physical fitness.
KINDS OF ENDS
THE END OF THE DOER IS EITHER…
1. PROXIMATE OR REMOTE END
2. INTERMEDIATE OR ULTIMATE END
1. Proximate End is the purpose which a doer
wishes to accomplish immediately by his action. The
remote end is the purpose which a doer wishes to
accomplish in a series of acts.
The proximate end of eating is the satisfaction of
hunger. Its remote end is the promotion of health.
2. The ultimate end is the purpose which is desired for its
own sake and not because of something else. The
intermediate end is the purpose which is desired as means
for obtaining another thing. The attainment of an ultimate
end completes an act and stop all further acts. The
attainment of an intermediate end leads either to another
intermediate end or to an ultimate end.
A student may assign his graduation as an ultimate end.
Those activities leading to graduation such as attending
classes, taking exams, participating in oral recitation
and so on are intermediate end.
PRINCIPLES CONCERNING HUMAN
ACTIONS
1. Every agent that performs an action acts for
the sake of an end or purpose to be attained.
Man is a motivated animal. For him to act, he
must first find the motive to act.
2. Every agent acts towards an ultimate end. The
ultimate end gives meaning to an activity.
3. Every agent has the power to move himself
towards an end which he finds suitable for
him. Only what is good can be suitable for
man. End is synonymous with the concept
“good”.
GOOD
Aristotle defines good as
that which fits a function.
The good of man is that
which fits his function as
rational being.
KINDS OF
GOOD
1. Essential and Accidental. Those that fit the natural needs of
man as man are essential good. These include food, shelter,
health, knowledge, virtue and life.
Those that fit the wants of an individual because of his
circumstances are accidental goods. Such include money, car,
good name, academic degree, power, luxury, and many more
Essential good is also called perfective because they contribute
to the integral perfections of man.
Accidental good are called non-perfective because they merely
contribute to the external worth or appearance of the person.
2. Real and Apparent. A real good is
something which has intrinsic value.
We call it Value. It possesses qualities
rendering it fitting or desirable
Examples of real good are good acts
and habits, parents and parenthood,
pleasure and joy, work and leisure.
Apparent good is actually an evil
thing but is viewed as good under
certain aspects. Examples are
diseases, sadness, death, worry,
3. Perfective and Non-perfective
good. Perfective good is that
which contributes to the integral
perfection of the person such as
education, virtue, food, exercise,
medicine.
Non-perfective good is that
which merely contributes to the
external appearance or
convenience of the person such
as clothes, wealth, social status,
political power, etc.
4. Perfect and Imperfect good. Also
called unlimited or limited goods or
absolute or relative goods.
Perfect good has the fullness of qualities
enabling it to fully satisfy human desire.
Imperfect good possesses only certain
qualities so that it does not fully satisfy
human desire except in a relative or
limited sense.
All earthly goods are imperfect. Only
God in absolute sense, is perfect good.
THE GREATEST
GOOD
For Aristotle the highest
good is happiness. It is
what man aims to achieve
in all his activities. The
ultimate purpose of life is
the attainment of
happiness.
SOME ERRORS CONCERNING
HAPPINESS
1. Some people give the impression that money
or wealth can buy happiness.
2. Some people equates health with happiness.
3. Sensual people vainly seeks happiness in
earthly pleasures.
4. Certain people cling to their public image as
if God Himself was made after their illusion.
5. Some dedicate their lives to science and arts.
6. Some propose that the final purpose is the
promotion of State or Government.
THE DETERMINANTS OF
MORALITY
1. The act in itself (Object)
2. The motive of the act
(End)
3. Circumstances of the act
1. ACT IN ITSELF
In the physical sense, some actions are bad because they
produce such evil as pain, hunger, illness or death.
In the moral sense, actions are bad because they disturb
the harmony within the acting person. They are “unfit” to
the natural and spiritual tendencies of the human soul.
Moral evils produce physical harm and damage of oneself
and others. They are moral evils because they destroy the
innate goodness, the image of God in our nature.
All moral evils are those that go against the natural law.
INTRINSIC AND EXTRINSIC
EVIL
“Intrinsic” implies a quality inherent in a thing. An intrinsic evil
act is an act which is evil by its nature.
“Extrinsic” implies a quality which is superficially added to a
thing in a manner that a coat paint covers the surface of a wall
without modifying the essentiality of the wood constituting the
wall.
According to Panizo, an extrinsic evil is that which, although
good or indifferent in itself, is however prohibited by a human
law.
An example of extrinsic evil act is that of eating by Catholics on
An intrinsic evil act is one which by
its nature, that is, by its functional
purpose, is wrongful. Any act which
prevents man from realizing his true
worth as a person is intrinsically evil.
Murder, robbery, rape, adultery, lies,
and slavery are examples of actions
that contradicts the demands of reason
for justice, truth and decency.
2. THE MOTIVE OF THE ACT
It is the purpose which the doer wishes to achieve by such
action. It is what gives direction and motivation to an act. It
comes first in the mind as intention and occurs last in the
action as its culmination or fulfillment. Without a motive,
an act is meaningless, an accident.
A good motive is consistent with the dignity of the human
person.
It is in accordance with truth, justice, prudence, and
temperance.
In the OT, a good man is a “just man”, he acts rightly out of
respect for himself and out of concern for others.
Paul Glenn gives us the following insights on the effects of the
motive on the action:
1. An evil act which is done on account of an evil
motive is grievously wrong. A youngster who steals
from his parents on order to buy “shabu” for himself is
committing a grievous wrong to himself and his
parents.
2. A good action done on account of an evil motive
becomes evil in itself. The executive who gives a job to
a lady applicant in order to seduce her later makes his
kindness immoral because of his evil intention.
3. A good action done on account of a good purpose
acquires an additional merit. The father who foregoes
his expensive hobby in order to send his children to school
shows a deeper concern for the welfare of his loved ones.

4. An indifferent act may either become good or bad

depending on the motive. Opening the door of a house is
an indifferent act. But the servant who, in connivance with
the thieves, opens the door of the house his master, does a
wrongful act.
3. CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE ACT
• An act is an event. It happens is a definite time and place. It
is accompanied by certain elements which contribute to the
nature and accountability of such act. This is the mitigating
or aggravating factors affecting a criminal act.
• These circumstances are: who, what, where, with whom,
why, how and where.
1. Who refers primarily to the doer of the act. At times, it
also refers to the receiver of the act. This circumstance
includes the age, status, relation, family background,
educational attainment, health and socio-economic situation
of the person or persons involved in the act.
Observations:
a. The moron, the insane, the senile and the children
below the age of reason are considered incapable of
voluntary acts and, are therefore, are exempted
from moral accountability. But actions against these
persons are normally regarded most cruel due to
their helplessness in defending themselves.
b. Persons with higher educational attainment are
presumed to know better than those with little
education. Their liability is higher. “To whom much
is given, much is expected.”
c. Persons vested with authority have higher
accountability than those who merely
follow their order or command.
d. The relationship between people involved
in act may modify the nature of such act.
Cruelty to one’s own children is, for
instance, more wrongful than that done
against children of other people.
2. What refers to act itself and to the quality and quantity
of the results of such act. The graveness of robbery is
measured by what is stolen and by how much is stolen.
3. Where refers to the circumstance of the place where
the act is committed. Rape done inside the church is more
scandalous than that which is done in the privacy of the
house.
4. With Whom refers to the companion or accomplices
in an act performed. This includes the number and status
of the persons involved.
5. Why refers to the motive of the doer.
6. How refers to the manner how the act is made
possible. Was the killing accompanied with deceit?
Was it done by the use of torture? How an act is
performed contributes to the malice of an act.
7. When refers to the time of the act. A murder
committed when the victim is sleeping is more
offensive than the one done when the victim is wide
awake.
Law
 Accordingto St. Thomas Aquinas, it is an
ordinance of reason promulgated for the
common good by one who has charge of society.
 Itis an “ordinance of reason” because they are
rational deliberations intended to guide men
towards what is good for them and for society. The
objective or purpose of the law is the attainment of
the common good.
 Itis “promulgated”, that is, they are made known
to the people who are bound to observe them.
 Law are passed by “one who has the charge of
society” because they can only be valid if they are
the legitimate exercise of authority.
Kinds of Law
1.Divine Positive Law are those
promulgated, or made known to us, by
special command of God. The
Decalogue of Moses is an example.
2.Human Positive Laws are those
promulgated by a legitimate human
authority. It is intended to preserve
peace and harmony within a society and
to direct each member of that society
to work towards the common good.
3. Moral and Political Laws
Moral Laws are those derived from the natural law.
They direct man towards the higher values of his
development as a human being.
Natural moral laws are those that are “written” in
the hearts of all men. They are the inherent and
essential tendencies of human nature towards the
good proper to it. They are the tendencies of
rational soul for Aristotle.
Political Laws, both civil and criminal laws, are
those enacted by men to guide their actuations in
society and in relation to one another. The objective
is peace and order and material prosperity.
Properties of Human Laws
1. Human laws must conform with Divine laws.
2. Human laws must promote the common
good.
3. Human laws must be just and not
discriminatory of certain individuals or
groups.
4. Human laws must be practicable.
5. Human laws regulate external actions only.
6. Human laws are fallible, because human
legislators are liable to commit errors.
Norms of Morality
 Norm. In general, it is a standard of
measurement. It is an instrument of which the
quality or quantity of a thing is determined.
 Theclock that tells time, the thermometer
that indicates temperature, the speedometer
that measures velocity- are examples of
norms.
 The norms of morality are the standards that
indicate the rightfulness or wrongness, the
goodness or evilness, the value or disvalue of a
thing.
 Richard M. Gula defines the norm of morality as
“criteria of judgment about the sorts of person
we ought to be and the sorts of actions we
ought to perform.”
 Moralitytherefore, consists in the relation of a
thing with the norm. Morality is defined as the
“quality of things manifesting their conformity
or non-conformity with the norm or criteria.”
 Theremote norm of morality is Natural Law.
The proximate norm of morality is Conscience.
 Bothnatural law and conscience are rooted on
Eternal Law, the ultimate norm.