The ve modi ers of human acts

1. Ignorance
Ignorance is the lack or absence of knowledge of a person who is capable of knowing. The two
types of ignorance are invincible ignorance and vincible ignorance. Invincible ignorance is a
type of ignorance which cannot be dispelled, or knowledge that is lacking and cannot be
acquired. The inability to dispel the ignorance or acquire the knowledge that is lacking may
arise from various causes. Example: When you are in a foreign country and the speed limit is
written in another alien language. Since, the ignorance cannot be expelled or dispelled by due
diligence and reasonable e ort then the person is not responsible.

On the other hand, vincible ignorance is a type of ignorance which can and should be
dispelled. It implies culpable negligence. The person could know and ought to know. Vincible
ignorance can be cleared up if one is diligent enough. For instance, a person who knowingly
violates safety and health protocols in a time of pandemic would be responsible for his/her
actions.

There are three kinds of vincible ignorance: simple vincible ignorance, crass or supine
ignorance, and a ected vincible ignorance. Simple vincible ignorance exists when one uses
some, but not enough diligence, in an e ort to remove the ignorance. It does not free us from
responsibility. Suppose a nurse is unsure of dosage. She refers to the doctor’s order sheet and
nds that she is unable to read the doctor’s handwriting. She knows that the doctor is at the
o ce but does not bother to talk to the doctor. As she administers the medication, guessing at
the dosage, she is guilty of simple vincible ignorance.

Crass or supine ignorance is that which results from mere lack of e ort. For instance, a doctor
discovers in his patient certain symptoms which he does not recognize. On the shelf over his
desk is a good medical book that could assist him to diagnose the symptoms. However, he
does not bother due to laziness to read the medical book.

A ected vincible ignorance is that which is deliberately fostered in order to avoid and
obligation that knowledge might bring to light. For instance, a nurse who accepts employment
with a doctor who frequently practices arti cial insemination. The nurse may suspect that this
is immoral or something which is contrary to the teaching of the Church but carefully avoids
inquiring or even discussing the matter with anybody, lest the nurse discovers that he/she is
cooperating in immorality and be obliged to leave his/her well-paying job. It is a ected
because she wants to be ignorant, and it is vincible because the nurse could dispel the
ignorance easily.

“Ignorance of the law” refers to a lack of knowledge that a particular law exists. Example:
When a driver does not know that there is an 80 kilometer-per-hour speed limit for a particular
road.

“Ignorance of the fact” is a lack of realization that one is violating a law. Example: A driver
knows that there is a 60 kilometer-per-hour speed limit but does not realize that he/she is
travelling at 80 kph.

There are two general moral principles concerning ignorance. First, invincible ignorance
eliminates responsibility or culpability. Second, vincible ignorance does not eliminate moral
responsibility but lessens it. The reason behind these two principles is that when one is
invincibly ignorant, the act he/she does would then be without knowledge. Without knowledge,
there can be no voluntariness, hence, no responsibility. No one can consent to violate a law
which he/she does not know. In case of vincible ignorance, however, there is still culpability
fi
ffi
ff
fi
ff
fi
ff
ff
fi
ff
ff
 with regard to one’s ignorance which is due to one’s negligence or omission. Consequently,
there is still accountability on the part of the parson for his/her action. The act of violating the
law is still voluntary at least in cause, that is, indirectly voluntary.

2. Fear
Fear is a mental agitation or disturbance of mind brought about by the apprehension of some
present or imminent danger.

Grave fear is that which is present when the evil threatening is considered as serious. Intrinsic
grave fear is that agitation of the mind which arises because of a disposition within one’s body
or mind. Example, the fear of cancer is intrinsic. On the other hand, extrinsic grave fear is the
agitation of the mind which arises from something outside oneself.

Slight fear is a type of fear in which the evil threatening is either present-but-slight or grave-
but-remote. Example for present-but-slight fear: an elderly man experiences fear when he
hears someone passing his door at night, but his fear is slight because he knows it is probably
his neighbor arriving home at usual. Example for grave-but-remote fear: a man fears that he
may die of cancer in his life, but his fear is slight because the grave danger is very remote.

Moral principle of fear: Fear diminishes the voluntary nature of the act. A sinful act done
because of fear is somewhat less free and therefore less sinful than an act done not under the
in uence of fear.

3. Concupiscence or Passion
Concupiscence or passion is the movement of the sensitive (irrational) appetite which is
produced by good or evil as apprehended by the mind. Concupiscence is not limited to sexual
desire. Passions are strong tendencies towards the possession of something good or towards
the avoidance of something evil. Movements of the passions are usually called feelings or
emotions, especially if not vehement. Love, hatred, joy, grief, desire, aversion, hope, courage,
fear, and anger fall under this heading. Passions may be considered good when ordered by the
rational will to help a person in the practice of virtue or in the attainment of what is morally
good.

When passions are not controlled by reason, passions may become destructive and evil. They
are considered bad when used by the rational will to accomplish morally evil acts, like using
courage to rob a bank. A person has the urgent duty to control and check one’s sensitive
appetites since the possibility to succumb to them is not remote. Karl Peschke remarks “that
the whole process of moral education, both in the early and in the later years, is to a large
extent a process of gaining command over all the movements of the passions. Thus, man/
woman has to eventually become master of himself/herself.”

There are two types of concupiscence; antecedent concupiscence and consequent

concupiscence. Antecedent concupiscence precedes an act of the will and is not willfully
stimulated, such as sudden anger. On the other hand, consequent concupiscence is that which
is deliberate and stimulated by the will, such as anger deliberately fostered.

Moral principles regarding concupiscence: Antecedent concupiscence lessens the voluntary

nature of human acts and lessens the degree of moral responsibility accordingly. Consequent
concupiscence does not lessen moral responsibility. Rather, a person acting with consequent
concupiscence is completely responsible.

fl
 4. Violence
Violence is an external force applied by someone on another in order to compel the person to
perform an action against one’s will.

There are two general types of violence, perfect and imperfect violence. In cases where the
victim gives complete resistance, the violence is classi ed as perfect violence. If a woman
walking a dark street at night is attacked and she attempts to ght of the attackers with all the
physical powers at her command, she has been the victim of perfect violence. However, if the
victim o ers insu cient resistance, the violence is classi ed as imperfect violence. In other
words, some resistance is shown but not as much as should be. An o ce secretary who is
working after hours in an almost empty building is approached by the department head. The
department head, suddenly lled with lustful intentions, makes certain rough and violent
advances. The secretary for a moment puts up some resistance and feels that additional
resistance might terminate the incident. However, the secretary quickly ceases resistance and
gives in to the department head.

Regarding perfect violence, the moral principle is that which is done from perfect violence is
entirely involuntary, and so in such cases there is no moral responsibility.

Regarding imperfect violence, the moral principle is that which is done under the in uence of
imperfect violence is less voluntary, and so the moral responsibility is lessened but not taken
away completely.

It is also important to take note that if an individual is a victim in the absolute sense of the
word, no sensible person will condemn him/her. If a victim makes a judgment that resistance is
utterly useless, he/she need not resist. There is no obligation to do what is useless. For
instance, a bank cashier and two security guards are held up by ten heavily armed bank
robbers. The cashier and the security guards know that no amount of resistance would be
e ective to stop the bank robbery. In this case, there is no obligation to resist because of the
overwhelming threat to life of the robbery situation.

5. Habit
A habit is an inclination to perform some particular action acquired by repetition and
characterized by a decreased power of resistance and an increased facility of performance. It
is also “a stable quality to a faculty positively inclining a person to act in a certain way.” A habit
is often referred to as “second nature,” which means something is deeply embedded in an
individual but ingrained by being acquired than being inborn.

Habits may be good or evil as to whether they in uence one to do good or evil. If a habit
disposes a person to do good, it is called a virtue. However, if a habit disposes a person to de
evil, it is called a vice.

Moral considerations regarding habit: (1) Evil habits do not lessen the imputability of evil
actions performed by force of habit, if the habit has been recognized as evil and is freely
permitted to continue; (2) Evil habits lessen the imputability of evil actions performed by force
of habit if one is sincerely trying to correct the habit. A habit does not destroy the voluntary
nature of our acts. A person is at least, in some way, responsible for acts done from habit as
long the habit is consciously allowed to endure.

ff
ff
ffi
fi
fl
fi
fi
fi
ffi
fl
CONSCIENCE
-an inner feeling or voice viewed as acting as a guide to the rightness or wrongness of one's
behavior.

TYPES OF CONSCIENCE:

Kinds of Conscience

1.Correct or True Conscience

judges what is good as good and what is evil as evil. It is correct conscience which tells that
getting the property of another without consent isstealing. It is also correct conscience which
judges that we ought to pay out debts.

2. Erroneous or False Conscience

judges incorrectly that what is good is evil and what is evil is good. It is erroneous conscience
which tells the husband to have amistress, since it is the macho thing to do.Error in conscience
comes from the following factors:(a) Mistake in inferential thinking such as deriving a wrong
conclusion from givenmoral principles; (b) Ignorance of the law; (c) Ignorance of the fact and
other circumstances modifying human actions; (d) Ignorance of future consequences,especially
those dependent on the free will of others.An erroneous conscience whose error is not willfully
intended is called inculpableconscience.It is inculpable conscience operating in a person, who
unaware of it, pays for grocery with “bogus” money. (Ignorance of the fact)An erroneous
conscience whose error is due to neglect, or malice, is called culpableconscience.

It is culpable conscience which believes that cheating is good since it helpsus pass the exam
and everybody does it anyway. The di erence between culpable andinculpable conscience lies
in the distinction between a voluntary error and an involuntary error. It is culpable precisely
because the error is voluntary on the part of the person. It isinculpable because the error is
involuntary, an “honest mistake”.

3. Certain Conscience
is a subjective assurance of the lawfulness of unlawfulness of a certain act. This implies that
the person is sure of his decision.It is possible however to be sure of something as good when
in fact it is just theopposite, and vice versa. It is possible for a policemen to be sure that killing
the suspectis the best alternative under the principle of self-defense, whereas such killing is in
factunnecessary.Many theologians believe that a certain conscience should always be
followed(Panizo: 65). This is to preserve the integrity of the human reason. One who
thereforecontradicts his certain conscience is morally guilty.

4. Doubtful Conscience
is a vacillating conscience, unable to form a de nite judgement on a certain action. A doubtful
conscience must be rst allowed to settleits doubts before an action is performed.

5. Scrupulous Conscience
is a rigorous conscience, extremely afraid of committingevil. A scrupulous conscience is a
meticulous and wants incontrovertible proofs before it acts.

A scrupulous conscience is an erroneous conscience. It worries about things that aren’t sinful.
The scrupulous worry that their prayers are inadequate, that God doesn’t love them.

6. Lax conscience
IS An erroneous conscience when the mind decides on insu cient grounds that a sinful act is
permissible or that something gravely wrong is not serious.

fi
ff
fi
ffi
7. Delicate conscience.
always wants to please God and does not want to o end him in the slightest degree

ff