DETERMINANTS OF

MORALITY
I. THE ACT IN ITSELF
To consider an act in itself is to regard its
nature. An act, of course, is not simply a
mental or bodily activity requiring an
expenditure of energy. An act is a physical
tendency towards a definite result.

Identified as the end of the act (finis

operis) as distinguished from the end of
the agent (finis operantis) which is
synonymous with the motive of the doer.
I. THE ACT IN ITSELF
In the physical sense, some actions are bad because
they produce such evils 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 also produce physical harm and damage of

oneself and others. But they are moral evils because
what they destroy is the innate goodness, the image
of God, in our human nature. Thus, we say that all
moral evils are those that go against the natural law.
INTRINSIC AND EXTRINSIC EVIL
INTRINSIC EVIL - "Intrinsic" a quality inherent in a thing.
Thus, an intrinsic evil act is an act which is evil by its
nature,that is, by its functional purpose, is wrongful.
refers to actions or behaviors that are inherently wrong,
regardless of context or intention. These actions are
considered immoral by their very nature.
Examples:
 Torture: Inflicting severe pain or suffering intentionally.
 Rape: Violating someone’s autonomy and consent.
 Slavery: Denying individuals their freedom and rights.
 Child Abuse: Harming a vulnerable person, especially a child .
 Murder: Taking an innocent life.
INTRINSIC AND EXTRINSIC EVIL
EXTRINSIC EVIL
• Refers to actions that may not be inherently wrong but become evil due
to context, intention, or consequences. An act which in itself is not evil
but is made evil nonetheless on account of something else is called an
extrinsic evil. According to Fr. Panizo, an extrinsic evil act is that which,
although good or indifferent in itself, is however prohibited by a human
law.
Examples:
 Lying can be extrinsically evil if it leads to harm or deception, but not
all lies are considered equally wrong; some may be justifiable, like lying
to protect someone.
 Eating meat by Catholics on the Fridays of Lent, or the giving of alms to
beggars as prohibited by law in Manila.
INTRINSIC AND EXTRINSIC EVIL
It is extremely difficult to make a list of intrinsic evil acts. But knowing what kind of persons we

ought to be on the basis of our natural and rational tendencies, we can identify with relative accuracy

those actions that are to be avoided as intrinsically harmful. The Decalogue of Moses and many human

laws identify some such actions as blasphemy, stealing, untruthfulness, murder, and adultery.

In the tradition and culture of all people, there are those actions which are regarded with horror

and great repugnance. This means that in the consciousness of men certain actions are to be avoided as

extremely dangerous poisons. These are the actions that cause misery and physical afflictions to man
In summary:
• Intrinsic Evil: Inherently wrong actions.
• Extrinsic Evil: Context-dependent actions
that become wrong based on circumstances
or outcomes.
“The End does not justify the means” is a
fundamental moral principle. It affirms that
one should not do wrong (means) in order to
attain a good purpose (end) The motive of a
person, no matter how noble, does not excuse
an act which is intrinsically evil. The desire to
pass a subject does not justify a students who
for cheats in the examination. Likewise, the
need to feed a family does not justify torture
of a suspect by the police. The rule is – don’t
do wrong even if this will result in something
good.
II. Motive of an ACT
Motive and Action: according to Paul Glenn, the correlation
between motive and act is defined in the following principles:
1. An evil act which is done on account of an evil motive is grievously
wrong.
Ex.: A youngster who steals from his parents in 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 itself.
This mean that something nice and sweet may turn ugly and sour because
of a bad motive.
Ex.: The Executive who gives a job to a lady applicant in order to seduce
her later makes his kindness immoral because of his evil intentions.
3. A good action done on account of a good purpose acquires
an additional merit.
Ex.: 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.
Ex.: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 of his master, does a wrongful act. On the other
hand, opening the door in order to give alms to a beggar, is a
good act.
III. Circumstances of the ACT
The historical elements surrounding the
commission of an act, such as the status
of the doer, the place the time, or the
intensity of an act. The circumstances
are hinted by the interrogative pronouns
– who, what , where, with whom, why,
how, and where.
III. Circumstances of the ACT
1. “who” refers either to the doer of the act or
the recipient of the act. It has to do with the
age, status, relation, schooling, social standing,
an economic situation of those involved in an
act. In this regard, we note the following:
(a) The moron, insane, senile and children
below the age of reason are incapable of
voluntary acts and are not morally accountable.
(b) Educated persons have greater
accountability than those with less or without
education.
(c) Person constituted in authority have
accountability for the actions of those under them.
This is the meaning of “command responsibility”.
Thus, parents have command responsibility over
their children who are minors; employers, over the
actuations of their employees, and superiors, over
the acts of their subordinates. The law on sexual
harassment is based on the doctrine of command
responsibility.

(d) The legal or blood relation of people involved

in act
may modify the nature of such act. For instance,
killing of a parent changes homicide parricide.
2. “what” refers to the act itself, or the quality
and quantity of the result of such act. Robbery,
for instance, what is stolen and how much is
stolen are aggravating factors. Likewise, the
numbers of victims determines the seriousness
of the murder.

3. “where” refers to the place where the act is

committed. A crime inside a church is more
scandalous than the committed in a secluded
place. Murder in a marketplace is more
heinous than that done in a mountain trail.
4. “With whom” refers to the companion or
accomplices in an act. The more people are
involved in the commission of an act, the more
serious in the crime.
5. “Why” refers to the motive of the doer, as
discussed earlier.
6. “How” refers to the manners of the act is
perpetrated. Homicide committed with much
cruelty is a heinous crime.
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.
Circumstance Factors :
1. Circumstances may either increase or decrease
the wrongfulness of an evil act. The killing of innocent
people in the case of terrorist exploding a bomb in
public places constitutes a serious crime against
humanity. On the other hand, killing a tyrant who has
long oppressed the assailant accepts a mitigating
factor and, therefore, is low level evil. Nonetheless,
the act remains an evil act and the perpetrator of such
act is accountable and punishable.
2. Circumstances also may either increase or
decrease the merits of a good act. Helping another at
the risk of one’s life is an act of heroism. Helping
another in expectation of a reward or fee is a business
transaction.
Circumstances may exempt temporarily
someone from doing a required act. A
debtor may not pay his debts when he
does not have the money, or if paying up
would cause him great hardships.
4. Circumstances do not prove the guilt
of a person. The presence of a person
when a crime committed does not prove
that he is the criminal.
The Morally Good Act – A morally good act is that
which sounds in all aspect- in its nature, motive, and
circumstances .

In the Scriptures, the morally upright is a just man,

one who weighs his actions in relation to what the law
demands, to what the circumstances would allow, and
to what fits his stature as a rational being. A morally
good action, therefore, is a just act- “makatarungan”.

We also speak of its as “maka-tao”, or “maka-diyos” ,

indicating that such as action is fair to the other
person and in accordance with the Will of God.
THE REALITY OF EVIL
There are good actions and there are evil
actions. Their realities do not come from the
mind, in spite of some people saying “ evil is
all in the mind”
Some people do not see evil, accept it as
something “normal”, or identify it as
something else. Some, for example, would
regard pornography as an art. Some think of
gambling and prostitution as means of
livelihood. A terrorist believes that murdering
unbelievers is fulfilling God’s Will. A
government official believes accepting bribe
A pile of garbage is garbage even if a
scavenger were to say it is good. Garbage
represents what is ugly, dirty and bad in the
surrounding. In contrast, A rose garden stand
for what is clean, beautiful, and wholesome.
Therefore, only he who is intellectual
dishonest would claim “evil is only in the
mind”, implying that evil is something
imaginary, an illusion.
The expression “ang masama ay nasa isip
lamang” should not mean that evil is a fiction.
It should mean rather that an evil act begins
in the mind as an evil thought and it’s
translated into an immoral act. Indeed, the
The Relevance of Laws
 Laws mandate some actions as prohibited and others as
permitted and required. We may therefore consider laws as
determinants of human behaviour. Some people do not do
what is good unless they are forced. ST. Thomas points out
the laws are made for those who are weak in character.

 Society adopts laws to protect its member from themselves

or from those who might want to hurt them. By prescribing
punishments for transgression, law encourage and compel
people to act for the good of all. Everyone should obey the
law or risk being punished. As authorities would put it –
“dura lex, sed lex” the law is harsh, but it is the law- and
everyone should obey.
The Definition of Law
Law according to St Thomas Aquinas, is an
ordinance of reason, promulgated for the
common good by one who has charged of society.
Laws are “ordinance of reason” because they are
the result of serious study, deliberation, or public
debate. They are “promulgated” because they are
made known to the people who are bound to
observe them. They are “for the Common good”
because the purpose of the law is the general
welfare of the people. They are enacted “ by who
are charged of society” because only those
legitimate authority to govern may pass laws.
Lawmaking bodies, often referred to as legislatures, consist of elected
representatives who create, amend, and repeal laws. The primary
lawmakers in many countries include:

1. Parliaments or Congresses: National legislative bodies, such as the

Congress (comprising the House of Representatives and the Senate).
2. State or Provincial Legislatures: In federal systems, state or provincial
legislatures create laws at a local level, like state assemblies.
3. Local Governments: City councils, county boards, or municipal
assemblies can enact ordinances and local laws.
4. Executive Authorities: In some systems, executives (like governors or
presidents) may have the power to propose laws or enact regulations.
5. International Bodies: Organizations like the United Nations can create
international treaties and agreements that member countries may adopt
into their laws.

Each of these entities has its own processes for lawmaking, including
drafting, debating, and voting on legislation.
KINDS OF LAW
1. Divine positive laws are those made known to men by
God like the Decalogue (Ten Commandments) given to
Moses. We also call them moral laws because they are
concerned with moral acts Violation of these laws
constitutes a sin.
2. Human positive Laws are those made by legitimate
human authority such as the laws enacted by the state or
the church. Human positive laws are intended to preserve
peace and order and to direct members to work towards
the common good. They may also have as their object the
moral acts. Violation of these laws constitute an illegal act.
The constitution and the civil code embody the laws of the
Philippines Cannon Laws embodies the laws of the catholic
church
3. Affirmative and Negative Laws: Both divine and
human positive law are either affirmative or negative
Affirmatives laws are those that require the performance
of an act, like that of giving respect to parents and that of
paying taxes when due.
Negatives laws are those that prohibit the performance
of an act, like the prohibition against smoking in
designated public places.
BINDING IN CONSCIENCE
Moral laws are those derive from natural law. They are
often viewed as universal principles that guide human
behavior, aligning with notions of right and wrong that
are "written" in the hearts of individuals.They regulate
thoughts and feelings, emphasizing the ethical
framework that underpins human interactions and
societal norms.
Moral laws are enforced by personal commitment
in the absence of the threat of corporal punishment
or sanctions. Moral laws are said to bind in
conscience, because they impose upon the person a
moral obligation to accept the law and comply with
it. Moral laws then are enforced by personal
conviction rather than by the threat of corporal
punishment.
On the other hand, human law regulate only the
external acts when these are manifested and
observed. They do not regulate thoughts and
feelings, for example, a person may not be arrested
for wanting to commit murder until such time when
he actually attempts it. Human laws do not bind in
conscience and are purely penal, that is, they are
enforced by police powers and justice is served
PROPERTIES OF A HUMAN LAWS
A human law; in order to be accepted as just, must
have the following properties:
1. Human laws must conform with divine laws
This is because all legitimate authority comes
from God. Therefore, no human authority may
contradict Gods will be manifested in the
natural law or divine positive laws.
2. Human laws must promote the common good.
The common Good is the communal benefit,
material and spiritual, necessary for the
promotion of human life. The common Good
consist in economic prosperity, peace and order,
health, education, and moral instruction of the
3.Human laws must not discriminate against
certain individuals or groups. It must apply
proportionately to all members of society so that
the needs of each one are served.
4. Human laws must be practicable. A law which
imposes undue hardships and sacrifices in its
compliance is not just.
5. Human laws must be flexible. It must provide
limits and define the basis for exceptions. Laws
are for the benefits of man, not for his
destruction.
6. A law must be amendable. The conditions and
reasons for a law do change. Therefore, a law
should be amendable.
THE End!!!!