Instructional Material

On

ETHICS

By:

Anthony B. Cantes
College of Education

Noted by: Accepted by:

JOEMAR N. PIHNUTON PhD. DESIREE GUME G. NAGPUHAN PhD.

BSE Program Chairperson COE, Dean

For Ifugao State University (IFSU) Use Only

Dear students:

This module/handouts is not totally my composition. I owe this much to experts though I have
been teaching this for quite a time but I do not claim authority. In this module, I have to make
some situational and real life experience mapping for better absorption on the message this
subject wanted to drive. Besides I have to search for resources in the library and internet
because there is a need for updated references since situations and experiences vary overtime.
Though principles remain the same but the environment of the current world is fast changing.
On the first part I cannot make changes or alter for it would be unjust and foolish to argue with
the theories of dead people in the long past and yet their concepts remain alive to this time.
Added to this are those still alive at present. It is your decision whether to accept them or not.
Our approach for the first part is historical in context. Secondly, most of the activities were not
totally borrowed but revised to apply in your context.
On the succeeding parts of the lesson since it is talking of ethics or morality in the social world,
you will notice some inclusions of my own life, of who I am as a person. I did this for I believe it
is the best way to let the message of the lesson get across to your consciousness. You may not
always believe since our life conditions were not the same. But this is supported by theories and
facts as you will soon notice in your module. But I hope and pray that after this semester and
beyond, both of us have a glimpse of understanding what ethics is in our relationship with
others and society most especially to our Divine Creator. Believe in yourself that you are
ethical/moral individuals and that you will move on to that ideal of what you can become since
for sure, not all of you will land in the teaching profession. But let your belief come into action
and to its fulfillment. Finally when you make your Electronic Mailing Address/ mail add make
sure to use your surname name first for easy recognition as I need it especially during
recording of your activities and examination results. God bless! For my email add you have it
below the undersigned. That is a combination of my palayaw and my wife’s name respectively.

Thank you!

Very truly yours,

Mr. Anthony B. Cantes

Instructor
e-mail add: tongem13@gmail.com.

The Vision, Mission, Goals, Objectives the Ifugao State University

VISION: A globally recognized University upholding excellence amidst rich cultural heritage

MISSION: Produce employable graduates who are morally upright, socially and culturally
responsible professionals through quality, relevant, and innovative instruction, research,
extension, and resource generation
For Core Values, goals and Objectives (Please read the Tarpaulin posted at main lobby of
the building.)

Source: https://ifsu.edu.ph/pageview/

Activity 1.

a) Group the students depending on their number for rhythmic group recitation on Vision
and Mission, Core Values, Goals and Objectives with pride and feelings as a student of
IFSU.
b) Write an individual reflection how as a student of IFSU can live up to the university’s
Vision, Mission, Goals and Objectives (VMGO).

Introduction to the course

Overview

Ethics, the philosophy of morality, we shall examine four important ethical theories (virtue
ethics, deontology, expressivism and utilitarianism), applying them to two practical issues: the
rights of man and animals and euthanasia. There will be plenty of opportunity to engage in
debate and test your own thinking.

In here we shall be considering questions of both practice like (Is lying wrong? Must we keep
our promises?), and theory (what makes an action wrong? Is it only human who worry about
morality? How do we apply moral theory to society?). We shall examine four important ethical
theories (Aristotle's virtue ethics, Kant's deontology, Hume's expressivism and Mill's
utilitarianism and of course other personalities concerned with ethical and moral behavior) and
we shall apply them to two practical questions: the rights of man/animals and euthanasia or
other complex issues of our lived experience. There will be plenty of opportunity to engage in
debate and to test your own moral theories.

In a nutshell, ethics together with morality serve as a compass giving directions “how we ought
to live”. We will be defining what is right and wrong, understanding ethical principles and
applying them with real world situations of our lived experiences. Next, we will ask
questions like: What is ethical conduct? Why is it important, What are the consequences of
unethical behavior?, and how can ethical dilemmas be resolved? So:

a. What is ethics?
It encompasses actions and behaviors that align with moral principles such as honesty,
fairness, and respect.
b. Why ethics is important
Ethical behavior builds trust, fosters positive relationship, creates a safe environment,
and contributes to a more just and equitable society.

Practical Application:

a. Identifying ethical dilemmas:

Student should be able to recognize situations that present ethical challenges and
require careful consideration.
b. Analyzing ethical dilemmas:
This involves understanding different perspectives, potential consequences, and
values at play in a given situation.
c. Resolving ethical dilemmas:
Students should be able to apply ethical frameworks and principles to make sound
judgment and find appropriate solutions
d. Consequences of unethical behavior:
 Understanding the potential negative impacts of dishonesty, cheating, and other
unethical actions is crucial
e. Modelling ethical behavior
Teachers play a vital role in demonstrating ethical conduct and encouraging students
to do the same.

Specific examples in education:

a. Fairness in grading:
Ensuring that assessment practices are equitable and transparent for all students.
b. Respect of diversity:
Creating a classroom environment that values and celebrate different backgrounds
and perspectives.
c. Academic integrity
Promoting scholarship and discouraging plagiarism and cheating.
d. Maintaining appropriate boundaries with students and colleagues, and upholding the
dignity of the teaching profession

By addressing these basic questions and exploring real-world examples, teachers can effectively
guide students in developing a strong ethical foundation.

Chapter I. General Concepts of Ethics

Objectives:

Define etymologically the meaning of ethics based from its original Greek and
Roman origin.
Differentiate formal, empirical and normative sciences.
Make a generalization on the concept of ethics and its role to daily human existence
in relation to fellowmen and environment.

Definition of Ethics
1. Ethics is the practical science of the morality of human actions.
2. Ethics is the scientific inquiry into the principles of morality.
3. Ethics is the science of human acts with reference to right or wrong.
4. Ethics is the study of human conduct from the standpoint of morality.
5. Ethics is the study of the rectitude of human conduct.
6. Ethics is the science which lays down the principle of right living.
7. According to Socrates, ethics is the investigation of life.

Ethics and Education

Education develops the whole man: his moral, intellectual and physical capabilities. Since
man, however, is primarily a rational being (endowed with reason and will, which ranks him
above brute or animal creation), the primary objective of education should be the development
of these powers in man, which consists his true perfection. This is recognized in our
constitution when it mentions “moral character” as the first and primary aim of all education.
“All schools should develop good moral character, personal discipline, civic, consciousness and
the like.”

A great educator, John Dewey said: “education is co-extensive with life.” With greater reason
and emphasis we can even say that ethics is the very science and art of human living, one that
gives life its direction, goal worth, and meaning. Ethics is both co-extensive such as exploring or
observing what is happening around and co-intensive through reflection based from the
observation with life.

Religion and Ethics

These are two closest in relation to human activity. This is evident from the following
consideration:

A) Both of these are based on the same postulates/assumptions:

1. The existence of a creator

2. Freedom of the will
3. Immorality

B) Both have the same end – the attainment of man’s supreme purpose or ultimate end.

C) Both prescribe the same means for attaining the goal of man: right living.

The importance of ethics

The importance of ethics follows immediately from the importance of ethics in itself.

1. Ethics means right living and good moral character and that man finds his true worth
and perfection. All the great teachers of the ages maintain that the supreme purpose
of human living lies not in the acquisition of material goods or bodily pleasures, nor
the attainment of bodily perfections such as health and strength; nor even in the
development of intellectual skills but in the development of the moral qualities which
lift man far above brute creation.
2. Education is the harmonious development of the whole person – of all man’s faculties:
moral, intellectual, and physical powers in man. Now the highest powers are his
reason and will. Hence, the primary objective of education is the moral development
of the will.

Unfortunately, this moral training that is most important in man is not given emphasis in
our educational system. Our schools train the head rather than the heart or the will. The result
is the unbalanced training evident in the products of our schools today. For example, if we are
going to trace the backgrounds of most corrupt officials of our government, many of them
graduated from our prime universities in the country and even abroad. Another saddening fact
is that the Philippines is the only Christian dominated country in Asia yet one of the most
corrupt and poorest. It implies that there must be something wrong, a challenge that
wholesome education can do something.

Knowledge is good, bodily health and strength are good, but first and above all – good
character.

In the words of George Washington, “morality and religion are two pillars to human
prosperity and happiness.”

3. According to Socrates, “the unexamined life is not worth living for man.” Now ethics, as
we know, is the very investigation of life. That is why Plato calls and considers ethics the
supreme science, the science par excellence, as it is this science that deals with the Summum
Bonum/highest good (words of St. Thomas), the supreme purpose of human living.

Ethics (Greek ethika, from ethos, “character,” “custom”), principles or standards of

human conduct, sometimes called morals (Latin mores, “customs”), and, by extension, the study
of such principles, sometimes called moral philosophy. This chapter is concerned with ethics
chiefly in the latter sense and is confined to that of Western civilization, although every culture
has developed an ethic of its own.

Ethics, as a branch of philosophy, is considered a normative science, because it is concerned

with norms of human conduct, as distinguished from the formal sciences, such as mathematics
and logic, and the empirical sciences, such as chemistry and physics. The empirical social
sciences, however, including psychology, impinge/impose to some extent on the concerns of
ethics in that they study social behavior. For example, the social sciences frequently attempt to
determine the relation of particular ethical principles to social behavior and to investigate the
cultural conditions that contribute to the formation of such principles. In such situation cultural
variations can at times overshadow the universal standard to give way to the particular
standard. Today for example, the government through its constitution recognizes and protects
the inherent rights of cultural communities. Specific institutions that overlook into this is the
National Commission on Indigenous Peoples (NCIP) and the United Nations Commission on
Human Rights (UNCHR).

Ethical Principles

Philosophers have attempted to determine goodness in conduct according to two chief

principles, and have considered certain types of conduct either good in themselves or good
because they conform to a particular moral standard. The former implies a final value, or
summum bonum (supreme/ultimate good), which is desirable in itself and not merely as a
means to an end. In the history of ethics there are three principal standards of conduct, each of
which has been proposed as the highest good namely: a) happiness or pleasure; b) duty, virtue,
or obligation; and c) perfection, the fullest harmonious development of human potential. On the
last principal standard, education plays a very crucial role.

Depending on the social setting, the authority invoked for good conduct is the will of a deity,
the pattern of nature, or the rule of reason.

a) When the will of a deity is the authority, obedience to the divine commandments in
scriptural texts is the accepted standard of conduct.
b) If the pattern of nature is the authority, conformity to the qualities attributed to
human nature is the standard.
c) When reason rules, behavior is expected to result from rational thought.

Prudence, pleasure or power

Sometimes principles are chosen whose ultimate value is not determined, in the belief that such
a determination is impossible. Such ethical philosophy usually equates satisfaction in life with
prudence, pleasure, or power, but it is basically derived from belief in the ethical doctrine of
natural human fulfillment as the ultimate good.

A person lacking motivation to exercise preference may be resigned to accepting all

customs and therefore may develop a philosophy of prudence. He or she then lives in
conformity with the moral conduct of the period and society. For example, if I decide to transfer
residence anywhere then I have to conform/follow the customs and practice of my host
community. I cannot impose my very own at the start.
Hedonism is that philosophy in which the highest good is pleasure. The hedonist decides
between the most enduring pleasures or the most intense pleasures, whether present pleasures
should be denied for the sake of overall comfort, and whether mental pleasures are preferable
to physical pleasures. Example, would I give in to the invitation of my friends for a drinking
spree and enjoy life with them (intense pleasure) or promptly refuse their invitation and
concentrate on my studies and enjoy my life at the right time in the future (enduring pleasure)?

A philosophy in which the highest attainment is power may result to competition. Because each
victory tends to raise the level of the competition, the logical end of such a philosophy is
unlimited or absolute power. Power seekers may not accept customary ethical rules but may
conform to other rules that can help them become successful. They will seek to persuade others
that they are moral in the accepted sense of the term in order to mask their power motives and
to gain the ordinary rewards of morality. This can be further subdivided into two: the
aggressive power and the subservient aggressive power. Between the two, the latter is more
dangerous, complicated and difficult to detect. Although anyone can employ both in an
opportune time on separate situation.

Example:

a) During political campaigns, it is not really a competition of the brains but more of a
competition of the means although I do not generalize since politics in Ifugao is generally
peaceful. In the Philippines, it is a common observation that politicians who have the 3Gs
(gold, glamor and goons) will have the power/glory. Thus, we come up with this equation:
3Gs = P. They will always use these means to be on top of the competition. It is very rare
that a dark horse politician emerge victorious. These is aggressive power.
b) Meanwhile, subservient aggressive power is a subtle mechanism employed to be on top
of the other. When one is in power, others would like to join or share with that power.
Others have different intention, to grab that power in order to replace the one in power
(as on the case of the leftists). For purposes of describing subservient aggressive power
is employed by individuals/group to get the attention of one already in power with their
well-designed agenda.

For example, during the campaign period they keep on attacking the one who is
now in power. If they got lost, they wanted to ally themselves with him employing any
subtle means to gain or win his favors. They are the political turncoats (balimbing). There
are other kinds but generally are individuals who race to be on top. They do anything to
get attention and eventually win favors from their target. In our contemporary society, a
lot will use their connections to advance their interests. Example, getting political leaders
or persons with distinguished position to be a padrino or padrina in a wedding or
baptism. Or just doing anything at the request of one in authority to win his favors.
Successfully achieving their ends entails economic and social standing. These are the
socially insecure persons seeking immediate promotion (sipsip). Subservient aggressive
power is very dangerous than aggressive power because of the fact that once they do not
get what they want or other factors can turn against the one in power.

Activities

1. Illustrate the similarity between ethics and morality.

 2. Delineate the differences between normative, formal and empirical sciences.
3. Explain why ethics is so important in the conduct of our daily life?

Chapter 2. History of Ethics

Objectives:

Make a historical sketch how ethics developed in ancient times.

Make a critique how early Greeks developed their own norms of human
acts.

Compare and contrast the ethical standards between Socrates, Plato

and Aristotle.
As long as people have been living together in groups, the moral regulation of behavior
Synthesize the seemingly
has been necessary opposing
to the group's ethical Although
well-being. standards of morals
the the giants
wereofformalized and made
philosophy
into arbitrary in early Greece
standards notably
of conduct, Socrates,
they may notPlato and Aristotle.
be always perfect and are irrational, after
religious taboos were violated, or out of chance behavior that became habit and then custom, or
from laws imposed by chiefs to prevent disharmony in their tribes. In ancient China the maxims
of Confucius were accepted as a moral code. The Greek philosophers, beginning about the 6th
century B.C., theorized intensively about moral behavior, which led to the further development
of philosophical ethics.

Early Greek Ethics

In the 6th century BC the Greek philosopher Pythagoras developed one of the earliest moral
philosophies from the Greek mystery religion Orphism. Believing that the intellectual nature is
superior to the sensual nature and that the best life is one devoted to mental discipline. The
rule emphasize simple speech, dress, and food.

In the 5th century BC the Greek philosophers known as Sophists, who taught rhetoric, logic, and
civil affairs, were skeptical of moral absolutes. The Sophist Protagoras taught that human
judgment is subjective, and that one's perception is valid only for oneself (what is true to you is
for you alone.) The Sophist Gorgias went to the extreme of arguing that nothing exists; that if
anything does exist, human beings could not know it; and that if they did know it, they could not
communicate that knowledge. Other Sophists, such as Thrasymachus, believed that might
makes right. Socrates opposed the Sophists. His philosophical position, as represented in the
dialogues of his pupil Plato, may be summarized as follows: virtue is knowledge; people will be
virtuous if they know what virtue is; and vice, or evil, is the result of ignorance. Thus, according
to Socrates, education can make people moral.

Later Greek School of Ethics

Later Greek schools of moral philosophy were derived from the teachings of Socrates. Four
such schools originated among his immediate disciples: the Cynics, the Cyrenaics, the
Megarians (a school founded by Euclid of Megara), and the Platonists.
 A. Cynics

The Cynics, notably the philosopher Antisthenes, maintained that the essence of virtue,
the only good, is self-control and that it is capable of being taught. The Cynics disdained
pleasure as an evil, if accepted as a guide to conduct. They considered all pride a vice, including
pride in appearance or cleanliness. Socrates is reputed to have said to Antisthenes, “I can see
your pride through the holes in your cloak.”

B. Cyrenaics

The Cyrenaics, notably Aristippus of Cyrene, were hedonists, postulating pleasure as

the chief good (as long as it does not dominate one's life), that no one kind of pleasure is
superior to another, and that it is measurable only in degree and duration.

C. The Megarians, Euclid's followers, posited that although good may be called wisdom,
God, or reason, it is “one,” and that good is the final secret of the universe, which can be
revealed only through logical inquiry.
D. Plato

According to Plato, good is an essential element of reality. Evil does not exist but an
imperfect reflection of the real, which is good. In his Dialogues (first half of the 4th century BC)
he maintains that human virtue lies in the fitness of a person to perform that person's proper
function in the world. The human soul has three elements—intellect, will, and emotion—each of
which possesses a specific virtue in the good person and performs a specific role. The virtue of
intellect is wisdom, or knowledge of the ends of life; that of the will is courage, the capacity to
act; and that of the emotions is temperance, or self-control. The ultimate virtue, justice, is the
harmonious relation of all the others, each part of the soul doing its appropriate task and
keeping its proper place. Plato maintained that the intellect should be sovereign, the will
second, and the emotions subject to intellect and will. The just person, whose life is ordered in
this way, is therefore the good person.

E. Aristotle

Aristotle, Plato's pupil, regarded happiness as the aim of life. In his principal work on
ethics, the Nicomachean Ethics (late 4th century BC), he defined happiness as activity that
accords with the specific nature of humanity; pleasure accompanies such activity but is not its
chief aim. Happiness results from the unique human attribute of reason, functioning
harmoniously with human faculties. Aristotle held that virtues are essentially good habits, and
that to attain happiness a person must develop two kinds of habits: those of mental activity,
such as knowledge, which lead to the highest human activity, contemplation; and those of
practical action and emotion, such as courage. Moral virtues are habits of action that conform
to the golden mean, the principle of moderation, and they must be flexible because of
differences among people and conditioning factors. For example, the amount one should eat
depends on one's size, age, and occupation. In general, Aristotle defines the mean as being
between the two extremes of excess and insufficiency; thus, generosity is the mean between
prodigality and stinginess. For Aristotle, the intellectual and the moral virtues are merely
means toward the attainment of happiness, which results from the full realization of human
potential. We shall be discussing this later when we get the principles of morality.

F. Stoicism

The philosophy of Stoicism developed about 300 BC, during the Hellenistic and Roman
periods. In Greece the principal Stoic philosophers were Zeno of Citium, Cleanthes, and
Chrysippus of Soli. In Rome, Stoicism proved to be the most popular of the Greek philosophies,
and Cicero was among the famous Romans who came under its influence. Its principal figures
during the Roman period were the Greek philosopher Epictetus and the Roman emperor and
philosopher Marcus Aurelius. According to the Stoics, nature is orderly and rational, and only a
life led in harmony with nature can be good. The Stoic philosophers, however, agreed also that
because life is influenced by material circumstances one should try to be as independent of
such circumstances as possible. The practice of certain cardinal virtues, such as practical
wisdom, courage, discretion, and justice, enables one to achieve independence in the spirit of
the Stoic motto “Endure and renounce.” Hence, the word stoic has come to mean fortitude in
the face of hardship.

G. Epicureanism.

In the 4th and 3rd centuries BC, the Greek philosopher Epicurus developed a system of
thought, later called Epicureanism, which identified the highest good with pleasure, particularly
intellectual pleasure, and, like Stoicism, advocated a temperate and even an ascetic life devoted
to contemplative pursuits. The Epicureans sought to achieve pleasure by maintaining a state of
serenity—that is, by eliminating all emotional disturbances. They considered religious beliefs
and practices harmful because they preoccupy one with disturbing thoughts of death and the
uncertainty of life after death. The Epicureans also held that it is better to postpone immediate
pleasure in order to attain more secure and lasting satisfaction in the future; they therefore
insisted that the good life must be regulated by self-discipline.

Activities 1: a) In a tabular form, make a sketch most especially that of Socrates, Plato and
Aristotle about their concepts of ethics. 15 points

Philosoph Theme His concepts

ers
Socrates “An unexamined life is
not worth living”
Plato “Good is an essential
element of reality”
Aristotle Nichomachean
1. b) Also in a tabular form do the same with the later Greek philosophers of ethics. 15
points

Schools of Their concepts

thought
Sophists
Stoics
Epicureans
Chapter 3: Christian Ethics

Objectives:

1. Evaluate the developments of Christian ethics that made a

strong appeal and acceptance among the pagans in early
Greece.

2. Illustrate how Christianity revolutionized ethics in becoming

the norm of conduct in the western world.
The ethical systems of the classical age were applied to the aristocracy, particularly in Greece.
The same standards were not extended to non-Greeks, and the term for them, barbaroi
(“barbarians”), acquired derogatory connotations. As for slaves, the attitude toward them can
be summed up in Aristotle's characterization of a slave as a “living tool” Something we can just
use. Partly for these reasons, as the pagan religions decayed, the contemporary philosophies
did not gain any popular following, and much of the appeal of Christianity was its extension of
moral citizenship to all, even to slaves.

The coming of Christianity marked a revolution in ethics. It introduced a religious conception of

good into Western thought. In the Christian view, a person is totally dependent upon God and
cannot achieve goodness by means of will or intelligence but only with the help of God's grace.
The primary Christian ethical belief is stated in the golden rule, “So whatever you wish that
men would do to you, do so to them” (Matthew 7:12); in the injunctions to love one's neighbor
as oneself (see Leviticus 19:18) and to love one's enemies (see Matthew 5:44); and in Jesus'
saying, “Render therefore to Caesar the things that are Caesar's, and to God the things that are
God's” (Matthew 22:21). Jesus believed that the essential meaning of Jewish law is in the
commandment “you shall love the Lord your God with all your heart, and with all your soul, and
with all your strength, and with all your mind; and your neighbor as yourself” (Luke 10:27).

Early Christianity emphasized virtues of asceticism, martyrdom, faith, mercy, forgiveness, and
non-erotic love, few of which had been considered important by the philosophers of classical
Greece and Rome.

Activity: 20 pts

In an essay, defend how Christian ethics became appealing among

pagans of Greece? Point out the historical background how did early
Greece treated non Greeks who were residents of the Roman Empire?

Pre- Test

Instruction: This activity is intended to measure how far you have absorbed learnings
in our previous lessons.
O O O O 1. Who said that good is an essential element of reality and evil does not exist in itself
but just an imperfect reflection of the real which is good?
A. Socrates C. Aristotle
B. Plato D. Augustine
O O O O 2. Which work of Plato maintains that human virtue lies in the fitness of a person to
perform his proper function in the world?
A. Academy C. Philosopher King
B. Dialogues D. Allegory of the cave
O O O O3. What was the principal work of Aristotle on ethics?
A. Rerum Novarum C. Epicureanism
B. Nichomachean ethics D. Summa Theologica
O O O O4. He was the famous Roman orator greatly influenced by stoicism.
A. Plutarch C. Cicero
B. Mark Anthony D. Cato
O O O O 5. Who was this roman philosopher and emperor influenced by stoicism?
A. Augustus Caesar C. Nero
B. Constantine D. Marcus Aurelius
O O O O 6. What is the motto of the stoics?
A. Drink and be merry for tomorrow we shall die
B. Live life to the fullest
C. Endure and renounce
D. Avoid pain and enjoy pleasure
O O O O 7. It is a view that a person is totally dependent upon God and cannot achieve
goodness by means of will or intelligence but only with the help of God's grace.
A. Shintoism C. Zoroastranism
B. Buddhism D. Christianity
O O O O 8. He was the founder of Epicureanism.
A. Epictitus C. Zeno
B. Epicurus D. Euclid
O O O O 9. This ethical philosophy identified the highest good with pleasure particularly
intellectual pleasure.
A. Stoicism C. Sophism
B. Hedonism D. Epicureanism
O O O O 10. He regarded happiness as the aim of life.
A. Aristotle C. Plato
B. Socrates D. Augustine
O O O O11. Defined by Aristotle the situation between the two extremes of excess and
insufficiency.
A. mean C. mode
B. median D. ordinal
O O O O12. The principal Roman exponent of Epicureanism was the poet and philosopher,
whose poem De Rerum Natura (On the Nature of Things).
A. Cato C. Cicero
B. Lucretius D. Marcus Aurelius
O O O O 13. What group of Philosophers said: nature is orderly and rational, and only a life led
in harmony with nature can be good.
A. Sophist
B. Hedonist
 C. Stoics
D. Epicureans
O O O O 14. Which of the three elements of the human soul: intellect, will and emotion perform
a specific role, which is for wisdom or knowledge of the ends of life?
A. Intellect C. Emotion
B. Will
O O O O 15. Which one of the three elements has the capacity to act?
A. Intellect C. Emotion
B. Will

Chapter 4: Ethics of the Church Fathers

Objectives:

Assess how St. Augustine integrated the pagan concept of ethics of

Plato to that of the Christian concept.

Illustrate how St. Thomas harmonized Aristotleanism and was made

a basis for the authority of the Church Fathers.

Demonstrate how ethics in the medieval period influenced literary

expressions.
Christian Ethics started as a rivalry against Manichaeism of Persia which held that good
andJustify if theand
evil (light concept of purgatory
darkness) and inferno
were opposite forces or hell remains
struggling intact Saint Augustine,
for mastery.
to this as
regarded day.the founder of Christian theology, was originally a Manichaean but abandoned
Manichaeism after being influenced by Platonic thought. After his conversion to Christianity in
387, he sought to integrate the Platonic view with the Christian concept of goodness as an
attribute of God and sin as Adam's fall, from the guilt of which a person is redeemed by God's
mercy. Surprisingly, St. Augustine was once an inveterate/hardened sinner before his
conversion to Christianity.

During the late Middle Ages the Christian theologian Saint Thomas Aquinas succeeded in
reconciling Aristotelianism (sense experience) with the authority of the church by
acknowledging the truth of sense experience but holding it to be complementary to the truth of
faith. The great intellectual authority of Aristotle was thus made to serve the authority of the
church, and the Aristotelian logic was used to support the Augustinian concepts of original sin
and redemption through divine grace. This synthesis is the substance of Aquinas's major work,
Summa Theologica (1265-1273).

Ethics and Penance

Penance is an imposed or self-imposed atonement/amendment of ones’ sin.

As the medieval church grew more powerful, a juridical system of ethics evolved, apportioning
punishment for sin and reward for virtue in life after death. The most important virtues were
humility, continence/abstinence, benevolence, and obedience; inwardness, or goodness of spirit,
was indispensable to morality. All actions, both good and bad, were graded by the church, and a
system of temporal penance was instituted as atonement for sins.
 The ethical beliefs of the medieval church received literary expression in The Divine
Comedy by Dante, who was influenced by the philosophies of Plato, Aristotle, and Aquinas. In
the section of The Divine Comedy called “Inferno,” Dante classifies sins under three main
headings, each with a number of subdivisions. In increasing order of evil he places sins of:

1) incontinence (sensual or emotional sins);

2) violence or brutishness (sins of will); and
3) fraud or malice (sins of intellect).

Plato's three faculties of the soul are repeated in their original order of importance, and the sins
are regarded as corruptions in one or another of the three faculties.

Activity: 20 pts.

1. Make a summary how St. Augustine integrated Plato’s

concept into Christian ethics to that of Thomas’ harmonizing
Aristotleanism as basis of authority for the Church Fathers.

2. Make a demonstration by citing some examples how ethics of

medieval period influenced art and literary expressions.
(Consider your subject in Humanities. It is a very good
background in answering this activity)

Chapter 5: Ethics of the Reformation

Objectives:

Make a critique on how Christian Doctrines and ethics made a shift

during the reformation.

Justify the claims of some Christians that salvation comes by faith

alone.

Illustrate the validity of the claims of Calvinism (Puritans) that

poverty is either
5.1. Martin a punishment for sin or evidence that one did not
Luther
have God’s grace.
5.1. Martin Luther
Evaluate what could be the positive impact of Calvin’s doctrine in
thisThe
materialistic
influence ofworld.
Christian ethical beliefs and practices diminished during the
Renaissance. The Protestant Reformation effected a widespread return to basic principles
within the Christian tradition, changing the emphasis on certain ideas and introducing new
ones. According to Martin Luther, goodness of spirit is the essence of Christian piety. Moral
conduct, or good works, is required of the Christian, but justification, or salvation, comes by
faith alone. Luther himself married, and celibacy ceased to be required of the Protestant clergy.

5.2 . John Calvin

The French Protestant theologian and religious reformer John Calvin, (his members
were later called as Puritans) accepted the theological doctrine that justification is by faith
alone, and also upheld the Augustinian doctrine of original sin. They went on to include
advocacy of sobriety, diligence, thrift, and lack of ostentation; they regarded contemplation as
mere laziness. They looked poverty either as punishment for sin or evidence that one did not
have God's grace. The Puritans believed that only the elect could expect salvation. They
considered themselves elect but could not be sure unless they were given a sign. They believed
their way of life was ethically correct and that it led to worldly prosperity. Prosperity was
accepted as the sign. Goodness came to be associated with wealth, and poverty with evil; not to
succeed in one's calling seemed to be clear indication that the approval of God was being
withheld. The behavior that once was believed to lead to sanctity led the descendants of the
Puritans to worldly wealth.

5.3. Hugo Grotius

During the period Reformation (better known as Protestant Revolution), individual

responsibility was considered more important than obedience to authority or tradition. This
change of emphasis, which indirectly led to the development of modern secular ethics, is to be
seen in the De Jure Belli et Pacis (The Law of War and Peace, 1625) by the Dutch jurist,
theologian, and statesman Hugo Grotius. Although the work adheres to some of the doctrines of
Saint Thomas Aquinas, it deals with people's political and civil duties in the spirit of ancient
Roman law. Grotius argued that natural law is a part of divine law and is based on human
nature, which exhibits a desire for peaceful association with others and a tendency to follow
general principles in conduct. Therefore, society itself is properly based on natural law.

Activity: In a tabular form illustrate the contribution of Christian ethics in the western world.
10 pts.

Christian Personalities Ethical doctrine/contribution

Religion
Catholic St. Augustine
St. Thomas
Aquinas
Protestant Martin Luther

John Calvin

Hugo Grotius
Objectives:

Make a critique on Hobbe’s Leviathan in relation to what is

happening
Chapter in today’s
6: Modern, political landscape?
Contemporary and Secular Ethical Philosophies

Defend the rationality of letting go of one’s individual freedom in

behalf of the benefit of the majority especially in this time of
pandemic.
 6.1. Thomas Hobbes

6.1. Thomas Hobbes

In his Leviathan (1651), the English philosopher Thomas Hobbes gave greatest importance to
organized society and political power. He argued that human life in the “state of nature” (apart
from or before the institution of the civil state) is “solitary, poor, nasty, brutish, and short,” and
that it is “a war of all against all.” Consequently, people seek security by entering into a social
contract in which each person's original power is yielded to a sovereign, who regulates conduct
– the state.

This conservative position in politics assumes that human beings are evil and need a strong
state or ruler to repress them. However, if a ruler does not provide security and order and is
overthrown by the people, they return to the state of nature and then may make a new contract.
Hobbes's Social Contract influenced the thought of the English philosopher John Locke. In his
Two Treatises on Civil Government (1690) Locke maintained, however, that the purpose of
the social contract is to reduce the absolute power of authority and to promote
individual liberty.

6.2. Baruch Spinoza

For Dutch Philosopher Baruch Spinoza, he said that human reason is the criterion of right
conduct. In his major work, Ethica Ordine Geometrico Demonstrata (1677; Ethics Demonstrated
with Geometrical Order), Spinoza deduced ethics from psychology and psychology from
metaphysics. He asserted that all things are morally neutral from the point of view of eternity;
only human needs and interests determine what is considered good and evil, or right and
wrong. Anything that helps humanity's knowledge of nature or is agreeable with human reason
is acknowledged as good. Since it is reasonable to suppose that whatever all people have in
common is best for everyone, the good that people should seek for others is the good they
desire for themselves. In addition, reason is needed in order to keep the passions in check and
to achieve pleasure and happiness by avoiding pain. It is like saying, “if you do not like to be
punished then avoid committing crime, just follow the law.” The highest human state, according
to Spinoza, is the “intellectual love of God” derived from intuitive/spontaneous understanding, a
faculty higher than ordinary reason. By the proper use of this faculty a person may contemplate
the entire mental and physical universe and view it as comprising an infinite substance, which
Spinoza terms God.

6.3. Isaac Newton

Newton’s Laws influence on ethics

 The laws are: (1) Every object moves in a straight line unless acted upon by a force. (2)
The acceleration of an object is directly proportional to the net force exerted and inversely
proportional to the object's mass. (3) For every action, there is an equal and opposite reaction.
https://www.google.com/search?client=firefox-b-d&q=newton%27s+law+of+motion

Most major scientific discoveries have affected ethics. The discoveries of Isaac Newton,
the 17th-century English natural philosopher, provide one of the earliest and clearest examples
of such an effect. Newton's laws were taken generally as evidence of a divine order that is
rational. Contemporary thinking in this regard was expressed succinctly by the English poet
Alexander Pope in the line, “God said, Let Newton be! and all was light.” Newton's discoveries
caused philosophers to gain confidence in an ethical system as rational and orderly as nature
was assumed to be.

Activities: 20 points (Answer the two)

1. In an essay, illustrate the very concept of Hobbes’ Leviathan

and make comparison whether it is still in practice today.
2. Make a position statement on this phrase by Lord Acton:
“Power corrupts, absolute power corrupts absolutely” and
relate it to Newton’s law of motion.

Chapter 7: Ethical Philosophies before Darwinism

Objectives:

Demonstrate the implication of family upbringing in relation to

one’s social association with a bigger society.

Relate the necessary connection of desire to human actions

towards attainment of a desired goal.

Appreciate the value of obedience, cooperation and justice.

7.1. David Hume and Adam Smith

During the 18th century the British philosopher David Hume, in Essays Moral and
Political (1741-1742), and Scottish philosopher and economist Adam Smith, in his Theory of
Moral Sentiments (1759), formulated similarly subjective ethical systems. They identified
the good with what evoked feelings of satisfaction and the bad with what evoked painful
feelings. According to Hume and Smith, ideas of morality and public interest originate in the
feelings of sympathy people bear toward one another even when not bound by kinship or other
direct ties.

7.2. Jean Jacques Rousseau

In Europe, the French philosopher and novelist Jean Jacques Rousseau, in his
Social Contract (1762), accepted Hobbes's theory of a social contract. However Rousseau in his
novel Émile (1762) and other works, attributed evil to social maladjustments and held that
humans were by nature good. Way back in Britain, the anarchist, philosopher, novelist, and
political economist William Godwin developed this idea to its logical extreme in his Enquiry
Concerning Political Justice (1793), which rejected all social institutions, including that of the
state, on the grounds that their mere existence is the source of evil. A question may arise and
try to analyze this: Which is better, to have a government or institution even at its worst or no
government at all?

The ethical and political doctrine known as utilitarianism was formulated by the British
philosopher Jeremy Bentham toward the end of the 18th century and later expounded by the
British philosopher James Mill and his son, John Stuart Mill. In his Introduction to the Principles
of Morals and Legislation (1789), Bentham explained the principle of utility as a means of
augmenting the happiness of the community. He believed that all human actions are motivated
by a desire to obtain pleasure and avoid pain. Utilitarian hedonism is universal in scope while
Epicurean hedonism is self-centered. In utilitarianism, its highest good is the greatest
happiness of the greatest number of people.

7.3. Georg Wilhelm Friedrich Hegel

The German philosopher Georg Wilhelm Friedrich Hegel, in his Grundlinien der
Philosophie des Rechts (Foundations of the Philosophy of Right, 1821), accepted Kant's
categorical imperative, but included it in a universal evolutionary theory in which all history is
regarded as a series of stages leading toward the manifestation of a fundamental reality that is
both spiritual and rational. Morality, according to Hegel, is not the result of a social contract,
but a natural growth, arising in the family and culminating, historically, in the Prussian state of
his time. He wrote, the history of the world, “is the discipline of the uncontrolled natural will,
bringing it into obedience to a universal principle and conferring subjective freedom.”

7.4. Soren Kierkegaard

The Danish philosopher and theologian Søren Kierkegaard reacted strongly against
Hegel's system. In Either-Or (1843), Kierkegaard expressed his major ethical concern, the
problem of choice. He believed that philosophical systems such as Hegel's obscure this crucial
problem by making it seem an objective matter capable of a universal solution, rather than a
subjective one that each person must confront individually. Kierkegaard's own choice was to
live within the framework of Christian ethics. His emphasis on the necessity of choice
influenced several philosophers associated with the movement known as existentialism, as well
as a number of Christian and Jewish philosophers.

Activity: Choose 1 only

1. Using nature and nurture concept, explain what is the

implication of this to have a human society? ( Reflect on the
song: Teach your Children Well: link
https://www.google.com/search?client=firefox-b-
Objectives:
d&q=teach+your+children+well+lyric
2. the
Justify Make connections
validity of desired
of Charles human
Darwin’s actions
theory to thatas
of evolution law
it of
Chapter 8:to
applied Ethics
ethicssince Darwin as well as social.
for individual

Make a position whether to approve the Darwinian thesis on survival

of the fittest as a basic law of nature.

Make a critical analysis on Kropotkin’s theory of anarchy as the

 8.1. Charles Darwin

8.1. Charles Darwin

He advanced Newton’s theory of evolution. Darwin's findings provided documentary support for
the system, sometimes termed evolutionary ethics, propounded by the British philosopher
Herbert Spencer, according to whom morality is merely the result of certain habits acquired by
humanity in the course of evolution. A startling but logical elaboration of the Darwinian thesis
that survival of the fittest is a basic law of nature was advanced by the German philosopher
Friedrich Nietzsche, who held that so-called moral conduct is necessary only for the weak.
Moral conduct—especially such as was advocated in Jewish and Christian ethics, which in his
view is a slave ethic—tends to allow the weak to inhibit the self-realization of the strong.
According to Nietzsche, every action should be directed toward the development of the
superior individual, or Übermensch (“superman”), who will be able to realize the most noble
possibilities of life. Nietzsche found this ideal individual best exemplified in the persons of
ancient Greek philosophers before Plato and of military dictators such as Julius Caesar and
Napoleon. Addendum: it is not only Napoleon but Hitler, Stalin and other dictators of the world
that followed.

8.2. Prince Pyotr Kropotkin

In opposition to the concept of ruthless and unremitting struggle as the basic law of nature, the
Russian social reformer and philosopher Prince Pyotr Kropotkin, among others, presented
studies of animal behavior in nature demonstrating mutual aid. Kropotkin asserted that the
survival of species is furthered by mutual aid and that humans have attained primacy among
animals in the course of evolution through their capacity for cooperation. Kropotkin expounded
his ideas in a number of works, among them Mutual Aid, A Factor in Evolution (1890-1902) and
Ethics, Origin and Development (posthumously published, 1924). In the belief that governments
are based on force and that if they are eliminated the cooperative instincts of people would
spontaneously lead to a cooperative order, Kropotkin advocated anarchism.

8.3. Anthropology and Ethics

Anthropologists applied evolutionary principles to the study of human societies and cultures.
These studies reemphasized the different concepts of right and wrong held by different
societies; therefore, it was believed, most such concepts had a relative rather than universal
validity. Outstanding among ethical concepts based on an anthropological approach are those of
the Finnish anthropologist Edvard A. Westermarck in Ethical Relativity (1932).

8.4. Sigmund Freud

Psychoanalysis. Modern ethics is profoundly affected by the psychoanalysis of Sigmund Freud
and his followers and the behaviorist doctrines based on the conditioned-reflex discoveries of
the Russian physiologist Ivan Pavlov. Freud attributed the problem of good and evil in each
individual to the struggle between the drive of the instinctual self to satisfy all its desires and
the necessity of the social self to control or repress most of these impulses in order for
the individual to function in society. Although Freud's influence has not been assimilated
completely into ethical thinking, Freudian depth psychology has shown that guilt, often sexual,
underlies much thinking about good and evil.

The core idea at the center of psychoanalysis is the belief that all people possess unconscious
thoughts, feelings, desires, and memories.

Behaviorism, through observation of animal behavior (S-R/stimulus response), strengthened

beliefs in the power to change human nature by arranging conditions favorable to the desired
changes. The greatest influence, however, was on thinking in the former Union of Soviet
Socialist Republics. There, the so-called new Soviet citizen was developed according to
behaviorist principles through the conditioning power of the rigidly controlled Soviet society.
Soviet ethics defined good as whatever is favorable to the state and bad as everything opposed
to it.

8.5. William James

In his late 19th-century and early 20th-century writings, the American philosopher and
psychologist William James anticipated Freud and Pavlov to some extent. James is best known
as the founder of pragmatism, which maintains that the value of ideas is determined by their
consequences. His greatest contribution to ethical theory, however, lies in his insistence on the
importance of interrelationships, in ideas as in other phenomena.

Activity:
1. Develop a short essay and give its implication. Guide questions:
What happens if all were developed to be superior? What kind of
world we should have? Do you think those people who thought
they were superior do not have any weaknesses? Is there such one
called perfect human being? Do you find Nietzsche a lunatic
individual? Why did he thought that way? What was his family
background and life experiences as a person?
2. Make a position paper. Guide questions: How sure is Kropotkin
that if a government based on force is eliminated the cooperative
instinct of the people will automatically work? How can you
explain this based on the law of nature? Do you think anarchism of
Learning Objectives:
government sustainable?
3. Develop a short ethical statement on the following questions. Is it
Compose an eclectic essay harmonizing ethical principles for
Chapter 9: Trends
individuals basedinfrom
Ethical
the Philosophy
theories of theistic existentialists.

Justify the relevance of the atheistic existentialists’ theories today in

making ethical decisions.

Make a contact tracing on the 20th century situation that influenced

the thinking of the theist and atheist existentialists.
 The British philosopher Bertrand Russell has influenced ethical thinking in recent decades. A
vigorous critic of conventional/conservative morality, he held the view that moral judgments
express individual desires or accepted habits. In his thinking, both the ascetic saint and the
detached sage are poor human models because they are incomplete human beings. Complete
human beings participate fully in the life of society and express all of their nature. Some
impulses must be checked in the interests of society and others in the interest of individual
development, but it is a person's relatively unimpeded natural growth and self-realization that
makes for the good life and harmonious society.

9. 1. Theists Existentialists

A number of 20th-century philosophers, some of whom have espoused the theories of

existentialism, have been concerned with the problems of individual ethical choice raised by
Kierkegaard and Nietzsche. The orientation of some of these thinkers is religious, as was that of
the Russian philosopher Nikolay Aleksandrovich Berdyayev, who emphasized freedom of the
individual spirit; of the Austrian-Jewish philosopher Martin Buber, who was concerned with
the morality of relations between individuals; of the German American Protestant theologian
Paul Tillich, who stressed the courage to be oneself; and of the French Catholic philosopher
and dramatist Gabriel Marcel and the German Protestant philosopher and psychiatrist Karl
Jaspers, both of whom were concerned with the uniqueness of the individual and the
importance of communication between individuals. A different tendency in modern ethical
thought characterizes the writings of the French philosophers Jacques Maritain and Étienne
Gilson, who followed the tradition of Thomas Aquinas. According to Maritain, “true
existentialism” belongs only to this tradition.

9.2. Atheistic Existentialists

Certain other modern philosophers do not accept any of the traditional religions. The
German philosopher Martin Heidegger maintains that no God exists, although one may come
into being in the future. Human beings are, therefore, alone in the universe and must make
their ethical decisions with the constant awareness of death. The French philosopher and
novelist Jean-Paul Sartre was an atheist who also emphasized the awareness of death. He also
maintained that people have an ethical responsibility to involve themselves in the social and
political activities of their time.

Several other modern philosophers, such as the American John Dewey, have been
concerned with ethical thought from the viewpoint of instrumentalism. According to Dewey, the
good is that which is chosen after reflecting upon both the means and the probable
consequences of realizing the good. Contemporary philosophical discussion of ethics in England
and the United States is largely based on the writings of George Edward Moore, especially his
Principia Ethica. Moore argued that ethical terms are definable in terms of the word good,
whereas “good” is undefinable. This is so because goodness is a simple, unanalyzable quality.
Philosophers who disagree with Moore in this regard, and who believe good to be definable, are
termed naturalists. Moore is called an intuitionist. Naturalists and intuitionists regard ethical
sentences as descriptive of the world, and hence true or false. Philosophers who disagree with
this belong to a third major school, noncognitivism, in which ethics is not a form of knowledge,
and ethical language is not descriptive. An important branch of the noncognitive school is
logical empiricism, which questions the validity of ethical statements as compared with
statements of fact or of logic. Some logical empiricists argue that ethical statements have only
emotional or persuasive significance. Other contemporary American philosophers writing to
indicate a concern with ethical considerations are Sidney Hook in his Human Values and
Economic Policy (1967) and Mortimer Adler in The Conditions of Philosophy (1965).

Activities:

Make a summary on ethical principles of existentialists’ theories

vis-à-vis theistic and atheistic theories.

Justify the relevance of noncognitivism/logical empiricism on

ethical discourse.

Chapter 10: Fundamentals of Ethics

Objectives:
Understand the technical terms commonly used in ethics.
Determine the essential application of ethics in everyday life.
Demonstrate the interconnectivity of ethics particularly on education
and religion.
Make your own interpretation on Washington’s statement on ethics.
Definition of Ethics
1. Ethics is the practical science of the morality of human actions.
2. Ethics is the scientific inquiry into the principles of morality.
3. Ethics is the science of human acts with reference to right or wrong.
4. Ethics is the study of human conduct from the standpoint of morality.
5. Ethics is the study of the rectitude of human conduct.
6. Ethics is the science which lays down the principle of right living.
7. According to Socrates, ethics is the investigation of life.

Ethics and Education

Education develops the whole man: his moral, intellectual and physical capabilities. Since
man, however, is primarily a rational being (endowed with reason and will, which ranks him
above brute or animal creation), the primary objective of education should be the development
of these powers in man, which consists his true perfection. This is recognized in our
constitution when it mentions “moral character” as the first and primary aim of all education.
“All schools should develop good moral character, personal discipline, civic, consciousness and
the like.”

Education, a great educator said, is life (John Dewey); it is co-extensive with life. With greater
reason and emphasis we can even say that ethics is the very science and art of human living,
one that gives life its direction, goal worth, and meaning. Ethics is both co-extensive(exploring
or observing what is happening around) and co-intensive (reflection based from the
observation) with life.

Religion and Ethics

These are two closest in relation to human activity. This is evident from the following
consideration:

A) Both of these are based on the same postulates/assumptions:

1. The existence of a creator

2. Freedom of the will
3. Immorality

B) Both have the same end – the attainment of man’s supreme purpose or ultimate end.

C) Both prescribe the same means for attaining the goal of man: right living.

The importance of Ethics

The importance of ethics follows immediately from the importance of ethics in itself.

1. Ethics means right living and good moral character and that man finds his true worth
and perfection. All the great teachers of the ages maintain that the supreme purpose
of human living lies not in the acquisition of material goods or bodily pleasures, nor
the attainment of bodily perfections such as health and strength; nor even in the
development of intellectual skills but in the development of the moral qualities which
lift man far above brute creation.
2. Education is the harmonious development of the whole person – of all man’s faculties:
moral, intellectual, and physical powers in man. Now the highest powers are his
reason and will. Hence, the primary objective of education is the moral development
of the will.

Unfortunately, this moral training that is most important in man is not given emphasis in
our educational system. Our schools train the head rather than the heart or the will. The result
is the unbalanced training evident in the products of our schools today. For example, if we are
going to trace the backgrounds of some corrupt officials of our government, many of them
graduated from some of our prime universities. What a saddening fact even is that the
Philippines is the only Christian dominated country in Asia yet of the most corrupt and poorest.
Knowledge is good, bodily health and strength are good, but first and above all – good
character.

In the words of George Washington, “morality and religion are two pillars to human
prosperity and happiness.”

3. According to Socrates, “the unexamined life is not worth living for man.” Now
ethics, as we know, is the very investigation of life. That is why Plato calls and
considers ethics the supreme science, the science par excellence, as it is this science
that deals with the Summum Bonum/highest good (words of St. Thomas), the supreme
purpose of human living.

Activity: 10 Pts. (Choose one).

1. Make an evaluation how significant ethics most especially in this

time of pandemic.
2. Develop a short harmonizing statement among religion and
education.
Chapter 11: Basic Concepts

Objectives:
Determine the connections between human acts and norm of morality.
Associate the harmony of voluntariness and responsibility.
Illustrate the differences between voluntary and involuntary acts.
Discriminate moral acts to that of immoral acts.

Morality
Refer to the quality of goodness or badness in a human act. Morality is not an imagined
quality merely supposed to be found in human acts. The crossroads/junction between good and
bad in which the agent/person makes the ultimate decision, responsibility and accountable
whatever the result or consequence.

Norm of Morality
1. The standard of right and wrong in human acts.
2. The reason why certain acts are morally right and why certain actions are wrong.

Human Acts
In ethics we mean:
1. The (free) voluntary acts of man.
2. Acts done with knowledge and consent.
3. Acts proper to man as man; because of all animals, he alone has knowledge and
freedom of the will.
4. Acts which, we are conscious, are under our control and for which we are responsible.
5. Human acts are those of those of which man is master, which he has the power of
doing or not doing as he pleases.

Acts, therefore, in order to be truly human, must be done knowingly and willfully.
Without knowledge and consent, there can be no human act. Only human acts then have moral
significance.

Voluntariness and Responsibility

Fundamentally, reward or punishment, are intimately related to each other. All these
presuppose freedom of choice in man, or voluntariness.

1. Relation between voluntariness and Ethics – Ethics studies human acts, and human acts
to be human, must be voluntary.
2. Between morality and voluntariness – Only voluntary acts have moral bearing. It is
absurd and silly to speak of the morality of the dogs, stones etc. because these do not
have the freedom of choice in their actions.
3. Human acts and Voluntariness – Acts that are free from force or coercion.
4. Responsibility and Voluntariness – There can be responsibility only if there is knowledge
and consent; and consent means voluntariness.
5. Punishment – It is absurd and most cruel to punish anyone who acted because of pure
necessity, for doing what he could not do otherwise. Without voluntariness, there can be
no responsibility, and without responsibility, punishment is useless and meaningless.
Distinctions of Immoral and Amoral

Immoral and amoral

Immoral is the contradictory of moral. It means contrary to, or violative of, the rules of
right conduct.
Amoral means morally indifferent that is neither good nor bad in itself such as getting
excited or happy of unprecedented situation.

Moral and abnormal

Normal refers to a physical or psychological standard and has no reference to moral
rectitude. A perfectly normal person can be very immoral in his life, whereas an
abnormal person be very moral in his acts and live in accordance with the moral law.
Abnormal on the other hand may be physically and psychologically handicapped but
have a sense of goodness. Though sometimes it is very irritating, it is up to the normal
person to understand. It is a test how long he can hold on to his/her composure. It is an
exercise of both prudence and temperance in Aristotles’ Nichomachean ethics. If the
normal person does not, he/she acts like one of the abnormal, you carry the virus.

Peculiarity and perversity

It is the difference between the physical or psychological and the moral. Perversion
always involves moral turpitude and responsibility. For example: a man who in spite of
being married wants more women as sexual partners is in itself perversity (sexual)
involves moral responsibility. Specifically, falling in love is natural or an attraction, but if
it is done continually without reserve and always with the desire to consummate, is in
itself perversion. Most especially if the doer of the act is someone with moral bearing
expected by society just like a married teacher having a relationship with a student.
Peculiarity or anomaly does not. For example, the reactions of chemicals to external
forces are peculiar like expansion of water due to heat and cold in physics. These things
(chemicals) involve no responsibility. A recent example we could provide on this is the
ammonium nitrate explosion in Libya. The company who owns this product is the one
responsible not the ammonium. O kaya, may kasalanan ba ang tomboy o bakla kung
ganun ang pagkatao nila? Hindi naman pero hanggang doon lang. It will be a moral
question if they desire for same sex or more sex male or female. That may account for
perversity also. But time seem to be on the side of LGBTs that society is seem ready to
accept their sexual preference.

Further study on Voluntariness

The concept of voluntariness is extremely important in Ethics because:

1. Ethics deals precisely with the study of human acts. That is voluntary (autonomous)
acts of man.
2. It is the amount or degree of voluntariness present in an act which determines the
amount or degree of responsibility and in this in turn will determine the amount of
punishment, if any, to be meted out.

Two types of voluntariness

a) Perfect voluntariness – comes with a full knowledge and full consent. (Autonomy)
b) Imperfect voluntariness occurs when there is no perfect knowledge nor consent, or when
either or both of the knowledge or consent is partial. (with coercion/napilitan)

Direct and indirect voluntary act

a) Direct voluntary act – this is so when the act is intended for its own sake, either as a
means or as an end.
Example: He who intends to go to a party in order to drink with friends wills both the
going to the party and the drinking with friends. Both acts, therefore, are directly
voluntary.
b) Indirect voluntary – is an act which is not intended for its own sake but which merely
follows as a regrettable consequence of an action directly willed.

Examples:
1) Going to a party to enjoy with friends but making trouble when drunk. The making
of trouble may have been foreseen and foreknown but it may not have been
intended; in which case, the act of making trouble is only indirectly voluntary.
2) Surrendering and giving your valuables to a hold upper who gravely threatened to
kill you if you do not. Which do you prefer?
3) Paying a huge amount of money for the release of hostages. (It depends on the
position of the hostage?) but paying ransom is like creating illegal job to
opportunists.

Why is an indirect voluntary act still voluntary when it is not intended and follows only as a
regrettable side issue?

Answer: When we will do an act, we will the whole act including its consequences; and,
since we place the cause, we also indirectly will the effect, although this is in itself
regrettable. We are therefore responsible for the consequences of our actions even if these
are not intended.
To further illustrate it, “causa causae est causa causati” - meaning, the cause of the
cause is also the cause of the thing caused. In a series of causes, the first cause is the true
cause.

Example: If in a line of cars, say A, B, and C were bumped by another car D, and as a
consequence each car bumped the car next to it and as further result, the last car, C, hits a
pedestrian killing him; then the cause of the death of the pedestrian is the driver of car D.

Activities

1. In a tabular form write at least five examples of voluntary acts and involuntary acts.
Voluntary acts Involuntary acts

2. Associate the correlation of voluntariness and responsibility by citing an example.

3. Explain by giving a clear distinction between moral and immoral acts.

Chapter 12: Moral Principles Involved in Actions Having Two/Double Effects

Objectives
1. Justify whether it is morally right to do action but evil effects
follow.
2. Determine the factors to be considered in human acts that may
mitigate accountability.
3. Defend the phrase, the end does not justify the means or the
means justify the ends.
4. Appraise the moral principles that may lessen accountability.
 Let us take look on the foundation of this principle from the early to late medieval era. A
difficult question sometimes arises as to whether it be morally right to do certain actions from
which good as well as bad effects follow. Thomas Aquinas is credited with introducing the
principle of double effect in his discussion of the permissibility of self-defense in the Summa
Theologica (II-II, Qu. 64, Art.7). Killing one’s assailant is justified, he argues, provided one does
not intend to kill him. In contrast, Augustine had earlier maintained that killing in self-defense
was not permissible, arguing that “private self-defense can only proceed from some degree of
inordinate self-love.” Aquinas observes that “Nothing hinders one act from having two effects,
only one of which is intended, while the other is beside the intention. … Accordingly, the act of
self-defense may have two effects: one, the saving of one’s life; the other, the slaying of the
aggressor.” As Aquinas’s discussion continues, a justification is provided that rests on
characterizing the defensive action as a means to a goal that is justified: “Therefore, this act,
since one’s intention is to save one’s own life, is not unlawful, seeing that it is natural to
everything to keep itself in being as far as possible.” However, Aquinas observes, the
permissibility of self-defense is not unconditional: “And yet, though proceeding from a good
intention, an act may be rendered unlawful if it be out of proportion to the end. Wherefore, if a
man in self-defense uses more than necessary violence, it will be unlawful, whereas, if he repel
force with moderation, his defense will be lawful.”
For example, should a man be restrained from saving his honor because the reputation of a
high government official will be destroyed from disclosures he has to make in his defense?
Was it morally right to drop the atomic bomb which would shorten the war, but which would
destroy thousands of innocent lives? Is it right to do an act which entails bad as well as good
consequences? Just like drug dealing? - family income for the dealer but destruction of many
lives. Or war on drugs, arresting dealers and drug lords and saving lives of many young
people yet in the process of doing so some of the drug dealers and lords get killed as a
regrettable consequence.

The answer to these questions is yes, but under the following conditions:

a) The act in itself should be good, or at least morally indifferent.

b) The evil effect should not be directly intended, but morally allowed to happen as
a regrettable side issue;
c) There should be a reason sufficiently grave in doing the act;
d) That the evil effect should not outweigh the good effect

(a) The first condition requires that the act be good in itself. The reason for this is that if the
act itself is bad, then we would be doing evil that good may come from it.

But, the end does not justify the means, we should not employ bad means even in order
to attain a good end. We may not do evil that good may result. The reason behind this principle
is that: the morality of an act primarily depends on the nature of the act itself and not on the
intention of the agent, nor on the consequence of the act. For example, someone would like to
tell me something that “meron akong dapat baguhin sa aking pakitutungo” but he/she did it in a
very harsh way. I might burst and worst might come to worse. The point is, you have a good
intention but the manner how it was done will destroy its purpose.

The principle, “the end does not justify the means,” is important in ethics and finds many
practical applications:
 1) One may not tell a lie for the purpose of saving one’s honor, or in order to win a case,
etc., without incurring moral guilt, because while the end is good the means employed
(lying) is bad.
2) It is not morally justified to shorten the life of one dying even in the evil effect intention
of saving him from prolonged and useless pain and suffering. (Mercy killing)
3) It is not right to steal from the rich in order to give it to the poor. (Robinhood Mentality)
4) It is immoral to practice intentional abortion for any reason whatsoever.
5) To correct the mistakes of others is good but if it is done intentionally in a manner that
the person corrected is embarrassed, the whole action is action is bad.

a. The second condition requires that the evil effect be not intended. The
reason behind this is that if the evil be directly intended, the act would
be done for the sake of evil, and this is forbidden directly by the moral
law.
b. The reason behind the third condition is that the act entails bad effects
and we should not trifle with evil effects.
c. The reason behind the fourth is that if the evil effect be greater, then
the intention and motive in doing the act would be more for evil than
for good, and this is against the moral law.

Activity: Case Study

Dilemma: John’s dad was in severe pain due to cancer

and confined at the Intensive Care Unit (ICU). The
doctor informed and explained to him that the only way
to alleviate his pain is to administer morphine to his
father including the fatal effect that may arise due to
continues use of said drug.
Make a decision and justify if the application of
Chapter 13: Factors that Lessen Accountability/Responsibility

Objectives:
Illustrate the distinction of vincible and invincible ignorance along
with antecedent and consequent concupiscence/earthly desire.
Defend cases involving the factors stated in number objective
number one.

Since responsibility depends on the voluntariness present in an act, we must inquire into the
factors which affect voluntariness in an action. These are namely ignorance, concupiscence,
fear and violence.

Ignorance

It is the absence of intellectual knowledge. Two kinds of ignorance - vincible and invincible
ignorance.

Vincible ignorance can be dispelled or overcome by due amount of diligence.

Invincible ignorance cannot be overcome by any amount of diligence or effort because

under circumstances it is impossible for one to know.

Principles:
 1. Invincible ignorance excuses and relieves the agent of responsibility. Acts done
in invincible ignorance are, therefore, not voluntary and the agent is not held
responsible for them.

2. Vincible ignorance does not destroy or remove voluntariness, nor responsibility.

Acts done in vincible ignorance are still voluntary and the agent is still responsible
for them.

Example: A Manila resident who violated traffic laws, not knowing of such
laws before, would still be responsible for his act, because his ignorance is
vincible. He is a resident of Manila so he/she has to know most specially if in the age of
reason).

When we speak of ignorance, we mean usually vincible ignorance. That is why we say
“ignorance of the law excuses no one,” because every citizen of age must and should know
the law.

The reason behind these two principles is:

(1) When one is invincibly ignorant, the act he does then would be without knowledge. “If
an insane person kisses you or whatsoever” could you claim any moral damage for
what he has done?
(2) Without knowledge there can be no voluntariness and hence, no responsibility. No one
can consent to violate a law which he does not know.

In the case of vincible ignorance, however, there is still culpability with regard to one’s
ignorance which is due to one’s negligence or omission; and consequently, there would still be
accountability on the part of the doer for his action. His act of violating a law would still be
voluntary at least in cause that is indirect voluntary. Thus, ignorance of the law excuses no one.
What does this mean? It is everyone’s duty to know the law.

Concupiscence

Passions (technically called concupiscence) affect the voluntariness of an action. For a

man, acting under the influence of a passion would not be acting perfectly of his own free
will/volition. A man in a fit of anger, for instance, is liable to do acts which otherwise he would
not do in his right senses.

Kinds of concupiscence: Antecedent and Consequent

Antecedent – a type of concupiscence which occurs in us spontaneously without stimulating it.

It is not free, and consequently not imputable to us. In as far as concupiscence impels the will;
it restrains our liberty and thus lessens our responsibility.
Example: when unjust attacker charge on you, immediately your position is to defend. In doing
so, the attacker was killed. You are responsible but accountability should is lessen. The reason
is that, you were not provided time to think of alternatives. No other option ready at hand but to
defend (self-defense). However you are still responsible and cannot go scot free. But the
decision for this case is lessened. Instead of murder it is lowered to homicide as long as
evidences are established.

Consequent – it arises at the command or continues with the consent of the will.
Example: A person did something wrong to you today. Instead of settling the matter with
him/her, you said to yourself, “this day might be yours, some other time must be mine.”
Whatever happens to him/her and even you, you are responsible and accountable since it is pre-
meditated/planned. Why including you? Because in the process you might hurt others and even
yourself.
Principles: Antecedent concupiscence lessens but does not remove voluntariness and
responsibility. Consequent concupiscence neither lessens nor destroys responsibility.

Fear and Violence

Moral Principles:
1) When we act because of fear, our will is dragged along, so to say, and so its
freedom is restricted and our responsibility is diminished correspondingly. Great
fear sometimes exempts a person from acts enjoined by positive law (laws of the
state).
2) Violence is an impulse from without tending to force the agent to act against his
will.

The Principle of Coercion

Active and Passive Principle of Violence

Closely connected with the moral principle of the two-fold effect is the moral principle involving
coercion, which may be stated briefly:
Under certain conditions it is morally right to use force or employ violence in defense of
certain basic rights, even by the employment of such force or violence certain evil effect or
effects may follow, such as the death of the aggressor.

This moral principle is justified on the following grounds:

1) Man as a person possesses certain fundamental rights.
2) The existence of a right of one entails a corresponding duty on others to respect this
right.
3) That if these rights are violated or denied, the possessor thereof has the right to defend,
and use the means necessary to defend his rights.
4) Sometimes the employment of force or violence resulting in a bloodshed or death of an
aggressor is the only possible way to defend said rights.
5) The evil effects that often follow or accompany the use of force are merely
concomitant/associated and resultant factors and if not directly intended are extrinsic to
the nature of the means (act) use and therefore does not contradict our principle that one
should not employ intrinsically evil mean even to attain a good end. The use of force or
violence independent of the end or effects it produces is not bad in itself. (just like in war,
force is the only way to make enemy surrender). On the case of one survivor in the
Mamasapano incident. While under fire and their guns were not functioning did his way
of survival by eliminating blocks (Killing anyone by use of hand and jungle knife) on his
way to escape to tell the nation what really happened.
6) There are two effects involved here, one good and one bad; defense of the right of the
possessor which is good, and harm on the aggressor which is bad; and hence to do an act
which brings about these two effects may be justifiable under the conditions provided in
the principle of twofold/double effect.

7) This is likewise in consonance with the morally sound principle that if one had to choose
between two evils, one should choose the lesser. Here in the evil effects of defensive acts
are less than evil effects of offense. Offense justifies defense as long as no greater harm
be inflicted than what is necessary for defense, according to the morally established
principle of the twofold effect. Choose between two evils- “you die or you live.” Which of
these is greater or lesser, you choose?
In a capsule/short, the justification of the use of violence springs from the principle
that:

“The possession of a right naturally includes the right to defend such right. Right
without power to defend it is dead!”

However, because of the grave evil consequences following the use of violence, evil
consequences which usually far outweigh or offset whatever good effects that may be derived
from the employment thereof, it is often very hard, if not impossible, to justify resort to
violence: thus the supreme representative of the Supreme Lawgiver and Peacemaker said in
one of his addresses:
“Violence can never be a means for solving social conflict, and class struggle which one
group to another cannot create justice since its premise is destruction and contempt of man. To
construct a truly humane society in the Philippines, every man and woman must take a choice
for justice and love, for solidarity and brotherhood, against selfishness and hatred.” (Pope John
Paul II addressing the workers and proprietors in Bacolod City, 1981)

Violence and Habit

The principle of passive violence can be stated briefly:

1. Acts done owing to violence, that is, acts one does because one is forced against his
will to do are not voluntary provided due resistance is made. Consequently, the doer is
not morally responsible for doing such acts. Example self-defense

2. The moral principle governing acts done by force of habit is:

Acts done by force of habit are still voluntary, at least in cause, as long as the habit is
allowed to stay.

Explanations of the Two Principles

1. When we are forced to do things or acts entirely against our will, obviously our acts are not
voluntary and hence we are not responsible therefore, Provided, due resistance is made. The
resistance should be present throughout the whole act. Lack of will or effort to offer adequate
resistance and disapproval may render the act voluntary, albeit/although minimally.
2. Reacts done by force of habit, there is still voluntariness on the part of the doer and he is
responsible for the same if he willfully developed the habit and makes no effort to overcome the
same. Whatever therefore flows or follows from the habit which the doer initially entertained
and allowed to become a part of him is still voluntary or the part of the doer.

Activity:

Case: When John was in high school, he gently accompanied

home a drunken man but then this man was forcing his
parents to bring some more drinks. John said, enough but the
man insisted shouting at his father. The father was unyielding
and his son became very violent. The son brought out a bolo
ready to attack his father. John just dived on him and gave
some punches until the man lost consciousness. The life of his
father was saved and him committing a crime (parricide,
killing of one’s father). The following day the former drunken
man went to John and asked forgiveness and profuse
gratitude.

Point out what was running in the mind of John (involving

Chapter 14: The ultimate end of life

Objectives:

Illustrate the symbiosis of happiness by the Greeks and faith as the

ultimate goal of human actions.
Make a summary in Christian concept on morality of human actions
based on faith in God.
Summarize justification as the foundation for a moral action.

Various philosophers present different end-goals for human existence. Aristotle,

representing Greek sentiment, proposes “happiness” as that which all things aim. Other would
think that “world order” is the goal of our strivings. Still some would suggest that there is no
such goal-that doing the right thing is for its own sake.

In Christian morality however, faith dictates the ultimate goal of moral action and so
directs reason to its ultimate end. Peschke says that “the moral character of human action is
essentially determined by their relation to Gods will . . . Man’s response to this calling
determines the morality of his actions and of his entire way of. What Peschke is saying is a call
to be more human, to be a true Christian. This response is not just a private individual
response. “The calling of each man and woman is . . . not isolated and without relation to the
common calling of the mankind”. The “responsive “ character of morality is the “immediate
consequence of the theological doctrine that God is the creator of the universe who has
arranged everything according to his purpose, and man is his creature who has received a task
from him to be fulfilled.”

The moral life is thus basically a response to the will of God. It is our response to the
invitation of God to commune with him, and to serve him. But what is the proper response? In
other words, is there any more specific criterion by which we determine what response is in
accord or discord with God’s will?

The common nature of men and the universal character of the world of God in scripture
point to a common goal and purpose of men . . . Man’s final goal is the ultimate criterion for the
moral quality of an action. Those human actions are good which contribute to the realization of
the final goal and obstruct its realization.

But what is this “ultimate goal” of the human being? Discovering this is important for our
understanding of Christian morality because “a definite view concerning the goal of a
meaningful life enters in every ethical reflection as the condition of its continent,”

“No temporal, transitory value can establish an unconditional, ultimate claim. Such a
claim can only emanate from an absolute, supreme value and purpose, i.e., from a purpose
rooted in the divine being and will.”
Therefore, no less than God’s will can provide ultimate purpose and meaning to human
life.

Justification/Rationalization.
 We hold certain “central” beliefs, e.g., wrongness of torturing people for pleasure or
political reasons, lying, using other for our own ends, etc. Often, we use moral theories or
explanation to justify these beliefs. And yet, our use of theories or principles can be very
irresponsible or thoughtless. Let us distinguish between rationalization and justification to
make clear our meaning here.

Rationalization has the goal of rigidly keeping our beliefs. Example. It is not right to just
kill any one as on the case of abortion.
Justification, on the other hand, has the goal of making our beliefs consistent and
rational. Example. It is justifiable and right to use force or violence in an unavoidable
circumstances when life is at stake as on the case of self-defense.

When we rationalize our moral beliefs, we do not care about being rational or consistent.
All we care about is sticking to our beliefs against evidence that discredits it. On the other
hand, when we justify our moral beliefs, rationally demands that we are consistent, and
consistency here includes practice. We are convinced of our moral beliefs not because they
happen to be everyone else beliefs or they strike our fancy, but because we have reasons to
back them up and hence know that they are the right beliefs to act by.

Example: If we believe that our opinions should be heard and respected, then we should
also make the same demands on ourselves. The same belief should be extended to all areas of
our life. Again, if we believe that abortion is wrong because life should be respected at all
times, then we should not rush into supporting capital punishment without giving it much
thought and consideration. Good moral reasoning demands that we are consistent in the beliefs
we hold.

Moral reasoning enables us to think clearly and systematically when confronted with
moral situations about which our moral beliefs may be shaky or even unformed.

Moral reasoning also allows us to understand and respect the viewpoints of others. Once
we see the principles and concepts that underline other views, moral disagreement is less likely
to lead to accusations of bad intensions.

Consider, for example, the abortion controversy. Each side accuses the other of bad faith
but no one bothers to inquire into the differing theory of right conduct that would make sense
of the opposing view. In other words, moral reasoning makes it possible for us to see how a
reasonable and well intentioned person can hold a moral view different from our own.

Activity: 10 pts. (Choose one)

1. Explain why faith in God makes demands on the justification of

our moral question?
2. Case: A man ran amok and started shooting anyone in sight.
One police officer took out her firearm and shoot the man hitting
him on his vital organ causing his death.
Is the police officer justified and moral act in her action? What if
he restrained herself from shooting the mad man when he was
Chapter 15: Reasoning Process to Develop an Ethically Sensitive Decision

Objectives:
Illustrate the significance of critical reasoning as a very important
tool for man to use before making an action.
Analyze the acceptability of common sense in some situations.
Justify the necessity of seeking counsel/advise from others before
doing action.
Point out the validity of common good as necessary basis in decision
making.
 a. What are the relevant facts? We need to list only the facts that bear on the ethical
decision. Sometimes, we arrive at wrong moral decisions because we have not really taken the
relevant facts into consideration, or we have taken more than the necessary facts into
consideration.
b. In considering and evaluating the options, it will help to be guided by the following
approaches. This is the point at which various sources of Christian morality, ethical theories
and principles come into play. One will discover here that there is much conflict among these.
There are no easy solutions. While one person may use utilitarianism to support his decision
(for instance, to run the story in the interest of the many), another may decide to cite Kant’s
proscription/prohibition against using a person as a means to an end (for instance, for not
running a story because one must respect the privacy of a person-tismis/gossip). What is
important here is to use only those justifications that apply directly to one’s decision.

Christian Sources. The Christian moral life derives from (and therefore, moral decision should
be inspired by) the sacred books of the Old and New Testaments, in particular from the ideas,
values and concerns of Jesus Christ. In other words, the moral teaching of the biblical writing
should be consulted. Since we are a Church – a Christian community – our moral decisions
should also be informed by the official teaching of the ecclesiastical magisteruim and the
concrete adhered to by the Church. Ecclesiastical magisterium here refers to the teaching of
the councils and the pope, bishops’ conferences. Even the advices of pastors and other religious
group leaders are likewise very important sources of guidance for our moral actions.

Christian reflection has concluded that all beings not only come from God as their First
Cause but also return to Him as to their perfection as the Final Cause. Thus, the Final Goal of
the human being according to which he acts deliberately by reason is God Himself. We can also
glean/pick up that ethical life is one that pursues the absolute Good as its end, its fulfillment
and per formation. As Peschke writes –

If man has been given an objective final end by the Creator, he will be under the
obligation to make this objective end his subjective end – in other words, to strive after it. And
when he looks to that end, an order which has to be followed will become visible to him: the
moral order. This moral order is shown to us through the moral law.

Utilitarianism. Conceived in the 19th century by Jeremy Bentham and John Stuart Mill, this
theory suggests that ethical actions are those that provide the greatest balance of good over
evil for the most number of people. There is hardly a case which carrying out an option will not
effect in some harm. By listing the options and concomitant harms, one is made to weigh the
amount of potential harm involved in each alternative and to understand that avoiding harm is
practically impossible. As utilitarian suggest, in the end, it may be best to choose the option
that will produce the least amount if harm. That option (decision) will be chosen that will
produce the greatest benefits and the least harm.

Rights. What is a right? Simply stated, a right claim on others. For example, if I
have a right to property, then I have a justified claim to protect my belongings
against those who might steal them. The reverse is also true: Other have the
responsibility to respect my property. Usually, this right is acknowledged not
just by the individual but also by society – more concretely, the Constitution,
which guarantees all sorts of rights. Properties is the extension of the self.

This theory has its roots in the philosophy of the 18 th century philosopher
Immanuel Kant and others. He suggests that what makes being different from
mere things is that they have dignity base on the ability to choose freely what
they will do with their lives. People, because they are rational, have a
fundamental moral right to have these choices respected. People are not
 objects to be manipulated or used as means to ends. To treat a person as a
mere means is to use a person to advance one’s own interest. On the other
hand, to treat a person as an end is to respect that person’s dignity by allowing
him the freedom to choose for himself.

This basic right of the person to choose for himself is often used to justify other rights.
First, we have so-called negative right – right to privacy, the right not to be killed, or the right
to do what one wants with one’s property, etc. these are negative right because each one
imposes a negative duty or obligation on us – for example, the right to privacy imposes the
obligation on us not to intrude into the private activities of a person. Second, we also have the
so-called positive or welfare rights. These are right that provide something that people need to
secure their well-being – like the right to an education, the right to food, the right to medical
care, the right to housing or the right to a job. These positive rights flow from the fundamental
right to freedom which implies every human being has a fundamental right to what is necessary
to secure a minimum level of well-being.

Sometimes, the right of individuals can come into conflict. In cases like these, we need to
examine the interests at stake and decide which of the two is the more crucial for securing
human dignity. Sometimes too, the social cost or the injustice that would result from respecting
a right can be too great. So, while morality certainly calls for respect of individual right, we
must also be aware of its social repercussions. We also consider that sense of community,
shared values and the common good that itself to an ethics of care, compassion, and concern
for others.

Common – Good. One can trace the beginnings of the notion of common good to Plato,
Aristotle, etc. the notion supposes that the good of individuals is inextricably linked to the good
of the community. Thus for Aristotle, ethics is really a prologue to politics. More recently, John
Rawls defined the common good as “certain general considerations that are. . . equally to
everyone’s advantage.”

The common good consists primarily of having social institutions, and environments
working effectively for the benefit of all people. An example of a particular common good would
be the public health care system. The maintenance of the common good requires the
cooperative efforts of cities. But these efforts pay off – in form of a good or goods to which all
members of society have access, and from whose enjoyment no one can be easily excluded.

Virtue. This theory is similar to the “Ethics of Being” that we distinguished from “Ethics
of Doing”. It assumes that there are certain ideas toward which we should strive, which
provide for the full development of our humanity. We discover these ideas by reflecting on
what kind of people we have the potential to become. Virtue are attitudes or dispositions that
enable us to be and to act in ways that develop our highest potential. They enable us to pursue
the ideals we have adopted. Examples of virtues are honesty, courage, compassion, integrity,
fairness, temperance, prudence, etc. when one uses the virtue theory in making a decision,
the fundamental question is “What kind of person will I become if I make this decision?” There
is emphasis in “being.”

We develop virtues through learning and through practice. Aristotle suggested that
virtue are habituated. Thus, once acquired, a virtue becomes a characteristic of a person. For
example, a person who has developed the virtue of generosity is referred to as a generous
person because he tends to exhibits this characteristic in all that he does,

A very important idea that is at the heart of the virtue approach is “community”. A
person’s character traits are not developed in isolation, but always within and by the
communities to which he belongs – the family, church, school, etc. thus virtue approach
invites us to pay attention to the well being of our communities because they also shape the
kind of person we become.
 The moral life, then, is simply following moral-rules. It is also a matter trying to
determine the kind of persons we should be and of attending to the development of
character within our communities and ourselves.

Justice and Fairness. No ideas that has been more consistently linked to ethics and
morality than that of justice. But what does justice mean? In traditional terms, justice means
giving each person what he or she deserves, or what is his or her due. Thus, justice requires
that a man is paid according to the work he has done. Or burdens and benefits should be
distributed equally among members of a group.

But what criteria should we use to determine what is somebody’s due?

The most fundamental principle of justice is one first defined by Aristotle; “ Equals should be
treated equally and unequally.” This principle can also expressed thus “Individuals should be
treated the same, unless they differ in ways that are relevant to the situation in which they
are involved.” For example, if Jim and Jane do the same work, and there are no relevant
differences between them or the work they are doing, then in justice they should be paid the
same wages. If Jim is paid more because he is a man, then, justice has not been served.

There are, however, some differences that can be justifiable criteria for treating people
differently. The Church, for instance, advocates what it calls a “preferential option for the
poor.” This preference is premised on the fact that the poor are from very beginning already
“unequal” relative to the wealthy. Because of this social disparity, there are opportunities for
human development that are of their reach. In dealing with them, then, there is a need to
“equalize” things first before justice can be served. In other words, there is room here not
just for justice, but justice as fairness.
Justice as fairness, then, is a central part of ethics and should be given due consideration
in our moral lives.

Summary of points. These various considerations and approaches for moral decision
making may also be stated in the following questions:

1. What does the Church (Christian sources of morality) say about the pertinent issue? What
option brings me to my ultimate end – God himself?
2. What benefits and what harms will each option produce, and which alternative will lead to
the best overall consequences?
3. What moral right do the affected parties have, and which options best respects those right?
4. Which course of action advances the common good?
5. Which decision enables me to be and act in ways develop my highest potential as person?
6. Which option treats everyone the same, except where there is a morally justifiable reason not
to, and does not show favoritism or discrimination?

Determine the Most Appropriate Best/Causes of Action. On the basis of the evaluation
done on the various options, we determine the best cause of action – the moral thing to do.
Ethicists claim that is the most difficult part of the process of moral decision making. It
requires courage – especially when reason suggested on way and what we feel another way.
Some people make their decision even prior to the reasoning process. When this
happens, it is possible to end up with a decision that one can rationalize but not really
justify.

Double – Checking one’s decision. It is important to take a second look at the decision to
be made. The following are suggested ways of doing precisely that:
First, we must see to it that our arguments are consistent. Ethics is supposed to provide
us with a guide for moral living, and do so, it must be rational – that is, free of
contradictions.
 Second, we must also ask if our arguments are both valid and sound. And valid argument
is one whose premises logically entail its conduction. An invalid argument on the other hand
is one whose premises do not entail its conclusion. In an individual argument, one can
accept the premises as true reject the conclusion without any condition. A sound argument,
on the other hand, has true premises and valid reasoning. An unsound argument employs
invalid reasoning or has at least false premise.

Third, perhaps we can ask the following questions: what are the best and worse-case
scenarios if I choose this particular option? Can I honestly live with myself if I make this
decision? Will I be able defend this decision to that claimant who has lost the most or been
harmed the most?
Finally, our decision must be “enabling” rather than disabling. There are
decisions that prevent us from acting any more fruitfully or effectively. These decision
cannot be moral after all, a moral decision or action is one that us – develops our
potentialities as a person. A decision that disables us prevents our growth as persons.

Activity

Situation 1. Johanna your friend was so confused that she felt totally
irrelevant and even contemplating to end her life. She came to you for
assistance. As a friend what will you do to help her?
Make a layout on what are the steps you are going to make and
why? (Do consider different factors and processes to come up with your
answer like post-traumatic stress disorder or PTSD just like situations
brought by this pandemic).

Chapter 16: Specific Thoughts in Ethics

Objectives
Determine the factors to be considered in judging acts to be human
acts.
Articulate the different sources of human acts including its
modifiers.
Discuss conscience intensively and its influence to human acts.
The Human Acts

Three Constitutes of the human Acts. – Knowledge, freedom and voluntariness are the
necessary conditions of man’s actions. Morality is based on the freedom of the will and freedom
presupposes rational knowledge. As volition precedes human actions, knowledge precedes
volition. Therefore a voluntary act in the human act which proceeds from the will with some
knowledge of the end intended.

A. The Voluntary Act

 Nature of the Voluntary Act. – As stated in the previous lesson, act are properly called
human when they are voluntary because the will or the rational appetite is a faculty proper to
man. A voluntary act is defined as the act which proceeds from an intrinsic principle with
knowledge of the end. In other words, the voluntary act proceeds from the will and depends
upon the will for its performance. A voluntary act is not only the desire of a malicious burning of
a house, but the motion of the hand starting the fire afterwards, destruction caused by fire.

B. The Modifier of the Voluntary Act

Since knowledge and freedom are necessary conditions for the voluntary act, it follows that
human actions performed without perfect knowledge and full freedom are not perfect
voluntary, and no person can held wholly responsible for such actions. Since knowledge and
freedom admit various degree it follows that moral responsibility is in proportion to the degree
of knowledge and freedom. The greater the knowledge the freedom, the grater the
voluntariness and moral responsibility involved, and conversely. Hence, in order determine the
moral responsibility of human actions, we must study the various degree of ignorance, i.e. lack
of knowledge and obstacles preventing the free action of the will in moral matter or the
passions.

The Sources of Morality

The agreement or disagreement of the human acts to the norms of morality must be
known concretely, i.e. in particular cases. For this reason we must now analyze the human act,
not from the point of view of the internal or psychological process, for we have studied before
(lesson 3), but attending to the objectiveness of the act itself and the circumstances
surrounding it including the motive of the moral agent.

The sources or principles of morality which are to be discussed are the determinants of
the human acts in connection with their moral character. Human reason evaluates the goodness
and wrongness of a human act by taking into consideration the object, the end, and the
circumstances of the act. These are the tree elements composing the morality of the particular
action performed by a free agent. Beyond the general or ontological determinations, human
acts also defined by these three elements which characterize the moral order and make our acts
good, evil, or indifferent.

a. The Natural Law

In the previous lessons we have discussed human acts as human, voluntary, and moral.
Now we must study them under the point of view of direction and obligation. Is there any
obligation on our part to conform our conduct to the norms of morality? If human acts moral
only when directed to the last end, there must be a direction.

Human acts are directed to the last end by law as applied by conscience. Law and
conscience are the directives, the norms of morality, and man has an obligation not only to obey
them but also to know them. We must therefore apply ourselves to the study of different kinds
of law and conscience.

b. Conscience

(1) Description of Conscience - Conscience is metaphorically known as the “inner or little voice
of God” crying out man’s moral obligations and telling him what to do and what to avoid in the
moral order. Conscience has been compared to a government exercising within the limits of
man’s inner self the three powers – legislative, judicial, and executive. Indeed, the role of
conscience is to investigate, to judge, and to pass sentence on our moral actions. Conscience
approves and commends; reproaches and condemns; forbids and commands; accuses and
absolves.
(2) Definition of Conscience – conscience consists in a practical judgment of the mind when
applying the moral law to individual human actions. How should the principles of morality and
the positive laws be applied to the individual acts considering the actual circumstances of the
acts?

3. Conscience prompts the answer. Conscience is defined as an act of the practical judgment of
reason deciding upon an individual actions as good and to be performed or as evil and to be
avoided.

Conscience differs from:

a. Moral science, which is a systematized and formulated knowledge of the conclusions drawn
from the moral principle and the positive laws, while conscience is the act of the practical
judgment deciding the moral quality of our actions and thoughts.

b. Law, which consist in the objective rules of conduct formulated by an authority and enforced
by sanctions.

Conscience is a subjective guide, an internal law.

a) Consciousness, which is a psychological awareness by which we perceive our states and acts
and are mentally awakened to the things around us. Conscience is concerned with the moral
judgment of our individual actions, the goodness and blameworthiness of man’s conduct.

b) Prudence, which is a virtue timing the use of conscience, and regulating the application of
the universal principle of morality to particular actions.

c) Counsel which is concerned with the right means and ways to carry on our moral decisions.

d) Synderesis, which is the understanding of the principles and axioms of morality. These
principles are connatural to man’s rational nature; they only need to be developed through
education and experience. Some of these moral axioms are: “ Do good and avoid evil”; “Live
moderately”; “Honor your parents”; “Murder is a crime” ; “Respect the right of others” ; “Do as
you would be done by” ; etc. these and other moral principles, when applied to certain
situations in life, help man find the right or logical moral conclusions.

Different Kinds of Conscience

a) Antecedent or consequent, according as the judgment is padded before an action is

performed or only after the action is done. The main functions of the antecedent conscience are
to command, to forbid, to advice and to permit. The two opposite effects of the consequence are
internal peace or remorse.

b) Scrupulous conscience is that which is extremely rigorous, constantly afraid of committing

evil. A scrupulous conscience is frequently the result of a stubborn character. But in some
people a scrupulous conscience merely means a serious concern about moral perfection.

c) Lax conscience tends to follow the easy way and to find excuses for omissions and mistakes.
This kind of conscience is dangerous.

d) When we talk about “guilty” conscience, we mean a subjective state of remorse or

dissatisfaction which conscience trying to restore good relations with God by means of sorrow
and repentance.
Activity: 10 pts. (Choose one)

1. Determine and explain the different factors to be considered in

judging the morality of human acts.
2. In a pyramidal form rearrange the kinds of conscience from lowest
to highest.

Chapter 17: Special Ethics

Objectives:
Cite specific situations through examples the relationships between
rights and duties.
Make connections on the right to life and duties to the right of
others.
Illustrate the symbiosis of right to life and right to property.

Human Rights – Originally, right means straight, something which is rectified or unbent in
opposition to wrong which means crooked, devious, and distorted. In this broad sense, human
actions are classified in Ethics as right actions when they square with the standards of morality
and wrong actions when they deviate from reason or the rule of morality.

A. Rights and Duties – Human right participate from the essential limitation and prerogatives
of human nature. There is a limit to our physical faculties. There is also a point limiting our
freedom and moral power. To go beyond this point is tantamount to violating the right of
others. The harmony of the moral order is composed of rights and duties, freedoms and
obligations.

B. The Right to Life

Man’s Right and Duties towards Himself Concern:

1) Preservation of Life
2) Perfection of the intellect and will
3) Care of the body
4) Restoration of health

Apart from rare cases demanding the supreme sacrifice of life for the preservation of a
higher good or to save the soul, man’s fundamental right is to live and his corresponding duty is
to preserve his life by taking the necessary food and drink, rest and sleep, by preventing
unnecessary injuries to his body, and by defending himself against unjust aggressors. Among
the material goods of man nothing can compare with health. A healthy person can spend much
time and energy on his cultural, spiritual, and religious education. He can rear a healthy family.
He can help in community projects and in the progress of the nation. Although some sick
persons have distinguished themselves in the field of education, sanctity, the arts and sciences,
this has been done not because of their sickness, but in spite of it.

C. Duties Towards the Life of Others

Immorality of Murder – the intentional and unlawful killing of a person “with malice
premeditated or previously in the mind express or implied” is called murder. The “unlawful
killing of human being without malice express or implied” is called manslaughter. Homicide is a
general legal term meaning the killing of one human being by another.

Examples of unintentional killing would be traffic accidents; when a man fires at his
friend in jest, not knowing that his gun had been loaded; when a hunter kills a man believing
him to be an animal; when a nurse unintentionally gives poison to a sick, mistaking it for the
prescribed medicine, etc. the moral and legal imputability of such cases is measured according
to the degree of carelessness or negligence in the discharge of one’s own duties or actions.

But one thing is the evidence presented in a civil court of justice and another thing is the
moral responsibility of a person before his reason and his God. For lack of external evidence a
judge may declare murder a mere case of manslaughter or he may declare as unintentional
killing what really was a voluntary, direct and unjust killing.

D. The Right to Property

In General – the right to possess, uses, and dispose of things at will is called the right to
property. “Man has a natural dominion over external things, because by his reason and will he
is able to use them for his own profit. To possess is to have something for one’s own. A thief
may have stolen an article but he cannot morally possess it because he does not own it; the
article does not belong to him.

The right to possess the material things of this world is not a first class principle of the
natural law, but it is immediately derived from it. In like manner our dominion over material
things is not a supreme dominion, for this belongs to God, but a right derived from God’s
dominion. Man, as the image of God, is naturally fitted for ownership. He alone can take
possession of things, implement his right, provide for further, control nature and make it
produce according to his wants. We are not the owners of our life but we can possess and free
dispose of external things as means and instruments for the developments and activity of our
human personality. The “ego” in the form of “mine” has an immediate to “it,” i.e. to things
outside ourselves.

Activity:

“Education is a right.” Discuss this short phrase associating it with duties and
responsibilities.

******************************************************************************************
ADDITIONAL READINGS:

Frameworks and Principle behind our Moral Disposition

Contents
1. Kant
2. Different kinds of rights: Legal and Moral
3. Utilitarianism

IMMANUEL KANT (April 22, 1724 – February 12, 1804)

He is German Philosopher born in Konigberg, Prussia (now Kaleningrad, Russia)

Some notable works:

 Critique of Pure Reason (1781 -1787)
 Critic of Practical Reason (1788)
 Critique of Judgment (1790)
 Metaphysics of Moral (1797)

Kantian Ethics
His theory is that of deontological moral theory. “deon” (Greek), meaning duty

Duty
 All humans must be seen as inherently worthy of respect and dignity and that morality
must be based from those duties.
 Consequences like pain or pleasure are unimportant
 The rightness or wrongness of an action is not based on consequences, but whether, they
fulfill our duty.
 Human beings occupy a special place in creation, have “an intrinsic worth” or “dignity”
making them important above all others.
 Treat people as an end, never as means
 Believes in the supreme principle of morality, calling it the Categorical Imperative, which
determines what moral duties are.

Categorical Imperative –Kant’s term for the supreme principle of morality

Imperative – It means a command. i.e. “Stop talking!”

Categorical Imperative – this command unconditionally. This is to justify and defend the
principle behind the judgment made for what the moral duties are, not the individual’s moral
judgment

Categorical Imperative and Morality

Morality must be based on categorical imperative since in morality, you are commanded by it
and you cannot get out of it or claim that it does not apply to you..

How does Categorical Imperative works?

 Ways/Formulations:
1. Formula of Universal Law
 Act only on that maxim in which you can and believe it should become a universal
law/maxim.
 The rule or principle on which you act
  It commands that every maxim you act on should be applied to everyone in a similar
situation, including yourself
 It facilitates a way to tell whether and act is morally acceptable

Example:
Before doing something, think of what rule or maxim you would follow if you actually did it.
Would you be willing for your maxim to become a universal law and followed by all people at all
times? If so, then your maxim is sound, and an act is acceptable. If not then your act is
forbidden.

2. Formula of the End in Itself

 Treat other people as yourself, as an end, never as simply as a means.
 Requires treating people with respect, do not manipulate them, or “use” them to achieve
your goals, no matter how good those goals may be.

Example:
Leah needs money, and she want to loan, but she is aware she cannot repay it. In desperation,
she
Asked from you promising to repay it at the end of the month. Maybe she needs the money for a
good purpose that she tries to convince herself that the lie maybe justified. Nevertheless, lying

Code of Ethics for Professional Teachers

Pursuant to the provisions of Article II, of RA No.7836, otherwise known as the Philippines
Teachers Professionalization Act of 1994 and paragraph (a), section 6, PD No. 223, as amended,
the Board of Professional Teachers hereby adopts and promulgates the following Code of Ethics
for Professional Teachers.

Article V (The Teacher And The Teaching Community)

Section 1. Teachers shall at all times, be imbued with the spirit of professional loyalty, mutual
confidence, and faith in one another, self-sacrifice for the common good, and full cooperation
with colleagues. When the best interest of the learners, the school, or the profession is at stake
in any controversy, teachers shall support one another.
Section 4. A teacher shall hold inviolate all confidential information concerning associates and
the school, and shall not divulge to anyone documents which have not been officially released,
or remove records from files without official permission.

Section 5. It shall be the responsibility for every teacher to seek correctives for what may
appear to be unprofessional and unethical conduct of any associate. This may be done only if
there is incontrovertible evidence for such conduct.

Section 6. A teacher may submit to the proper authorities any justifiable criticism against an
associate preferably in writing, without violating any right of the individual concerned.

Article IX The Teacher and Parents

Section 1. A teacher shall establish and maintain cordial relations with parents, and shall
conduct himself to merit their confidence and respect.

Section 2. A teacher shall inform parents, through proper authorities, of the progress or
deficiencies of learners under him, exercising utmost candor and tact in pointing out learners
deficiencies and in seeking parental cooperation for the proper guidance and improvement of
learners.

Section 3. A teacher shall hear parents’ complaints with sympathy and understanding & shall
discourage unfair criticism.

Article X (The Teacher and Business)

Section 1. A teacher has a right to engage, directly or indirectly, in legitimate income

generation, provided that it does not relate to or adversely affect his work.

Section 2. A teacher shall maintain a good reputation with respect to financial matters such as
in the settlement of his just debts, loans and other financial affairs.

Section 3. No teacher shall act directly or indirectly, as agent of any commercial venture
which furnishes textbooks and other school commodities in the purchase or disposal of which
he can exercise official influence, except only when his assignment is inherently related to such
purchase and disposal, provided that such shall be in accordance with existing regulations.

Article XI (The Teacher as a Person)

Section 1. A teacher shall live with dignity in all places at all times.

Section 2. A teacher shall place premium upon self-respect and self-discipline as the principle
of personal behavior in all relationships with others and in all situations.
Manipulation Story

For example: this is only a story but it really tells something on

manipulation as means to an end.
Tatang: Anak pangaasim ta itartarimaan mo nga ageskuela ta ni
marigrigatan tayo nga pirmi iti daytoy a biag.
Mokong: Wen tatang itartarimaan ko nga ageskuela tapno
makalpasak iti kurso ket aramatek to daytoy nga adal nga mangpa-imbag ti biag
tayo.
Narration: Limabas ti sumagmamano nga tawen ket nagturpos daytoy anak a
kas naananay ken lisensiyado nga inhenyero ket agtatrabaho payen iti dakkel
nga companya ti Ayala Lands.
Tatang: Anak madi ka pay a nga agasasawa ta ni adda da pay tallo nga
adding mo nga ageseskuela. Ni agkolehiyon ni Kuyang, ag grade 11 ni Mayyang
ken grade 7 pay ni Toyang.
Mokong: Wen tang ikarik nga jak pay agassawa ingana makaturpos da
dagiti adding ko.
Narration: Naglabasen ti sumagmamano nga panawen ket asin ti apo
nakapagturpos da metten amin ti kakabsat ni Mokong. PMMA graduate ni
Kuyang ket agsuweldo ti milliones iti kadarato sumakay iti barko a kas
chiefmate. Ni Mayyang met ket maysan a nars ken agtatrabaho iti King Fahd
Hospital idiay Saudi Arabia. Ni Toyang ket maysan nga Chemical Engineer ken
agtatrabaho iti Bayer nga nakabase idiay Germany. Popular a kompanya nga
producer iti insecticides, certified seeds, feeds, abono nga pang agrikultura.
Nagassawan dagitoy nga adding ni Mokong ket adaan dan ti bokod nga
pamilya. Agpatuloy tayo…

Tatang: Anak pangaasim ta di ka pay agasawa ta ni lakay ken baket

kamin kenni inang mo. Awan mangtaripatu kadakami.
 Mokong: Tatang! (napigsa ken natangken) ania metten, ket kasanuak ngay?
Naaramid ko met aminen ti kayat yo ket nu mabalin palubosan nak metten nga
mangisimpa iti bokod ko nga biag!
Tatang: Maawatak anak ngem kitam kadi awan da dagiti kakabsat mo
ta adda da met amin ti ballasiw ti taaw. Kasanun tu ngay nu ada ti sumangbay a
pasamak kadakami kenni inang mo nga madi mapakpakadaan?
Mokong: Sige man ngaruden a kas natulnog nga anak. Uray koma met
nu dinak sangkarengreng ni Panyang nu kaanu kami nga agkallaysa.
Narration: Maysa nga aldaw, adda ti di nasayaat nga pasamak ken ni Mokong.
Naidungpar ti kotse na bayat ti panagdaliasat na nga umentra jay trabaho.
Nadangran ti makannawan a saka na sigun ti panakaiipit. A kas imbaga ti
doktor ket kasapulanna ti ennem ingana makatawen san to makapagna ti
nasiyaat ni Mokong ngem haanen a kas ti normal wenno orihinal nga pannagna.
Idiay private room ti hospital… agpatuloy tayo.
Tatang: Anak ngangane kan makabulan toy hospital ke madi da ka pay
met palubosan ti doctor nga rumuar. Marigatan kamin ken ni nanang mo nga
mangibanbantay kenka ken agkaraumay.
Mokong: Ania ti kayat mo nga sawen tatang?
Tatang: No koma mabalin ket allukuyem ni Panyang ta agassawa
kayon. Ubbing met isu na ta trenta na pay. Sika ket nganngane pay lang nga
agkuarenta.
Mokong: Ania! Grrrr ayan na ti badang ta kamaten da ka laklakayan!
(ahahaaa)

Truly, in this story, the son was manipulated as a means by the father to
achieve his very end/purpose. If you analyze it, there will be lots of ethical
implications to consider. Lesson to learn, if you think you are done with your
responsibility in the family give justice to yourself.

Towards an ethical recontextualisation of Freud's theory of personality

Mojalefa LJ Koenane

Department of Philosophy, Practical & Systematic Theology, University of South Africa

ABSTRACT

This paper explores the possibilities of complementing Freud's theory of human nature with the
doctrine of St Thomas Aquinas on the virtue of prudence (phronesis). The paper builds on the
foundation laid down by Freud's theory of the id, the ego, and the superego in relation to moral
behaviour. However, it takes a rather different approach to moral decision-making and
behaviour, culminating in the author's creation of the concept of the moral-ego. What is being
raised in this paper is a concern that Freud's theory reduces morality to the dictates of the
superego.

Keywords: Id;ego; prudence; moral decision-making and

behaviour; Thanatos; phronesis; superego.

INTRODUCTION

As a point of departure, it is necessary to mention the distinction between moral philosophy and
moral psychology. For this purpose we turn to the differentiation of Composta (2000:1), who
puts it thus: "[T]he purpose ofmoral philosophy is to understand life in depth and become
moral." He further maintains that moral life consists of the fact that it establishes morality,
while moral science or psychology attempts to understand and explain moral behaviour. The
argument of this article is that Freud's theory cannot be taken on face value as a way of life. It
is proposed that we need to understand Freud's theory for what it was meant to be, namely a
revolt against the then prevalent Victorian morality, which despised sex during his time.
Freud's theory reduces the human source of motivation to sex. Hence, his theory of the id,
the ego and the superego has influence on most people, even those who will not accept it as a
way to explain morality. It is as if we forever feel that Freud's theories must be right. Although I
am the first to concede that it was indeed right for the purposes Freud intended it for (that is, a
psychological explanation) I argue that it has been wrongly interpreted by most theorists - more
especially in psychology.

The basic teaching in Freud's theory is that human beings are sexually determined. It suggests
that human sexuality is the motivating factor behind all human actions, including moral
decision-making and behaviour. This is a psychological and not a philosophical explanation of
moral behaviour. I argue that we need to break this spell and try to find a better alternative, or
complement, and this article will be offering such an alternative.

Humankind asks questions about the world itself and about its own existence. It wants
explanations of the meaning of life and answers regarding human actions or that which in
psychology is generally referred to as human behaviour. Freud's theory of the human
personality consists of three main components, the id, the ego, and the superego (Ricoeur
1973:211). His theory is designed to account for mental illness (psyche as well as human
behaviour in general) and when it is taken as an account of human nature, it appears untenable.

My argument can be likened to that of Christine A James in her article entitled: "Irrationality in
philosophy and psychology: the moral implications of self-defeating behaviour" (James
1998:224-234). In this article, James writes: "... I will describe choking, and by analogy other
forms of self-defeating behaviour, can be explained very well without appeal to a purely
Freudian sub-conscience or sub-agents' view of mind" (James 1998:224). James felt challenged
to give an alternative view to understand self-defeating behaviour. She also sought a conception
of "the mind", different from that espoused by Freud. For this she turned to Mark Johnston's
notion of "mental tropisms". In the next section this article will present a brief account of
Freud's theory of human personality and what this theory means for moral behaviour. Then the
focus will shift to what I term the moral-ego as an alternative way to understand the self when
confronted with the challenge to make a rational and moral decision.
The paper is structured as follows: after the above introduction I map out Freud's theory of the
mind and move further to argue why in my opinion the theory is untenable. This is followed by
St Thomas's theory of prudence. Using this theory, the paper will move on to explore my own
theory of the moral-ego. The paper will argue why the idea of the moral-ego makes sense,
rather than Freud's moral psychology. The article is concluded by explaining why this theory
would be an alternative to Freud's theory of the mind.

FREUD'S THEORY OF THE MIND

The human mind - according to Sigmund Freud - is divided into three parts, each of which plays
a different role from others and has its own content. The three parts are the id, the ego and
the superego. According to Freud the id is primitive or naturally irrational, unconscious,
universal and is characteristic of every one of us, that is, we are all born with the id drives. Put
differently, for Freud we are influenced by unconscious forces, which express themselves in
blind, causally determined responses. The id in Freud cannot be equated with morality in the
sense that Freud eliminates rationality where the id's primitive drives are concerned. Thus,
human actions in this case are unintelligible and without a purpose. The id is thought to be
made up of natural biological instincts and urges situated in the unconscious mind, self-serving,
impulsive and irrational. The id runs according to the pleasure principle (Spurling 1989:65).
This means that the id will try to act on any pleasurable experience it conceives. Freud also
believed that the id has a death instinct known as Thanatos. According to Freud Thanatos is a
destructive urge and the source of aggression, in other words, Thanatos is deemed as a
negative force, which must be subjected to reality check. According to Freud's theory, the id is
morally explosive.

The ego on the other hand, in Freud's theory, directs behaviour by adjusting the id appetites to
reality. Thus the ego functions as a reality principle. Consequently, human thinking, planning,
problem solving and deciding on what course of action to take, are the main functions of
the ego. In this theory, the ego is the mid-point between two exaggerated extremes - it mediates
between the id and the superego. The superego, on the other hand, serves as a judge for
immoral thoughts and actions carried out by the ego.

The superego imposes societal mores on an individual to the extent that if these dogmatic
mores are disobeyed then the superego punishes the individual with guilt. Jones (1966)
distinguishes between a bad moral conscience and the superego. According to Jones (1966:35)
from a moral philosophical perspective, bad moral conscience is a consequence of a sincere
moral guilt coming from a morally sincere individual. Put differently, according to Freud,
the superego (which is the internalised father-figure) has overly excessive demands of morality
(high moral standards) from human beings (Spurling 1989:78). According to Freud's theory
guilt is nothing more than blind self-punishment. Freud's theory seems to suggest that morality
can be reduced to the demands or dictates of the internalised divine figure in the form of
the superego. This is absurd. Looking at Freud's theory, one thing becomes clear: every
interpretation of human actions or behaviour is connected to a mode of social and moral life.
Moral life demands moral decisions and actions from the human being as a whole. The point
being made here is that the interaction of the three elements of personality as offered by Freud,
may not be seen as three distinct elements fragmented from one another. The problem is that
Freud's theory appears to go against this.

Freud's theory of the id, the ego and the superego compartmentalises the human being. Hence I
argue that this theory is speculative since human beings cannot locate the id,
ego and superego. Further, Freud's theory is mechanistic (there is no "moral sincerity") as
Jones (1966:56) suggests. Because it assumes that human nature is inhabited by impersonal
forces, his notion of consciousness is analogous to a box. Granted, Freud clearly formulated
these theoretical constructs as a dynamic and integrated process. It seems to me that there is a
similarity between Freud's approach to that of Plato1 and Hegel. To draw the similarity between
Freud and Plato, Olivier (2012:79-80) refers to Plato's analogy of the charioteer, the two horses
one black and the other white. As Olivier, explains, the charioteer represents reason while the
white horse represents the spirit and the black symbolises desires. Apparently, the black horse
is unruly and usually out of control (Plato 1961:253d-e) - it could be likened to Freud's id with
its primitiveness. In Hegel's philosophy of history, there are three different worlds of
existence,2 and these are: childhood of spirit; adolescence spirit; and major spirit. Furthermore,
according to Hegel, the third stage in his triad is one of consciousness, which does not need
mediation.3 Using Hegel's triad as an analogy in this discourse, it becomes clear that unlike
Freud, Hegel's third stage, that is, the "major spirit" is almost a mature stage of reflection
(morality in the context of this current discourse). In Hegel's discourse, the first stage
(childhood of spirit) is irrational and unreflective. We know which groups of people he believed
belong to this "world"; these are the people he regarded as inferior in all aspects compared to
those he considered belonging to the adolescence spirit and the major spirit. 4 This is exactly the
same as the unconscious deeds that are accounted for through the id in Freud's theory.

I argue that what is radically flawed with Freud's theory is that he ignores the ethical dilemma
and complexities which an individual is confronted with when making a moral choice, as is
confirmed by Holt (1980). The reality of complexities in real situations of moral dilemma, which
is overlooked by Freud, is acknowledged by Holt who writes: "Perhaps he [Freud] really failed
to see that life is filled with legitimate moral dilemmas, situations in which one cannot
simultaneously attain more than one ideal end and where logic or scientific information do not
tell us which way to go" (Holt 1980:40). Holt further asserts that Freud and his followers
believed that the discipline of psychoanalysis alone could afford "answers to human problems"
(1980:41).

Looked at from a moral philosophical point of view, choosing "wrong" and thus acting in a non-
moral way does not necessarily decipher as irrationality - this is still a choice and very much a
rational one for that matter. In this way, we need to speak of the disconnected moral-self,
where the mystery of being suggests that the individual who is moral is the same person who
sometimes acts immorally. Therefore the moral-ego is a state and not so much how one
chooses. The idea of the moral-self is better captured by Arendt (2003) reformulating Socrates
thus: "Though I am one, I am two-in-one and there can be harmony or disharmony with the self..
but I cannot walk away from myself..., if I do wrong, I am condemned to live together with a
wrong-doer in unbearable intimacy" (Arendt 2003:90).

Understood against this background, self-awareness is not formed by compartmentalising

oneself as Freud's theory suggests, but by becoming aware of the mystery of being human. As
Nietzsche sums it up in the preface of On the genealogy of morality: "...our thoughts, values,
every 'yes', 'no', 'if' and 'but' grow from us with the same inevitability as fruits borne on the tree
- all related and each with an affinity to each, and evidence of one will, one health, one earth,
one sun" (Acampora 2006:212). Jones (1966:35) expresses his trepidation about Freud's theory
in the following manner: "Freud's theory of the superego is not a correct account of the
phenomenon of moral conscience." As human beings, we do not react mechanically, as other
animals do, to different situations. This is primarily what distinguishes us from other animals. In
my view Freud's interpretation of the human act is too narrow to deal with questions of our
moral life which, as I suggested, develops as a person's moral-ego grows in strength and
maturity. At this developed stage an individual also develops what Jones refers to as "moral
sincerity". Freud's interpretation ignores the complexities of the internal conflict in healthy
subjects and reflects the disintegration which characterised the minds of his patients. It is
therefore clear that such a conflict forms a part of the moral-ego's development of character.
What I am claiming is that this model of a disintegrated mind has been accepted as a
philosophical model of the mind. I suggest that Freud's theory of the id, the ego and
the superego is problematic because it presents itself to most people as a way of life or a
philosophical explanation of human behaviour. It is for this reason that Jones (1966:35) argues
that "Freud's theory of the superego must be distinguished from the phenomena which
constitute a bad moral conscience". I argue that this is not the case or at least should not be.
Therefore, the content of a moral outlook cannot be understood in terms of completely
dependent unintelligible parts of personality as suggested by Freud's theory of the mind.
Further, in Holt (1980:38) Freud confirms that people's moral scruples are traits of
the superego. This is exactly what MacIntyre rejects and calls the catastrophic state of
contemporary moral philosophy for which he offers the Aristotelian tradition of virtue ethics as
a way out of the current muddled situation (MacIntyre 1981:238). Also Holt (1980:38) - before
MacIntyre - postulated that the world is in a "moral crisis". Writing from a psychologist's
perspective, Holt puts it thus:

We have a serious need of a vital psychological understanding of moral thinking and behavior,
one that is not limited to any particular kind of person but is very generally applicable. I believe
that the survival of not only humankind but many other kinds of life on earth is in real and
growing danger, and that we know much more about what must be done to fend off such
danger than about how to get people to make the necessary changes in their behavior. In large
part, such changes amount to self-restraint, self-control, the postponement of immediate
pleasures and the giving up of familiar, easy comforts - the very objectives of a great part of
morality. From this perspective, morality is a device of social control, an indispensable primary
way in which societies have always prevented the breakdown of social order and their own
eventual self-destruction (Holt 1980:39).

If we juxtapose Freud's id part of the mind and what is asserted by Holt above; we will
understand that the unreasonable pleasure seeking demands must be put under control. He
therefore believes that morality has a big role to play. In the next section, we turn to the
philosophy of St Thomas Aquinas with a hope of redirecting Freud's notion of the human psyche
(mind).

ARISTOTELIAN-THOMISTIC THEORY OF PRUDENCE (PHRONESIS)

I intend to critique Freud's theory in the light of Aristotelian-Thomistic philosophical tradition.

Freud's theory was challenged by philosophers who looked at this theory from a philosophical
outlook. Jones asserts thus: "[M]oral philosophers can hardly afford to ignore a psychological
theory which purports to explain the genesis of moral conscience in human beings" (1966:34).
This paper does not intend to discredit Freud at all but to bring a different perspective to his
theory of personality.

The naturalistic school of thought to which Freud subscribed, holds the view that the universe
does not need a supernatural being. The naturalistic school of thought further denies freedom,
purpose and transcendent destiny. In axiology, naturalism manifests itself as an attempt to
reduce ethics to natural events, physical facts and matters which can be settled empirically,
that is, by applying methods of natural sciences (Gonsalves 1985:205). But this need not be the
case, particularly when we consider the Aristotelian-Thomistic notion of phronesis, or what in
Aristotle is referred to as the virtue of practical wisdom. Here we consider also Aristotle's
allusion to the virtue of temperance. I believe these are the two elements which are lacking in
Freud's theory. To understand the significance of the virtue of practical wisdom (phronesis) in
Aristotle's writings, we begin with one of the classical definitions of man, which he gives,
namely that "man is a rational animal" - as such man's actions and decisions must be dominated
by reasoning. Aristotle further articulates that moral virtues are those which focus on an
individual's ability to make the right choices. Further, for him, practical wisdom makes it
possible for a person to control his/her desires and conduct - in this way moral virtue refers to
how one's character is formed. Moral virtue refers to practical decisions people make in the
presence of moral struggle. By his own admission Freud asserts that the id is irrational and
seeks pleasure (Gay 1997:126; Cordon 2005:86). Consequently, if one understands Freud's
theory correctly with regard to the instinctive drives of the id, a person allows the human
desires to dominate reason - this according to Aristotle's psychology is unhealthy. Aristotle was
convinced that when we allow our desires to dominate our rationality (reason), this would
eventually lead to an unhealthy imbalance and a tendency to act irrationally (Jones 1966). We
have seen how both the id and the superego can be a deficiency and excess; they both represent
two points of extreme. For example, according to Freud in Ricoeur (1970:280), the superego is
portrayed as the aggressor in instances where a human being has given in to pleasure instincts.
In order to clearly understand Aristotle's doctrine of the mean we refer to his own way of
expressing it in the Nicomachean Ethics (1992), Book II, Chapter 6, 1106b-36:

Virtue is a state of character concerned with choice, lying in a mean, that is, the mean relative
to us, being determined by a rational principle and by the principle by which the man of
practical wisdom would determine it. Now it is a mean between two vices, that which depends
on excess and that which depends on defect; and again it is a mean because the vices
respectively fall short of or exceed what is right in both passions and actions, while virtue both
finds and chooses that which is intermediate. Hence in respect of its substance and the
definition which states its essence virtue is a mean; with regard to what is best and right, an
extreme.

In other words, virtue is a habit of choosing the mean at our disposal. St Thomas in (Summa
Theologica, I-II, q. 59, a. 1) (Pegis 1960) puts it: "Virtue is a habit of choosing the mean
appointed by reason as a prudent man would appoint it." Therefore, this paper argues that the
better way to deal with these exaggerations (that is, excess and deficiency) is through the use
of phronesis. Clearly phronesis can counter the exaggerated desires of the id and the excessive
demands of the superego by bringing in moderation and shaping the character (moral-ego) of
the moral agent. This scheme is different from that provided by Freud with regard to the
relation and the interaction between the three elements of personality.

According to MacIntyre (1981) today's moral philosophy is in a "catastrophic" state. He writes:

"We now live in a world in which the language and the appearance of morality persist even
though the integral substance of morality has to a large degree been fragmented and then in
part, destroyed" (MacIntyre 1981:5). In modern society, the individual is no longer defined
according to societal roles as he or she was in the past. MacIntyre believes it is only possible for
an individual to live life in a particular way if morality is anchored in a community or tradition.
Current moral theory is mixed with emotivism, which is the belief that moral judgements
(having no independent, objective rational basis against which they can be adjudicated) are
purely expressions of individuals' preferences and dislikes: "Emotivism rests upon the claim
that every attempt whether past or present to provide a rational justification for an objective
morality has in fact failed" (MacIntyre 1981:19).

The related notions of subjectivism and relativism become prevalent in moral theory since the
moral consensus (within community or tradition) needed to make objectively grounded value
judgements, has long since gone. The "interminable" character of today's moral debate is proof
of the fact that modern moral philosophy is barren, that is, it cannot offer any rational
justification against which we can measure our moral claims and, therefore, cannot significantly
contribute to moral practice. Without a communal backing, virtue is now whatever we choose it
to be. In older tradition virtues were not just chosen and rejected like last year's fashion, but
were rather lived by a community that gave them life and meaning.

For Aristotle, virtue is closely intertwined with feelings or passion as well as actions. Aristotle
asserts: "If the virtues are concerned with actions and feelings, therefore every feeling and
every action is always accompanied with pleasures and pains" (Aristotle, Nicomachean Ethics
1992:1104b, 14-16). Thus, in the Aristotelian tradition, which St Thomas Aquinas adopted with
modification, moral goodness is a result of habituation, not something one is naturally born with
it. Thus, the irrational id with its pleasure seeking desire can be controlled by repeated actions
which form character. Therefore, in the Aristotelian-Thomistic tradition, as in other moral
philosophical theories, every act entails a decision or a choice on the part of a moral agent. This
kind of theory must penetrate what some believe to be moral psychology, particularly the
Freudian psychological theory of the id, the ego and the superego. It is in this regard I suggest
that the Aristotelian-Thomistic notion of phronesis can offer new meaning and philosophical
interpretation to Freud's theory. A great deal of St Thomas's philosophy is based on Aristotle,
but it is Aristotle rethought and synthesised by a great thinker. It is necessary to begin by
defining what prudence means for St Thomas. He derives his definition of prudence from
Aristotle, which reads as follows: "Prudence is a true and reasoned state of capacity to act with
regard to the things which are good and bad for mankind" (Copleston 1962:125).

St Thomas's definition is a modified and shortened version of Aristotle. For St Thomas,

"prudence is right reason applied to action" (Summa Theologica I-II, q. 57) (Pegis 1960). For
both Aristotle and St Thomas action refers to human moral acts only (Copleston 1962:125). My
understanding is that this refers to actions that are deliberate and voluntary. This includes acts
of kindness, political actions of the government and legislation and moral duty imposed by
reason on every individual.

We may add to this that moral actions also include being indifferent, that is, refraining from
acting when circumstances may demand an action. An example would be a mother refraining
from action when witnessing sexual abuse of her child by the father. The id of such a father
with its Thanatos drives would be so strong that this man's superego could be considered dead,
or the ego in him fails to sublimate or repress his desires to molest his child. Suppose that the
father had managed to kill his superego, that nothing of it is left and that he was driven so
forcefully by the id drive, with its primitive pleasure appetites, that he does not believe that
what he did was wrong. By silencing the superego, he has already committed a moral act. The
point here is: 1. He has "killed" the superego (the conscience); 2. We do not know what he
would have thought had his superego been intact. All we can be sure of is that without
conscience there is no moral guilt, without which everything goes. The problem we have to
contend with here, is that on the one hand (for Freud) an individual feels guilty for not allowing
the primitive (wild) desires to be gratified, while in contrast the Aristotelian wisdom suggests
that it is when one chooses wrongly, that one feels guilty.

However, we are surely unwilling to accept that kind of reasoning. Our unwillingness suggests
that there exist some universal values on which all people (or at least all reasonable people)
would agree. If we assume that there are no universal values and that the superego is relative
to cultural or religious background, then we must also agree that the establishment of a Truth
and Reconciliation Commission (in South Africa) was unnecessary and had no basis to require
accountability from people who were involved in crimes against humanity perpetrated under
apartheid. Indeed, the very notion of crime would lose all meaning. Our conduct as human
beings is largely motivated by wants, desires and natural drives, but all of these are channelled
or guided by prudence. Prudence as a determining principle of human conduct differs from the
natural law, instincts or natural drives. We cannot paralyse our natural drives but we are free to
choose our principles.

Another example of support for moral responsibility is to be found in the context of past gross
human rights violations. Typically, this conjures up images of a Nuremberg Tribunal and in
South Africa the Truth and Reconciliation Commission (also abbreviated as TRC). Both the
Nuremberg Trial and the TRC confirm that a person can be held responsible for his/her
conduct. These two bodies were based on an assumption of the existence of freedom and some
kind of universal idea of right and wrong. A useful definition of moral guilt which will be
considered for the purpose of this paper is that of Jaspers (1971):
The question of the individual analysing himself is that [which] we call the moral one.....The
morally guilty are those who are capable of penance, the ones who knew, or could know, and
yet walked in ways which self-analysis reveals to them as culpable error - whether conveniently
closing their eyes to events or permitting themselves to be intoxicated, seduced or bought with
personal advantages, or obeying from fear (Jaspers 1971:41).

In Kritz (1995:208) Massey gives a clearer understanding of moral guilt by stating that moral
responsibility for actions or omission (failure to act) is to interrogate the actor/ doer or at least
try to determine the blameworthiness of the moral agent. The dominant idea behind the notion
of moral-ego implies that the moral agent must account for his/ her conduct, particularly in
those instances where he/she could have acted differently. Jaspers maintains that the
determination of moral guilt belongs to the individual and his/ her conscience (1971:41).

The question of rape or child molestation can sometimes be confusing. The confusion could be
caused by a lack of understanding that the act of rape is not and must not be equated to the
sexual desire between two consenting adults. Rape, by contrast, is the use of power; an act of
physical violence aimed at sexual gratification. Sex with a minor and without consent is not sex
but rape. This is a moral judgement censuring the carnal contact as wrong. The moral
judgement does not lie in the superego but in the moral-ego. The sexual abuse of a child by its
father is therefore a morally reprehensible act.

Within the alternative framework I am proposing, my understanding of St Thomas's theory of

the virtue of prudence is that the three Freudian elements of personality cannot account for
moral decision-making and behaviour. Using St Thomas's theory correctly, one can conclude
that there is only the ego (the self or the conscience-self). This conscience-self for St Thomas,
contains the virtue of prudence that is the ability to deliberate and reason properly and thus act
accordingly. Doing or choosing otherwise is an example of a miscalculation on the part of the
individual. Let us turn to the following example.

A is confronted with a situation in which she is called upon to stop sexual abuse of her daughter
by her husband. A then chooses not to do a thing about this incident (take note that this is a
deliberate action). Consequently, the perpetrator continues to molest the child. The helpless
child hopes the mother or somebody will do something to rescue her. The child is not aware
that the mother witnessed the abuse first hand. The child reports the abuse to the mother, who
warns the child not to say any such thing again. There is conflict in the child. The mother
pretends she never witnessed or had any knowledge of such an act. The bottom line is that she
does nothing to prevent this from happening again. The child feels betrayed not only by the
father but by the mother as well.

A's moral judgement is unreasonable according to St Thomas. Indeed, A's reasoning is no better
than that of the child-molester; in fact, it is worse. Not doing anything or being indifferent is in
itself an act, but an act of omission. One can therefore distinguish between two elements: an act
of commission and one of omission. In the light of this example one can understand what both
Aristotle and St Thomas mean when they say: "Prudence is the virtue by means of which human
beings choose and command their acts" (Westberg 1994:144). The Aristotelian definition of
prudence in the Nicomachean Ethics (Aristotle 1992) reads thus: "Prudence is a true and
reasoned state of capacity to act with regard to the things which are good and bad for man"
(Book 6, Chapter 5, 1140b). St Thomas on the other hand, distinguishes four cardinal virtues
which together constitute a unity.

• Prudence

• Justice

• Courage
• Temperance.

The purpose here, however, is to focus solely on the virtue of practical wisdom or prudence.
Suffice it to say that these four virtues are inseparable yet nonetheless distinct. St Thomas
further argues that prudence among these has a unique function in the sense that it gives to
others their form, fixing them through reason as habits of character, that is, as sources of
voluntary and deliberate acts rather than accidental or unformed inclinations (Wyllie 1965).
Accordingly to this perspective, phronesis is characteristically a virtue of humankind's natural
reason. Returning to our example, and applying it to St Thomas's conception of phronesis, it
becomes obvious that what A did by not acting positively or doing anything to prevent the abuse
of a child, is an unreasonable act. In the same way, for A to pretend she is unaware of the
situation that called upon her to act and not be indifferent, is in the mind of the child, and any
reasonable person, morally wrong. Hence, A is also an unreasonable person. This is because
wherever there are human acts, if such acts are good, then St Thomas would say prudence is
also present in those who performed these good acts. On the other hand, wherever human acts
fail to perform something good, there prudence is lacking. With regard to the acts of A in our
example we can thus conclude that the virtue of practical wisdom was lacking. However, the
Freudian theory would have it that the id with its primitive drives is uncompromising in its
demands for pleasure to an irrational extent. And it is at this stage, Freud suggests, that
conflict arises between the primitive demands of the id and the sometimes over-strict control of
the superego. Freud further suggests that the two must be reconciled by the ego. This is not
how St Thomas would argue. Applying the doctrine of prudence, Freud's notion of personality is
thus flawed. There is no such thing as parts called the id, the ego and the superego. The so-
called id is sublimated or over-powered by the virtue of prudence where it is possible for a
person to be reasonable. It is the unified moral-self that is in conflict with itself, namely at
having to make a choice between options of different moral values. The virtue of practical
wisdom (that is, phronesis) accordingly, is not one "part" of the self, in conflict with another
"part" but rather a value to guide the unified moral agent, not some (other) agent within this
agent - or against it (over as Freud would have it drawing on the superego and
the id respectively). This value, moreover, is able to be assimilated by the moral agent as a
virtuous enrichment of character, as he/she matures through repeatedly having to make moral
decisions along life's way.

Let me summarise St Thomas's conception of prudence: reason is perfected in the knowledge of

truth and right reason regulates right action. This implies that prudence must be able to
discern that which is right and thus do the right thing. Since ethics is concerned with what
ought to be done as well as with what is and can be done, I find St Thomas's theory
of phronesis enlightening. For ethical deliberations then, practical wisdom (where it exists)
directs human action into something good and right, whereas where prudence is lacking,
human actions are misdirected. In this way what we find in St Thomas is that prudence
(phronesis) or practical rationality/reason translates knowledge of truth into action. In our
example, the knowledge of truth for A would be to make sure that she stops the abusive
behaviour somehow or reports it in order for the perpetrator to be stopped. Such acts cannot be
seen as moral, no matter who the agent or whatever the circumstances may be. Again, the
knowledge of the truth for A is that if you witness or know about crime being committed you are
obliged to do the right thing by seeking ways to bring it to an end. In our example, A, lacked
practical reasoning or phronesis, as St Thomas would suggest, that is, by acting reasonably to
ensure the abuse is stopped.

St Thomas further suggests that prudence as a virtue is not all that is required for someone's
actions to be good. In other words, phronesis is not the only moral guide to our actions. He
maintains that the will is the motivating force and must also be taken into account when
judging the morality of the act (Wyllie 1965:9). Therefore, a good action for St Thomas, as for
Aristotle, is a combination of two things: right reason (which directs our actions) and rectitude
of the will. Here I believe St Thomas is in a sense a deontologist because he sets up a condition
under which the virtue of prudence (practical reasoning) can be judged. Let me simplify once
more.

• The first condition is that the intention of the will must be directed towards the good.

• The second condition is that the deliberation of reason must direct man's choice to do the
right act (Wyllie 1965:9).

The act in this case is the means to further the good intentions of the will. We therefore have a
situation of the means justifying the end and the end forming an integral part of the means. The
fulfilment of the second of these conditions presupposes the first. In other words, prudence
knows, understands and judges, whereas the will desires, chooses and commands. Both powers
pervade man's moral life and all individual acts within that life. In other words, the act of the
will begins with the intention of its goal. For the act to be good, the will must be good.

Our natural reactions to ethical situations depend on our ability to reason and apply that reason
to real problems. In other words, according St Thomas (and Aristotle), in every moral sense our
actions depend on our ability to reason well and be prudent about the situations that confront
us. To be able to make a moral decision about what is right and appropriate we must have the
ability to fit things together and to recognise what is appropriate and what is inappropriate. The
use of our rational faculties is what I am calling for in order to cope with the moral dilemmas
that confront us on a daily basis. Phronesis can assist us in our moral and other daily processes.
Therefore, it is of vital importance to have one's priorities right. To order priorities right, we
need to discover what principle pertains to a given situation. Such a fundamental principle or
set of principles is the most basic assumption one makes about everything one does. Indeed, it
characterises a person as the kind of person he or she is.

For me three elements constitute an act:

1. Knowledge (that what one is doing is right or wrong).

2. The freedom to act and to will (choice and planning).

3. Completion of the act (whether successful or not).

In my opinion, the three elements include both the virtue of prudence and the intention of the
will. For St Thomas, in order for the act to be considered good or ethical, the will must also be
good (Wyllie 1965:34). A combination of these three elements constitutes the basis for deciding
whether an act is ethical or not. I am therefore arguing that if any one of these elements is
missing, it becomes difficult to ascertain the presence of prudence. What the above elements
require is for individuals to have what Gonsalves (1985:59) refers to as "prudential certainty".
Prudential certainty suggests that there comes a time when an individual is not sure or is in
doubt about what must be done, that is, has an ethical dilemma. This suggests that prudential
certainty is never absolute; it is always a matter of degree. Therefore, prudential certainty
cautions against acting with a doubtful mind. Should the necessity to act arise, then one must
choose the lesser evil, but as a principle, one should avoid acting with a doubtful mind.

THE MORAL-SELF

In order to understand what I have coined as the term moral-self, we will now examine Freud's
concept of human psychology in the context of ethics. For Freud the human personality consists
of three morally determinate systems: the id, the ego and the superego. This is where I differ
from Freud; there is only one personality structure, the moral-ego, which contains both the
ability to do good and the capacity to succumb to our bad appetites, hence the moral-self.

Let us explore the meaning of the term moral-self. Clearly, it is derived from the Freudian
understanding of the ego or the self; however, the term as used here, refers to the conscious
moral being. I agree with Freud that a child is an amoral being in that every child is born
without a set of morals. But one may ask, if this is the case, from whence do we derive our
moral being? The Freudian id makes a person do things that later on that same person feels
guilty about; whereas the child does not feel guilty no matter how unethical it behaves because
the moral-ego is still dormant - only later will it awake to what we regard as moral reality. My
theory is as follows: In the early stages of development, the child is selfish not because of
the Thanatos, as Freud suggests, but because the child is not yet at the stage where it can
prudently decide or choose the right course of action (that is, there is a total lack of prudence).
However, as the child develops, the moral-ego also develops in such a way that gradually the
child who was once selfish, now becomes aware of moral reality, which dictates what is
regarded as acceptable and what is not acceptable. Note that nobody has yet told the child that
being selfish is morally unacceptable.

In Freud's theory, the superego punishes the id when the id obeys the primitive pleasure drive
by making one feel guilty (Strachey, Strachey & Tyson 1986:162). In addition, Freud seems to
believe that being moral and having a conscience is undesirable (Jones 1966:41) and drives one
to becoming neurotic. In other words, for him the more moral an individual is; the more he/she
becomes guilty. There is no logic here, first, if the id is amoral, there is no way a person can feel
guilty about anything. Secondly, the reverse is true - bad conscience becomes a fact where the
choice was an immoral one. For Freud, therefore the function of the psychoanalytic therapy was
mainly to ensure that the ego is completely free from the oppressive demands of
the superego. According to Jones (1966:45) the fear of the superego is what Freud referred to
as moral anxiety. In my ethical theory, what Freud refers to as the superego, is actually,
the moral-ego in its maturity realising that we could have chosen better had we allowed
practical wisdom to direct our actions. I therefore argue for a reinterpretation of Freud's
theory, namely: bringing together the id and the superego aspects of human personality in such
a way that the ego (self) constitutes the moral-ego. In his endeavour to address the problem of
the unconscious with regard to the moral behaviour of the repressed mind, MacIntyre (2004:12)
maintains that the ego of the rational agent is of paramount importance in terms of how the
moral agent acts, irrespective of whether the action is bad or good, moral or immoral. He
further argues that in order for the individual to be rational, three conditions are required:

• A rational agent must be aware of reasons and motives but the moral agent must also be
undeceived about such reasons and motives.

• A rational agent must have a conception of his/her good; put differently, the individual must
articulate in a clear manner what constitutes success or failure in achieving his/her good.

• A rational agent must be able to order and transform her or his desires; in simple terms one
cannot allow the desires of the id to control or dominate him/her as discussed earlier.

The third and the final condition of the rational agent (MacIntyre 2004) clearly suggests that a
practical rational agent is one whose actions are guided by phronesis - an individual who is able
to exercise reasoning in deciding or allowing his/her desires to influence his/ her actions. In this
way, the Aristotelian phronesis suggests that an individual who has a moral-ego is one whose
action is determined by rationality.

CONCLUSION
My ethical recontextualisation of Freud integrates the three aspects (id, ego, superego) in such
a way that our moral acts express our inner character. I therefore suggest that these
components of our personalities could be reconciled into one, but retain an element of tension
precisely when we are confronted with the need to choose between one act and another. I have
argued that these integrated components together constitute the moral-ego.

This paper is more concerned about things we do (acts of commission) and things we fail to do
(omissions) as in the example of the indifferent mother (moral philosophy). It was noted that
prudence, which is concerned with the right means, presupposes good intentions with respect
to end results. This leads us to the notion of the means justifying the end. It was concluded that
prudence is lacking whenever our acts come short of doing the right thing (whatever that may
be).

BIBLIOGRAPHY

Acampora, CD. (Ed). 2006. Nietzsche's On the genealogy of morals: critical essays. Lanham,
MD: Rowman & Littlefield Publishers. [ Links ]

Arendt, H. 2003. Responsibility and judgement. New York: Schocken Books. [ Links ]

Aristotle. 1992. Nicomachean ethics (trans WD. Ross). New York: The Modern Library.
[ Links ]

Composta, D. 2000. Moral philosophy and social ethics. Bangalore: Urbanian University Press.
[ Links ]

Copleston, F. 1962. A history of philosophy: Albert the Great to Duns Scotus. New York: Image
Books. [ Links ]

Cordon, LA. 2005. Popular psychology: an encyclopaedia. Greenwood: Greenwood Publishing

Group. [ Links ]

Gay, VP. 1997. Interpretation interminable: agonistics in psychoanalysis. In Agonistics: arenas

of creative contest. J. Lungstrum & E. Sauer (Eds). New York: State University of New York.
[ Links ]

Gonsalves, MA. 1985. Fagothey's Right and reason: ethics in theory and practice. Toronto:
Times Mirror/Mosby College Publishing. [ Links ]

Holt, RR. 1980. Freud's impact on modern morality. The Hastings Center Report, Vol 10(2):38-
45. [ Links ]

James, CA. 1998. Irrationality in philosophy and psychology: the moral implications of self-
defeating behaviour. Journal of Consciousness Studies, Vol 5(2):224-234. [ Links ]

Jaspers, K. 1971. Differentiation of German guilt. In Morris, H. (Ed), Guilt and shame. Belmont:
Wadsworth. [ Links ]

Jones, DH. 1966. Freud's theory of moral conscience. Philosophy, Vol 41(155):34-57.
[ Links ]
Kritz, NJ. (Ed). 1995. Transitional justice. Vol 1. Washington: United States Institute of Peace
Press. [ Links ]

MacIntyre, A. 1981. After virtue: a study in moral theory. Notre Dame, Indianapolis: University
of Notre Dame Press. [ Links ]

MacIntyre, A. 2004. The unconscious: a conceptual analysis. Revised Edition. New York &
London: Routledge. [ Links ]

Massey, SJ. 1995. Individual responsibility for assisting the Nazis in persecuting civilians. In
Kritz, NJ. (Ed). Transitional justice. Vol 1. Washington: United States Institute of Peace Press.
[ Links ]

Olivier, B. 2012. Heidegger, Plato, Freud, Nietzsche: the 'soul' and the question of human
finitude. Phronimon: Journal of the South African Society for Greek Philosophy and the
Humanities. Vol 13(1):77-98. [ Links ]

Pegis. AC. (Ed). 1960. Summa Theologica: basic writings of St Thomas Aquinas. New York.
[ Links ]

Plato. 1961. Phaedrus. In the collected dialogues of Plato. Edited by Hamilton, E. & Cairns, H.
Princeton University Press. [ Links ]

Ricoeur, P. 1970. Freud and philosophy: an essay on interpretation (trans D. Savage). New
Haven & London: Yale University Press. [ Links ]

Spurling, L. (Ed). 1989. Sigmund Freud: critical assessment. New York & London: Routledge.
[ Links ]

Strachey, J., Strachey, A. & Tyson, A. 1986. The standard edition of the complete works of
Sigmund Freud. London: Hogarth Press & Institute of Psycho-analysis. [ Links ]

Westberg, D. 1994. Practical reason: Aristotle, action and prudence in Aquinas. Oxford
University Press. [ Links ]

Wyllie, RH. 1965. Virtue ethics in St Thomas. Unpublished thesis submitted for the degree
Master of Arts in Philosophy. Pietermaritzburg: University of Natal Press. [ Links ]

1 Plato is credited with the triad theory of the three parts of the mind.
2 Aware of Hegel's controversial and annoying definition of his triad world of existence - this is
not the place to enter into a discussion regarding his discourse.
3 The term used by Hegel is "unmediated".
4 For Hegel the Greek and Europeans are both superior to other groups he referred to as
belonging to the childhood of spirit.

South African Society for Greek Philosophy and the Humanities (SASGPH)
Brooklyn House, Room F1- 79, College of Law, UNISA, Pretoria, Gauteng, ZA, 0003,
Tel: +27 12 433 9435, Tel: +27 12 429 6837