Module 3

The Act
__________________________________________________________________________________________________

Module 3: Weeks 7-8: Human Acts, Reason, and Impartiality

The module provides discussions on the differences between human acts and acts of man, as well as the elements and impediments
to human acts. Towards the latter part of the module, reason, impartiality, and the 7-step moral reasoning model are also tackled.

Learning Outcomes

At the end of this Module, students should be able to:

 differentiate human acts from acts of man,
 identify the elements of human acts,
 understand how the impediments to human acts either aggravate or mitigate liability,
 explain why reason and impartiality are the minimum requirements for morality, and
 explain the 7-step moral reasoning model.

Human Acts

 Human acts are those actions that man performs knowingly, freely, and voluntarily (elements of human acts). A person
assumes full responsibility and accountability for his actions.
 Examples of human acts are studying, working, and eating healthy foods.

Acts of Man

 Acts of man are those involuntary actions an instinctive and are not within the control of the will. Such actions are the
biological and physiological movements of man.
 Examples of acts of man are breathing, digestion, circulation of air in the body, and beating of the heart.

Impediments to Human Acts

 Ignorance. It is the absence of knowledge in a subject capable of having knowledge or lack of knowledge in a subject who
should have knowledge. An animal cannot be called ignorant because of its inability to have human knowledge, but a civil
servant can be ignorant if he lacks knowledge of the code of conduct for the civil service.
 Passion. Passions are powerful emotions springing from a pretence of something perceived as good or evil. If the passions that
precede an action are not deliberately aroused, they increase the will to act while simultaneously diminishing free will. The
action is still a human action to the extent that free will can be measured.
 When an actor deliberately arouses passion before acting, it is obvious that the voluntary nature of the action also
increases. For instance, a person deliberately causing herself to become enraged to kill another person. Herein, killing is
voluntary in cause, and the actor is guilty of homicide to the extent that he foresaw the killing.
 Fear. It is an emotional reaction arising from an impending danger. It can be inflicted justly or unjustly—justly when inflicted by
a person with the right to inflict it, such as when a judge acts, or unjustly when inflicted by a person without authority. If fear is
strong enough to destroy a person’s freedom of choice, then it destroys the voluntariness of an action.

Reason
 Reason and experience are required for determining the likely effects of a given motive or character trait, so reason does play
an important role in moral judgment.

Impartiality
 In political theory, impartiality is frequently connected with justice and a commitment to equality. In the personal realm,
impartiality directs an agent not to act selfishly or unfairly toward others. In the political realm, impartiality requires that the
structure of society and its institutions should not be rigged, for morally irrelevant reasons, to favor some groups over others
by giving them benefits and opportunities that are not open to all.

1
Scott Rae’s Model for Moral Reasoning
1. Gather the facts. Frequently, ethical dilemmas can be resolved simply by clarifying the facts of the case in question. In those
cases that prove to be more difficult, gathering the facts is the essential first step prior to any ethical analysis and reflection on
the case. In analyzing a case, we want to know the available facts at hand as well as any facts that are currently unknown but
that need to be ascertained. Thus, one is asking not only "what do we know?" but also "what do we need to know?" in order to
make an intelligent ethical decision.
2. Determine the ethical issues. The ethical issue(s) are stated in terms of competing interests. It's these conflicting interests that
actually make for an ethical dilemma. The issues should be presented in an "us vs. them" format in order to reflect the interests
that are colliding in a particular ethical dilemma. For example, many ethical decisions, especially at the end of a patient's life,
can be stated in terms of patient autonomy (or the right of the individual to make his or her own decisions about medical care)
vs. the sanctity of life (or the duty to preserve life). In Case #1 above, the interests of the patient in having the physician keep
confidentiality conflict with the interests of his sister in being protected from the risk of contracting the HIV virus.
3. What principles have a bearing on the case? In any ethical dilemma, there are certain moral values or principles that are central
to the competing positions being taken. It is critical to identify these principles and, in some cases, to determine whether some
principles are to be weighted more heavily than others. Clearly, biblical principles will be weighted the most heavily. There may
be other principles that speak to the case that may come from other sources. There may be constitutional principles or
principles drawn from natural law that supplement the biblical principles that come into play here.
4. List the alternatives. Part of the creative thinking involved in resolving an ethical dilemma involves coming up with various
alternative courses of action. Though there will be some alternatives that you will rule out without much thought, in general,
the more alternatives that are listed, the better the chance that your list will include some high-quality ones. In addition, you
may come up with some very creative alternatives that you had not considered before.
5. Compare the alternatives with the principles. At this point, the task is one of eliminating alternatives according to the moral
principles that have a bearing on the case. In many instances, the case will be resolved at this point since the principles will
eliminate all alternatives except one. In fact, the purpose of this comparison is to see if there is a clear decision that can be
made without further deliberation. If a clear decision is not forthcoming, then the next part of the model must be considered.
At the very least, some of the alternatives may be eliminated by this step of comparison.
6. Weigh the consequences. If the principles do not yield a clear decision, then a consideration of the consequences of the
remaining available alternatives is in order. Both positive and negative consequences are to be considered. They should be
informally weighted since some positive consequences are more beneficial than others and some negative consequences are
more detrimental than others.
7. Make a decision. Deliberation cannot go on forever. At some point, a decision must be made. Realize that one common
element to ethical dilemmas is that there are no easy and painless solutions to them. Frequently, the decision that is made is
one that involves the least number of problems or negative consequences, not one that is devoid of them.

Assessment Task
Case Study on Rae’s 7-Step Moral Reasoning Model: "Please don't tell!"
A twenty-year-old Hispanic male was brought to a hospital emergency room, having suffered abdominal injuries due to gunshot
wounds obtained in gang violence. He had no medical insurance, and his stay in the hospital was somewhat shorter than expected
due to his good recovery. Physicians attending to him felt that he could complete his recovery at home just as easily as in the
hospital, and he was released after only a few days in the hospital.

During his stay in the hospital, the patient admitted to his primary physician that he was HIV positive, having contracted the virus
that causes AIDS. This was confirmed by a blood test administered while he was hospitalized.

When he was discharged from the hospital, the physician recommended that a professional nurse visit him regularly at home in
order to change the bandages on his still substantial wounds and to insure that an infection did not develop. Since he had no health
insurance, he was dependent on Medicaid, a government program that pays for necessary medical care for those who cannot afford
it. However, Medicaid refused to pay for home nursing care since there was someone already in the home who was capable of
providing the necessary care. That person was the patient's 22-year-old sister, who was willing to take care of her brother until he
was fully recovered. Their mother had died years ago, and the sister was used to providing care for her younger siblings.

The patient had no objection to his sister providing this care, but he insisted that she not be told that he had tested HIV positive.
Though he had always had a good relationship with his sister, she did not know that he was an active homosexual. His even greater

2
fear was that his father would hear of his homosexual orientation and lifestyle. Homosexuality is generally looked upon with
extreme disfavor among Hispanics.

The patient's physician is bound by his code of ethics, which places a very high priority on maintaining confidentiality. That is,
information about someone's medical condition that he or she does not want known cannot be divulged by the physician. Some
would argue that the responsibility of confidentiality is even greater with HIV/AIDS since disclosure of someone's homosexuality
normally carries devastating personal consequences for the individual who is forced "out of the closet."

On the other hand, the patient's sister is putting herself at risk by providing nursing care for him. Doesn't she have a right to know
the risks to which she is subjecting herself, especially since she willingly volunteered to take care of her brother?

If you were the physician, what would you do in this case? Would you breach the norm of confidentiality to protect the patient's
sister, or would you keep confidentiality in order to protect the patient from harm that would come to him from his other family
members, especially his father?

Perhaps as good a question as "what would you do" in this situation is "how would you decide what to do" in this situation? The
process of making a moral decision can be as important as the decision itself, and many ethical decisions that people encounter are
so complex that it is easy to exhaust oneself by talking around the problem without actually making any progress toward resolving it.
The response to many moral dilemmas is "where do I start?" and the person who is faced with these decisions often needs direction
that will enable him or her to move constructively toward resolution and "see the forest for the trees."

In order to adequately address the ethical dilemmas that people encounter regularly, the following is a model that can be used to
ensure that all the necessary bases are covered. This is not a formula that will automatically generate the "right" answer to an
ethical problem. Rather, it is a guideline that is designed to make sure that all the right questions are being asked in the process of
ethical deliberation.

Given the ethnic and religious diversity of our society, it is important that the model used for making ethical decisions have "room"
in it to accommodate a whole host of different moral and ethical perspectives. This model is not tied to any one particular
perspective but can be used comfortably with a variety of cultural, ethnic, and religious backgrounds. This is not a distinctively
Christian model, though it is consistent with the Scripture, and any Christian can use Biblical principles in utilizing this model. As was
explored in chapter 2, what makes many moral dilemmas so difficult is that the Scripture does not speak to the issue as clearly as
one would prefer because it has not directly addressed the issue. More general principles can be brought to bear on the issue at
hand. However, in these instances, there is often disagreement about which biblical principles are applicable to the specific issue
under discussion. For example, in Case #1 (Please Don't Tell), the physician could invoke the Biblical principle of compassion toward
his patient by refusing to disclose information that would harm him. But at the same time, he could invoke the same principle of
compassion toward the sister by protecting her from the risk of medical harm. It is not clear that an appeal to principles alone will
conclusively resolve this case. Thus, to insist that all ethical dilemmas are resolved simply by appeal to Biblical principles seems to
oversimplify the case. Certainly, many moral questions are resolved conclusively by appeal to Scripture. But there are other cases in
which that does not happen. That is not to say that Scripture is not sufficient for the believer's spiritual life, but that the special
revelation of Scripture is often supplemented by the general revelation of God outside of Scripture. This model makes room for both
general and special revelation and gives each a place in helping to resolve the difficult moral dilemmas facing people today.

Instruction:
Provide facts on each step of Rae’s model.

Rubric

Criteria Ratings Points

Identification of facts and issues 12 0 Points 12

Facts and issues are clearly categorized under each step. Points No Points
Full Marks
Marks
Decision 8 Points 0 Points 8 Points
The decision is logically premised on facts and issues. Full No
Marks Marks

3
 TOTAL 20
Points

References
Instapedia. (n.d.). Impediments to human action. https://www.insightsonindia.com/ethics-integrity-and-aptitude/ethics-and-human-
interface/impediments-to-human-action/
Newey, C. (2022, September 15). Impartiality in Moral and Political Philosophy.
https://oxfordre.com/politics/display/10.1093/acrefore/9780190228637.001.0001/acrefore-9780190228637-e-2015
Rae, S. (2010, March 6). Model for making ethical decisions. Lifting hands. http://en.liftinghands.net/selfstudy_detail.php?
a=1&b=1&t=22
Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy. (2022, August 19). Kant and Hume on morality. https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/kant-
hume-morality/#ReasEmotMora