1 THE STUDY OF ETHICS

Ethics is derived from the Greek word ethos which means "characteristic way
of acting. Its Latin equivalent is mos, mores, meaning "tradition or custom" Ethos
includes cultural mannerisms, religion, politics, laws, and social aspirations of a
group of people. In our study. ethos refers to those characteristics belonging to
man as a rational being. endowed with intellect and free-will

The ethos of man as man is revealed in the following;

1. He is able to distinguish between good and evil, right and wrong. moral
and immoral
2. He feels within himself an obligation to do what is good and to avoid
what is evil.
3. He feels himself accountable for his actions, expecting reward or
punishments for them.

In other words, man is endowed by nature with a moral sense. He is self-

conscious of his dignity and submits to the duty of doing what is good and
avoiding what is wrong. This much is expected of man: that he conducts himself
according to the "dictates of reason".

Ethics, its meaning

Ethics is defined as the science of the morality of human acts. And because
actions reflect the motives of the doer, Ethics is said to be the study of human
motivation, and ultimately, of human rational behavior. That aspect of the subject
matter which primarily interests Ethics is morality.

Human Acts are those actions performed by man, knowingly and freely. They
are also called deliberate or intentional actions, or, voluntary actions. As such,
they are differentiated from the so called acts of man which are instinctive and
involuntary.

Morality is the quality of human acts by which they are constituted as good,
bad, or indifferent. That which is good is described as moral; that which is bad is
immoral, and that which is indifferent is amoral.

Human acts reveal the thoughts and inclinations of the person doing them.
They are then manifestation of one's character or moral conduct. A person who
has the habit or inclination to do good is said to be virtuous. On the contrary, one
who has the habit of doing wrong is vicious.

Ethics as Value Education

In the classical tradition, Ethics is Moral Philosophy and is distinguished

from Moral Theology. As a branch of philosophy, Ethics relies solely on human
reason to investigate truths. Moral Theology, on the other hand, employs reason
insofar as it is enlightened by faith or divine revelation.

In contemporary curriculum, Ethics takes the form of Value Education. A

value is something a person prizes, cherishes, and esteems as important to him.
It includes ideas, things, or experiences. The aim of Value Education is to guide
the individual in choosing wisely his values and in acting upon them.

Ethics is the rational foundation of any attempt at Value Education. Ethics

goes deeper into the reasons why we must choose certain values. Ethics
explains human values in relation to the ultimate purpose of human existence.

The Art of Correct Living

Art, in general, is the appreciation of beauty. It implies order and harmony of

parts in a given whole.

Human life does not imply merely physical survival. It is a vocation towards
the refinement of the spirit. The demands of daily life includes and derives
meaning from the cultivation of those traits that truly reflect man's innate dignity.
In this context, Ethics is an art. It is the breath of life, pulsating with the desire for
growth and development. It is a master plan indicating where man must go and
what he ought to do in order to live well. In a sense, every man is an artist,
creating something of beauty out of his self.

Importance of Ethics

Ethics is an indispensable knowledge. Without moral perception, man is only

in animal. Without morality, man as rational being is a failure. Because moral
knowledge is too essential to be dismissed, the Creator has seen it fit to gift man
with the natural insight of it. No matter how rudimentary and vague, the primitive
has it. And modem man, finding convenient reasons to tum his back from it,
discovers that he is in the center of it.

Moral integrity is the only true measure of what man ought to be. The most
powerful king, or the most successful professional, is nothing unless he 100 is
morally upright. Thus, the philosophers speak of Ethics as the "only necessary
knowledge" "We are tempted to center everything on human happiness", says
Jacques Leclercq, "forgetting that man's greatness, perfection and happiness,
his whole meaning in fact, consist in transcending the commonly accepted
human good". (Christianity and Money, p. 9)

Morality is the foundation of every human society. Rightly, Russell observes

that "without civic morality, communities perish; without personal morality their
survival has no value". Every culture admits the Importance of morality as a
standard of behavior. When the moral foundations of a nation are threatened
that society itself is threatened. In the words of Senator Leticia Ramos Shahani:

"At the bottom of our economic problems and political instability is the
weakness and corruption of the moral foundations of our society. We do need an
economic recovery programme. We also urgently need a moral, intellectual and
spiritual recovery programme." (Nick Joaquir "The Pinoy X-rayed", Philippine Daily
Inquirer)

Two Ethical Systems

There are two general categories under which ethical theories may be classified:
the atheistic and theistic approaches.

1. The Atheistic approach assumes that only matter exists and that man is
responsible only to himself since there is no God who creates and rules the
universe. Morality is an invention of man to suit his requirements and to
preserve his society. Moral truths are therefore temporary and mutable
depending on the situation. Accordingly, the concept of good and evil is
always relative and changeable.

Atheistic theories propose the following principles:

1. Matter is the only reality.

2. Man is matter and does not have spiritual dimension
3. Man is free and must exercise his freedom to promote the welfare of
society.
 4. There is no life after death
5. Man is accountable only to the State.

2. The Theistic approach begins with the assumption that God is the
Supreme Lawgiver. Everything must conform to God's eternal plan of
creation. Man must exercise his freedom in accordance with God's will There
are absolute principles of morality which are not changeable. Man is
accountable for his actions and deserves either a reward or punishment in
this life or in the next.

Theistic theories postulate the following truths:

1. God is the Supreme Creator and Lawgiver.

2. Man is free and must use his freedom to promote his personal and
social interests along with his fellowmen.
3. Man has an immortal soul which cannot die.
4. Man is accountable for his actions, both good and evil.

Ethics and Religion

Ethics is a science and depends upon rational investigation of its truths.
Religion is a system of beliefs and practices based on faith or revelation.

Ethics teaches the value of religion, presenting it as a duty to the Almighty,

Religion, on the other hand, as an organized church, contributes to the teaching
of ethics and continues to enrich with it its moral insights. Thus, religion provides
both the direction and motivation for the moral life of people. While different
religions give different emphasis to different moral values, they coincide in their
efforts to improve both man and human society. All great religions, for instance,
hold life in deep respect and propose universal brotherhood as necessary for
global peace and prosperity.

Ethics and Law

Ethics studies human motivation. It goes deeper than the study of external
actions. It explores thoughts and feelings. It requires that man desires that which
is good and act in accordance with that desire. On the contrary, law requires that
we perform the required action regardless of our feelings towards such action.
The law is concerned with the externality of the act. "For law is definitely
concerned, says Mortimer 1. Adler, "with what we do, not with what we feel"
(Ethics: The Study of Moral Values.

Ethical norms cover thoughts and feelings. Laws do not judge man's
thoughts and desires. In the Ethics of St. Paul, for example, a man commits
adultery when he regands a woman lustfully. This is not the case with law which
requires an external act as proof that a crime has been committed.

Morality therefore, has a wider implication than law, because law can either
be moral or immoral. Thus, what is legal is not necessarily moral; but what is
moral is necessarily worth legalizing.

Ethics is not simply a body of do's and don'ts in the manner laws are Ethics
is a personal commitment to uphold what is true and good. Ethics aims to
develop "right disposition and inner spirit" for accepting what is lawful. (Bernard
Haring. The Law of Christ, vol. I Mereien Press, Calc, 1960, p. 42-43).

Professional Ethics
The practice of a profession cannot be regulated entirely by legislation. Each
profession therefore subscribes to a set of moral code. This Code of Ethics
guides the actuation of a professional where the law is silent or inadequate

A Code of Ethics implies that, before anything else, a professional is a

person who has the obligation to listen to the "dictates of reason". The need for it
is obviously to the advantage of the profession. Many businessmen, for example,
do realize that "honest business" translates to "good business". The public
patronizes firms that are perceived to be reputable. The Code of Ethics For
Business proposed by the Bishops- Businessmen's Conference for Human
Development, Philippines, provides:

Towards the Customers, business shall, in the production of goods and services:

- strive after a quality that will enable them to serve their purpose efficiently
and effectively,
- avoid anything that would be detrimental to the health, safety or growth of the
proper user or beneficiary of such goods and services,
- and seek to apply or make use of the discoveries and inventions of science
with adaptations that will improve their products or services, thereby
benefiting customers/users and increasing their number.

In its marketing arrangement, business shall:

- deliver the product or service in the quality, quantity, and time agreed upon,
and at a reasonable price, and avoid the creation of artificial shortages, price
manipulation, and like practices;
- establish an after-sales and complaints service commensurate to the kind of
product or service supplied and the prices paid;
 - ensure that all mass media, promotional, and package. communications be
informative and true, and take into account the precepts of morality and the
sound cultural values of the community, and manifest respect for human
dignity. (p. 5).

2 THE HUMAN ACTS

Man no doubt is creative because he possesses tremendous bodily and

spiritual powers. Every minute of his life, he acts, transforming himself and the
world around him. Action constitutes a person, an individual in control of himself
and accountable to himself. What a person is and what becomes of him depend
largely on the type of actions he performs during his life-time.

Human Acts
Distinction is made between human acts and acts of man. The human acts
are those actions which man performs knowingly, freely, and voluntarily. These
actions are the result of conscious knowledge and are subject to the control of
the will. We refer to these actions as deliberate, intentional, or voluntary.

The acts of man are those actions which happen in man. They are instinctive
and are not within the control of the will. Such actions are the biological and
physiological movements in man such as, metabolism, respiration, fear, anger,
love, and jealousy.
Essential Attributes
For an act to be considered a human act, it must possess the following
characteristics:

1. It must be performed by a conscious agent who is aware of what he is

doing and of its consequences. Children below the age of reason, the
insane, the senile- are considered incapable of acting knowingly.

2. It must be performed by an agent who is acting freely, that is, by his own
volition and powers. An action done under duress and against one's will is
not entirely a free action.

3. It must be performed by an agent who decides willfully to perform the act.

This willfulness is the resolve to perform an act here and now, or in some
future time.

Human acts must, therefore, be knowing, free, and willful. The lack of any of
these attributes renders an act defective and less voluntary.

Kinds of Human Acts

Human acts are either elicited acts or commanded acts. Elicited acts are
those performed by the Will and are not bodily externalized. Paul Glenn
enumerates the following elicited acts:

1. Wish is the tendency of will towards something, whether this be realizable

or not. The object of wishing may include the impossible, or, that which is
remotely possible, such as winning the sweepstakes.

2. Intention is the tendency of the will towards something attainable but

without necessarily committing oneself to attain it. Such is our intention to
study the lesson, to attend a party, or to spend a vacation in Baguio.

3. Consent is the acceptance of the will of those needed to carry out the
intention. Thus, a woman is said to show consent when she consciously
attracts attention to herself.
 4. Election is the selection of the will of those means effective enough to carry
out the intention. A salesman shows election when he opts to visit a client
instead of just writing him a letter.

5. Use is the command of the will to make use of those means elected to
carry out the intention. It is this act of the will which moves the salesman to
dress up and take a ride to see his client.

6. Fruition is the enjoyment of the will derived from the attainment of the thing
he had desired earlier. The joy of the woman on being complimented for her
attactiveness, or, the satisfaction of the salesman in closing a deal with his
client-is fruition.

Commanded acts are those done either by man's mental or bodily powers
under the command of the will. Commanded acts are either internal or external
actions.

Examples of internal actions are conscious reasoning, recalling something,

encouraging oneself, controlling aroused emotions and others Examples of
external actions are walking, eating, dancing, laughing listening, reading and
others.

Some actions are combinations of internal and external movements such as,
listening, studying, reading, driving a car, writing a letter, or playing chess. (Paul
Glenn, Ethics, A Class Manual in Moral Philosophy, Herder Book Co., reprint
National Bookstore, Inc., Mla, 1965, pp. 7-8)

Moral Distinctions
Human acts may either be in conformity or not with the dictates of reason.
"Dictates of reason" refers to the shared consciousness of prudent people about
the propriety of a certain action or manner of behavior. It shows what is
permissible in a given situation, the best option as a matter of fact.

"Dictates of Reason" stands for the norm of morality which is the standard
by which actions are judged as to their merits or demerits. On the basis of their
relation to the norm of morality, actions are classified into moral, immoral, or
amoral.

1. Moral actions are those actions which are in conformity with the norm of
morality. They are good actions and are permissible. Working, studying,
paying a debt, telling the truth, loving a friend-are moral actions.
 2. Immoral actions are those actions which are not in conformity with the
norm of morality. They are bad or evil and are not permissible. Refusing to
help the needy, committing murder, adultery, stealing. telling lies-are
immoral actions.

3. A moral actions are those actions which stand neutral in relation to the
norm of morality. They are neither good nor bad in themselves But certain
amoral actions may become good or bad because of the circumstances
attendant to them. Playing basketball is an amoral act, but playing
basketball when one is supposed to be attending a class is wrong. Playing
basketball out of sense of duty to the team is good.

Extrinsic and Intrinsic Evil

The relation of actions to the norm of morality is either intrinsic or extrinsic.
Something is intrinsic to a thing when it is integral to the nature of that thing. The
sweetness of a mango fruit is, for example

But the appeal of a mango to a particular person is extrinsic to it, that is, such
quality is not an integral element of it as fruit.

Some actions are intrinsically evil because their nature is defective either by
excess or by lack of certain attributes. Such, for example, is the nature of
stealing which, by nature, manifests lack of respect for the property of another.

Some other actions are extrinsically evil because certain factors attached to
them by way of circumstances render them opposed to the norm of morality.
Drinking liquor is extrinsically evil when done in excess.

Actions that are intrinsically evil are prohibited at all times and under any
circumstance. Actions that are extrinsically evil may be tolerated provided the
circumstance rendering it to be wrong is first removed. Suicide is intrinsically evil
and remains immoral whatever is its justification. Therapeutic abortion is
extrinsically evil when it is resorted to as a necessary means to safeguard the life
of the mother.

Imputability of Human Acts

A human act is done by a person who is in control of his faculties: intellect
and will. In this sense, a person is like the captain of a ship who assumes full
responsibility and accountability for his decisions
 The imputability of a human act means that the person performing the act is
liable for such act. It involves the notion of guilt or innocence. Thus, actions are
either praiseworthy or blameworthy. Actions are attributed to the doer as their
principal cause. (Paul Glenn: pp. 121-123)

Sanctions and Penalties

Imputability implies that the doer is either deserving of reward or
punishment. This is a basic requirement of justice.

The penal laws of our country provide for a system of punishment for crimes,
ranging from simple fines to imprisonment. The capital punishment, that is,
death penalty, is reserved for "heinous crimes".

Unless also prohibited by the laws of the State, immoralities are not given
corresponding legal punishments such as fines or imprisonment. The Bible,
however, speaks of death as the punishment for "sins" Though the Old
Testament interpret this as death by execution, it refers more to spiritual death or
suffering.

A form of spiritual death is the loss of peace of mind, the only genuine
happiness possible in this life. Medical science and psychiatry also show that
many diseases, both mental and physical, are caused by spiritual disorientation.
Indeed, many of the human sufferings we see and experience are the direct
results of immoral situations. For example, an immoral person risks losing his
honor, his job, and his family. He also runs the risk of being ostracized. On the
other hand, the world looks up to a man of integrity, Peace, contentment, and
honor are but some of the rewards coming to an upright person

Voluntariness
Voluntariness comes from the latin word "vodunas", referring to the Will.
Voluntariness is essential to an act. Without it, an act is a mere act of man. We
distinguish between perfect and imperfect, and conditional and simple
voluntariness.

1. Perfect voluntariness is present in a person who fully knows and fully intends
an act. A man who, wanting to get even, takes a pin and shoots his enemy is
said to be acting with perfect voluntariness.

2. Imperfect voluntariness is present in a penon who acts without fully realizing

what he means to do, or without fully intending the act. A drunken man might
act imationally without fully realizing what he is doing; or, a woman, in terror,
might jump out of a window without fully intending to kill herself.
3. Conditional voluntariness is present in a person who is forced by
circumstances beyond his control to perform an act which he would not do
under nonnial conditions. A child who is intimidated by his mother to study
the lesson is acting with conditional voluntariness.

4. Simple voluntariness is present in a person doing an act witally. regardless

of whether he likes to do is er not. It is either positive or negative. It is positive
when the act requires the performance of an activity, such as polishing the
floor, paying rent, or playing tennis. It is negative when an act requires the
omission of activity, such as not taking prohibited drugs remaining quiet, or
not listening to the radio. (Paul Glenn: 13-18)

Types of Voluntariness
We distinguish further between direct, and indirect voluntariness.

1. Direct voluntariness accompanies an act which is primarily intended by the

doer, either as an end in itself or as a means to achieve something else.
Eating lunch is carried on with direct voluntariness. The same directness
accompanies many of our daily activities such as, going to school, inviting a
friend to a movie, reading a book, or writing a note.

2. Indirect voluntariness accompanies an act or situation which is the mere

result of a directly willed act. Getting a failing mark is indirectly voluntary on
the part of the student who has willingly neglected to study.

Indirectly Voluntary
A person is accountable for his actions and their consequences. But is he also
accountable for results not directly intended?

Generally speaking, a person is liable for the results which are foreseeable by an
ordinary act of prudence. The prankster who shouts "fire" inside a crowded place
has certainly some inkling that his joke might cause fear, panic, stampede and
injury to people.

Paul Glenn considers a person accountable for indirectly voluntary results of

his acts when:

1. The doer is able to foresee the evil result or effect, at least, in a general way:

2. The doer is free to refrain from doing that which would produce the
foreseen evil;
 3. The doer has moral obligation not to do that which produces an evil effect
(Ibid. 18-19).

Alfredo Panizo cites these principles: (Ibid. 38-39),

1. A person is held morally responsible for any evil effect which flows from the
action itself directly and necessarily as a natural consequence, though the
evil effect is not directly willed or intended.

2. A human act from which two effects may result, one good and one evil, is
morally permissible under four conditions. If any of these conditions is
violated, then the action is not justifiable and should not be done.

These four conditions are:

1. The action which produces double effects must be good in itself, or at least
morally indifferent.
2. The good effect must not come from the evil effect. To do evil in order to
achieve something good is not justified.
3. The motive of the doer must be towards the attainment of the good. The
evil effect is permitted only as an incidental result
4. The good effect must outweigh the evil result in its importance.

This principles and conditions find application in the so called "therapeutic

abortion" where the direct intention is the saving of the mother's life with the
incidental result of aborting the fetus
3 THE MODIFIERS OF HUMAN ACTS

The ideal is for man to act deliberately, that is, with perfect voluntariness.
This is not always possible though. Oftentimes, a certain degree of doubt or
reluctance accompanies an act. At other times, emotions hold sway, propelling
action with the swiftness of an impulse,

Factors that influence man's inner disposition towards certain actions are
called "modifiers" of human acts. They affect the mental or emotional state of a
person to the extent that the voluntariness involved in an act is either increased
or decreased. This is significant because the accountability of the act is
correspondingly increased or decreased.

We cite this principle: The greater the knowledge and the freedom, the
greater the voluntariness and the moral responsibility, (Panizo: 38)

The Modifiers
Man does not act in a vacuum. He is an organism responding and reacting
to stimulus. His total make-up is the sum of all experiences. His personal
background, education, social upbringing, political persuasion, religion, and
personal aims-contribute largely to his development and behavioral preferences

Authors point to the following as modifiers of human acts: (1) Ignorance, (2)
Passions, (3) Fear, (4) Violence, and (5) Habit. There are other modifiers which
are worth discussing but for the limitation of this book, such as, hypnoticism,
brainwashing, mental conditioning, and cultural imposition.

Ignorance
We are familiar with the saying: "Ignorance of the law excuses no one". This
implies that one should not act in the state of ignorance and that one who has
done a wrong may not claim ignorance as a defense.

Ignorance is the absence of knowledge which a person ought to possess. A

lawyer is expected to know his law, the doctor, his medicine; and the manager,
his business operations. In the realm of morals, everyone of age and reason is
expected to know at least the general norms of good behavior.

Ignorance is either vincible or invincible. Vincible ignorance can easily be

reminded through ordinary diligence and reasonable efforts. The ignorance of a
visitor regarding a particular address in a certain place is vincible, since he can
easily ask for information from a policeman or pedestrian

Invincible ignorance is the type which a person possesses without being

aware of it, or, having awareness of it, lacks the means to rectify it. The
ignorance regarding missing persons or objects is often invincible. Sometimes,
too, a person acts without realizing certain facts. Thus, a cook might be unaware
that the food he is serving is contaminated.

Under the category of vincible ignorance is the affected ignorance. This is

the type which a person keeps by positive efforts in order to escape
responsibility or blame. It is affected ignorance when an employee refuses to
read a memo precisely so that he may be exempted from its requirement (Glenn:
26-27)

Principles:

1. Invincible ignorance renders an act involuntary. A person cannot be held

morally liable if he is not aware of his state of ignorance. A waiter who is not
aware that the food he is serving has been poisoned cannot be held for
murder (Glenn: 32).

2. Vincible ignorance does not destroy, but lessens the voluntariness and the
corresponding accountability over the act. A person who becomes aware of
the state of ignorance he is in has the moral obligation to rectify it by
exercising reasonable diligence in seeking the needed information. To act
with vincible ignorance is to act imprudently. A waiter who suspects that the
food he is serving has been laced with poison has the moral obligation to
ascertain the fact or, at least, forewarn the guests about his suspicion (Glenn:
33).

3. Affected ignorance, though it decreases voluntariness, increases the

accountability over the resultant act. Insofar as affected ignorance interfers
with the intellect, it decreases voluntariness. But insofar as it is willed to
persist, it increases accountability. Certainly, refusing to rectify ignorance
implies malice. And the malice is greater when ignorance is used as an
excuse for not doing the right thing. Thus, a child who refuses to be guided by
his parents has only himself to blame for his wrongdoing.

Passions
Passions, or concupiscence, are either tendencies towards desirable
objects, or, tendencies away from undesirable or harmful things. The former are
called positive emotions; the latter, negative emotions. The positive emotions
include love, desire, delight, hope and bravery. The negative emotions include
hatred, horror, sadness, despair, fear and anger

Passions are psychic responses. As such, they are neither moral or immoral.
However, man is bound to regulate his emotions and submit them to the control
of reason.

Passions are either antecedent or consequent. Antecedent are those that

precede an act. It may happen that a person is emotionally aroused to perform
an act. Antecedent passions predispose a person to act. Thus, love may induce
one to make numerous and lengthy phone calls to his sweetheart, or, to plek the
murder of a rival.

Principle: Antecedent passions do not always destroy voluntariness, but

they diminish accountability for the resultant act. Antecedent passions weaken
the will power of a person without, however, completely obstructing his freedom.
Thus, the so called "crimes of passion" are voluntary. But insofar as passions
interfer with the freedom of the will. one's accountability is diminished (Panizo:
33).

Consequent passions are those that are intentionally aroused and kept
Consequent passions, therefore, are said to be voluntary in cause, the result of
the will playing the strings of emotions. Thus, a young man may deliberately
arouse himself sexually by reading pornographic magazines or a victim of
injustice may intentionally nurse his resentment towards his tormentor. The
young man who commits lasciviousness after arousing himself sexually and the
fellow who commits vengeance due to his cultivated resentment – are both
morally accountable.

Principle: Consequent passions do not lessen voluntariness, but may even

increase accountability. This is because consequent passions are the direct
results of the will which fully consents to them instead of subordinating them to
its control (bid).

Fear
Fear is the disturbance of the mind of a person who is confronted by an
impending danger or harm to himself or loved ones. Distinction is made however
between an act done with fear and an act done our or because of fear.

Certain actions which by nature are dangerous or risky are done with varying
degree of fear. Climbing a cliff, flying an airplane through a storm, diving for
pearls, or arresting a notorious killer-are examples of acts performed with fear. In
these cases, fear is a normal response to danger. Such actions are voluntary,
because the doer is in full control of his faculties and acts inspite of his fear.

Fear is an instinct for self-preservation. We even fear new experiences or

situations such as, embarking on a long journey, being left alone in a - strange
place, or being asked to speak before a group of people. But doing something
our of fear, or because of it, is entirely different. Here, fear becomes a positive
force compelling a person to act without careful deliberation.

The child reads his book out of fear of the mother, the employee volunteers
to work over-time out of fear of being fired by the boss, a friend stops smoking
out of fear of contracting cancer. These examples show how actions are done
because of fear. Fear modifies the freedom of the doer, inducing him to act in a
certain predetermined manner, often without his full consent.

Principles:

1. Acts done with fear are voluntary. A person acting with fear is acting inspite
of his fear and is in full control of himself.

2. Acts done out of fear, however great, is simply voluntary, although it is also
conditionally voluntary. (Glenn:41) It is simply voluntary because the person
remains in control of his faculties, including that of moderating fear. It is also
"conditionally involuntary" because, if it were not for the presence of
something feared, the person would not act or would act in another way.
(Ibid.: 41)

3. Acts done because of intense fear or panic are involuntary. (Ibid.) Panic
completely obscures the mind. In this mental state, a person is not expected
to think sensibly. Thus, a person in a state of panic might jump from the 12th
floor of a burning building. Such act is not considered a suicide, since it is
done involuntarily. Panic causes a person to lose complete control of
himself.

Intimidating or threatening a person with harm is an unjust act. Legally

speaking, actions done out of fear are invalid acts. Thus, contracts entered into
out of fear are voidable, meaning, they can later on be annulled. It is grossly
unfair to oblige any person to fulfill a contract obtained by force or threat. (Ibid.:
42)

Violence
 Violence refers to any physical force exerted on a person by another free
agent for the purpose of compelling said person to act against his will. Bodily
torture, maltreatment, isolation, and mutilation-are examples of violence against
persons.

Principles

1. External actions, or commanded actions, performed by a person subjected to

violence, to which reasonable resistance has been offered, are involuntary
and are not accountable. (Ibid:43)

Active resistance should always be offered to an unjust aggressor. However,

if resistance is impossible, or if there is a serious threat to one's life, a person
confronted by violence can always offer intrinsic resistance by withholding
consent: that is enough to save his moral integrity. (Panizo: 37)

2. Elicited acts, or those done by the will alone, are not subject to violence and
are therefore voluntary. (ibid.)

The Will insofar as it is a spiritual faculty is not within the reach of violence.
History carries the story of thousand heroes who had suffered death instead of
surrendering their will to that of their tormentors. On the contrary, we consider
them villains or weaklings those who succumbed and consented to the wishes of
tyrants. But we may not be too harsh on them, since every man has his own limit
of endurance. "Violence of force", says Bernard Haring, "in any instance, if bound
up with the refined cruelty of present-day methods of psychological torture, can
constitute a serious temptation and often also contribute towards a notable
diminution of inner freedom." (Haring: 106)

Habits
Habit, as defined by Glenn, "is a lasting readiness and facility, born of
frequently repeated acts, for acting in a certain manner." (Ibid.: 43) Habits are
acquired inclinations towards something to be done. They assume the role of a
second nature, moving one who has them to perform certain acts with relative
ease.

The word "habit-forming" that we use to refer to certain experiences shows

how easy it is for one to acquire a habit. It also implies that a habit is not that
easy to overcome or alter. It requires a strong-willed person to correct a habit
successfully within a limited period of time. Thus, alcoholics and smokers find it
almost impossible to reform.

Principle
 Actions done by force of habit are voluntary in cause, unless a reasonable
effort is made to counteract the habitual inclination. (Ibid: 44)

Habits are either good or bad. We speak here of bad habits which lead to
immoral actions

Habits are voluntary in cause, because they are the result of previously
willed acts done repeatedly as a matter of fact. Thus, every action emanating
from habit is said to partake of the voluntariness of those previous acts.
Therefore, for as long as the habit is not corrected, evil actions done by force of
that habit are voluntary and accountable,

When a person decides to fight his habit, and for as long as the effort
towards this purpose continues, actions resulting from such habit may be
regarded as acts of man and not accountable. The reason, as pointed out by
Glenn, is that the cause of such habit is no longer expressly desired. (Ibid:45)

Action and Emotion

Man does not act the way a robot does-without feeling or emotion In doing
his act, man does not only evoke certain sentiments, but his decision or intention
to perform is swayed by his emotions. One who loves to sing does not only sing
with "feelings" but is moved and motivated to sing when the occasion is there,

Emotions are generally instinctive in origin. Neither the degree of their

intensity, clarity, or awareness makes them human acts to be judged as good or
evil. They become good or evil by the attitude of the person manifesting them. A
person who nourishes his feeling of hostility towards another is more prone to
acquire the motive for inflicting harm on the object of his hatred. This is not to
say that man is helpless in the tide of his emotions and that man's responses to
action are emotionally motivated. It means simply that man's thoughts and
actions are colored by his emotions

The psychological and moral aspects of the inner life of man are expressed
positively by the affections of love, kindness, humility, reverence, justice, and
purity. These have a vitalizing, purifying, enriching effect. Here we have psychic
energies which in some manner procede every decision and influence is. They
are an intimate approval of their object, a "purposeless” confirmation of their
worth. The negative dispositions send toward disdain and denial (as though to
blint that the very existence of the object of hatred, dintain, covy), repudiation,
disruption. But it is possible that the objective goal (perhaps a periem) of these
dispositions is socially unaffected by den Again, they may be brushed aside or
overcome. Nevertheless, in every instance, by a kind of inner compulsion, they
exert a direct and immediate influence on the subject himself. The tendency is
ever present to promote, to vitalize, or is the effect be tuneful, to score and
isolate. And it is also true that in every instance the effect on the subject is
greater. More surely and more vehemently is the subject of emotions affected
than the object to which they are directed Emotions make up the very heart of
man, from which come both good and evil. (Berard Haring, The Law of Chri Vol. L
Mercier Press, Cock, 1960, p. 199.

Refinement of Emotions
Ethics deals with emotions as factors affecting human motivation and
behavior. Instead of repressing them, it calls for their refinement. This means
that man is expected to act not only with his mind and body, but precisely with
his heart and soul. Thus, for instance, the Decalogue does not merely command
that we love God, but adds to say "with all your heart and with all your soul".

In the purist sense, doing good for another is not a virtue unless it comes
from the "love" of what is good. Any other motive is inadequate regardless of the
merits of the assistance offered. It is possible indeed to extend a loan to a friend
and this-grudgingly,

In like manner, mere external obedience to a law is cold and hypocritically

convenient. The ethical expectation is to enter into the spirit of the law and to
accept it with humility and respect is evident, says Bernard Haring, "that
education, through proper discipline and cultivation of emotional life (in which
we include the cultivation of the values of character and disposition), is in many
ways more significant than the tense straining of will power." (Ibid.) Indeed, the
aim of ethics is not to turn man into an efficient machine to do things Rather, it
hopes to transform man by inner spiritual conversion.

Moral perfection comes from within. We, Filipinos, refer to it as "kagandahan

ng loob". It is "loob" because it radiates from within the human personality.

Kagandahan ng Loob
Kagandahan ng loob refers to attitude. It stands for all that is good, we call
kabaitan, in a human being. It is the multiplicity of sterling qualities, both natural
and acquired, which, because they proceed from the heart and mind, also greatly
influence one's behavior towards himself and others

Kagandahan ng loob includes such moral values as mapagmahal.

maunawain, may-pakikiramdam, may-pakikiramay, matulongin, masayahin, and
hindi mapagkunwari.
4 THE ENDS OF THE HUMAN ACT

Man does not act aimlessly. When he acts, it is because he enjoys the
action, or, because he wants to achieve something by that action.

Pablito may play basketball because he enjoys it. Or he may play because he
wants to qualify for the vanity team.

The End of an Act

What we call end is the purpose or goal of an act. It is that which completes
or finishes an act. Distinction is made between end of the act and end of the doer
or agent.

The end of the act is the natural termination of an activity (Glenn: 52) The end
of the eating is nourishment; that of reading is comprehension; that of basketball
is scoring a goal, and that of jogging is physical exercise.
 The end of the doer is the personal purpose intended by the person
performing the act. He who eats aims to satisfy his hunger, the reader, to relax
himself, the basketball player, to win the game, and the jogger, to maintain
physical fitness. The end of the doer is called the motive. The motive is the
reason why a person performs an act. It is the force that sustains the act and
brings it to completion. (Ibid.)

Kinds of Ends
The end of the doer is either

1. Proximate or Remote End

2. Intermediate or Ultimate End

1. The proximate end is the purpose which a doer wishes to accomplish

immediately by his action. The remote end is the purpose which a door
wishes to accomplish in a series of acts. The proximate end of eating is the
satisfaction of hunger. Its remote end is the promotion of health.

2. The ultimate end is the purpose which is desired for its own sake and not
because of something else. The intermediate end is the purpose which is
desired as a means for obtaining another thing. The attainment of an
ultimate end completes an act and stops all further acts. The attainment of
an intermediate end leads either to another intermediate end or to an
ultimate end. (Ibid. 3.52).

A student may assign his graduation as an ultimate end. The intermediate

end, in this case, would consist in all of those activities leading towards
graduation, such as attending classes, taking exams. participating in recitation,
and so on.

A series of separate actions finds meaning in their relation to an ultimate

end or goal. This is fundamentally true with life itself Living consists of all human
activities. Viewed in their entirety, all human activities are tendencies towards the
ultimate purpose of life itself. This ultimate end of life is happiness.

Action and Motivation

Alfredo Paniro gives us the opportunity to cite principles concerning human
action (Panizo:10):

1. Every agent that performs an action acts for the sake of an end or purpose
to be attained.
 Man is a motivated animal. For him to act, he must first find the motive to act.
Sometimes the motive comes instantaneously, as when one stands up to answer
the doorbell Sometimes, the motive comes out from tedious and well calculated
efforts, as a business. Sometimes, the motive is provoked by selfishness and
malice. At other times, it is inspired by love and concern for others. Whichever
way, motives give life to action. Without it, man finds no reason why he must act
at all.

2. Every agent acts towards an ultimate end,

The ultimate end is that on account of which man decides to act. It is what is
desired through the actions. It is what confers meaning to an activity. The
concept of motive implies that there is something important to be achieved. No
cane person would waste his time sitting in a bus simply because he does not
want to go anywhere. When someone takes a bus, we may righty assume that he
wants to go some place: his ultimate destination Similarly, and in all his actions,
man seeks an ultimate purpose.

3. Every agent has the power to move himself towards an end which he finds
suitable for him.

The end is the motivation of an act. But only what is good can motivate man
to act. Therefore, the end of an act is something which the doer perceives to be
"suitable" to him. Only what is good can be suitable to man, because it does not
belong to man's nature to desire evil for its own sake. An end then is
synonymous with the concept of "good".

End as Something Good

Nothing excites the human appetite or rational desire than that which is
good. Because something is good, it becomes the object of desire and, therefore,
desirable. Actions are tendencies towards something good. Thus, what is good
and desirable is also the end of the act. The concept of end coincides with that
of good. Accordingly, Aristotle says that "good" means either of these: good as
an end in itself and good as a means (intermediate end) to another end.

Apparent Good Man has a natural aversion to evil. Evil is never desirable for
its own sake. It is naturally repugnant to man. When someone desires evil as an
end, it is only because he views it, subjectively, as something good. Evil viewed
as good is called apparent good. It is evil disguised as good. It is deceptively
tempting and many fall for it. A suitor who kills his rival regards his immoral
action as a "good" means to rid himself of a rival for the love of a woman

Man is moved by nature - this first and fundamental act of the will is natural
and necessary-toward good in general (object) and beatitude in general (end). By
virtue of this first movement, man moves himself toward particular good objects,
choosing and determining in what he is to seek his beatitu de. If man is really to
satisfy and fulfill his natural cravings and powers (man as patiens), he must,
indeed, direct himself (man as agens) toward those values which respond to his
natural and reasonable tendencies. (Buckely: 102)

Every human activity is intended for the attainment of something good. This
good must be objectively genuine, not merely an apparent good. "Unfortunately,"
as a free agent, man is able to set his choice on mere apparent goods and false
values." (Ibid.)

The Meaning of Good

The word "good has varied shades of meaning. Aristotle defines is as that
which fits a function. The good of man is that which fits his function as a rational
being. And because it is the soul that which constitutes man's rational nature, the
good of man proves to be activity of soul in conformity with excellence; and if
there is more than one excellence, it will be the best and the most complete of
these. (Aristotle: 293)

A thinker once wrote that human beings have their needs, while individual
humans have their wants. Needs are those goods which are essential to man as
man. Without them, man is incomplete and underdeveloped. Wants are those
goods that an individual requires because of his particular circumstance in life.
Obviously, the needs must first be fulfilled before the wants.

The good that fits man as man are the needs of his rational nature. All other
needs, such as the biological and social, while they are similarly required, are
subordinate to the rational needs.

Kinds of Good
1. Essential and Accidental. Those that fit the natural needs of man as man are
essential good. Such good include food, shelter, health, knowledge, virtue,
and life. Those that fit the wants of an individual because of his circumstance
are accidental good. Such include money, car, good name, academic degree,
power, and luxury, and many more.
 Essential good is also called perfective because they contribute to the
integral perfections of man. Accidental good, on the other hand, are called non-
perfective because they merely contribute to the external worth or appearance of
a person.

2. Real and Apparent. A real good is something which has an intrinsic value.
Thus, we call it: Value. It possesses qualities rendering it "fitting" or desirable.
Examples of real good are good acts and habits, parents and parenthood,
pleasure and joy, work and leisure, etcetera. The real good includes both
essential and accidental goods.

An apparent good is actually an evil thing but is viewed as "good" under

certain aspects. Examples are diseases, sadness, death, worry, crimes, etcetera.

3. Perfective and Non-perfective good. Perfective good is that which

contributes to the integral perfection of a person, such as: education, virtue,
food, exercise, medicine. Non-perfective good is that which merely
contributes to the external appearance or convenience of a person, such as
clothes, wealth, social status, political power, etcetera.
4. Perfect and Imperfect good. Also called unlimited or limited goods
respectively, or absolute and relative goods.

Perfect good has the fullness of qualities enabling it to fully satisfy human
desire. Imperfect good possesses only certain qualities so that it does not fully
satisfy human desire except in a relative or limited sense. All "earthly" goods are
imperfect. Only God, in the absolute sense, is perfect good.

The Greatest Good

In every activity, man seeks that which is good. The greatest good as a
matter of fact. This is evident in our concern for the best in everything: best
friends, best parents, best food, best performance, best job and so forth. In the
language of the philosophers, the greatest good is the Summe Borum

For Aristotle, the greatest good is happiness, Happiness is what man aims to
achieve in all his activities. The ultimate purpose of life is the attainment of
happiness.

By absolutely final, we mean that which is sought for its own sake, and never
as a means to something else. Happiness seems to be something of that sort.
We always pursue that for its intrinsic value, never as a means, whereas we
pursue honor, please, wisdom, and all the virtues, both for their own sakes (we
would want them even if they Jed to nothing further) and for the sake of
happiness, since we think we shall attain happiness by means of them. But no
one wants happiness as a means to these other things, or indeed as a means to
anything else at all (Aristotle: 292).

As a psychological state, happiness is the feeling of contentment arising

from the possession of a good. As a state of being, it is the perfection arising
from the possession of the good. Happiness coming from the possession of the
greatest good constitutes man's perfection.

Now, which is the greatest good? What wonderful thing is there the
possession of which will fully and absolutely satisfy human desire so that
nothing more remains to be desired? If the greatest good does not exist, or if it
does but is totally beyond man's grasp, then human life would be pointless.
Ethics explains the best answers to this one fundamental question of life.

Some errors concerning happiness;

1. Some people give the impression that money or wealth can buy happiness.
This is tragic because money merely feeds the bottomless appetite of greed.
Mancy, besides, is aptly considered the root of all evils, because it gives a
false sense of power. The fact is that riches beget worry selfish competition,
waste, oppression, and all other forms of injustices. If the Bible is to be
believed, the avarice of the rich makes it very difficult for him to enter heaven.
The camel may pass easily through the eye of a needle, but not the rich who
has grown much bigger because of pride.

2. Some people equates health with happiness. Of course, health is a

prerequisite to a productive life. But there are the sick who are at the same
time happy. The present day preoccupation with physical fitness may not be
wrong. But he who invests happiness in the beauty and agility of the human
anatomy might not have much to look forward to when age catches up with
him. It is wonderful to be strong and healthy, but happiness is somewhere
else.

3. Sensual people vainly seeks happiness in earthly pleasures. But one may not
indulge in all the pleasures of this world without ending up with pain. Nature
shows how overeating, for instance, causes the stomach to ache. And some
people are simply wasting away because of their imprudent indulgence in
liquor, tobacco, or sex. Pleasures of the body are poor copy of the true lasting
happiness that man longs for. Certainly, an animal who has a rational soul
deserves a better fate than AIDS or cancer.

4. Certain people cling to their public image as if God Himself was made after
their illusion. Surrounded by an adoring crowd, these popular personages
 exhibit the exuberance of being "super": putting themselves above the
ordinary folk. And yet, fame and fortune are fragile as the mirror that reflects
their vanity. (Thid:)

5. Some dedicate their lives to science and arts. Doubtlessly, the sciences and
the arts are essential to man's development. They are however the means
rather than the end in themselves. They are precisely instruments leading to
the promotion of human well-being. The same can be said of virtue.

6. Some propose that the final purpose of man is the promotion of the State or
Government. While man is sociable and needs the State to regulate his social,
political and economic relations, the good of the individual comes ahead of
that of the State. Thus, the ideal State does not sacrifice the well-being of its
members. Precisely, it is the function of government to make possible the
happiness of its members or citizens.

Natural and Supernatural Happiness

Natural happiness is that which is attainable by man through the use of his
natural powers. Supernatural happiness is that which is attainable by man
through the use of his natural powers as these are informed and aided by God's
infusion of grace. Supernatural Happiness is a study belonging properly to Moral
Theology. We may mention in passing that supernatural happiness consists in
"beatific vision" of God. Joseph Buckley, Mun's Lair End, London: Hender Book,
Co., 1950, p. 82)

Natural Happiness "consists in the perfection that can be attained by man

through the employment of his body and soul and the powers inherent in them:
intellect, will, internal and external sensory powers, the sense appetites,
locomotion, nutrition, and growth (bid: 83)

For Aristotle, it was obvious that natural happiness does not rest on one
single good object. Rather, it consists in the attainment of all those things that
are essential to human growth and development. These goods, however, must be
ranked in a hierarchy: from the lowest level to the highest level. Complete
happiness, in the natural order, consists in those goods pertaining to the soul;
"but some of the other goods must necessarily be there, with others, which are
by nature tools, cooperating and of use toward other ends". (Aristotle, 297)

The highest good, according to Aristotle, belongs to the intellect the

contemplation of truth. But this fullness of knowledge is attained through virtue:
 "Even if happiness is not sent from heaven, but comes about through virtue
and learning or training, it seems that it is one of the most godlike things. The
prize and end of virtue appears to be the best thing, something godlike and
blessed. Happiness will also be within the reach of everyone, since, through
learning and exercise, it can be obtained by all who are not totally corrupted as
regards virtue (bid:296)

The Ultimate Purpose

Aristotle does not go beyond earthly life in his dissertation on the last or
ultimate end of man. Christian philosophers, notably St. Augustine and St.
Thomas Aquinas, teach that man, in every deliberate action acts toward an end,
and ultimately, to an absolutely ultimate end: happiness. Since man's desire and
tendency towards happiness is unlimited, nothing short of the Absolutely Perfect
Good can satisfy it perfectly. Therefore God, the Infinite Good, is the greatest
good, or "summum bonum”, to be attained as the ultimate end.

Man cannot attain perfect happiness in this life, because God can never be
known perfectly by man's natural powers. But man can approximate perfect
happiness in this life by knowledge and love of God and by the exercise of virtue.
(Paul Glenn: The History of Philosophy, A text Book of Undergraduates, London:
Herder Book, co, 1963, pp. 164-165: 242-243)
5 THE DETERMINANTS OF MORALITY

Morality consist in the conformity and non-conformity of an act with the

norm. But how does an act relate to the norm? How do we know that a given act
is morally objectionable or not?

Human acts relate to the norm under the following aspects: (a) in itself that
is, as a deed, (b) in its motive, and (c) in its circumstances Paul Glenn refers to
these aspects as the object, the end, and the circumstances (Ethics 102). These
three aspects are called the determinants of morality because they determine
how an act is rendered good or bad on the basis of its relation with the norm.

The Determinants of Morality

Ancient thinkers have given us this axiom: "Bonum ex integra causa malum
ex quocumque defect". This means that a thing is good if it has the fullness of its
pans and it is bad when it is deficient in any of its integral parts.

The human body, if it must be good, must have all its parts and functions. It
is defective, and therefore bad, when it lacks, say, the power of sight or
locomotion.

In moral parlance, a human act is good when it is good in itself, in its motive
or purpose, and in its circumstances. A defect coming from any of these aspects
renders an act morally objectionable. In other words, like the human anatomy, an
act must have the perfection of its parts.

Helping the needy is a good action taken in itself. It may become bad if the
motive of person doing the act is not honorable, such as that of merely
impressing friends that one is kindhearted. This illustrates how a morally good
action may become morally objectionable on account of the motive of the doer.

I. The Act in Itself

 To consider an act in itself is to regard its nature. An act, of course, is not
simply a mental or bodily activity requiring an expenditure of energy An act is a
physical tendency towards a definite result. This result we had earlier identified
as the end of the act (finis operis) as distinguished from the end of the agent
(finis operantis) which is synonymous with the motive of the doer.

In the physical sense, some actions are bad because they produce such
evils as pain, hanger, illness, or death. In the moral sense, actions are bad
because they disturb the harmony within the acting person. They are "unfit" to the
natural and spiritual tendencies of the human soul. Moral evils also produce
physical harm and damage of oneself and others. But they are moral evils
because what they destroy is the innate goodness, the Image of God, in our
human nature. Thus, we say that all moral evils are those that go against the
natural law,

Intrinsic and Extrinsic Evil

Moralists distinguish between an intrinsic evil and an extrinsic evil. "Intrinsic"
implies a quality inherent in a thing. Thus, an intrinsic evil act is an act which is
evil by its nature. "Extrinsic" implies a quality which is superficially added to a
thing in a manner that a cost of paint covers the surface of a wall without
modifying the essentiality of the wood constituting the wall. An act which in itself
is not evil but is made evil nonetheless on account of something else is called an
extrinsic evil. According to Fr. Panizo, an extrinsic evil act is that which, although
good or indifferent in itself, is however prohibited by a human law (Ethics: 5).

An example of extrinsic evil act is that of eating meat by Catholics on the

Fridays of Lent, or, the giving of aims to beggars as prohibited by law in Manila

An intrinsic evil act is one which by its nature, that is, by its functional
purpose, is wrongful. We have said earlier that natural law is the tendency of man
to actualize his potentials as a rational creature: to be a person. Any act which
prevents man from realizing his true worth as a person is intrinsically evil.
Murder, robbery, rape, adultery, lies, and slavery are examples of actions that
contradict the demands of reason for justice, truth, and decency. These actions
are evil, not only because they cause unjust harm and sufferings to others, but
above all they dehumanize their perpetrators, reducing them to the level of
beasts.

It is extremely difficult to make a list of intrinsic evil acts. But knowing what
kind of persons we ought to be on the basis of our natural and rational
tendencies, we can identify with relative accuracy those actions that are to be
avoided as intrinsically harmful. The Decalogue of Moses and many human laws
identify some such actions as blasphemy, stealing. untruthfulness, murder, and
adultery.

In the tradition and culture of all people, there are those actions which are
regarded with horror and great repugnance. This means that in the
consciousness of men certain actions are to be avoided as extremely dangerous
poisons. These are the actions that cause misery and physical afflictions to man

II. The Motive of the Act

The motive of an act is the purpose which the doer wishes to achieve by such
action. It is what gives direction and motivation to an act. It comes first in the
mind as intention and occurs lust in the action as its culmination or fulfillment.
Without a motive, an act is meaningless, an accident.

The assumption is for the motive to be good. But what is a good motive? A
good motive is one which is consistent with the dignity of the human person. A
good motive is one which is in accordance with truth, justice, prudence, and
temperance. It is bad motive that which grows from selfishness because such
motive provokes actions detrimental to others. Indeed, while actions spring from
the self-seeking its goal, such desire must be moderated by prudence and
fairness, Excessive indulgence of the self is a form of personal injustice to
oneself, nursing the greed that destroys others. Thus, in the Old Testament, a
good man is called a jus man. He acts rightly out of respect for himself and out
of his concern for others.

"The End Does Not Justify the Means"

To the doer, an act is a means for achieving an aim or purpose. We, for
instance study in order to acquire knowledge, to pass the course, to receive a
degree, and to qualify for a job.

It is, however, wrong to attempt at a good purpose by dubious or evil means.

A student may not cheat in an exam in order to graduate; an employee may not
fake his documents in order to be promoted to a job, the public official may not
accept bribe in order to finance a health center, and an impoverished father may
not steal in order to feed his family. The axiom-"the end (motive) does not justify
the means (action)", means that the worthiness of purpose does not make an evil
act good.

Nothing is more pernicious than for a hoodlum to believe that he is justified in

robbing the rich because he wants to share the loot with the poor.
 Paul Glenn gives us the following insights on the effects of the motive on the
action (ibid.: 111-113):

1. An evil act which is done on account of an evil motive is grievously wrong.

A youngster who steals from his parents in order to buy "shabu" for himself
is committing a grievous wrong to himself and his parents.

2. A good action done on account of an evil motive becomes evil itself. The
Executive who gives a job to a lady applicant in order to seduce her later
makes his kindness immoral because of his evil intentions.

3. A good action done on account of a good purpose acquires an additional

merit. The father who foregoes his expensive hobby in order to send his
children to school shows a deeper concern for the welfare of his loved
ones.

4. An indifferent act may either become good or bad depending on the motive.
Opening the door of a house is an indifferent act. But the servant who, in
connivance with the thieves, opens the door of the house of his master,
does a wrongful act.

On the other hand, opening the door in order to give alms to a beggar is a
good act.

III. Circumstances of the Act

An act is an event. It happens in a definite time and place. It is accompanied
by certain elements which contribute to the nature and accountability of such
act. In law, we speak of mitigating or aggravating factors affecting a criminal act.
Morality also takes into account the circumstances surrounding an act. These
circumstances are who, what, where, with whom, why, how and where.

1. Who refers primarily to the doer of the act. At times, it also refers to the
receiver of the act. This circumstance includes the age, status, relation,
family background, educational attainment, health and socio- economic
situation of the person or persons involved in an act.

Observations: a) The moron, the insane, the senile and the children below the
age of reason are considered incapable of voluntary acts and, therefore, are
exempted from moral accountability. But actions against these persons are
normally regarded most cruel due to their helplessness in defending themselves.
 a) b) Persons with higher educational attainment are presumed to know
"better" than those with little education. Accordingly, their liability is
higher. Indeed, "to whom much is given, much is expected".

b) Persons vested with authority have higher accountability than those who
merely follow their order or command. This is the meaning of "command
responsibility" which makes a superior or official accountable for the
actuation of those under his authority.

c) The relationship between people involved in act may modify the nature of
such act. In this sense, adultery is different from fornication and parricide
from homicide. At times, the type of relationship between persons
involved makes an evil act more scandalous. Cruelty to one's own
children is, for instance, more wrongful than that done against children of
other people.

2. What refers to the act itself and to the quality and quantity of the results of
such act. The graveness of robbery, for instance, is measured by what is
stolen and by how much is stolen. Likewise, the relative importance of a
murdered victim determines the seriousness of such crime.

3. Where refers to the circumstance of place where the act is committed. Rape
done inside a church is more scandalous than that which is done in the
privacy of a house. Murder done before a crowd is more heinous than that
which is done in an isolated place.

4. With Whom refers to the companion or accomplices in an act performed.

This includes the number and status of the persons involved. The more
people are involved in the commission of an act, the greater and more
serious is the crime.

5. Why refers to the motive of the doer. We have discussed this earlier.

6. How refers to the manner how the act is made possible. Was the killing
accomplished with deceit? Was it done by the use of torture? How an act is
performed contributes to the malice of an act.

7. When refers to the time of the act. A murder committed when the victim is
sleeping is more offensive than the one done when the victim is wide awake.

Observations
1. Circumstances may either increase or decrease the wrongfulness of an evil
act. The killing of innocent people in the case of terrorists exploding a bomb
inside a commercial plane constitutes a serious crime. On the other hand, by
contrast, killing someone who has long oppressed the assailant is less
wrongful. Nonetheless, the act remains evil, because no one may take the law
in his own hands even for purposes of avenging oneself.

2. Circumstances also may either increase or decrease the merits of a good act.
Helping another at the risk of one's own life is greatly meritorious. Helping
another for purposes of publicity lessens the merits of charity.

3. Some Circumstances may alter the nature of an act. Such is the case with
many crimes. Thus, the act of committing a holdup is different from the
simple act of stealing. The holdup presupposes the use of threat or violence.
Whereas stealing implies stealth or deception.

Conclusion
There is a real distinction between a pile of garbage and a garden of flowers,
Garbage represents what is ugly, dirty and wrong in a surrounding. A garden
stands for what is beautiful, clean and decent in our society. The distinction
between a good act and an evil act is as real as that between a garbage and a
garden. It is not an illusion of the mind.

There are good actions and there are evil actions. Their realities do not
come from out mind. What is black does not turn itself white because we think of
its as white. This is the error of those who think that evil is all in the mind.

Ang masama ay gawa-gawa ng tao lamang does not mean that evil is man's
invention. Rather, it means that man uses his freedom to do wrong, Only man
can do something morally wrong, because only man has the power of choose
between what is good and what is wrong.

To be an authentic person is to be a responsible person. He knows how to

use his freedom only as an instrument to do good.

Law: its meaning and relevance

Law, according to St. Thomas Aquinas, is an ordinance of reason,
promulgated for the common good by one who has charge of society.

Laws are "ordinance of reason" because they are rational deliberation

intended to guide men towards wit is good for them and for society. Laws either
direct men to perform or main activities as good and necessary. or, to omit
certain acts as evil. The objective or purpose of the laws is the attainment of the
common good.

Laws are "promulgated", that is, they are made known to the people who are
bound to observe them. Indeed, the public must be made aware of what is
expected of them. How else do we expect it to observe the law?

Law are passed by "one who has charge of society" because they can only be
valid if they are the legitimate exercise of authority. Accordingly, only those who
have the power and responsibility to govern have the power to enact law.

Laws are necessary to man. They regulate human activity. Without laws, the
best intention will be thwarted either by oneself or by others Without laws, there
will be anarchy and chaos, because each one will act according to his wishes
without regard for the common good.

Laws are comparable to the signs in the street which guide the traveller
towards his destination. Without the street sings, the traveller is lost. Without
laws, man will not find his ultimate purpose in life.

Kinds of Law
1. Divine Positive Law are those promulgated, or made known to us, by special
command of God. They are the explicit demands of our essential tendencies
as rational beings. They direct man towards his proper end. The Decalogue of
Moses is an example of divine positive laws.

2. Human Positive Laws are those promulgated by a legitimate human

authority. This authority resides either in the State or in the Church. Human
positive laws are intended to preserve peace and harmony within a society
and to direct each member of that society to work towards the common
good. The laws of the State are embodied in the Constitution and in the Code
of Civil Laws. The laws of the Church, the Catholic Church, are found in the
Canon Law.

Both the divine positive laws and the human positive laws originate from
the Eternal Law. We shall discuss this in detail later. Suffice for the moment to
say that the Eternal Law is the design of God, as Supreme Creator, to direct all
created things to their respective proper ends

Divine and Human Laws are either positive or negative. Positive laws are
those that require the performance of an act, such as, to worship God, to pay
taxes, etcetera. Negative laws are those that require the omission of an act, such
 as, not to steal, not to kill, etcetera. The positive laws permits and expects
actions to be done. Negative laws prohibits the performance of an act.

Divine or human Laws are either moral or penal. A moral law binds in
conscience, that is, it is enforced by our personal conviction about what ought to
be done as good or to be avoided as wrong. A penal law binds by virtue of the
penalty imposed, that is, enforced by our fear of being caught and punished.

Moral and Political Laws

Moral laws are those derived from the natural law. They direct man towards
the higher values of his development as a human being. Therefore, moral laws
are universal laws binding all men alike. Moral laws regulate the mind, heart and
body of man insofar as he is a man.

The so called natural moral laws are those that are "written", so to speak, in
the hearts of all men. They are the inherent and essential tendencies of human
nature towards the good proper to it. They are. according to Aristotle, the
tendencies of the rational soul.

Political laws, both civil and criminal laws, are those enacted by men to
guide their actuations in society and in relation to one another. They regulate
man's external actions. The objective of political laws is peace and order and
material prosperity. Political laws presuppose moral laws.

Political laws are simply referred to as human positive laws.

Properties of Human Laws

1. Human laws must conform with divine laws. This is because all legitimate
authority emanates from God. Therefore, no human authority may willfully
contradict God's will as manifested in the natural law or in the divine positive
laws.

2. Human laws must promote the common good. The common good is the
aggregate of goods, spiritual and material, necessary for the promotion of
life. The common good is spelled out in terms of prosperity health, peace and
order, intellectual and moral growth-for the whole of society.

3. Human laws must be just and not discriminatory of certain individuals or

groups. All laws must apply proportionately to all members of society so that
the needs and requirements of each are served.
4. Human laws must be practicable. They must provide for easy compliance.
Impossible laws are not just.

5. Human laws regulate external actions only. This is because no human

authority has the power to bind the mind and hearts of men Therefore, laws
are made for men and not men for the laws. Laws must serve man's best
intentions and not stifle his creativity.

6. Human laws are fallible, because human legislators are liable to commit
errors. Besides, laws must be dynamic, allowing for adjustments in
accordance with emergent ideas for development.

6 THE NORMS OF MORALITY

 As a child, we learn early the difference between good and bad, such as
between a truth and a lie. It could be said that everybody has a natural inclination
towards morality. Even in a primitive society, morality plays an essential role in
the form of things allowed and prohibited. Morality is a universal phenomenon. It
is manifested in every person and every society.

People, however, do not seem to agree on what constitutes morality. It has

been the task of both philosophy and theology to find the answer to this
fundamental question: what makes an act good or bad?

Norms in general

A norm, in general, is a standard of measurement. It is an instrument of

which the quality or quantity of a thing is determined. The clock that tells time,
the thermometer that indicates temperature, the speedometer that measures
velocity, and the scale that determines weight are, in this sense, norms.

The norms of morality are the standards that indicate the rightfulness or
wrongfulness, the goodness or evilness, the value or disvalue of a thing.
Obviously, these are qualities that cannot be measured by mechanical device.
They are spiritual qualities that appeal only to reason

The Norms of Morality

Richard M. Gula defines the norms of morality as "the criteria of judgment
about the sorts of person we ought to be and the sorts of actions we ought to
perform". (What are they saying about moral norms? , New York: Paulist Press,
1981, p.1)

Judges in a contest follow a given criteria for deciding the winner. In like
manner, for us to decide what action is good or bad, we need a criteria, a set of
principles from which we may deduce a conclusion.

Morality therefore, consists in the relation of a thing with the norm. This
relationship is one of conformity or non-conformity. Morality may then be defined
as the quality of things manifesting their conformity or non-conformity with the
norm or criteria. That which conforms is good or moral. That which do not
conform is evil or immoral.

The remote norm of morality is Natural Law. The proximate norm of morality
is Conscience. Both natural law and conscience are rooted on Eternal Law, the
ultimate norm. Thus, there is only one norm: Eternal Law.

Eternal Law
 Eternal Law is the plan of God in creating the universe and in assigning to
each creature therein a specific nature. It is, according to St. Thomas Aquinas,
"the exemplar of divine wisdom as directing all actions and movements" (Summa
Theologica: 1-11, 93, 1), For St. Augustine, it is "the divine reason or will of God
commanding that the natural order of things be preserved and forbidding that it
be disturbed" (Contra Faustum Manicheum; Book 22, Ch. 27).

Eternal Law provides for the cosmic order where every creature stands
different and independent but not apart from the unified purpose of creation.
There is harmony in diversity in the universe so that the early Greeks referred to it
as "cosmos", meaning, beautiful.

Participation of Creatures in Eternal Law

Natural Law should not be taken as a body of codified legal pronouncements
such as those we find in a book of Criminal Law. Rather, it refers to the nature of
all created things which is the principle of their movements and actions;
chemical, biological, physiological, or rational. Science speaks of Natural Law as
the physical laws or properties governing, for example, the movements of atoms
and molecules, of chemicals, of plants and of animals, including man himself.

Man, however, on account of rational nature, manifests a new dimension in

the cosmic order. This is the moral order whereby man becomes self-conscious
of natural moral laws binding him to seek the good "fitting" his rational nature. St.
Thomas Aquinas writers:

The light of natural reason, whereby we discern what is good and what is evil,
which is a function of the natural law, is nothing else than an imprint on us of
divine light. It is, therefore, evident that the natural law is nothing else than the
rational creature's participation of the eternal law (Summa Theologica: 91,2)

Natural Law as the Essential Need to Become a Person

Natural law is recognized by all men regardless of creed, race, culture, or
historical circumstances. Philosophers agree that an inner force compels man
towards good and away from evil. In this sense, they speak of morality as being
"written" in the hearts of men.

Stewart Dugald (1753-1823) regards the natural law as the "original principle
of our constitution". George Berkeley (1685) calls it the "eternal laws of reason"
or the "Will of God". (Frederick Copleston: A History of Philosophy, Vol. 8, p. 36).
 Paul Tillich elaborates that what we call "will of God" is actually our "essential
being with its potentialities, our nature declared as "very good" by God who
created it. (Morality and Beyond, p. 16-17)

Tillich explains further that natural law is the "command to become what one
potentially is, a person win a community of person". (ibid.: 11) This command is
the moral. He writes:

Therefore, a moral act is not a in obedience to an external law, human or

divine. It is the inner law of our true being, of our essential or created nature,
which demands that we actualize what follows from it. And an antimoral act is
not the transgression of one or several precisely circumscribed commands, but
an act that contradicts the self-realization of the person as a person and drives
towards disintegration. It disrupts the centeredness of the person by giving
predominance to partial trends, passions, desires, fears, and anxieties. (Ibid.:
13)

It is worth noting that what Tillich describes as the content of natural law is
precisely our Filipino concept of pagpapakatao which is a moral obligation that
arises from human nature, compelling an individual to be true to his nature as
tao. When a person debases himself by his immoral actions, he becomes less
than a person: masamang tao. On the other hand, one who conducts himself
according to his rational demands of his human nature is truly a person:
mabuting tao.

In the Filipino mind, as well as in the consciousness of many people, man is

either good or bad depending on how he conforms or not with the demand of
rational nature. Thus, natural law insofar as it is the principle of our human
nature is the norm of morality,

Properties of the Natural Law

We note the following properties or characteristics of the Natural Law:

1. It is universal. Natural Law is a constitutive element of human nature.

Therefore, it is true wherever human nature manifest itself. All men are
precisely equal because of shared human nature.

2. It is obligatory. Natural law is human nature, calling for itself to be

actualized, to be "lived" according to its basic and essential demands.
Immanuel Kant calls this natural urge the "categorical imperative". It is
imperative because it is a duty that ought to be fulfilled. It is "categorical"
because it accepts no exemption, since it is nature itself.
3. It is recognizable. It is imprinted in the human nature and man has the light
of reason to know it. The Scholastic philosophers referred to this light of
reason as "synderesis". It enables man to recognize self-evident principles,
such as: Do good and avoid evil, Honor your father and mother, Be honest,
etcetera.

4. It is immutable or unchangeable. Natural law is human nature. It is

immutable because man's essential nature can never be lost as long as
man is man. It may be blurred by malice or conditioned by social pressure,
but it cannot be destroyed altogether.

Contents of the Natural Law

Man discovers by the light of reason those fundamental moral principles
contained in the Natural Law.

Ethical writers distinguish between formal norms and material norms. Both
are derived from Natural Law. Formal norms are those that relate to our
character, that is, to what kind of persons we o0ught to be Examples of formal
norms are such truths as: "Do good and avoid evil Whatever you wish others to
do to you, do so to them". "Be honest", "Be chaste", or "Do not be selfish, proud,
vain, or foolish". (Gula: p. 56).

Formal norms are absolute principles and are unchangeable. What kind of
person we ought to become is not a relative and subjective decision. Justice,
Truth, and Diligence are, for example, absolute values. The Chinese, the
Japanese, the Hindu, the Indonesian, the Filipino, and all people for that matter-
are expected to be just, honest, and diligent.

Material norms relate to the sorts of actions we ought to do. Material norms
are the application of the formal norms to individual concrete action, such as,
speech, killing, making promises, or using contraceptives. They answer the
question: "What should I do?"

Since material norms deal with concrete and specific actions, they are not
absolute. For example, what makes "killing" just or unjust depends on a lot of
factors. Consequently, material norms are open to various interpretation. This is
where relativity in morality comes in. This does not mean though that each
individual is free to act on the basis of his personal interpretation or whim. The
expectation that we act in accordance with the "dictate of reason" implies
precisely that we listen to our reason as enlightened by the guidance of virtuous
and prudent men. In this sense, the authoritative consensus of learned men or
church on how the natural law is to be interpreted must be followed.

Interpreting the Material Norms

How do we apply the material norms in concrete situations? What
determines whether an act is good or bad? The theories of physicalism and
personalism answer these questions differently,

The physicalist suggests that the physical and biological nature of man
determines morality. Anything opposed to man's physical, physiological, or
biological tendencies is wrong and immoral. It maintains that the criteria of
moral judgment are "written" in man's nature and all that is required is for one to
read them off from there (Gula: 35).

The personalist suggests that reason, not the physical structure of human
faculties or actions, is the standard of morality. But what is reason? According to
the Thomistic School, reason is "recta ratio", or right reason. It is the dynamic
tendency in the human person to know the truth, to grasp the whole of reality as
it in. Morality based on reason is a morality based on reality as known to man
(ibid.: 41),

While seemingly opposed, these theories compliment each other. In Christian

Ethics, both theories are employed without contradiction. The fact is that one of
the realities which personalism has to take into account is the reality of man's
physical nature. Reason, if it must be recta, has to accept that the physical and
biological facts of human life are not to be denied nor twisted. On the other hand,
the physicalist has to accept that it is through reason that man "can creatively
intervene in a reasonable way to direct the order of nature in a way that would be
truly human" (ibid.).

The Order of Reason

Man participates in the Eternal Law in a way proper to him as a human being.
This participation is through reason. St. Thomas Aquinas calls the order
established by reason as the "specific natural law" (Summa Theol. I- II, q. 94, a.
2), Richard M. Gula explains;

In a morality based on the order of reason, the human person is not subject
to the God-given order of nature in the same way the animals are. The human
person does not have to conform to natural patterns as a matter of fate. Rather,
nature provides the possibilities and potentialities which the human person can
use to make human life truly human. The given physical and biological order
does not provide moral norms; rather, it provides the data and the possibilities
for the human person to use in order to achieve human goals, (ibid.)

Accordingly, man has to consider the natural order of things. And yet, he
must not confuse the natural order with the moral order. The moral order is the
harmony based on the dictates of reason. It is the order established by man's
intellectual creativity, sharpened by observation, research, analysis, logic intuition
and common sense

It is reason that which takes Natural Law and interprets it in a way worthy of
man's humanity. In this sense, Natural Law is not the same as the Laws of
Nature which are the forces governing the material world.

The task of discovering and interpreting Natural Law in & manner fitting to
man belongs to moral conscience.

Conscience
Conscience is the proximate norm of morality. It is proximate because It is
what directly confronts an action as good or bad. Its function is to examine, to
judge, and to pass a "sentence on all moral actions.

The word is derived from the latin "conscientia" which means "trial of oneself
both in accusation and in defense (Tillich: 63).

Conscience is defined as an act of the practical judgment of reason deciding

upon an individual action as good and to be performed or as evil and to be
avoided. (Panizo: 63)

It is a "practical judgment" because it is an inference whose conclusion leads

to something practicable, The main function of conscience is to determine what
ought to be done in a given situation. After the commission of an act, conscience
assumes the role of approving or reproaching. A reproving conscience is called
guilty conscience.

It is a practical judgment because it is an inference leading to a practicable

conclusion. As an inferential reasoning, it makes use of the principles of Natural
Law. Thus, conscience is but an extension of the Natural Law which guides man
to seek the good of his mature

The main function of conscience is to determine what ought to be done in a

given situation. After the commission of an act, it assumes the role of approving
or reproaching
Kinds of Conscience
1. Correct or True Conscience judges what is good as good and what is evil as
evil. It is correct conscience which tells that getting the property of another
without consent is stealing. It is also correct conscience which judges that
we ought to pay our debts.

2. Erroneous or False Conscience judges incorrectly that what is good is evil

and what is evil is good. It is erroneous conscience which tells the husband
to have a mistress, since it is the macho thing to do.

Error in conscience comes from the following factors:

(a) Mistake in inferential thinking, such as deriving a wrong conclusion from

given moral principles; (b) Ignorance of the law; (c) Ignorance of the fact and
other circumstances modifying human actions; (d) Ignorance of future
consequences, especially those dependent on the free will of others.

An erroneous conscience whose error is not willfully intended is called

inculpable conscience. It is inculpable conscience operating in a person, who
unaware of it, pays for grocery with "bogus" money. (Ignorance of the fact)

An erroneous conscience whose error is due to neglect, or malice, is called

culpable conscience. It is culpable conscience which believes that cheating is
good since it helps us pass the exam and everybody does it anyway. The
difference between culpable and inculpable conscience lies in the distinction
between a voluntary error and an involuntary error. It is culpable precisely
because the error is voluntary on the part of the person. It is inculpable because
the error is involuntary, an "honest mistake".

3. Certain Conscience is a subjective assurance of the lawfulness or

unlawfulness of a certain act. This implies that the person is sure of his
decision.

It is possible however to be sure of something as good when in fact it is just

the opposite, and vice-versa. It is possible for a policemen to be sure that killing
the suspect is the best alterative under the principle of self-defense, whereas
such killing is in fact unnecessary.

Many theologians believe that a certain conscience should always be

followed (Panizo: 65). This is to preserve the integrity of the human reason. One
who therefore contradicts his certain conscience is morally guilty.
4. Doubtful Conscience is a vacillating conscience, unable to form a definite
judgement on a certain action. A doubtful conscience must first be allowed to
settle its doubts before an action is performed.

5. Scrupulous Conscience is á rigorous conscience, extremely afraid of

committing evil. A scrupulous conscience is meticulous and wants
incontrovertible proofs before it acts.

6. Lax Conscience is one which refuses to bothered about the distinction of

good and evil. It rushes on and is quick to justify itself. Many Filipinos who
act on the on matters of morals are acting with lax conscience.

The Compulsory Nature of Conscience

"Our bond with the natural moral law", says Bernard Haring, is an exalted
participation in the eternal law of God manifested by our conscience whose
natural function it is to reveal our likeness to God" (The Law of Christ, Vol. I, p.
147). Conscience, therefore, is aptly called the "voice of God".

Insofar as conscience operates within the realm of truth and sound reason, it
is compulsory. When error creeps in, we should always trace it to its roots in
order to eradicate it. It is only when conscience impels us to act according to our
rational insights that it is truly the "voice of God". But when it deviates from the
correct norm, then it ceases to be rational, and is no longer the voice of God, but
"our own evil work". (Ibid.: 148)

Conscience operating according to sound rational insights is infallible. It

should be followed.

Conscience and Authority

Is conscience entirely a private matter? What does "freedom of conscience"
means?

Conscience insofar as it is the "voice of God" within the recesses of our

nature assumes the authority of God. God is the ultimate norm to which
conscience must conform to.

Conscience too is linked with human authority. First, it is linked with the State
insofar as this derives its authority from nature itself and is affirmed by natural
law and divine revelation. Second, it is linked with human community, because
conscience depends for help in community and social authority in order to be
informed correctly of its judgments. (Ibid.: 150)
 But when the state or the human community claims exclusive rights to
legislate and to command, and this contrary to the demands of natural law, then
such human authority loses its moral power to bind individual conscience to
obedience. Law and commands are morally binding only when they are in
agreement with the norms of morals. It is precisely the clamor to be liberated
from the oppressive and tyrannical human authority that people claims "freedom
of conscience". Human authority therefore, presupposes individual conscience
and is not the source of it

Education of Conscience
One has the obligation to cultivate a clear and true conscience. This requires
that we apply ourselves to the education of our conscience. This we can
accomplish by studying and searching for truths in the laws and in the sciences,
since conscience is not independent from the treasury of knowledge available to
each individual.

Another method of education is the cultivation of good habits. This means

that the practical truths we discover must be internalized and then externalized
in actions. It is useless to appreciate the good in abstract when we despise it in
our concrete actions.

Another method is to militate against evil, condemning it where we find it.

Indifference to evil dulls the spirit. We must learn not only to tur our backs
against evil but fight against it.

Above all, we must learn how to use our freedom. To use it properly. we must
understand it properly Human freedom" says Haring, "if it is true freedom in
action, is not submission to the coercive pressure of external force, but self-
fulfillment through inner love of the good in accordance with the pattern of the
divine holiness which is the eternal law (lex eterna) reflected in man's own nature
(lex naturalis) (Ibid.: 103)
7 HUMAN VALUES AND THEORIES

In chapter four, we referred to real good as value.

Human values are ideas, actions, habits, or experiences that contribute to the
promotion of human life. Since values are not equal in their worth, the conduct of
a person depends largely on his wise choice of values.

Value
Man is not only an animal; he is a person. No other corporeal substance is a
person. Only man is. Man is a person because he has the gift of insight (intellect)
and volition (will). We often refer to a person as self, or ego. There is no basic
difference between these two terms. Both imply the self-sufficiency of the
person. Both imply worth or value. (Robert Edward Brennan: Thomistic
Psychology, New York: Macmillan Co., 1966, p. 280)

The self is the first and most fundamental of the values. All others are such in
relation to the sublime dignity of the person. Actions, for example, are values
because they are the result of intellect and will, motivated towards something
desirable: another value.

Value is intimately related to the search for meaning in human life. For we
say that life is meaningful when a man has found something capable of
arousing his commitment to it, something deserving of his best efforts,
something worth living for and, if need be, worth dying for, It has been said that
values are the goal of man's striving, having as their purpose to render human
existence meaningful and to achieve the complete fulfillment of man's
personality as individual and as a community. Values enable man to change, to
establish self-control and self-direction. (Tomas Andres: Understanding
Values, Quezon City: New Day Publishers, 1980, p. 19)

Kinds of Values
Values are classified according to the level of human life to which they
correspond: (Ibid.: 36-38)

1. Biological Values. These are necessary to the physical survival of man as an

organism;
a) life and Health
b) Food and Shelter
c) Work

2. Social Values. These are necessary to the sensual needs and Fulfillment:
a) Leisure and Sex
b) Marriage
c) Family and Home
d) Parental Authority
e) Education

3. Rational Values. Those are necessary to the functions and fulfillment of

intellect and will:
a. Understanding and Control of Nature
b. Guide and Control of Oneself
c. Solidarity with Fellowmen
 d. Religion

The three levels of man's life are the foundation of moral, socio- political and
religious rights of man. All values, therefore, are interrelated.

Moral Values
What we consider Moral Values are those that directly pertain to the
function of intellect and will: those choices, decisions, and actions, by which
man's rational faculties are involved and perfected. All other values -biological,
social, or rational- when they fall within the exercise of man's freedom of choice
assume the quality of moral. In this sense, all values are moral in reference to
their use or abuse by man as a free agent.

For example, the consumption of food is value in itself, but ov er-eating is a

dis-value or abuse of food as value. Likewise, willful privation of food is either
justifiable or not. One may refuse food for some capricious reasons, or, one may
refuse to eat for some lofty reason: as in a "Munger strike" in protest of human
rights violation.

Thus, Von Rintelen in his article "A Realistic Analysis of Value" defines moral
value as "a qualitatively determined value-in-itself which has normative obligatory
character and presupposes the liberty of possible decision, a decision to
effectuate real value in concrete acts of varying degree." (Ibid.: 40)

The characteristics of moral values are implied by the above definition:

1. Moral Values are goods having intrinsic qualities of desirability.

2. Moral Values are universal, that is, they appeal to man as man and to man
as a specific individual.

3. Moral Values are obligatory. They come as a natural duty, because

possession of them is expected as an integral quality to man as rational
creature directed by natural powers towards truth, beauty, and goodness.

Other values include what we functionally call religious, cultural, and social
values:

1. Religious Values are those which pertain to man's relationship with the Deity,
guiding and regulating his communion with Him.
2. Cultural Values are those man shares with others in a given community of
persons, shaping their spiritual kinship, and directing their attention to
definite ideals of behavior.

3. Social Values are those that are necessary for the promotion of human
society as a whole, integrating the motivation and interests of members
towards the common objective or goal.

The Hierarchy of Values

The hierarchy of values refers to the order of values from the lowest to the
highest in importance. Speaking of their intrinsic worth, values do not have the
same degree of desirability. Neither is it possible to incorporate all values at the
same time in our lives. Accordingly, people will have to choose their values, The
Science of Ethics may help people in their choices, but for all practical purposes
it is the responsibility of each person.

The Aristotelian ranking of values appears justified. The goods pertaining to

the soul, that is, to the intellect and will, occupies the highest level of importance.
The biological values occupy the lowest rank. That we should aim for the most
essential values is common sense enough. Our choice should direct us to
genuine growth in character.

Subjectivity plays an important influence in the choice of values. We soon

find that in a given situation, it becomes quite difficult to make decisions. This
problem can be solved by certain amount of flexibility. While knowledge, for
example, is essential, leisure may be chosen if studying becomes detrimental to
one's health.

The circumstances of time and place may also dictate on our choice.
Certainly, food is the greatest in importance for a man who is dying of hunger.
Christ, for instance, interrupted himself in his teaching by multiplying the fishes
and loaves of bread.

Choosing our Values

Every man has to choose his values. He is wise indeed who chooses values
according to their intrinsic worth. Our preference should be guided by the
following

1. Permanent or lasting values must be preferred over temporary or perishable

values, eg., education over courtship.
2. Values favored by a greater number of people must be preferred over those
that appeal only to a few, e.g., discipline over personal freedom.
3. Values that are essential must be preferred over those that are accidental,
e.g, health over beauty.

4. Values that give greater satisfaction must be preferred over those that
provide short-lived pleasures, e.g., pursuing your artistic hobby over fanatical
devotion to a movie star.

Our value preferences determine our life-style and our character as a person.
In this sense, we speak negatively of certain people as mukhang pera, lakuatsero,
tsismoso, lasenggo, babaero, or, walang silbi. On the other hand, we refer
positively to people who are maka-diyos, masipag. matulungin, maka-tao, or,
mapapagkatiwalaan.

God the Highest Value

God is goodness, the perfect good. He is the exemplar of all goodness found
in all creatures. He is the plenitude of everything desirable. Thus, He is the
Summum Bonum, the ultimate and absolute good that will fulfill all human
desires. St. Augustine says that our hearts are restless until we find God. God is
the ultimate end of human life.

God is not only the Alpha and the Omega of the created universe, he is the
preserver of values, Without God, nothing is worth valuing, for then even the
person of a human being loses its meaning and life itself becomes a useless and
aimless wandering in the avenues of time.

Ethical Theories
Values are related to the purpose of human life. Throughout the ages,
theologians and philosophers have tried to explain the meaning and purpose of
existence. We summarize below a few of the most significant ethical theories:

1. Plato. Plato believed that man is free. Thus, man deserves to be punished for
the "sins" he freely commits Happiness is not found in the things that merely
serve man's use (utilitarianism), nor in the pleasures of earthly life
(hedonism), but in making the soul like to God by the contemplation of the
Idea of the Good and by the exercise of virtues. (Glenn: The History of
Philosophy, p. 77)

2. Aristotle. Man has threefold nature: vegetal, animal, and rational. Man must
realize his nature by cultivating all his natural tendencies. The highest good
correspond to the tendency of the soul. But man needs likewise to fulfill his
 basic biological and sensual needs, guided by temperance. The happiness of
man consists in the contemplation of truth made possible by the practice of
virtues. (Renford Bambrough, (Ed) The Philosophy of Aristotle, New York:
New American Library, 1963, p. 283)

3. St. Thomas Aquinas, The Highest Good, or, Summum Bonum consists in
"beatific vision" of God. No earthly good can fully satisfy human desires. Man,
because of his rational appetites of intellect and freewill, can only be
completely happy in God Himself. This happiness is possible only with God's
help through the infusion of supernatural grace. This is supernatural
happiness, achievable only in the next life,

Ethical Systems
1. Islamism. Islam is a philosophy of life, a complete system of living, based on
the Word of God revealed to Mohammed. Islam teaches that the Greatest
Value is one's surrender to God. This consists in the fulfillment of the Five
Pillar:

(1) Confession of Creed: "There is no God but Allah, and Mohammed is his
prophet".

(2) Prayer brings man in the right relationship with God.

(3) Charity.

(4) Observance of the Ramadan.

(5) Pilgrimage to Mecca

2. Buddhism. The Greatest Value according to Buddha is the liberation of man

from suffering through the abandonment of all egoistic desires. The Four
Noble Truths of Buddhism are:

(1) Life is the root of all sufferings

(2) Suffering are caused by desires,

(3) Desires can be eliminated by negating life:

(4) Elimination of desires can be achieved by accumulating karma or deeds that

eventually free the individual.

3. . The Greatest Value, according to Jeremy Bentham, one of its proponents,

is pleasure. But man, being a sociable animal, mast conduct his affairs in a
way that would benefit others. Thus, the greatest moral good is that "which
 gives the greatest happiness to the greatest number of people". John Stuart
defines the greatest good: "By happiness is intended pleasure and the
absence of pain; by unhappiness, pain and the privation of pleasure".

4. Communism. Communism is based on the teachings of Karl Mark. The

Greatest Good is absolute equality. The mission of communism is the
production of material wealth by means of collective labor, so that the goods
of this world might be enjoyed in a paradise where each would give according
to his powers and would receive according to his needs. Communism aims to
build a classless society. Until such goal is attained, the State shall rule
absolutely.

5. Christianism, Christianity is based on the teachings and life of Jesus Christ,

Christ taught that the Greatest Value is Love, God is love. "And behold, a
certain man came to Him and said, 'Good Master, what good work shall I do
to have eternal life?" He said to him, "Why do you ask me about what is good?
One there is who is good, and he is God." (Matthew, 19: 16-17).

Christian morality is essentially based on love which embraces even the

enemy.
8 FILIPINO VALUES

Values are universal, shared by all people. What we call "Filipino" values are
those given emphasis in the culture and tradition of the Filipinos. They shape
character, or ugaling pilipino.

The study of cultural values belongs also to Ethics. They are cultural habits
that define the filipino attitude towards life in general and towards specific
actions in particular. They may rightly be regarded as modifiers of human acts,
influencing their motivations. They are besides the raw materials of the social
and spiritual development of a Filipino as a person in a community of persons.
They lend support to the effort of building a nation.

Filipino Cultural Values

Values do not belong exclusively to Filipinos. But certain universal values
find different meaning and application within the experiential and historical
circumstances of the Filipino. What we call Filipino values are those we derive
from our culture or way of life, from "our distinctive way of becoming human in
this particular place and time". (Vitaliano R. Gorospe, Filipino Values Revisited,
Manila: National Bookstore, Inc., 1988, p. 104)

The values of the Filipinos spring from their peculiar way of viewing life, its
origin, its meaning, and its purpose. For example, the value of pananalig sa
Maykapal comes from the belief that God is the Supreme Creator. The values of
pag-ibig, pakikipag-kapwa, pagpapahalaga sa familia, hiya, utang ng loob - take
roots on their awareness of social relatedness. And from the awareness of his
worth as a person, dignified and responsible, - come dangal, amor propio,
delicadeza, and palabra de honor.

Filipino Moral Ideal

 Filipinos subscribe to the concept of moral integrity as the ideal ultimately
desirable ideal. Success is measured in terms of moral respectability. "Di baling
mahirap, basta't may dangal" expresses this noble aspiration.

The ultimate expectation is for somebody, for everybody, to act the way a
rational being ought to behave. More fundamental than magpakalalaki, or
magpakababae, is the conceptual expectation of magpakatao. This means that,
before one is anything else, he must first be an authentic person, a tao.

One who falls short from the general expectation does not deserve respect. In
the mental frame of a Filipino, one who chooses to reduce himself to the level of
the brutes, does not deserve to be in the company of decent people. Thus, such
unfortunate individual is ostracized and dismissed as "hayop", or, "walang-hiya",
implying that only a brute can act so shamelessly.

Objective and Subjective Values

Values are both objective and subjective. They are objective in the sense
that they are things that are valuable and desirable. They are subjective in the
sense that they presuppose a subject, that is, a person who is valuing or
experiencing such value.

Subjectively, values are either positive or negative. They are positive when
they contribute to the development of proper attitude and behavior. They are
negative when they do not lend to the development of proper behavior, but
instead lead to the corruption of behavior. While values are objectively good,
(hence we call them "values"), their use or application by the subject, that is,
subjectively, may be an occasion for them to be twisted by misplaced motives.

Filipino Values are often described as ambivalent, that is, they can either
work for or against the person valuing. For example, Fr. Gorospe illustrates how
our "closed family kinship", a value in itself, has both a positive and negative
influence on behavior:

"The primary of the Filipino family, both nuclear and extended, in Filipino
motivation and behavior has both its advantages and disadvantages. It is true
that the patterns of dependence fostered by the traditional Filipino family
develop in the individual attitudes of passive acceptance, lack of self- confidence
and initiative have family closeness and loyalty also helps much to the per nence
of marriage and the stability of the family which is the basic unit of society.
Although family solidarity militates against national identity and unity, the
problems arising here in the Philippines from divorce and broken homes are not
as widespread and serious as in other countries like the United States. But
divorce is not the only evil affecting the Filipino family. It would be quite revealing
to gather statistics on the number of "forced" marriages, illegitimate pregnancies,
abortions in the Philippines, not to mention the evils of marital infidelity and the
"querida" system. (Ibid.: 24)

Signal gives us an example of the ambivalence of our pakikisama value system:

"Another means of achieving SIR (Smooth Interpersonal Relations) is

pakikisama. Pakikisama comes from the word sama which means accompany
or go along with. Although pakikisama has been used synonymously with SIR, it
is more commonly used with a meaning narrower than S.R. In this more
restricted sense, pakikisama means giving in or yielding to the will of the leader
or the majority so that the decision of the group becomes unanimous. In a word,
concession. To illustrate, the man who agrees to foot the bill of his barkada's
beer-drinking binge is praised as magaling makisama, and the classmate who
still attends class even though the rest of the class had previously agreed to cut
it is denounced as "walang pakisama. (How Valuable, The Philippine Value
System?, "How Valuable, The Philippines Values System" Manila, Banaag
Publications, July 1986, p. 4).

Double-Standard Mentality
The Filipino moral behavior is characterized as ambivalent, meaning, that the
Filipino is comfortable with a double-standard mentality. Plainly, the values
recognized are allowed to play a dual role not unlike that of Jekyl and Hyde. "The
truth", says Fr. Gorospe, "is that Filipino values are ambivalent in the sense that
they are a potential for good or evil, they may help or hinder personal and
national development, depending on how they are understood or practiced or
lived." (Ibid.: p. 106)

Fr. Gorospe wonders whether this "double-standard" is not in fact the result
of our society's value system which intrudes on the value system of the
individual. (Ibid.: 3) Social expectation or pressure from family and community
simply makes it difficult for the individual Filipino to act in accordance with his
personal convictions. Alluding to the cheating in the 1964 Law Bar examinations,
he points out that it would be simplistic to accept that the justices involved did
not know or recognize the value of honesty and integrity. But perhaps the
emphasis of the wrong values in the present system of bar examinations, the
social pressure of family, the social expectation of the community as a
whole-"make it extremely difficult for the individual to be honest and moral".
(Ibid.)

Erroneous Norms of Morality

 Fr. Gorospe traces the roots of double-standard morality to the adherence of
Filipinos to false norms of morality. Accordingly, Filipinos judge what is right or
wrong on the basis of (1) group-centeredness or "group-thinking, or (2) on the
basis of shame and fear of authority figure.

"Group-thinking" is the mentality of the herd. Where the lead carabao goes,
there the rest of the carabaos go. What is right or wrong depends on what is
favored by the group as a group. Instead of listening to his conscience coming
from within his being, the Filipino listens to the conscience of other people.
"What will may family, or may relatives and friends, or may barkada think or say?",
"What will other people say" - are expressive, according to Fr. Gorospe, of the
moral norm of the Filipino. (Ibid.: 6)

The other norm of morality which Filipinos are inclined to follow is based on
fear or shame of the authority figure. This is the "don't-be- caught" attitude. (Ibid.:
7) According to this norm, it is alright to do wrong provided one is not caught
doing it. Thus, a student may cheat in an exam, provided he is not caught by the
teacher. Thus, morality is equated with the skill of palusot.

Re-orientation of Attitudes
The solution to the moral ambiguity of the Filipinos depends largely on the
attitude towards the problem itself. Three difficulties must be overcome:
ignorance, complacency, and rationalization.

Filipinos must be made aware of the problem. One who is not aware of an
illness does not go to a doctor. Similarly, a Filipino, unaware of the inconsistency
in his moral outlook, will not attempt to correct himself. There is indeed a need to
internalize values, to make them a part of one's inner character. Values are not
clothes to wear. They are the sinews of human behavior. They are what a person
ought to become as a human. being.

Complacency is the feeling of being comfortable with the present state of

affairs. It leads one to be indifferent to existing problems. One who is
complacent is afraid to make any alteration of his behavior. He is afraid of the
efforts and looks at them as painful or difficult process. Virtue, precisely, comes
from the Latin vir, meaning, man. If requires manly effort to discipline oneself, to
convert one's inclinations to tendencies towards what is good.

Rationalization is the mental turning away from the real issues. It is an

attitude intended to escape responsibility. It is a ready excuse for doing what is
wrong. "Ako'y tao lamang","ganyan lang ang buhay", "uso yan" are
rationalizations. They project an individual's helplessness in a particular situation
and, therefore, not responsible. Rationalization in any form is wrong, because it
denies man's capacity to control himself and to have dominion over his actions.

Moral Commitment
Values are not acquired genetically; they are personally cultivated and lived.
They involve a commitment where one submits himself to the rational demands
of his intellect for truth and the moral demands of the will to abide by what is
good.

Commitment implies responsibility. A responsible person is one who can

think for himself and make his own decisions independently of others. "He must",
says Fr. Gorospe, "learn to make free and conscious choices, to criticize his
social experience, and internalize morality and religion." (Ibid.: 10)

To be responsible is not essentially becoming an independent person in the

like of a "rebel". "The rebel is a socially immature individual who wants the right
to make his own decisions but refuses to assume the responsibility for the
consequences of his decisions", explains Fr. Gorospe. (Ibid.: 11)

Characteristics of a Responsible Person

Fr. Gorospe speaks of moral commitment as a response to the Christian
ideals. The characteristics he describes however apply to man as man insofar as
man must be committed to the good of his nature. After all, before one is a
Christian, he must first be a good man.

A responsible person has the following qualities:

1) A responsible person has the ability to differentiate between what is essential

and accidental. Insofar as commitment to moral values is also a religious
response, Fr. Gorospe writes:

An individual is religiously mature if he can differentiate between a functional

and an experimental or "lived" type of religion. Some Filipino Catholics use God
or religion as a means to their own personal satisfaction or ends such as to gain
social acceptance or prestige, to enhance their business, or further their
political ambitions. They are religiously immature. For the religiously mature
Filipino Catholic, religion becomes a matter of personal and total commitment
to Christ, not a matter of social conformity sanctioned by hiya. In other words,
Christian morality and religion is not utilitarian, not a means to one's own
selfish ends, nor ego- centered but God or Christ-centered. (Ibid.: 12)
2) A responsible person has the ability to internalize his values. For a
responsible person, life is not an external following of required actions;
instead, life is the expression of love coming from his heart and mind,
motivating all his actions and desires. Internalization of values implies the
acceptance of the self as a person, one who must respect himself and the
order of created things.

Core Values of the New Filipino

Moral maturity is a process of conversion. It means shedding off the old self
and putting on the new self. For the conversion to be total, it must work from
within the person. This involves a new way of thinking, a new perception of
realities. For the Filipino, this conversion begins with the fresh view of human
dignity. While the significance of human dignity has always been part in our
Filipino tradition, somehow its true meaning was lost in our national
consciousness.

In the previous chapter, we have said that the first fundamental value is that
of the self, manifesting himself as a person. The human person has value, not
because of what he was in terms of material possessions, but for what he is, a
creature gifted by God with intellect and will. Because of his human dignity, a
person possesses certain rights and duties essential to his development.

On the basis of human dignity, Fr. Gorospe explores the potentials of values
which he considers "core" or central to the education and eventual
transformation of the Filipino. (ibid.: 111) These core values are: TRUTH, LOVE
and FAITH; INTEGRITY; HARD WORK, and SOCIAL JUSTICE.

1. Truth, Love and Faith

There is a need for intellectual conversion. One should be ready to deny what
is false and to accept what is true. This involves genuine concern for study and
research, denying tsismis or guesswork as reliable sources of information. "It
means", according to Fr. Gorospe, "developing creative and critical thinking in
order to transform our environment and develop a culture expressive of the ideas
and aspirations of the Filipino people and build structures for a "just and humane
society". (Ibid.: 113)

There is a need for moral conversion in love. Love for the good should be the
basis of decisions and choices. One should be ready to choose not on the basis
of what is pleasant or unpleasant, convenient or convenient, but solely on the
basis of what is objectively good under the circumstances.
 Religious faith is needed too. Reason and good intention are not enough.
There must be that faith in the Almighty God who holds us in the palm of his
hand. If indeed we came from God, then God will see to it that we find our way
home. Only we will have to listen to him speaking in our hearts. (Ibid.)

2. Integrity

The word stands for wholesomeness or completeness. It connotes

perfection of the whole from the perfection of its parts. In the language however
of the Filipinos, integrity means honesty. It means the repudiation of lying, deceit,
cheating, stealing, fraud, hypocrisy and dishonesty in all its forms.

The Filipino should learn to hate "lagay, padulas, areglo, puslit, palusot. He
should protest a system that institutionalizes palakasan and padrino. He should
refrain from paki-usap.

Integrity is the essence of self-respect. One should love himself and keep his
dignity. To be able to assert oneself without being arrogant is not diplomacy but
the art of self-respect. This is being honest to oneself.

3. Hard Work

Filipinos are hard working. That many Filipinos have left their families and
homes for work abroad proves that Filipinos are not afraid of work. And yet, there
is a need to develop the proper attitude towards work. Work indeed is a means to
a comfortable life, and many workers from the Middle East and the United States
have proven this for a fact. But the inordinate desire to get rich quickly and too
much is an entrapment of the soul. When materialistic goals become the primary
and sole reason for working, work becomes an excuse for greed and contention.
Often, strikes and lock-outs are fights over wages that are either unjustly
withheld or unjustly deserved.

Work for the sake of salary kills creativity. Permanent or tenured employees,
secured in the thought that they may not be dismissed easily and "without due
cause", become lackadaisical towards their work. And there are those who
equate gambling with work since they are motivated by pecuniary gains.

Along with the proper attitude towards work, Filipinos must be educated in
the wise use of money. "Money does not grow on trees" - this the Filipinos
understand. But many are profligate, assuming the role of a one-day-millionaire
on payday. Naghihirap na kung wala, maghihirap pa kung mayroon" - partly
explains why many Filipino families remain poor.

4. Social Justice
 Social justice requires that we share our talents and material possessions
with those who are unfortunate and poor. The concept that giving alms,
donations and assistance to the poor is "only" a demand of charity and therefore,
voluntary, must give way to the concept of social justice.

Social justice is founded on the principle that all earthly goods belong to all
men, for them to share equally: not in the mathematical sense of equality, but in
the prudential sense, that is, that all have the right to a decent life. But since
people are not similarly gifted with the tools of productivity (intellect), it becomes
an obligation for those gifted to care for those less endowed. All men must share
proportionately the goods of the earth. Jacques Leclercq explains this point:

"In placing the world at man's disposal God has no other purpose than that
man should serve him. In order to serve God, man must begin by self-
development, by perfecting in himself all the specifically human qualities, Human
life, it must always be remembered, consists in serving God, in devoting one's life
to helping one's fellow men to build a brotherhood of man. In setting ourselves
this task we must never overlook that half of the human race which is still under-
nourished and riddled with disease, existing side by side with certain other
peoples or classes which are bursting with prosperity. (Christianity and Money,
London: Burns and Oates, 1959, p. 89

Social justice requires that we live only simple lives and that we should not
flaunt our wealth, especially in the midst of so much poverty and deprivation. It
urges us to feed the hungry and to clothe the naked, not because it is the "pious"
thing to do, but because it our obligation to do so on account of our fortune.

9 MAN AS PERSON

Every human act presupposes a doer. This is the subject of an act, the one
who is motivated to act and is accountable for the act and its consequences. He
is rational and he is free. He is a person.
 Understanding man as a person is fundamental in Ethics. How we treat
ourselves and others depends largely on our concept of what man is. Frank
Sheed observes that everybody is presumed to know what man is. But the varied
political, social, educational, philosophical, and religious systems in the world
underscore the fact that anybody else has a different view of man. (Frank Sheed,
Man Essential, Part, I, pp. 3-22)

Certain Philosophies of Man

All men share the same basic anatomical and physiological features. One
may expect a physician to treat every man, regardless of race and color, using
the same prescription. That all men have the same human nature is the premise
of both Buddhist and Judaeo-Christian philosophy.

1. For Buddhism, all men are subject to the same psychic laws, since the human
condition is the same for all. However, man lives under the illusion of
separateness and indestructibility of ego due to human greed and pride. It is
only when man conquers his agreed and pride that he discovers the
fundamental truths of life.

2. In the Judaeo-Christian thought, man is the "image of God". All men belong to
one family. They share the same basic features that make them human and
enable them to know and to love one another. The Messianic prophesy
speaks of peaceful unity of all men.

3. Today the idea of a human nature common to all men is being eroded by that
concept which suggests human nature to be a blank sheet (tabula raza) on
which each culture writes its text. While the oneness of human nature is not
totally ignored, it conjures man to be merely the product of social interaction
so that human nature is nothing more than a "reflex of social conditions".
(Erich Fromm, Beyond the Chains of Illusion, Credo Series, pp. 29-33)

4. Karl Marx proposes that human nature is a given potential, a set of

conditions, the human raw material, so to speak, which cannot change. Yet
man does in fact change in the courage of history. Man therefore is the
product of history, becoming what he is potentially. History is the process of
human developing those potentialities which are given him when he is born.
(Ibid.: p. 33)
5. Existentialism considers that the existence of man as an individual endowed
with free-will is the fundamental fact of life. There is no universal essence
shared by all men. Man is what he does with his freedom on his situation and
 situation varies. Man is not a "finished" thing, but a reality undergoing
perpetual remaking. (Tomas Andres, Understanding Values, p. 111)

Man as a Rational Organism

Man is an organism composed of body and soul. The human body is the
material shell within which the soul operates. The soul is the principle of life. It is
that by which we live, sense, and reason. (Brennan, op. cit.: 9)

Man is not the soul. Neither is he the body. Man is the substantial union
(hylomorphic) of body and soul. The soul, even as it is the source of vital
functions, needs the support of the body. (Ibid.: p. 70). Thus, while the soul has
its own peculiar functions, certain acts are shared by the soul (psyche) and the
body (soma). Thus, these actions are called psychosomatic. (Ibid.: 71).

Man is the wholeness of his materiality and spirituality. But the spirit with its
insights into value, and on account of its freedom, assumes responsibility over
the totality (Bernard Haring, The Law of Christ, Vol. I, p. 65)

Human nature is the intrinsic principle of movement of man. The basic

operational tendencies of human nature is called natural law.

Man as Person
Man is born into this world as an individual. We call him thus a person and
not human nature. A person is an individual human nature manifested in the
history of time and place.

Etymologically, person comes from the Greek prosophon which refers to the
mask used by stage actors. The Latin personare alludes to the mask which is so
constructed that the voice of the actor is projected forcefully. In this sense, we
may speak of person as human nature, hidden by the mask of individuality, but
projected or manifested through it.

A person, therefore, is an individual, existing separately and independently

from others, capable of knowing and loving in an intellectual way, and of
deciding for himself the purpose or end of his actions (Brennan: 280).

Thomistic philosophers define person as the actual existence of an

intellectual substance (Ibid.: 289). Psychologists refer to person as self or ego.

Man as Cosmic Perfection

Man is a person. As such, he occupies the topmost rung in the ladder of
corporeal substances. He is the most perfect being composed of body
and soul.

Man is perfect in comparison with other creatures because he has the gift of
intellect and will.

Man is the microcosm of the whole universe. He incorporates in him all

those powers belonging to the lower creatures. He exists the same way that
chemicals do. He senses, feels, and moves the same way that animals do. But
above all, he thinks and wills and is in control of himself. Here is how one writer
describes man's awesome powers:

The telescope and the microscope completely dwarf all natural organs of
sight. The radar and the television make possible for man to see objects
hundreds of miles away. His increasing power of locomotion and
communication enables him to talk around and world or to send his message
across mountains and deserts in split seconds. His hands are weak compared
to a lion's paws or to an elephant's trunk, and yet he can move mountains and
control floods. His dog can outsmell, outrun, and outbite him, but his dog looks
up to him as to a god. Man is therefore a creative intelligent being capable of
creating and transforming his environment. He is a powerful dynamo that can
either construct or destroy himself, society or mankind. (Benicio Catapusan,
Introduction to Sociology, p. 18)

Person, Personality, and Character

Person is human nature manifested as an individual. It is defined as a
complete substance, subsisting by itself, separate from all else, and endowed
with a rational nature (Brennan: 288).

Personality is the sum-total of those factors of physique and constitution

and those enduring, underlying tendencies of a person which determine his
characteristic behavior. In the language of laymen, personality refers to those
physical attributes and mannerism of an aesthetically refined persons. But in
psychology, those "enduring and underlying tendencies" which determine
characteristic behavior are the talents, powers, and habits which are accidental
to a person. Thus, one individual is not more of a person than another, but he
may have more personality than another. Brennan writes:

The person of man does not grow in stature; but personality of man
develops and enlarges itself according to the pattern of his actions, the mature
use of his powers, and the schema of his habits...Whereas person is entirely a
gift and a birthright, personality is largely a matter of one's achievement. There is
no such thing as the cultivation of person; but there is such a thing as the
cultivation of personality. (Ibid.: 291)

Character is often taken as synonymous with personality. This is correct if

personality is taken as the sum-total of psychophysical systems in an individual
which enable him to adjust to his environment. But character assumes a
restricted meaning. Character refers to a person's choice of values and to his
intelligent and free conversion of such values into practical goals. (Vernon
Jones, Meaning of Character, Collier's Encyclopedia, Vol. 5, p. 708).

Brennan offers this distinction:

"If personality is a psychological entity, character is an ethical entity. We do not

say that a man has good or bad personality, but we do say that a man has a
good or bad character. Thus, if personality is a principle of rational action,
character is a principle of moral action. Personality might be defined as the
sum-total of all our rational habits grouped around the axis of intellect.
Character might be similarly defined as the sum-total of all our moral habits
grouped around the axis of will. (Ibid.: 292).

Character as Moral Creativity

Thinkers do not agree as to how much of personality is inherited from parents
or from environment. But they agree that character is the will of the individual to
direct his effort towards a recognized ideal. In this sense, character is a creative
process of developing oneself, not necessarily according to socially acceptable
norms, but according to a set of recognized ideals. In history, men considered
great in character are often non-conformists, acting against the prevailing beliefs
and practices of their day. Such were Christ, Sakya-Muni or Buddha, Gandhi,
Martin Luther King, and many others.

Character is the process of becoming man, by unfolding the innate goodness

of human nature. It is a conscious effort to grow "in age and wisdom". Character
is not the result of good act done in a moment of inspiration. Character is the
habit of doing well at all times.

Human Habits
Man is a creature of habits. He is born with a wide assortment of powers that
open up limitless horizons for development. Reason stands at the apex of the
vast array of potentialities. Man, if he must integrate all his powers in one
wholesome personality, must rely on the powers of reason. (Ibid.: 262) Man must
form the habits of reason.
 Habit comes from the Latin habere, meaning to have. Habit is either the
disposition to have something, or the disposition to act in a certain manner. The
first is called entitative habit, that which disposes a thing to have a certain nature
or quality of being, such as to be beautiful, talented, or to be obese. The later is
called operative habit, that which disposes for doing something in a certain
manner, such as painting, writing, or talking. We. are primarily interested with
operative habits. They may be defined as the readiness to do something.

Habits are acquired. Once acquired, they become very difficult to alter. They
are therefore relatively permanent. Acquiring a habit is like starting a pathway
across a lawn. At first, our foot impression are hardly visible. But with each
successive step, as more and more people walk across the lawn, the pathway
comes out clearly.

In like manner, habits are not formed in an instant. They result from
constantly repeated actions. After they are formed, they do not vanish instantly.
It would require a tremendous effort to change a habit.

Moral Significance of Habits

Habits modify not only the power of operation but the person himself who is
the subject of such power. Thus, habits are either good or bad depending on
whether they promote the well-being of the person or not. For instance, one who
has poor eating habits is prone to illness, while one who has good eating habits
is disposed to physical fitness.

In ethical sense, habit which is in conformity with the nature of man is also in
conformity with right reason and, therefore, is good. It leads to man's perfection
and to his ultimate happiness. On the contrary, the habit which is not in
conformity with the nature of man is also not in conformity with right reason, and
therefore, evil. It is destructive of man and does not lead him to his ultimate
happiness.

In Ethics, such good habits are called virtues. Bad habits are called vices.

The Intellectual Virtues

Virtues either pertain to the intellect or to the will. Those that pertain to the
intellect are called intellectual virtues. They help man acquire knowledge and
perfection on that aspect only. Those that pertain to the will are called moral
virtues. They dispose the will towards proper conduct and contribute to the
perfection of the whole person.

The intellectual virtues are:

 1. Understanding which is the habit of the first principles, such as, "do good
and avoid evil", "the whole is greater than the sum of any of its parts".

2. Science which is the habit of proximate causes, such as, concluding from
the facts of experience or inference;

3. Wisdom which is the habit of the ultimate causes, such as, being aware that
the ecosystem binds both man and lower creatures;

4. Art which is the habit of making or producing things, such as, paintings,
music, sculpture;

5. Prudence which is the habit of doing or choosing from alternative values,

such as saving for the "rainy days".

Understanding, science and wisdom pertain to speculative intellect. Art and

prudence pertain to practical intellect.

The Moral Virtues

The moral virtues are those that build the character of a person. These are
justice, temperance, and fortitude.

1. Justice is the virtue which inclines us to render to another what is due to him.
The biblical just man is one who respects himself, worships God and helps
others.

Justice is the foundation of any interpersonal relationships. It is the basis

of every reasonable law and promotes peace and harmony within a
community of persons.

2. Fortitude is the virtue which gives us the strength in facing dangers and
vicissitudes of life. In Filipino we refer to it as tatag ng kalooban so that we
describe a man of fortitude as matibay, matatag, or malakas ang loob.

Fortitude must be tempered by prudence. It belongs to the prudent man to

decide whether to assume a risk or to avoid it.

3. Temperance is the virtue which helps us regulate our passions and our use of
earthly goods. In the philosophy of Aristotle, temperance or moderation
provides the "golden mean" so that nothing is done in excess or in defect.
Because anything excessive or defective constitutes a vice, it has been said
that virtue stands in the middle of both extremes, or, as the Latin say, "virtus
stat en medio"
The Effects of Vices
A vice is the habit of doing an evil acquired through the repetition of an evil
act. One single act of immorality does not constitute an immoral habit. But it is
no less imputable to the subject. So much for the expression "We don't hate the
sinner but the sin". The fact is that every evil act speaks ill of the character of the
person acting.

A vice is opposed to virtue either by excess or by defect.

1. Vices opposed to prudence by excess are: cautiousness, fraud, flattery,

trickery, etcetera; by defect are: imprudence, precipitateness, impulsiveness,
carelessness, and stubbornness.

2. Vices opposed to justice by excess: profligacy, idolatry, fanaticism and

superstition; by defect: all forms of unjust activities by omission, such as
disrespect for elders, irreligion, non-payment of legitimate debts, etcetera.

3. Vices opposed to fortitude by excess: rashness, boldness, recklessness; by

defect: cowardice, timidity, sensitivity, and depression.

4. Vices opposed to temperance by excess: rigorousness, lack of self-

confidence, moroseness; by defect: pride, lust, hatred, gluttony, vanity and
others.

The Person that We Ought to Be

Character points the direction of becoming the person that we ought to
become. As human beings, we do not lack the talent and the power to shape our
character. A person is never a "finished" product. But the finishing touches that
bring out character are not to be found in a modelling school.

Character is not the product of society's approval nor of high- fashion's

sophistication. Character is a creating process involving prudent choices of
values. It is the tenacious adherence to these ideals which molds our character.
Character is the force of our will compelling us to draw out the best in us.

As pointed out by Jose Rizal, men are not turtles to be valued according to
their shells. Persons should be valued according to their character, whether they
are just, moderate in their wants and optimistic in their attitude.
10 RIGHTS AND DUTIES

Man is born with rights and duties. Having rights is an attribute of a person.

There is too much talk about rights. We even have a Commission on Human
Rights. Some suspect that duties are not given the same emphasis. We insist on
our rights but ignore our duties. Duties however are more fundamental than
rights. The duty to do good and to avoid evil is above all rights.

Notion of Right
Right, objectively taken, is anything which is owed or due. Taken subjectively,
that is, as residing in a person, right is a moral power, bound to be respected by
others, of doing, possessing, or requiring something. (Glenn: 136)

Right is founded upon law, either natural law or human positive law. But
because all laws are derived ultimately from the Eternal Law, then rights are
founded on eternal law.

Kinds of Rights

1. Natural Rights are those based on the natural law, that is, on human nature.
Examples of natural rights are: the right to live, the right to education, the
right to work.
2. Human Rights are those based on human positive laws, either those
enacted by the State or a religious sect. Civil rights are those dependent upon
the laws of the State. Ecclesiastical or religious rights are those dependent
upon the laws of a church or religious sect. Examples of human rights are:
the right to form associations, the right to legal due process, and the right to
travel. Examples of religious rights are: the right to worship, the right to marry
within one's church, and the right to be educated in the faith.

3. Alienable and Inalienable Rights. Alienable rights are those, civil or

religious rights, which can be surrendered, renounced, or removed, such as
the right to travel. Inalienable rights are those which cannot be surrendered,
renounced, or removed, such as the right to decent livelihood.

4. Right of Jurisdiction is the power of lawful authority to govern his subjects

and to make laws for them. A father has the right of jurisdiction over his
children.

5. Right of Property is the power to own, to sell, to barter, to lend, to change,

or give away one's personal possessions. The farmer has property rights to
the land he owns and the produce thereof.

6. Juridical Rights refers to all rights insofar as they are based on law. These
rights must be respected, allowed, fulfilled, as a matter of strict justice. Non-
juridical rights are those which are not founded on laws, either natural or
human, but on virtue. Thus, these are also called moral rights. The right of a
hungry beggar to be fed is a moral right, or non- juridical. (Glenn: 138)

Characteristics of Rights
1. Coaction is the power inherent in rights to prevent their violation and to
exact redress for their unjust violation. Under normal circumstance,
coaction is exercised through the process of law, where a person whose
right has been violated may sue in court. Under extraordinary situations,
coaction may be enforced by the person himself whose right is endangered,
such as in that situation which warrants self-defense against unjust
aggression.

2. Limitation is the natural limits or boundary beyond which a right may not be
insisted without violating the rights of another. One may not play his radio
in a way that would disturb the right of another who wants to sleep.
3. Collision is the conflict of two rights so related that it is not possible to
exercise one without violating another. According to Paul Glenn, conflict of
rights is only apparent since laws on which rights are founded cannot be
contradictory. But such conflict is bound to occur as in the case of the
Church claiming the right to teach the faithful against the evil of
contraception and the claim of the State for the right to regulate population.

If indeed such conflict is to be resolved, the right which prevails is that which
(1) belongs to the more universal order; or (2) is concerned with a graver matter;
or (3) is founded upon the stronger title or claim. (ibid.:139)

To illustrate: (1) The right of government to peace and security takes

precedence over the right of citizens to travel; (2) The right of a person to receive
medical attention takes precedence over the right of the physician to his fee; and
(3) The right of a natural parent to keep his child takes precedence over the claim
of a guardian.

Subject Rights
Rights are vested only on persons, who may either be an individual or a
juridical person. An individual person is every human being while a juridical
person is any legal entity or association of men, such as corporations, clubs,
fraternities, and unions.

Animals do not have rights. But they should be cared for and should not be
subjected to cruelty or unnecessary harm. Cruelty to animals is not in accord
with the dictates of reason. Thus, it may be said that lover creatures have non-
juridical rights.

The “Bill of Rights”

The Bill of Rights is a list of rights pertaining to persons. These rights are
recognized, guaranteed, and protected against invasion, reduction, or
destruction.

"The bill of rights is premised on the belief in the dignity of man and the
intrinsic worth of human life. The powerful idea of human dignity, taught by great
ethical teachers from Confucius to Christ and Kant, received a tremendous boost
from the democratic ideal of equality. Human dignity and equality led to the
recognition of inherent and inalienable rights of the person, beyond the reach of
even the most benevolent, not to say, the most tyrannical powers of
government". (Leonardo A. Quisumbing & Purificacion V. Quisumbing,
Constitutional Rights and Obligation of the People, A primer, (unpublished), p. 70-
71)

Article III of the 1987 Constitution provides for the Bill of Rights as follows:

Section 1. No person shall be deprived of life, liberty, or property without

due process of law, nor shall any person be denied the equal protection of the
laws.

Sec. 2. The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses,

papers, and effects against unreasonable searches and seizures of whatever
nature and for any purpose shall be inviolable, and no search warrant or warrant
of arrest shall issue except upon probable cause to be determined personally by
the judge after examination under oath or affirmation of the complainant and the
witnesses he may produce, and particularly describing the place to be searched
and the persons or things to be seized.

Sec. 3. (1) The privacy of communication and correspondence shall be

inviolable except upon lawful order of the court, or when public safety or order
requires otherwise as prescribed by law.

(2) Any evidence obtained in violation of this or the preceding section shall
be inadmissible for any purpose in any proceeding.

Sec. 4. No law shall be passed abridging the freedom of speech, of

expression, or of the press, or the right of the people peacefully to assemble and
petition the government for redress of grievances.

Sec. 5. No law shall be made respecting an establishment of religion, or

prohibiting the free exercise thereof. The free exercise and enjoyment of
religious profession and worship, without discrimination or preference, shall
forever be allowed. No religious test shall be required for the exercise of civil or
political rights.

Sec. 6. The liberty of abode and of changing the same within the limits
prescribed by law shall not be impaired except upon lawful order of the court.
Neither shall the right to travel be impaired except in the interest of national
security, public safety, or public health, as may be provided by law.

Sec. 7. The right of the people to information on matters of public concern

shall be recognized. Access to official records, and to documents, and papers
pertaining to official acts, transactions, or decisions, as well as to government
research data used as basis for policy development, shall be afforded the citizen,
subject to such limitations as may be provided by law.
 Sec. 8. The right of the people, including those employed in public and
private sectors, to form unions, associations, or societies for purposes not
contrary to law shall not be abridged.

Sec. 9. Private property shall not be taken for public use without just
compensation.

Sec. 10. No law impairing the obligation of contracts shall be passed.

Sec. 11. Free access to the courts and quasi-judicial bodies and adequate
legal assistance shall not be denied to any person by reason of poverty.

Sec. 12. (1) Any person under investigation for the commission of an
offense shall have the right to be informed of his right to remain silent and to
have competent and independent counsel preferably of his own choice. If the
person cannot afford the services of counsel, he must be provided with one.
These rights cannot be waived except in writing and in the presence of counsel.

(2) No torture, force, violence, threat, intimidation, or any other means which
vitiate the free will shall be used against him. Secret detention places, solitary,
incommunicado, or other similar forms of detention are prohibited.

(3) Any confession or admission obtained in violation of this or Section 17

hereof shall be inadmissible in evidence against him.

(4) The law shall provide for penal and civil sanctions for violations of this
section as well as compensation to and rehabilitation of victims of torture or
similar practices, and their families.

Sec. 13. All person, except those charged with offenses punishable by
reclusion perpetual when evidence of guilt is strong, shall, before conviction, be
bailable by sufficient sureties, or be released on recognizance as may be
provided by law. The right to bail shall not be impaired even when the privilege of
the write of habeas corpus is suspended. Excessive bail shall not be required.

Sec. 14. (1) No person shall be held to answer for a criminal offense
without due process of law.

(2) In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall be presumed innocent

until the contrary is proved, and shall enjoy the right to be heard by himself and
counsel, to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation against him, to
have a speedy, impartial, and public trial, to meet the witnesses face to face, and
to have compulsory process to secure the attendance of witnesses and the
production of evidence in his behalf. However, after arraignment, trial may
proceed notwithstanding the absence of the accused provided that he has been
duly notified and his failure to appear is unjustifiable.

Sec. 15. The privilege of the write of habeas corpus shall not be suspended
except in cases of invasion or rebellion when the public safety requires it.

Sec. 16. All persons shall have the right to a speedy disposition of their
cases before all judicial, quasi-judicial, or administrative bodies. Sec. 17. No
person shall be compelled to be a witness against himself.

Sec. 18. (1) No person shall be detained solely by reason of his political
beliefs and aspirations.

(2) No involuntary servitude in any form shall exist except as a punishment

for a crime whereof the party shall have been duly convicted.

Sec. 19. (1) Excessive fines shall not be imposed, nor cruel, degrading or
inhuman punishment inflicted. Neither shall death penalty be imposed, unless,
for compelling reasons involving heinous crimes, the Congress hereafter
provides for it. Any death penalty already imposed shall be reduced to reclusion
perpetua.

(2) The employment of physical, psychological, or degrading punishment

against any prisoner or detainee or the use of substandard or inadequate penal
facilities under subhuman conditions shall be dealt with by law.

Sec. 20. No person shall be imprisoned for debt or non-payment of a poll tax.

Sec. 21. No person shall be twice put in jeopardy of punishment for the
same offense. If an act is published by a law and an ordinance, conviction or
acquittal under either shall constitute a bar to another prosecution for the same
act.

Sec. 22. No ex post facto law or bill of attainder shall be enacted.

Civil and Political Rights

The Bill of Rights includes the civil and political rights of the people.

1. Civil Rights are those which an individual enjoys in his private activities, or in
his transactions with others, as protected and granted by law. These include
the right to privacy, the right to travel or change residence, the right to
 property, the right to worship, and the right to free access to a court of
justice. Civil rights are enjoyed by citizens and non- citizens alike.

2. Political Rights are those which an individual enjoys in participation in

government affairs. These include the right to free speech and free press, the
right to form associations, the right to assemble and to petition the
government for redress of grievances, the right to vote and be voted upon to
public office. Political rights are enjoyed only by the citizens of each
particular country.

Civil and political rights are what we call human rights. But in its widest
sense human rights include those pertaining to the dignity of the person such as,
integrity, liberty, education, health, work and welfare.

The Meaning of Human Rights Today

Human rights are more than just the sum of our political and civil rights.
Included as human rights are our economic, social and cultural rights.

The Philippines is a signatory to the International Covenant on Economic,

Social and Cultural Rights of the United Nations General Assembly. The
Covenant calls on all signatory States to recognize and guarantee the basic
social, economic, and cultural rights of any person.

Among other things, the Covenant guarantees the right to work, including
the right to just and favorable conditions of work, to fair wages, and the right to
freely form and join trade unions. It guarantees the right to social security, the
right to an adequate standard of living, the right to be free from hunger and the
right to enjoy the highest attainable standard of physical and mental health. It
guarantees the right to education, the right to take part in cultural life and the
right to enjoy the benefits of scientific progress.

Above all, the Covenant guarantees, as a collective right of a people, the

right to self-determination, which is the right to freely determine their political
status and freely pursue their economic, social and cultural development. Renato
Constantino declares:

“Economic, social and cultural rights are as important as political and civil
rights. For freedom from detention, torture and other forms of political
repression will be meaningless when people are hostage to hunger, disease,
ignorance and unemployment. In the same way, freedom from social and
economic inequities would be in vain without the right to participate in
determination of the direction of society (Civil Liberties, Human Rights: The
Larger Focus, pp. 22-23).

Notion of Duty
Duty, taken objectively, is anything we are obliged to do or to omit Taken
subjectively, is a moral obligation incumbent upon a person of doing, omitting, or
avoiding something.

Duty is a moral obligation because it depends upon freewill. As such, it

resides on a person. And because duty is defined by law, any willful neglect of
duty makes the person accountable for such act:

Correlation of Right and Duty

Rights and duties are inseparable. They are correlative in a given person.
One who has right to something has the duty to act consistent with that right. If a
person has the right to life, he is duty bound to look for the means that would
sustain that life. Pope John XXIII cites that "the right of every person to life is
correlative with the duty to preserve it; his right to a decent standard of living
with the duty of living it becomingly; and his right to investigate the truth freely,
with the duty of seeking it and of possessing it ever more completely and
profoundly (Pacem In Terris (Peace On Earth Encyclical), p. 9).

A prevailing error of our time is that we impose upon others to respect our
rights while we ourselves do very little about our duty to act consistent with such
rights. For instance, we claim the right to freedom of expression or speech
without fulfilling the prior duty of investigating the truth of what we are going to
speak.

Reciprocity of Rights and Duties

In interpersonal relationships, rights and duties are reciprocal. The right of
one people implies in all others the duty to respect that right. Thus, the right of
Pedro to life entails on all other persons or agencies the duty not to do him harm
and to help him instead fulfill such right.

All laws are expressive of duties. The Decalogue "Thou shall not steal"
points out what action to omit in relation to the property right of another. Laws
insofar as they are directives for acting serve as guide for people to fulfill their
duties. In the observance of the law, we recognize and respect the rights of
another.
 The reciprocity of rights and duties imposes the same privilege and burden
on all men. Thus, "those, who claim their rights, yet altogether forget or neglect to
carry out their respective duties, are people who build with one hand and destroy
with the other" (John XXIII: 9).

Kinds of Duties

1. Natural Duties are those imposed by natural law such as, the duty to care
for our health.

2. Positive Duties are those imposed by a human positive law such as, the
duty to pay taxes and to observe traffic rules.

3. Affirmative duties are those which require the performance of a certain

act, such as casting a ballot during election; or, applying for a business
license. Negative duties are those which require the omission of a certain
act, such as not carrying illegal firearms, or not destroying the property of
another.

Exemption From Duty

Duties are to be fulfilled readily unless compliance is prevented by a strong
and just reason. A student has to attend his classes unless sickness prevents
him from doing so. A driver must observe the speed limit unless he is rushing a
dying person to a hospital.

While the person concerned has to decide for himself when he may claim
exemption, such claim should never be arbitrary or whimsical. To guide us in our
decisions on the matter, some general principles are proposed (Panizo: 121-
122):

1. Negative duties arising from negative natural law admit no exemption.

Negative duties are those that require the omission of an evil act. When such
evil act to be omitted is intrinsically evil, nobody can morally claim
exemption. Accordingly, there is no excuse for committing murder, stealing,
rape, or adultery.

2. Affirmative duties arising from affirmative precepts of natural law admit

exemptions when the act is rendered impossible under certain
circumstances or would involve excessive hardships on the person.

Affirmative duties do not bind unless the circumstances for them present
themselves. The duty to feed the hungry binds only when a person is in the
position to offer the required assistance in whatever form. Thus, he who is
himself destitute is not bound to help the needy. In this case, compliance with
duty becomes impossible to carry out.

Again, the duty to preserve human life, becomes an affirmative duty when it
becomes a question of providing expensive medical care to a person whose
family does not have the financial resources. An excessive hardship is involved
in the duty if the family were to borrow money and render itself destitute because
of it.

3. Ordinary hardships which come along with the performance of a duty do not
exempt one from complying with such duty.

All duties involve certain degree of difficulties, trials and sacrifices on the part of
the person bound by them. Such common hardships do not offer an excuse for
neglect of duty. Thus, the student who finds it very difficult to get a ride to and
from the school is not exempted from attending his classes. The security guard
who finds it hard to stay awake during night shift is not justified to fall asleep on
duty.

Conflict of Duties

It happens sometimes that a person is confronted with several duties, which

must be complied with at the same time. In this situation, a person must learn
how to prioritize his duties. The following guidelines will be useful:

1. Duties towards God must be given priority over those towards men.
Theoretically, one should rather be worshipping in his church rather than
attending a social meeting of, say, a sports club. "Theoretically", we say, because
in practice it is possible to arrange one's schedule of activities so that both
obligations are met.

2. Duties that secure public order or common good have priority over those that
safeguard the individual. The need to obey traffic rules is prior to one's personal
convenience.

3. Duties towards family and relatives take precedence over those towards
strangers. Except in cases of nepotism, the needs of family and friends have
greater claim to our services and generosity. Thus, a father should provide for
the food and shelter of his family before he thinks of providing for the vices of
his barkada.
4. Duties of greater importance take precedence over those of lesser
importance. The preservation of one's honor is more important than material
profit.

5. Duties based on higher laws take precedence over those coming from lower
laws. Condemning divorce on the basis of natural law is better than subscribing
to it on the basis of human positive law.

Supplemental Reading:

Equality Before the Law

Jose c. Sison.

The twin brother of the "due process of law" in our Constitution is the "equal
protection of the laws" clause found in the same Section 1 Article III. They are
twins because they are more or less based on the same principle of
reasonableness and fair play and freedom from arbitrariness. In fact, equal
protection may be said to be a part of due process of law although it is more of a
guaranty against discrimination.

But perhaps, more than any other language in the Constitution, this "equal
protection" clause has been used to strengthen and broaden civil rights. And this
is precisely because it is so broad that it does defies an

exact definition. In general, it can be defined as equality before the law; that "no
person or class of persons shall be denied the same protection of the law which
is enjoyed by the other persons or other classes under like circumstances, in
their lives, liberty and in the pursuit of happiness" (Truax V. Corrigan 257 U.S.
312). Or more concisely stated, the guaranty of equal protection means that the
rights of all persons must rest upon the same rule under the same
circumstances both in privileges conferred and in liabilities imposed (Hartford v.
Harrison 301 U.S. 459).

The constitutional guaranty of equal protection does not, however, mean that
laws cannot be passed making classifications on the subject of legislation. This
is allowed as long as the classification is reasonable. And a classification is
reasonable where (1) it is based on substantial distinctions which make real
differences like classifying certain natives of the Philippines of a low grade of
civilization usually living in tribal relationship apart from other communities and
enacting a special law applicable to them only; (2) the classification is relevant to
the purpose of the law, like prohibiting these natives to buy intoxicating liquors of
kind other than their native wines and liquors; (3) the classification applies not
only to the present conditions but also to future conditions which are
substantially identical to the present; and (4) the classification applies only to
those who belong to the same class (People v. Cayat 68 Phil. 12). Thus, in
another case, a law imposing a fine on a poor person less than that imposed
upon one who is well-to-do for the same violation, is not against the equal
protection of the law (People v. Ching Kuan 74 Phil. 23).

any

As rightfully declared in the same case, equality before the law is therefore not
"literal and mathematical but relative and practical". It recognizes the fact that
human beings are not born equal; many have material, physical or intellectual
handicaps. Society cannot abolish such congenital inequality but "can endeavor
to afford everybody equal opportunities". ("A Law Each Day (Keeps Trouble
Away)", Column, The Phil. Star, March 4, 1988)

11 Love of God

Love of God is a duty to God. This the Filipino does not find difficult to
understand. The practice of religion is not only second nature to Filipinos, it is
the spiritual psychic of the Filipino to be religious.
It is on account of his nature that man is said to be religious. An essential aspect
of man's rationality is his religiousness. This explains why anthropology has not
encountered a human society without some form of religious worship.

The Meaning of Religion

The word comes from the latin word re-ligare, or to bind back. Religio or religion
implies a bond, a relationship or fellowship between man and God. In the Old
Testament, such bond is referred to as a convenant, such as the covenant
between Noah and God, between Abraham and God.

Ethics regards religion as the duty of man to bind himself in worship of God. This
duty is natural because it is the yearning of man's rational soul. This duty,
therefore, is not derived from any religious or ecclesiastical law but from natural
law. Instead of being a result of a religious system, the natural duty to worship
God is the source and foundation of all religious beliefs and practices.

Religion can also be taken subjectively as the act or habit inclining a person to
render worship of God. It is the act of knowing, loving, and serving God in
fulfillment of the natural duty of worship. Taken objectively, religion is the system
of beliefs, rituals, moral practices and laws regulating the fulfillment of the
natural duty of worship. In this sense, religion is equivalent to creed or faith. It is
creed which differentiates different churches or sects, such as Buddhism,
Catholicism, Protestantism and their ramifications.

Worship of God

Worship of God is the proclamation of the glory of God. It is the of mind and
heart acceptance of the intellect and will - of God's dominion over the created
universe. The highest goal of man, the noblest of his actions, is the recognition
and the hallowing of God's Name in thought and in deed in the world (Bernard
Haring: v. III, p. 13)

Worship of God is internal when it consists of acts of the intellect and will, such
as in making an act of faith, or, in mental prayer in praise of God.

It is external when it consists of commanded acts of honoring or paying homage

to God, such as fasting, kneeling down in prayer, or, in giving alms to the poor.

Worship of God, both internal and external, is either private or public. It is private
when it is done by the individual by his own private initiative. It is public when it is
done in participation with other men in communal adoration or homage of God,
such as in processions of images, or offering of sacrifices in religious services.
Worship of God as the duty involve the duty of knowing, loving and serving God.
Let us discuss each one:

1. The Duty of Know God

Man has a natural tendency to worship God. This implies that he has a natural
capacity of know God. We say "natural" because man, by his own intellectual
powers, discovers the presence of God as Creator and Supreme Lawgiver. It is
said that we accept God's existence as a matter of faith. But is faith true?

Francis Reilly argues that religious belief in God is true if it fits, rather than
contradicts, rational knowledge of nature and human person. In the realm of
conduct, he cites that the distinction between what is objectively good and
objectively evil points to the existence of a law, which though clarified by men, is
"not simply made by human thinkers, no matter how wise" (God's Questionable
Existence, Manila: National Bookstore, p984, p. 26)

For many great thinkers, the cosmos its order and harmony, proves God's
existence. The same galactic orderliness so impressed John Glenn, an American
astronaut and senator:

Could this have just happened? Was it an accident that a bunch of flotsam and
jetsam suddenly started making these orbits of its own

accord? I can't believe that. This was a Plan. This is one big thing in space that
shows me there is a God. Some Power put all this into orbit and keeps it there
("Why I Know There Is A God", How to Live with Life, USA: Readers' Digest
Compilation, 1965, p. 543)

Another scientist did not have to look very far. He found God by reflecting on the
powers of human nature:

"Man has something more than animal instinct - the power of reason. No other
animal has ever left a record of its ability to count ten, or even to understand the
meaning of ten. Where instinct is like a single note of a flute, beautiful but limited,
the human brain contains all the notes of all the instruments in the orchestra. No
need to belabor this point: thanks to human reason we can contemplate the
possibility that we are what we are only because we have received a spark of
Universal Intelligence (A. Cressy Morrison, quoted by Readers' Digest, How to
Live with Life, p. 550)

Our knowledge of God is natural if it is the conclusion of human reason operating

on its own powers. It is supernatural when it is based on divine revelation, that is,
on truths made known to man by God Himself.
2. The Duty to Love God

We cannot love what we do not know. But knowing God does not necessarily
lead to love of God. One may know someone and still be detached from him. A
philosopher who can prove that there is God may not necessarily be in love with
God.

Loving God in a religious sense, means being attached to Him. Thus, love of God
is a personal response to His presence. It is not a mere emotional reaction, a sort
of physical infatuation or pious sentiment. It is the submission of our mind and
heart to what God is and to what He is saying to us.

Paul Tillich speaks of Love of God in the platonic term of eros the drive toward
reunion with things and persons in their essential goodness and with the good
itself. But since the good itself and God are identical, the love toward the good
itself is, in religious language, love toward God (Morality and Beyond, p. 56).

Accordingly, we may say that love of God is the innate tendency in our human
nature to find fulfillment in what is good. Thus, loving God implies our
acceptance that just as we find our beginning with God, we shall find our final
purpose in the bosom of God.

Bernard Haring compares love of God to filial love. It is not the love between
equals, but the love of a creature for his Creator and Lord. It is love which is
fundamentally obedient. In the religious sense, therefore, love of God is
submission to the will of God (The Law of Christ, Vol. 1, p. 317).

3. The Duty to Serve God

If to love God is to obey God's will, then our moral acts sum up our services to
God. We cannot offer God anything else, but our life - made clean and worthy of
God's Infinite Goodness. It is in this sense, that religion is concerned with the
sanctification of souls, with self-perfection.

But religion is not simply an individualistic enterprise of saving one's soul.

Religion is fellowship with God and men and environment. As a personal
response to the Goodness of God, religion moves us to seek the "likeness" of
God in the other person. Thus, serving another person in justice and in charity is
loving God and he who says that he loves God but does actually love his
neighbor is a liar.

All moral acts are tendencies or movements towards God. All immoral acts are
tendencies away from God. In this sense, all good acts are religious.
Certain actions are, however, properly called acts of religion or acts of worship.
These are:

1. Devotion which is the readiness of the will to perform acts of divine worship,
such as prayer and fasting among others.

2. Prayer which is the elevation of the mind to God in praise of Him, in gratitude
to Him, or in communion with Him.

3. Adoration which is the submission of the mind and will to the glory of God.

4. Sacrifice which is the offering of body and soul to God in recognition of His
dominion over the created universe.

Institutional Religion

A group of believers, subscribing to the same faith, practices, rituals and

discipline constitutes a sect or church. In this sense, there are many religions,
distinguished from one another by their respective creed. The creed of an
organized church is the basis for its communal practices.

Membership in an organized church does not make a person pious or holy.

Genuine religious conversion comes from the heart of each believer.

Institutional churches, however, provides support and direction to its members

towards personal sanctification. Without the churches, an individual will find it
difficult to fulfill his religious vocation. It is through the values taught and
administered by the churches that a person derives his spiritual strength and
moral character.

The influence of the churches is well documented by history. Today, the world's
great religions provide the hope and comfort for mankind. They promote the
dignity of man by regulating the sciences, arts and technologies. They serve as
the "conscience" of mankind.

"Freedom of Religious Worship"

Our Constitution provides for the "freedom of religious worship". This does not
mean that we are free to choose to have or not to have, to practice or not
practice, our faith. It means simply that the State may not interfere with the
religious liberties of the people. It means that the State may not regulate,
promote, prohibit, or discriminate against people on account of their religious
beliefs.

This particular constitutional provision concedes to the individual citizen the

right to make a choice insofar as religion is concerned. Instead of denying the
need for religion, it presupposes it. The duty to bind oneself to God comes from
Natural Law which the State cannot challenge nor ignore. The experience in
Russia and other communist countries illustrates this point.

Religion: The Search for Ultimate Meaning

The duty to worship God is the same as the natural yearning to find the ultimate
meaning of life. It is the yearning of the human spirit to discover its origin, its
being, and its purpose. The different religious systems are expressions of man's
search for meaning, and they are relevant to the extent that they unravel the
mystery of life.

This is not to say that all religions are the same, that all speak of truth, and that
all are but different pathways to man's ultimate destiny. In the evolution of
human thought, some religions come out as rudimentary and non-rational in their
form and objectives. Religions are equal only in the sense that all are attempts to
explain the meaning of life.

Ethics does not concern itself with investigating the claims of religions. But,
obviously, some are outright fabrications ensnaring gullible people, with profit as
motive. Such aggrupations are plainly business enterprises disguised as religion.

The duty, therefore, of worship presupposes the duty to search for the truth. Even
matters of faith are relevant and meaningful when, at least, they

do not contradict reason.

Religious Tolerance

There is always an occasion when people wage a "holy war" either in defense of
their faith or for the promotion of their beliefs. In a lesser magnitude, but no less
deplorable, is the tendency to mock another person's faith. We refer to him as
"heathen". "idolatrous", or "superstitious", implying that we are the only truly
blessed.

Religion is sacred to a person. No matter how imperfect it appears to us, one

man's faith is the yearning of his spirit. It belongs to his integrity as person to
bind himself with God in a manner he truly understands. Like you, he does not
believe that he has to listen to an "infidel" in matters that concern his ultimate
relationship with God.

It is religious tolerance when we recognize the faith of another as his cherished

possession, truly belonging to him, as an act of his spirit which is essentially
free. It is religious tolerance when, instead of forcing our faith upon another, we
allow him to be enlightened so that his desire to participate in our faith becomes
a voluntary desire. It is religious tolerance when instead of underscoring our
differences of opinion, we join hands instead both in prayer and in action so that
the common good of mankind is served.

The Ecumenical Movement

The Ecumenical movement evolving in the Christian churches today is not mere
religious tolerance. It is a positive step towards unity and harmony among the
churches having common roots in the teachings of Christ. The Second Vatican
Council gives us the meaning and direction of

ecumenism:

The term "ecumenical movement" indicates the initiatives and activities planned
and undertaken, according to the various needs of the Church and as
opportunities offer, to promote Christian unity. These are: first, every effort to
avoid expressions, judgments and actions which do not represent the condition
of our separated brethren with truth and fairness and so make mutual relations
with them more difficult; then, "dialogue" between competent experts from
different Churches and Communities. At these meetings, which are organized in
a religious spirit, each explains the teaching of his Communion in greater depth
and brings out clearly its distinctive features. In such dialogue, everyone gains a
truer knowledge and more just appreciation of the teaching and religious life of
both Communions. In addition, the way is prepared for

cooperation between them in the duties for the common good of humanity which
are demanded by every Christian conscience; and, wherever this is allowed, there
is prayer in common. Finally, all are led to examine their own faithfulness to
Christ's will for the Church and accordingly to undertake with vigor the task of
renewal and reform (Decree On Ecumenism, Nov. 21, 1964, The 16 Documents of
Vatican Il, Mla: St. Paul Publication, p. 213)

We see in ecumenism an honest attempt to bridge the gap existing among the
Christian Churches. It implies the humble admission that the disension among
these churches is a source of scandal for men in general. The promise of unity
may be impossible at the nearest possible time but the continuing exchanges of
ideas between Churches as we observe them. today augurs well for mankind.

Wisdom, according to Socrates, begins with this one basic principle: "Know
thyself". He referred to the human mind as a storehouse of truths which man has
only to recognize and realize in order to acquire a true and certain knowledge of
what we ought to become as persons. If anyone knows what is right and true, he
cannot help but choose it and act consistent with it. Accordingly, Socrates
viewed knowledge as synonymous to virtue (Glenn, The History of Philosophy,
67)

Love and Selfishness

To know ourselves is to love ourselves. To love ourselves is to acknowledge the

fundamental goodness of our nature and to share it with others.

Love is the tendency towards what is good. Selfishness is withdrawing to

ourselves, putting ourselves ahead and above all others. Love thrives on justice,
on what is honest and beautiful. Selfishness is the overflowing of greed and
pride.

flourishes

It is true that loving ourselves means being concerned with our needs. But our
preoccupation with ourselves must be regulated by temperance. Loving
ourselves by excluding others is selfishness. It is narcissism.

No man lives for himself alone. The concept of "man for others" is not a novelty.
We find ourselves in the self of the other. This is how it is since our human
nature is social. The commandment "Love your neighbor as yourself" tells us
both the why and the how. We love our neighbor because he is, like us, a person.
We should love him by not doing to him what we do not want to be done to us.
When we do this we show our concern, not only for others, but our great respect
for ourselves.

The Ethics of Self-Perfection

It is our duty to develop by actualizing our potentials. In the biological sense, this
means growing in years and maturity. In the moral sense, this means molding
our character. Ethics insofar as it directs us towards this goal is called the ethics
of self-perfection. The goal of ethics, as Paul Tillich points out, is to become "a
person in the community of persons" (Morality and Beyond, 12). In Pilipino, this is
translated to pagpapakatao.

Equipped with the natural powers for self-development, man does not need
money or expensive mechanical devices to build a splendid character. For Tillich,
it requires only that we actualize what we are essentially and therefore what we
are potentially (Ibid.). All that one has to do is to apply the intellect and will on
those values that truly reflect our nobility as persons. Of course, this is easier
said than done. The process of spiritual maturation demands personal
sacrifices. Just as the iron is shaped into a plow by fire and by thousand
poundings, so is human character shaped by discipline into a work of art. Thus,
Apolinario Mabini exhorts the people in the third Decalogue of his famous
Verdadero Decalogo: "Cultivate the special talents which God has given you in
life, working and studying hard to the best of your ability, without separating
yourself from the path of goodness".

The Integral Values of the Person

The integrity of the person is the totality of his being as composed of body and
soul. Actualizing then our potentials is linked with the hierarchy of values. Earlier,
we have classified values as biological, intellectual, and moral. Insofar as these
values are integral to our development, we have both the duty to seek them out
and the right to possess them.

1. Biological Duties

The biological duties are those pertaining to the preservation of life and the
maintenance of health and bodily functions.

It is the duty of everyone to take adequate nourishment, food and rest in order to
preserve physical well-being. One should observe personal hygiene and avoid
risks to his health and safety.

Moderation should however regulate our pursuit of biological needs. Aristotle

speaks of subordinating our lower instincts to our higher instincts so as to
liberate the mind in the contemplation of truths. Unreasonable obsession with
clothing, food, cosmetics, or sensual pleasure, dulls the mind and imprisons the
spirit.

2. Intellectual Duties

The intellectual duties are those pertaining to the development of our intellect
and will.

It is the duty of everyone to overcome ignorance by learning a skill or by

acquiring a science. It belongs to human dignity that one is at least
knowledgeable of those things directly affecting his life. Intellectual competence
promotes self-reliance and qualifies a person to be of help to

others.

Likewise, one has the obligation to cultivate proper attitude. One should, for
example, develop the habit of being happy, relaxed, and positive. The cultivation
of the taste for what is right and beautiful contributes to the personality of the
person.

3. Moral Duties
The moral duties are those pertaining to the development of the spirit, or
character. This consists in the practice of religion and the exercise of moral
virtues.

The moral duties are above all other duties. Man's perfection is moral. It is moral
integrity which crowns man with the fullness of his dignity as a human being.
Humans are either rich or poor, educated or illiterate, strong or weak, young or
old, healthy or sick, beautiful or ugly. But the only distinction that really matters is
that between a moral and an immoral

person.

Heroes, Saints, and Martyrs

Heroes, Saints, and Martyrs are not born. They are made. What heroes, saints
and martyrs have in common is character. They nurtured those attitudes and
habits that set them apart from the ordinary men. They shaped their own
character and directed their destiny. They are the models, the "light" for the rest
of mankind.

Great men vary in their achievements and in their greatness. But each does not
fail to awe and elicit admiration. Each exemplifies what kind of person we ought
to be by our own volition.

It is false to believe that situations make a hero. Situations, as experience shows,

produce both the villain and the hero. It is also false men and women whose
greatness is largely unrecognized and unrewarded. that fame or popularity is
equivalent to greatness. There are just too many As pointed out by Emilio
Jacinto:

"The greatness and nobility belong to him who though born in the forest and
without knowledge of whatsoever except that of his native tongue, possesses
good character, is faithful to his words and does not forget his dignity nor his
honor; a man who does not oppress nor help oppressors; a man who loves and
looks after the welfare of his country (Cartilla Del Katipunan)

Our Basic Personal Rights

Correlative to our natural duties are the rights essential to our integrity as
persons. The right to religious worship is one them. Let us consider here the
following: (1) the right to life, (2) the right to private property, and (3) the right to
education.

1. The Right to Life

The right to life is the most important of all our rights. It is the foundation, we
may say, of all other rights. The 1987 Constitution expressly guarantees this
right, that our right to be alive and to be secured from physical harm is a
primordial duty of the government (Section 4, Article II).

The right to life secures us not only from physical harm but provides for the
promotion of our economic, cultural and spiritual growth. Columnist Jose C.
Sison clearly points this out:

"Moreover, the right to life also means the right to live consistent with the dignity
of every human person, of keeping body and soul together. So that if a person
lives under a condition of squalor and extreme poverty as would render his
existence nothing better than a mere being that breathes and moves and no
longer a "person" created to the image and likeness of his god, then he is also
deprived of his right to life. Anything therefore that deprives a person of his
physical, moral, spiritual, intellectual and social well-being is a violation of this
right ("The Most Precious Right", A Law Each Day (Keeps Trouble Away), The
Phil. Star, Feb. 19, 1988).

The right of life is inalienable. No one may take our life arbitrarily. Neither are we
to risk our life unnecessarily. The law of self-preservation is a natural law of our
being. Yet, there are other values much higher than life itself. For these values,
we may risk our life. Thus, one may assume dangerous jobs in order to provide
for his needs through honest work; soldiers may risk their lives in the defense of
their country; and a believer may accept martyrdom rather than renounce his
faith.

2. The Right to Private Property

Derived from the right to life is the right to private property. Precisely, because
man has the right to life, he also acquires the right to private property, to those
means necessary for the sustenance and maintenance of life. In his encyclical
on the Condition of Labor, Pope Leo XIII declares that it is within man's right to
have things, not merely for temporary and momentary use, but in stable and
permanent possession (Five Great Encyclicals, Paulist Press, NY, 1939, p. 3).

Man's survival would be uncertain if he does not have the means for support of
life at his disposal. St. Thomas Aquinas however distinguishes between the right
of possession and the right of use. The right of possession bestows on a person
the exclusive dominion over external and material things to the effect that he
may acquire and dispose of them by his own authority. The right of use bestows
on a person the right to make use of his property in a manner consistent with
social justice. "A man, according to St. Thomas Aquinas, "should not consider
external things as exclusively his but as common so that he should readily share
them to the needs of others" (Summa Theologica, II-II, q. 66, a. 1-2)

3. The Right of Education

The right to education comes from man's rational nature. Every child is entitled
to be educated by his family, by the State and by the Church.

In the Philippines, the education of children is a serious concern of parents. The

sacrifices Filipino parents are willing to endure in order to send their sons and
daughters to coilege mark their love and nobility. Support of children, as defined
by the 1988 Family Code include schooling or training for some profession, trade
or vocation, even beyond the age of majority (Title VIII, Art. 194).

The right to education of the citizens, particularly, the youth of the land, imposes
on the State the duty to protect and uphold it specially in those cases where
parents are physically and morally incapacitated. In Christian Education of Youth,
Pope Pius XI outlines the duties of the State on this matter.

In the first place it pertains to the State, in view of the common good, to promote
in various ways the education and instruction of youth. It should begin by
encouraging and assisting, of its own accord, the initiative and activity of the
Church and the family, whose successes in this field have been clearly
demonstrated by history and experience. It should moreover supplement their
work whenever this falls short of what is necessary, even by means of its own
schools and institutions. For the State more than any other society is provided
with the means put at its disposal for the needs of all, and it is only right that it
use these means to the advantage of those who have contributed them (Five
Great Encyclicals, 49).

13 Problems of Bioethics

Bioethics is a recently coined word. It comes from "bio" which means life and
from "ethics" which is morality. Bioethics is that branch of Ethics which deals
directly with the problems of life and dying, of health and of healing. It focuses
attention to the need for a healthier world in accordance with the dictates of
reason. "Our main concern and perspectives," according to Bernard Haring, "will
be the promotion of healthy relationships and of co-responsibility in creative
liberty and fidelity". (Bioethics, Free and Faithful in Christ, Vol 3, p. 3)
Bioethics is an attempt to rationalize application and use of the many advances
in medical technology. The task, according to Thomas A. Shanon, underscores
the need for inter-disciplinary thinking:

Since bioethics examines the ethical dimension of problems at the cutting edge
of technology, medicine, and biology in their application to life, the area covered
is necessarily broad. This is what makes bioethics complex but also an exciting
disciplinary. It means that a revolution in thinking is called for. Because no one
field can claim the territory of life, many specialties and disciplines are needed
(An Introduction to Bioethics, p. 2)

In this chapter, we shall limit ourselves to some issues directly linked with our
duty to life and its preservation.

The Meaning of Health

We ordinarily refer to health as bodily fitness, consisting in the absence of pain or

illness. Health, however, in its holistic sense, includes the bodily, psychic,
spiritual and religious dimensions of man (Bernard haring, op. cit., 47). A healthy
person then is one who is physically fit, emotionally balanced, mentally and
spiritually integrated. This is the definition of health evolving from the discoveries
of the sciences.

Personal and Social Responsibility for Health

Life is precious. It is our main concern and duty. Health is our personal
responsibility. This requires that we adopt a style of life that fosters health. "We
cannot ignore," says Bernard Haring, "the old health rules such as the proper
rhythm between work and leisure, fasting and prayer, and thus learning about the
mutual conditioning and oneness of body and soul" (Ibid.: 49).

We owe it to our family and society to be healthy. The cost of health care is
becoming expensive everyday. It is a crime of gross injustice when, because of
our reckless habits, we force our family to suffer financial losses and
indebtedness.

Health is a joint responsibility of the person and society. Obviously, one cannot
live his life anyway he pleases and expect society to take care of him in sickness.
Similarly, the State cannot simply stand-by while its citizens indulge themselves
in vices. It is therefore for the common good that the State institutes health care
programs and on many instances regulates the activities of the people. The ban
on smoking in Quezon City shows governmental concern for the health of its
constituents. The same is true about pornography, gambling, alcoholism, drug
addiction, vagrancy, littering, and many other.
No less important are those environmental conditions which must be the
concern of everyone, such as better housing and nutrition, clean drinking water,
avoidance of water and air pollution, enforcement of traffic laws, and so on. "We
are all wounded by the overall sickness of a disordered world," observes Bernard
Haring. "But we all have inner resources and healing powers, and it is part of our
total vocation to heal our own and others' wounds and to work faithfully for a
healthier world and more healing relationships" (Ibid.: 49).

Crimes Against Human Life

1. Suicide

Suicide is defined as the intentional killing of oneself and by one's own authority.
Suicide is immoral because it contradicts natural law. Life is sacred, a gift from
God. For the average Filipino, life is simply "hiram sa Maykapal" and to destroy it
is the height of ingratitude, a sort of weakness to face the challenge of survival.

But while someone may not extinguish his own life directly, it is not suicide when
he exposes himself to extreme danger for a higher cause. It is a heroic act to
lose one's life in an attempt to save that of another.

2. Mutilation

Mutilation is the cutting off of a limb or removal of an organ integral to the

human body. The duty to preserve life extends to the conservation of all bodily
parts and functions. Therefore, the human body may not be mutilated unless the
motive is itself the preservation of life. Thus, a gangrenous limb may be
amputated since it imperils the survival of the person.

Business transaction which involves the selling and buying of human organs is
grossly immoral. While a dying person may legitimately donate an organ of his
body to another, it is regarded unethical to derive monetary profit from such
donation.

Surrogate motherhood whereby a woman "sub-contracts" her womb for

childbearing by means of artificial insemination is immoral. Any contract entered
into for this purpose is considered in jurisprudence null and void ab initio.
Obviously, bodily organs or any bodily function are not valid objects of contracts.
The same principle applies to slavery where a person becomes a property of a
master and to prostitution where sexual pleasure is offered for profit. (see
Appendix A)

3. Sterilization
Sterility is the incapacity to transmit life. Sterilization is a surgical operation
which renders a man or a woman incapable of transmitting life. Sterilization is
carried out by vasectomy for the male and by tubal ligation for the female.
Moralists give the following distinctions:

a) Therapeutic sterilization is intended to preserve the well-being of the whole

body and is therefore permissible.

b) Eugenic sterilization is intended to prevent procreation in an otherwise healthy

and normal person. This is contrary to natural law and is prohibited. Forced
sterilization of retardates, or poor persons, is questionable since it is
discriminatory and violates the human rights of these persons (Henry Davis,
Moral and Pastoral Theology, Vol II, p. 156- 161). Enforced sterilization is usually
followed by anxieties, frustrations, distress, and has a strong negative influence
on the expression of one's sexuality to the extent that it may impair mental
health (Bernard Haring, p. 17).

c) Punitive sterilization is intended as a punishment for certain criminals, as

practiced in some countries. Henry Davis considers such punishment ineffective
and therefore useless. Since sterilization does not extinguish criminal sexual
tendencies, a sterilized rapist can still commit the same crime (ibid.).

4. Euthanasia

Euthanasia, or mercy killing, is an act of inducing death painlessly in order to

abort the suffering of one afflicted with an incurable or unbearable sickness.
Euthanasia is regarded as homicide or murder. It is immoral. Bernard Haring
opposes the legalization of euthanasia on the following grounds (ibid. 88):

a) Legalizing euthanasia would confer upon a person, especially the sick and the
aged, the right to request the "service" of euthanasia to the extent that a State
may simply inflict a kind of social death on the aged and suffering and on those
it may consider useless and a burden.

b) Legalizing euthanasia would strengthen the trend towards suicide by those

who, explicitly or without so many words, are told that they are a burden to others
and to society.

c) It might split the medical profession into those who absolutely respect life and
those who are willing to kill on request.

In Christian ethics, pains and sufferings are natural companions of life. They are
tests of endurance and a form of uniting oneself with the sufferings of Christ.
Therefore, no relief from pain may be forced on a patient who does not give his
consent. Neither may a Christian request that he be killed in order to end his
suffering. The sick and dying persons need deeper love and concern from others,
- not death.

A strong argument in favour of the duty to prevent suicide and to deny a request
for euthanasia (mercy killing) is the well-established fact that attempts at suicide
and requests for euthanasia are, in most cases, a last desperate cry for more
attention and love, for more effective help. If this is true, the best prevention is
not just to interfere in the attempt or to impose constant control, but to give
loving attention and competent help (Bernard Haring, 87).

Nonetheless, moral law does not compel the use of extraordinary methods and
devices, usually also very expensive, in order to prolong life which is given up for
lost. Withdrawing life support devices to allow nature to take its due course is
not considered immoral. What is prohibited on moral grounds are all positive and
direct actions intended to extinguish life, such as injection of poison or overdose
of drug.

5. Drug Addiction

Drug addiction is the state of psychic or physical dependence, or both, on a

dangerous drug, arising in a person following the administration or use of drug
on a periodic or continuous basis.

Drug addiction implies a habit. Cultivation of such habit, against medical advice
and for reasons wholly unjustified, contradicts natural law. Such abuse of drugs
and chemicals effect adversely the mind and body. Many crimes besides are
traced to drug addiction.

The use of drugs in our country is regulated by the Dangerous Drugs Act of 1972,
as amended by P.D. nos. 44, 1675, 1683, 1708 and Batas Pambansa Blg. 179.

While drug addicts are regarded as victims deserving compassion and

rehabilitation, drug pushers are considered criminals. Drug pushers and
manufacturers are, for all practical and legal intent, murderers.

6. Alcoholism

Alcoholism is the state of dependence on the stimulation of wine and liquor. In

extreme cases, alcoholism has the same evil effects of drug addiction.
Alcoholism saps a person's energy, dulls his mind, and destroys his capacity for
creative activity. Due to their erratic behavior and short span of attention,
alcoholics are incapable of holding jobs as well as establishing a meaningful
relationships with others.
Drinking wine is not evil in itself if done with moderation. Intoxication, however, is
self-degrading. Some Filipinos drink with their stomach and not with their heads.
Others see in it an opportunity to prove their machismo when in fact all it proves
is "low mentality".

7. Abortion

Abortion is the intentional expulsion of a fetus which cannot survive by itself

outside of the womb of the mother.

In some countries, abortion is considered a legitimate means for regulating the

size of the family or that of population. In some of these countries, it is not only
legalized but is encouraged by subsidizing it with taxpayers' money. The
Philippines however considers abortion a crime.

Ethicists and theologians distinguish between indirect and direct abortion.

1. Indirect or therapeutic abortion is that which is performed for the purpose of

saving the life of the mother. This is regarded as morally permissible. The case,
however, does not imply that the mother's life is simply preferred over that of the
child. The choice is between a life which can be saved and a life which cannot be
saved. The moral dilemma is either to let both die or to save the mother (Bernard
Haring, Free and Faithful in Christ, 34).