Are so called because they are the basis for judging
whether an act is good or evil, moral or immoral. They are the following: (1) the end of act itself,(2) the end of the doer, and (3) the circumstances of the act. 1. The end of the act -determines whether an act is intrinsically or extrinsically good or evil. Any act which is consistent with the natural tendencies of human nature is intrinsically good. But those that are contrary to reason are intrinsically evil, such as murder, abortion, kidnapping, robbery, and rape. We speak of these acts as being contrary to natural law. Actions which are neutral or indifferent to the norm of morality are extrinsically good or evil. These actions are either good or bad not on account of their nature, but because of factors or circumstances concomitant to them. The act of eating, for example , is an amoral act and is neither morally good or bad. But either over- eating or excessive dieting could be unhealthy and therefore, morally objectionable Action which are intrinsically evil or prohibited at all times actions which are extrinsically evil may e permitted when the factors which render them evil are removed or corrected. It is fact that some actions entail pain and suffering, while some do bring pleasures to their doers. Pain or plaesures do not define whether an act of moral or immoral regardless whether it is a painful or pleasurable experience 2. The end of the doer -is the purpose or motive which the doer wishes to accomplish by his action. Without a motive, an act is accidental and involuntary. A good motive is truthful, prudent, temperate, and just. It is the most equitable for the most number of people, or in the words of the existentialist “ the most loving of all in a given situation”. “The End does not justify the means” is a fundamental moral principle. It affirms that one should not do wrong (means) in order to attain a good purpose (end) The motive of a person, no matter how noble, does not excuse an act which is intrinsically evil. The desire to pass a subject does not justify a students who for cheats in the examination. Likewise, the need to feed a family does not justify torture of a suspect by the police. The rule is – don’t do wrong even if this will result in something good Motive and Action1: the correlation between motive and act is defined in the following principles 1. An evil act which is done on account of an evil motive is grievously wrong. In others words, a bad actions and a wrong motive make for dangerous combination. Stealing in order to buy “shabu” means double trouble. Don’t try it…. 2. A good action done on account of an evil motive becomes evil itself. This mean that something nice and sweet may turn ugly and sour because of a bad motive. Don’t be a hypocrite! 3. A good action done on account of a good purpose acquires an additional merit. This means you go ahead and do right thing. You can never go wrong on this one 4. An indifferent act may either become good or bad depending on the motive. This means you be careful of what you eat or what you say.
3. Circumtances of the act – are the historical
elements surrounding the commission of an act, such as the status of the doer, the place the time, or the intensity of an act. The circumstances are hinted by the interrogative pronouns – who, what , where, with whom, why, how, and where. 1. “who” refers either to the doer of the act or the recipient of the act. It has to do with the age, status, relation, schooling, social standing, an economic situation of those involved in an act. In this regard, we note the following: (a) The moron, insane, senile and children below the age of reason are incapable of voluntary acts and are not morally accountable. (b) Educated persons have greater accountability than those with less or without education. (c) Person constituted in authority have accountability for the actions of those under them. Tis is the meaning of “command responsibility”. Thus, parents have command responsibility over their children who are minors; employers, over the actuations of their employees, and superiors, over the acts of their subordinates. The law on sexual harassment is based on the doctrine of command responsibility. (d) The legal or blood relation of people involved in act May modify the nature of such act. For instance, killing of a parent changes homicide parricide. 2. “what” refers to the act itself, or the quality and quantity of the result of such act. Robbery, for instance, what is stolen and how much is stolen are aggravating factors. Likewise, the numbers of victims determines the seriousness of the murder. 3. “where” refers to the place where the act is committed. A crime inside a church is more scandalous than the committed in a seclude place. Murder in a marketplace is more heinous than that done in a mountain trail. “With whom” refers to the companion or accomplices in an act. The more people are involved in the commission of an act, the more serious in the crime. 5. “Why” refers to the motive of the doer, as discussed earlier. 6. “How” refers to the manners of the act is perpetrated. Homicide committed with much cruelty is a heinous crime. 7. “When” refers to the time of the act. A murder committed when the victim when the victim is sleeping is more offensive than the one done when the victim is wide awake. Circumstance Factors : 1. circumstance may either increase or decrease the wrongfulness of an evil act. The killing of innocent people in the case of terrorist exploding a bomb in public places constitutes a serious crime against humanity. On the other hand, killing a tyrant who has long oppressed the assailant accepts a mitigating factor and, therefore, is level evil. Nonetheless, the act remains an evil act and the perpetrator of such act is accountable and punishable. 2. Circumstances also may either increase or decrease the merits of a good act. Helping another at the risk of ones life is an act of heroism. Helping another in expectation of a reward or fee is a business transaction Circumstances may except temporarily someone from doing a required act. A debtor may not pay his debts when he does not the money, or if paying up would cause him great hardships. 4. Circumstances do not prove the guilt of a person. The presence of a person when a crime is commited does not prove he is the criminal.
The Morally Good Act – A morally good act is that which
sounds in all aspect- in its nature, motive, and circumstances . In the Scriptures, the morally upright is a just man, one who weights his actions in relation to what the law demands, to what the circumstances would allow, and to what fits his stature as a rational being. A morally good action, therefore, is a just act- “makatarungan”. We also speak of its as “maka-tao”, or “maka-diyos” , indicating that such as action is fair to the other person and in accordance with the Will of God. The Relevance of Laws Laws mandate some actions as prohibited and others as permitted and required. We may therefore consider laws as determinants of human behaviour. Some people do not do what is good unless they are the forced to ST. Thomas points out the laws are made for those who are weak in character. Society adopts laws to protect its member from themselves or from those who might want to hurt them. By prescribing punishments for transgression, law of encourage and compel people to act for the good of all. Everyone should obey the law or risk being punished. As authorities would put it – “dura lex, sed lex” the law is harsh, but it is the law- and everyone should obey. The Definition of Law Law according to St Thomas Aquinas, is an ordinance of reason, promulgated for the common good by one who has charged of society. Laws are “ordinance of reason” because they are the result of serious study, deliberation, or public debate. They are “promulgated” because they are made known to the people who are bound to observe them. They are “for the Common good” because the purpose of the law is the general welfare of the people. They are enacted “ by who are charged of society” because only those legitimate authority to govern may pass laws. KINDS OF LAW 1. Divine positive laws are those made known to men by God like the Decalogue (Ten Commandments) given to Moses. We also call them moral laws because they are concerned with moral acts Violation of these laws constitutes a sin. 2. Human positive Laws are those made by legitimate human authority such as the laws enacted by the state or the church. Human positive laws are intended to preserve peace and order and to direct members to work towards the common good. They may also have as their object the moral acts. Violation of these laws constitute an illegal act. The constitution and the civil code embody the laws of the Phillipines Cannon Laws embodies the laws of the catholic church 3. Affirmative and Negative Laws: Both divine and human positive law are either affirmative or negative Affirmatives laws are those that require the performance of an act, like that of giving respect to parents and that of paying taxes when due. Negatives laws are those that prohibit the performance of an act, like the prohibition against smoking in designated public places. BINDING IN CONSCIENCE Moral laws are those derive from natural law. They are in the inherent and essential tendencies of human nature so that they are thought as being “written” in the hearts men. They regulate thoughts and fellings. Moral laws are enforced by personal commitment in the absence of the threat of corporal punishment or sanctions. Moral laws are said to bind in conscience, because they impose upon the person a moral obligation to accept the law and comply with it. Moral laws then are enforced by personal conviction rather than by the threat of corporal punishment. On the other hand, human law regulate only the external acts when these are manifested and observe. They do not regulate thoughts and feeling so that, for Example, a person may not be arrested for wanting to commit murder until such time when he actually attempts it. Human laws do not bind in conscience and are purely penal, that is, they are enforced by police powers and justice is served when the culprit suffers the punishment. PROPERTIES OF A JUST LAW A human law; in order to be accepted as just, must have the following properties: 1. A human law must conform with divine laws This is because all legitimate authority comes from God. Therefore, no human authority may contradict Gods will manifested in the natural law or divine positive laws. 2. A human law must promote the common good. The common Good is the communal benefit, Material and spiritual, necessary for the promotion of human life. The common Good consist in economic prosperity, peace and order, health, education, and moral instruction of the members of the society. 3. A human law must not discriminate against certain individuals or groups. It must apply proportionately to all members of society so that the needs of each one are served. 4. A human law must be practicable. A law which imposes undue hardships and sacrifices in its compliance is not just. 5. A human law must be flexible. It must provide limits and define the basis for exceptions. Laws arre for the benefits of man, not for his destruction. 6. A law must be amendable. The conditions and Reasons for a law do change. Therefore, a law should be amendable and changeable. THE REALITY OF EVIL There are good actions and There are evil actions. Their Realities do not come from the mind in spite of some people saying “ evil is all in the mind” Some people do not see evil, accept it as something “normal”, or identify it as something else. Some, for Example, would regard pornography as an art. Some think of gambling and prostitution as means of livelihood. A terrorist believes that are murdering unbelievers is fulfilling God’s Will. A government official believes accepting bribe is a privilege of his office. A pile of garbage is garbage even if a scavenger were to say it is good. Garbage represents what is ugly, dirty and bad in the surrounding. In contrast, A rose garden stand for what is clean, beautiful, and wholesome. Therefore, only he who is intellectual dishonest would claim “evil is only in the mind”, implying that evil is something imaginary, an illusion. The expression “ang masama ay nasa isip lamang” should not mean that evil is a fiction. It should mean rather that an evil act begins in the mind as an evil though and its translated into an immoral act. Indeed, the mind is “the devil workshop”.