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 the axiom: Bonum ex integra
causa, malum ex quocumque defectu. This means that a thing is
good if it has fullness of its parts and it is bad when it is deficient
in any of its integral parts.
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
honourable, such as that of merely impressing friends that one is
kind hearted. 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, hunger, illness or death. In the moral
sense, actions are bad because they disturb the harmony within
the acting person. They are unfit to the natural and spiritual
tendencies of the human soul. Moral evils also produce physical
harm and damage of oneself and others. But they are moral evils
because what they destroy is the innate goodness, the image of
God, in our human nature. Thus, we say that all moral evils are
those that o 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 coat of paint covers the surface of al 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 alms 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 last in
the action as its culmination or fulfilment. Without a motive, an
act is meaningless, an accident.
The assumption is for the motive to be good. But what is good
motive/ 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 I
the Old Testament, a good man is called a just man. He acts
rightly out to respect for himself and out 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 mean. 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 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 Gelnnn gives us the following insights on the effects of
the motive on the action (kbkd: 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 give 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 pf hos 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 dower of the act. At times, it also
refers to the receiver of the act. This circumstances includes
the age, status, relation family background, educational
attainment, health and socio-economic situation of the
person 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 dues to their helplessness defending
themselves.
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
expected.
c) 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.
2. What refers to the act itself and to the quality and quantity
of the result 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 be the circumstances 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 if 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 terrorist 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 ones 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, dirt 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 it 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 mans invention. Rather, it means that the 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 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.

Law are ordinance of reason because they are rational

deliberations intended to guide men towards what is good for
them and for society. Laws either direct men to perform certain
activities as good and necessary, attainment of the common
good.
Law 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?
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 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 know 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 decalouge 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 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 tosteal, not to kill, etc. 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 its 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 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
god 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 mans 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 wilfully contradict Gods 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 be 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 mans 11best 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.