Republic of the Philippines
CENTRAL BICOL STATE UNIVERSITY OF AGRICULTURE
Sta. Rosa Del Norte, Pasacao, Camarines Sur, 4417
Website: www.cbsua.edu.ph
Email Address: ca.pasacao@cbsua.edu.ph
Trunkline: (054) 513-9519
KEY CONCEPTS ON ETHICS
Weeks 1-3 (August 14- September 1)
“The unexamined life is not worth living”
Socrates
Topic no. 1: DEFINITION OF RULES
Rules are specific sets of norms of behavior, regulations, and laws established on purpose to
regulate the life in the community. These norms secure the order and allow avoiding total chaos.
Importance of Rules
There are several importance of rules. These are:
1. Prudent laws are the foundations of a nation because they define the parameters of civil
society. If laws become elastic, the boundaries become dysfunctional.
2. Laws organize our lives. We are able to deal and live together because of rules and laws.
3. Rules help us get along together and show respect to each other. If there are no rules to
follow, everyone is free to do whatever he wants.
4. Most things we do are governed by rules. Imagine if a student ignores the rule against talking
in class, the teacher will not be able to achieve her goal and other students cannot
concentrate. Drivers who disobey traffic rules can cause serious accidents.
5. Rules organize the relations between individuals and between societies to make it clear to
them what is right and wrong. They are designed to ensure fairness, safety, and respect for
each other's rights.
6. Rules make the world a peaceful place to live.
7. Rules are needed in our community because they serve as balances between laws and
rights. If there are more laws than rights, there is more chance that people will revolt because
of the lack of their rights. On the other hand, if there are more rights than laws, the people
will go out of control and become abusive. Thus, laws are needed for regulation between
laws and rights.
Topic no. 2: MORAL DEVELOPMENT THEORY (1958)
Lawrence Kohlberg's theory of moral development is a theory that focuses on how children
develop morality and moral reasoning. Kohlberg's theory suggests that moral development occurs in a
series of six stages and that moral logic is primarily focused on seeking and maintaining justice.
Page 1 of 13
Stages of Moral Development
Kohlberg's theory is broken down into three primary levels. At each level of moral development, there
are two stages. Similar to how Piaget believed that not all people reach the highest levels of cognitive
development, Kohlberg believed not everyone progresses to the highest stages of moral
development.
Levels of Moral
Development
Preconventional Morality
Age
0 to 9
Conventional Morality
Early adolescence to
adulthood
Postconventional
Morality
Some adults; rare
Stages Included in This Level
Stage 1: Obedience and punishment
Stage 2: Individualism and exchange
Stage 3: Developing good interpersonal
relationships
Stage 4: Maintaining social order
Stage 5: Social contract and individual rights
Stage 6: Universal principles
Level 1. Preconventional Morality
Preconventional morality is the earliest period of moral development. It lasts until around the age of 9.
At this age, children's decisions are primarily shaped by the expectations of adults and the
consequences of breaking the rules. There are two stages within this level:
•
•
Stage 1 (Obedience and Punishment): The earliest stages of moral development, obedience
and punishment are especially common in young children, but adults are also capable of
expressing this type of reasoning. According to Kohlberg, people at this stage see rules as
fixed and absolute.6 Obeying the rules is important because it is a way to avoid punishment.
Stage 2 (Individualism and Exchange): At the individualism and exchange stage of moral
development, children account for individual points of view and judge actions based on how
they serve individual needs. In the Heinz dilemma, children argued that the best course of
action was the choice that best served Heinz’s needs. Reciprocity is possible at this point in
moral development, but only if it serves one's own interests.
Level 2. Conventional Morality
The next period of moral development is marked by the acceptance of social rules regarding what is
good and moral. During this time, adolescents and adults internalize the moral standards they have
learned from their role models and from society.
This period also focuses on the acceptance of authority and conforming to the norms of the group.
There are two stages at this level of morality:
•
•
Stage 3 (Developing Good Interpersonal Relationships): Often referred to as the "good
boy-good girl" orientation, this stage of the interpersonal relationship of moral development is
focused on living up to social expectations and roles.6 There is an emphasis on conformity,
being "nice," and consideration of how choices influence relationships.
Stage 4 (Maintaining Social Order): This stage is focused on ensuring that social order is
maintained. At this stage of moral development, people begin to consider society as a whole
Page 2 of 13
when making judgments. The focus is on maintaining law and order by following the rules,
doing one’s duty, and respecting authority.
Level 3. Postconventional Morality
At this level of moral development, people develop an understanding of abstract principles of morality.
The two stages at this level are:
•
Stage 5 (Social Contract and Individual Rights): The ideas of a social contract and
individual rights cause people in the next stage to begin to account for the differing values,
opinions, and beliefs of other people.6 Rules of law are important for maintaining a society, but
members of the society should agree upon these standards.
Stage 6 (Universal Principles): Kohlberg’s final level of moral reasoning is based on
universal ethical principles and abstract reasoning. At this stage, people follow these
internalized principles of justice, even if they conflict with laws and rules.
•
________________________________________________________________________________
Topic no. 3: WHAT IS ETHICS?
•
•
•
Derived from the Greek word “ethos”, which means “way of living”.
Also known as Moral Philosophy, and may be defined in a provisional way, as the scientific
study of moral judgement.
Ethics is a branch of philosophy that is concerned with human conduct, more specifically the
behavior of individuals in society. Ethics examines the rational justification for our moral
judgments; it studies what is morally right or wrong, just or unjust.
The Importance of the Study of Ethics
There are various reasons why the study of ethics is a basic requirement in most academic
programs in colleges and universities:
1. Education, in its genuine objective to inculcate beauty, goodness and truth, helps every student
to know the meaning and internalize ethical or moral principles.
2. In order to have a just and orderly society, students should understand and uphold moral
standards.
3. Ethics evidently seeks to inculcate among men the true values of living a good life.
4. Ethics simply means right living and the development of good moral character; and it is in good
moral character that man finds his true worth and perfection as a member of society.
Ethics and Fundamental Concepts
Morality. Morality refers to that quality of goodness or badness in a human act. It means conformity to
the rules of right conduct. As we interact with people, human society, we pass judgment on the morality
of human actions and readily make some statements like: "What he did was right." "What he did was
wrong." "His behavior was rude." "He is not morally justified in doing such an act." It can be seen from
these statements that there is a fundamental distinction between right and wrong, which we call moral
in human acts. While opinions vary as to the nature of morality, perhaps all will agree that there are
Page 3 of 13
actions that are good and some actions that are bad. The distinction between right and wrong can be
culled from the norm of morality.
Human Acts. A human act is an act which proceeds from the deliberate free will of man. Human act
may be internal or external, performed by a human being. Human acts are ethics, free and voluntary
acts of man with knowledge and consent. Human acts are proper to man because he is a rational being
and responsible for his acts. While all human acts have their source in men's free rational nature, there
are some acts that begin and are perfected in the will itself, and the rest begin, in the will and are
perfected by other faculties under control of the will.
Essential Elements of Human Acts
In order that an act can be human, it must possess three essential qualities; e.g., it must be
knowing, free and voluntary. These essential elements of the human act are knowledge, freedom and
voluntariness.
Knowledge. A human act proceeds from the deliberate will; it requires deliberation. "Deliberation"
means merely advertence, or knowledge in intellect of what an act is about and what this means. An
act may be done in the twinkling of an eye, and still be deliberate. An example is a hunter that flushes
game; the birds rise; the hunter whips up his gun and fires. The act of firing is a deliberate act. The
hunter alludes to what he is doing. His knowledge makes the act deliberate. For ethics, deliberation
means knowledge. No human act is possible without knowledge.
The will cannot act in the dark, for the will is a "blind" faculty in itself. It cannot choose unless it "sees"
to choose, and the light, the power to see, is afforded by the intellectual knowledge. I cannot will to go
to Boracay unless I know that there is such a beach Boracay. I cannot choose to eat mangoes or not
to eat mangoes if I have never seen mangoes. I cannot will to love and serve God if I do not know God.
Knowledge, therefore, is an essential element of a human act.
Freedom. An act determined (elicited or commanded) by the will. It is an act, therefore; that is under
control of the will, an act that the will can do or leave undone. Such an act is what we call the free act.
Freedom is the ability of man to act in accordance with his will, not bound by restrictions or compulsions
so that he can choose from the alternatives that are available to satisfy his preference and initiate an
action to accomplish his desired goal
Voluntariness. The Latin word for will is voluntas, and from this word we derive the English term
voluntary and voluntariness. A human act must be voluntary. It must be a will-act. Voluntariness is the
formal essential quality of the human act, and, for it to be present, there must be both knowledge and
freedom. The human act is essentially the product of the will acting with native freedom in the light of
intellectual knowledge.
Types of Ethics
During the mid-20th century, according to Sumner (1967), a "certain theory in the methodology
of ethics has gradually become more and more widely accepted, at least by British and American moral
philosophers". According to this position, there are two ways of doing ethical inquiry, namely,
normative ethics and metaethics.
Page 4 of 13
On the one hand, normative ethics is prescriptive in nature as it seeks to set norms or standards
that regulate right and wrong or good and bad conduct. This may involve articulating the good habits
that we should acquire, the duties that we should follow, or the consequences of our behavior on others.
Hence, normative ethics normally attempts to develop guidelines or theories that tell us how we ought
to behave. For example, Immanuel Kant's claim that an act is morally right if it is done for the sake of
duty is an example of a normative ethics.
Metaethics, on the other hand, is descriptive in nature. According to Sumner (1967), "metaethics
is allegedly constituted, at least in part, by questions of the meanings of the various ethical terms and
functions of ethical utterances." Hence, if a normative ethical inquiry is evaluative and prescriptive,
metaethics is analytical and descriptive. Put simply, metaethics is a type of ethical inquiry that aims to
understand the nature and dynamics of ethical principles. It asks questions about the nature and origin
of moral facts, as well as the way in. which we learn and acquire moral beliefs. Thus, for example, if
normative ethics urges us to do good at all times, metaethics asks the question "What is good?". For
sure, if a moral philosopher attempts to address the questions "What is good?", "What is justice?", "Why
should be moral?", then that moral philosopher is doing metaethics. Hence, when Plato proposed an
answer to the question- “why I should be moral?”, Plato was doing metaethical question.
In the course of the development of ethics, applied ethics became its third major type. As its
name suggests, applied ethics is the actual application of ethical or moral theories for the purpose of
deciding which ethical or moral actions are appropriate in a given situation. For this reason, casuists
(that is, the adherents of applied ethics) are concerned with individual moral problems, such as abortion
or euthanasia, and attempt to resolve the conflicting issues that surround these particular moral
problems. Casuists may also act on some occasions in an advisory capacity, such as guiding
individuals in their choice of actions. For example, they may attempt to resolve the conflicting duties of
a mother suffering from ectopic pregnancy who has no other option than to abort the fetus.
Applied ethics is usually divided into different fields. For example, we may talk about business
ethics, which deals with ethical behavior in the corporate world; biomedical and environmental ethics,
which deal with issues relating to health, welfare, and the responsibility we have towards people and
our environment; and social ethics, which deals with the principles and guidelines that regulate
corporate welfare within societies.
Finally, the difference between the three major types of ethics can be illustrated in the following
situation:
A police officer shoots a terrorist who is about to blow up a crowded shopping mall.
The act of the police officer is morally wrong according to metaethics because it is always wrong
to kill. As is well known, killing in itself is intrinsically wrong. However, if the police officer does not shoot
the terrorist, many innocent people will die or get injured. Though the police officer's act may be wrong,
the adherents of normative ethics may say that it is the right thing to do in this particular situation
because not doing so will result in the death of so many people. Hence, the action might be morally
correct. Finally, the casuists may say that the police officer is just doing his best to fulfill his duty, that
is, to protect as many innocent lives as possible.
Page 5 of 13
Topic no. 4: DIFFERENCE BETWEEN MORAL AND NON-MORAL STANDARDS
It is imperative for everyone to note that different societies have been established by different
moral beliefs. Culture and context are greatly shaped by those beliefs. For this reason, some values do
have moral implications, while others simple don't have.
Moral Standards and their Characteristics
Moral standards are norms that individuals or groups have about the kinds of actions believed
be morally right or wrong, as well as the values placed on what we believed to be morally goo or morally
bad. Basically, moral standards promote what is "the good" like the welfare and we being of humans
as well as animals and the environment. Thus, it prescribes what humans should do in terms of rights
and obligations.
According to some scholars, moral standards are the sum of combined norms and values. In
other words, norms plus values equal moral standards. On the one hand, norms are understood as
general rules about our actions or behaviors. For example, we may say "We are always under the
obligation to fulfill our promises" or "It is always believed that killing innocent people absolutely wrong"
On the other hand, values are understood as enduring beliefs or statement about what is good and
desirable or not. For example, we may say "Helping the poor is good Cheating during exams is bad"
According to many scholars, moral standards have the following characteristics, namely:
1. moral standards deal with matters we think can seriously injure or benefit humans, animals, and
the environment, such as child abuse, rape, and murder,
2. moral standards are not established or changed by the decisions of authoritative individuals or
bodies. Indeed, moral standards rest on the adequacy of the reasons that are taken to support
and justify them. For sure, we don't need a law to back up our moral conviction that killing
innocent people is absolutely wrong,
3. moral standards are overriding, that is, they take precedence over other standards and
considerations, especially of self-interest,
4. moral standards are based on impartial considerations. Hence, moral standards are fair and just;
and
5. moral standards are associated with special emotions (such as guilt and shame) and vocabulary
(such as right, wrong good and bad).
Non-moral Standards
Non-moral standards refer to standards by which we judge what is good or bad and right or
wrong in a non-moral way. Examples of non-moral standards are standards of etiquette by which we
judge manners as good or bad, standards we call the law by which we judge something as legal or
illegal, and standards of aesthetics by which we judge art as good or rubbish. Hence, we should not
confuse morality with etiquette, law, aesthetics or even with religion.
As we can see, non-moral standards are matters of taste or preference. Hence, a scrupulous
observance of these types of standards does not make one a moral person. Violation of said standards
also does not pose any threat to human well-being.
Page 6 of 13
Finally, as a way of distinguishing moral standards from non-moral ones if a moral standard says
"Do not harm innocent people" or "Don't steal", a non-moral standard says "Don't text while driving" or
"Don't talk while the mouth is full”.
MORAL VS NON-MORAL STANDARDS
Moral Standards involve the rules people have about the kinds of actions they believe are morally right
and wrong, as well as the values they place on the kinds of objects they believe are morally good and
morally bad. Some ethicists equate moral standards with moral values and moral principles.
Non-moral actions or standards. A non-moral standard is presumably a standard which is not based
on “right versus wrong” and those actions devoid of moral quality and thus excluded from the scope of
moral judgment.
Non-moral standards refer to rules that are unrelated to moral or ethical considerations. Either these
standards are not necessarily linked to morality or by nature lack ethical sense. Basic examples of nonmoral standards include rules of etiquette, fashion standards, rules in games, and various house rules.
Technically, religious rules, some traditions, and legal statutes (i.e. laws and ordinances) are non-moral
principles, though they can be ethically relevant depending on some factors and contexts.
Topic no. 5: WHAT IS A MORAL DILEMMA?
A moral dilemma is also called an ethical dilemma and refers to a situation where an individual
needs to make a choice but faces a conflicting situation between one or more alternatives. Ideally, the
choice they make presents a dilemma because every available option may be wrong or incorrect. This
creates a situation where there is a conflict of morals or ethics. Moral dilemmas are important as they
help individuals interrogate their moral standing and who they are in terms of the choices they make
when presented with conflicting options or situations.
A moral dilemma is a situation where:
1. You are presented with two or more actions, all of which you have the ability to perform.
2. There are moral reasons for you to choose each of the actions.
3. You cannot perform all of the actions and have to choose which action, or actions when
there are three or more choices to perform.
Since there are moral reasons for you to choose each action, and you cannot choose them all,
it follows that no matter what choice you make, you will be failing to follow your morals. In other words,
someone or something will suffer no matter what choice you make. For example, Gia will suffer if you
tell the truth, and you will lose your friendship. But if you don't tell the truth, you will be a liar and possibly
a lawbreaker, and Kayla will get arrested for a crime she did not commit.
Page 7 of 13
Three Types of Moral Dilemma
Personal Dilemma. Simply put, these personal dilemmas are those experienced and resolved
on the personal level. Since many ethical decisions are personally made, many, if not most of, moral
dilemmas fall under, or boil down to, this level.
Example:
You are an inmate in Muntinlupa Bilibid Prison. A jail guard is about to hang your son (also a
prisoner) who tried to escape and wants you to pull the chair underneath him. He says that if you don't,
he will not only kill your son but some other innocent inmates as well. You don't have any doubt that he
means what he says. What should you do?
We can give many other examples of personal moral dilemmas. If someone makes conflicting
promises, he faces a moral conflict. When an individual has to choose between the life of a child who
is about to be delivered and the child’s mother, he faces an ethical dilemma.
Organizational Dilemmas. Basically, ethical cases encountered and resolved by social
organizations are organizational moral dilemmas. This category includes moral dilemmas in business,
medical field, and public sector example, a hospital that believes that human life should not be
deliberately shortened and that unpreventable pain should not be tolerated encounters a conflict in
resolving whether to withdraw life support from a dying patient. This is a common moral dilemma faced
by healthcare organizations and medical institutions.
Moral dilemmas also arise in professional work. Administrative bodies in business are confronted
with situations in which several courses of action are possible but none of them provide a totally
successful outcome to those affected by the decision or actions taken. These moral dilemmas in
business involve issues about corporate practices, policies, business behaviors, and the conducts and
relationships of individuals in the organizations. Other business-related dilemmas pertain to the social
responsibility of businesses, employee rights, harassment, labor unions, misleading advertising, job
discrimination, and whistle blowing.
On the part of public sector, government leaders and employees have a moral duty to act in a
manner that is fair and unbiased. They should be loyal to the public and ought to put public interest
before personal gain, and fulfill duties of competency, integrity, accountability, and transparency said
that, public officials nonetheless may encounter foreseeable moral dilemmas in fulfilling these ideals.
So ethical or moral dilemmas which arise include the following examples:
• whether or not to favor family, friends, or campaign contributors over other constituents;
• favoring the agenda of one’s political party over a policy one believes to be good for the
community;
• dealing with conflicting public duties inherent in serving both as a council member and as a
member of an agency or commission;
• resigning from organizations in which membership may give rise to future conflicts;
• becoming whistle blower even if it means potentially derailing a policy objective one is
pursuing; and,
• accepting gifts if it is legally permitted but creates the appearance of impropriety.
Page 8 of 13
Example:
A garments factory is not hitting its target profit. If the company keeps missing its target, the
factory will also not achieve its five-year expansion plan which will severely affect the factory’s future
financial standing. One plan to solve the factory’s imminent financial crisis was to cut cost by laying-off
some of its employees. The CEO and the members of the board now need to decide. Should they lay
off the people who work for them to save the factory? Or keep the people working and just find other
means to hopefully increase profit and prevent their financial crisis in the future?
Structural Dilemmas. These structural moral dilemmas pertain to cases involving network of
institutions and operative theoretical paradigms. As they usually encompass multi- sectoral institutions
and organizations, they may be larger in scope and extent than organizational dilemmas.
Example:
An example is the prices of medicine in the Philippines which are higher compared to other
countries in Asia and in countries of similar economic status. Factors affecting medicine prices include
the cost of research, presence of competition in the market, government regulations, and patent
protection. The institutions concerned may want to lower the costs of medicine, thereby benefiting the
Filipino public, but such a move may ruin the interests or legal rights of the involved researchers,
inventors or discoverers, and pharmaceutical companies which own the patent of the medicines or
healthcare technologies.
Another example of this level of dilemma would be the controversy in the Social Security System
in 2016. The SSS members have been asking for a two-thousand pesos SSS pension increase. Several
lawmakers supported the call because they see that it will benefit the senior citizen members. On the
other hand, the SSS executives opposed it saying the institution cannot sustain such amount in the
long run, and the SSS will go bankrupt in 2024. Being the President of the Philippines, the final decision
was in the hands of President Benigno Aquino III. In the end, President Aquino vetoed the bill passed
by Congress to hike the SSS pension because he believed “the stability of the entire SSS benefit
system will be seriously compromised in favor of two million pensioners and their dependents”.
Topic no. 6: FREEDOM AS FOUNDATION OF MORAL ACTS
In Kant philosophy, freedom is defined as a concept which is involved in the moral domain, at
the question: what should I do?
In summary, Kant says that the moral law is only that I know myself as a free person. Kantian
freedom is closely linked to the notion of autonomy, which means law itself: thus, freedom falls
obedience to a law that I created myself. It is therefore, respect its commitment to compliance with
oneself.
Practical reason legislates (makes laws and requirements) of free beings, or more precisely the
causality of free beings. Thus, practical reason is based on freedom, it is freedom.
Page 9 of 13
Phenomena, in the Kantian thought, are subject to the law of natural causality: each event is the
effect of another, and so on to infinity. Unlike the phenomenon of man, the moral rule is free, i.e., it has
the power to self-start condition. Kant ethics is mainly based on the concept of free will and autonomy.
Kant's Morality and Freedom
To act freely is to act autonomously. To act autonomously is to act according to a law I give
myself. Whenever I act according to the laws of nature, demands of social convention, when I pursue
pleasure and comfort, I am not acting freely. To act freely is not to simply choose a means to a given
end. To act freely is to choose the end itself, for its own sake.
This is central to Kant's notion of freedom. For Kant, acting freely (autonomously) and acting
morally are one and the same thing
The capacity to act autonomously in this manner gives humans that special dignity that things
and animals do not have. Respecting this dignity requires us to treat others not as means to an end,
but as ends in themselves.
To arrive at a proper understanding of Kant's notion of moral law and the connection between
morality, freedom and reason, let's examine these contrasts:
1. Duty vs. Inclination (morality) - Only the motive of duty, acting according to the law I give
myself confers moral worth to an action. Any other motive, while possibly commendable, cannot
give an action moral worth.
2. Autonomy vs. Heteronomy (freedom) - I am only free when my will is determined
autonomously, governed by the law I give myself. Being part of nature, I am not exempt from its
laws and I'm inclined or compelled to act according to those laws (act heteronomously) My
capacity for reason opens another possibility, that of acting according to laws other than the laws
of nature: the laws I give myself. This reason, "pure practical reason", legislates a priori regardless of all empirical ends.
3. Categorical vs. Hypothetical Imperatives (reason) - Kant acknowledges two ways in which
reason can command the will, two imperatives. Hypothetical Imperative uses instrumental
reason: If I want X, I must do Y. (If I want to stay out of jail, I must be a good citizen and not rob
banks). Hypothetical is always conditional.
If the action would be good solely as a means to something else, the imperative is hypothetical.
If the action is represented as good in itself, and therefore necessary for a will which of itself accords
with reason, the imperative is categorical.
Categorical Imperative is non-conditional. It is concerned not with the matter of the action and
its presumed results, but with its form, and with the principle from which it follows. And what is
essentially good in the action consists in the mental disposition, let the consequences be what they
may.
Page 10 of 13
What Is Categorical Imperative?
This question can be answered from the idea of a law that binds us as rational beings regardless
of any particular ends.
Here are two main formulations of the Categorical Imperative:
1. Act only on that maxim whereby you can at the same time will that it should become a universal
law. "Maxim" is a rule, a principle that gives reason to action. This is a "universalizing test" that
checks whether my action puts my interests and circumstances ahead of everyone else's. My
action will fail the test if it results in a contradiction.
Example: I want a loan, but I know I won't have money to repay it. I'm considering making
a promise I know I can't keep. Can I make this a universal law, the law that says "every time one
needs a loan and has no money to repay it, one should make a false promise"? Imagine
everyone then acting according to this maxim. We quickly realize that this would result in
negating the whole institution of promise-keeping. We arrive at a contradiction.
2. "Act in such a way that you always treat humanity, whether in your own person or in the person
of any other, never simply as a means, but always at the same time as an end."
For Kant, human existence has in itself an absolute value - it is an end in itself and the
only ground of a possible categorical imperative.
The Role of Freedom in Morality
The personal aspect of morality- which might more properly be called ethics- is about the
cultivation of virtue: the development of character traits so that choosing the good becomes a matter of
habit. But a person, in order to be truly virtuous, must be free to cultivate the virtues, or not.
There is no virtue in being temperate when you are being forced not to indulge. There is no virtue
in being charitable when someone is forcing you to give up what is yours. Virtue can be guided by
cultural traditions and social institutions, but it cannot be coerced. A virtuous man must also be a free
man.
The interpersonal aspect of morality is more about rule following. These rules are important
because, they prevent us from "colliding" with each other. They permit us to live together in harmony,
and they also make us recognize, apart from the mere consequences to ourselves, the rights of others.
Here too, liberty is essential.
When some people are permitted to dominate others, they treat others as merely a means to an
end, rather than ends in themselves. Not only does this fail to honor the basic dignity within each person,
it also stifles the flourishing of human potential and creativity. A society of domination will be a society
that never reaches its full potential in the human sciences, physical sciences, and creative arts. Liberty
affords us the greatest space possible to pursue our projects, in a way that enables us to live well with
one another.
Having a final end does not obviate the need for liberty. Freedom remains essential. Freedom
is so precious that God will not override it, even when we badly misuse that freedom. In other words,
Page 11 of 13
we can't get where we're going if we're not free to walk the road. Thus, freedom is essential to a
genuinely good human life at all the levels of morality.
Freedom: The Foundation of Moral Act
Freedom is humans' greatest quality and it is a reflection of our creator. Freedom is the power
rooted in reason and will, to act or not to act, to do this or that and so to perform deliberate actions on
one's own responsibility. Having freedom means having responsibility. Every action you choose further
determines our character.
Are animals free? Do they have freedom? What separates human from animals? Reason
(Intellect) and will (moral action). Freedom is a power rooted in reason and will, to act or not to act.
Good and evil are forged in freedom. To the degree that a person reaches higher level of freedom, he
becomes capable of higher levels of morality. The sinful person becomes slave.
The existence of freedom is a central premise in Catholic morality. Our secular culture greatly
exalts freedom. Yet it also questions whether freedom really exists.
Freedom and Free Will.
While the existence of freedom is a central premise in Catholic morality, we are not all equally
free. There are many possible limits to our freedom: both external and internal. External freedom is a
freedom from factors outside ourselves that limit or destroy our free will. Internal freedom is a freedom
from interior factors that limit our free will.
Requirement of True Freedom
True freedom is dependent upon truth, "You will know the truth, and the truth will set you free"
(John 8:32). Example, lying to a teacher or to friends. True freedom is oriented toward the good. We
should not understand freedom as the possibility of doing evil. Evil enslaves us and diminishes our
ability to be free. True freedom requires responsibility. There is no such thing as irresponsible freedom.
Human Acts vs Acts of Humans
Human acts make use of his knowledge and free will. Example: love your enemy, pray to God,
sacrifice for others. Acts of human do not make use of his intellect or will knowledge. His action is
natural. Examples of acts of human are breathing, blinking, and sneezing.
True freedom liberates us to develop our God-given talents in a responsible way so we can live
our lives for others and for God. True freedom serves what is good, just and true.
Man is created by God as a human person who can begin and control his own actions. He is
meant to seek God and gain perfection by clinging to him. By freedom which is rooted in his intellect
and will, man has the power to act or not to act. He can shape his own life, mature in goodness, and
gain a perfection which is rooted in God. Until man attains God, he can choose to do good or evil, to
grow in perfection or to sin. Because human acts are free, they are worthy of praise or blame. By
constantly doing good, man grows in freedom. Doing evil leads man into a "slavery of sin" (Rom 6:17).
Page 12 of 13
A person is responsible for his voluntary acts. By progress in virtue, in knowledge of good, and
in self-discipline, he gains greater mastery. Man's responsibility and imputability can be lessened or
nullified by ignorance, fear, habits, or inordinate attachments or other factors.
God confronted Eve, "What is this that you have done?" (Gen 3:13). He also confronted Cain,
"What have you done?" (Gen 4:10). A person is responsible for any directly willed act. Also, an action
can be indirectly voluntary (from negligence or ignorance). A person is not responsible for an evil act if
he did not will it and did not intend it as a means to an end. For example, a person might incur death
while trying to help another. A person is responsible if they could have avoided the evil as a drunk driver
killing someone.
Every human person must recognize the right of freedom in others. Exercising freedom,
especially in moral or religious matters, is an inalienable right of the human person. public order. This
must be protected by civil authorities within the limits of
Human freedom who refused God's love becomes a slave to sin. The first sin has led to so many
others. Human history attests that the problems of man come from man's abuse of freedom. Freedom
does not give man the right to say and do everything, because man's purpose is not his own earthly
satisfaction. Man's blindness and injustice destroy the cultural conditions needed for freedom. Deviating
from the moral law violates man's own freedom and imprisons him within himself.
"For freedom, Christ has set us free" (Gal 5:1) and saved us from sin's power. "Where the Spirit
of the Lord is, there is freedom" (1 Cor 17).
Christ's grace is not a rival to man's freedom. The person grows in inner freedom by being docile
to God's Spirit. "Take away from us all that is harmful so we may freely accomplish your will".
Whenever man deliberately chooses, he is the "father of his acts." These freely chosen acts can
be morally evaluated as good or evil. The object directly chosen by the will determines the basic morality
(good or bad). The person's intellect sees this as according to moral standards (good) or not according
to moral standards (evil). The person also has an intention which determines the act's morality. An
intention can guide many acts or even a whole lifetime (as loving God). One act can have a multiplicity
of intentions (Doing a favor to help someone and also to receive a favor in return).
However, a good intention can never turn an evil act into a good one. A good purpose cannot
justify evil means. However, an evil intention can make a good act into an evil one, such as giving alms
to gain praise. Only the act and the intention make an act good or bad. The circumstances can increase
or diminish the goodness or evil. For example, stealing a large amount of money increases the evil,
while fear of harm can lessen a person's responsibility. Circumstances can never make an evil act into
a good one.
An act is good when the object, the intention, and the circumstances are all good. A good act is
vitiated by an evil intention like praying in order to be seen as good. Some acts are evil in themselves
as fornication and are always wrong to choose. Therefore, the person's intention and the
circumstances, such as pressure or duress, cannot change a morally evil act, such as murder,
blasphemy, or adultery, into a morally good act. We cannot do evil so good will come from it.
Page 13 of 13