WEEK 9

NATURAL LAW

In October 2016, newspapers reported that Pantaleon Alvarez, Speaker of the House of Representatives, was
intending to draft a bill which would amend the country’s Family Code, thereby allowing for the legalization of same-
sex unions. This would result in the possibility of two men together or two women together being identified as a
couple with rights guaranteed and protected by the law. However, as one newspaper report revealed, even before
anything could be formally proposed, other fellow legislators had already expressed to to the media their refusal to
support any such initiative.

The reasons given in the news article vary, ranging from the opinion that seeing two men kiss is unsightly, to the
statement that there is something “irregular” about belonging to the LGBT, and to the judgment that two people of
the same sex being together is unnatural.

We are used to hearing people justify done something by making the appeal that what they maintain si what is
“natural”, and therefore acceptable. Likewise, people would judge something as unacceptable on the basis that it is
supposedly “unnatural”. Thus, we are no longer surprised when we hear people condemn and label many different
things as “unnatural”: maybe receiving blood transfusions, eating meat, or, as our news r
eport shows, engaging in sexual relations that one might consider deviant. We also realize that sometimes we might
find ourselves astonished or perplexed as to what different people might consider “unnatural”.

In order to proceed, it is therefore necessary to ask:” What do the words natural and unnatural mean?”

 Sometimes, the word “natural” seems to be used to refer to some kind of intuition that a person has, one
which is so apparently true to him that it is unquestioned. For example, a woman may claim that it is simply
“unnatural” to eat any kind of insect, and what this means is that she personally finds herself averse to the
idea of doing so.
 In other instances, the word is used to try to justify a certain way of behaving by seeing its likeness
somewhere in the natural world. For example, a man might claim that it is okay for him to have more than
one sexual partner, since, in a pride of lions, the alpha male gets to mate with all the she-lions.
 In yet other instances, the word “natural” is used as an appeal to something instinctual without ut being
directed by reason. For example, a man may deem it all right if he were to urinate jus anywhere because after
all he sees it as “natural” function of humans.
 Lastly, we also easily find people using the word “natural” to refer to what seems common to them given
their particular environment. For instance, a Filipina may suppose that eating three full meals of rice and
ulam every day is what is “natural” because everyone she knows behaves in that way.

Given these varied meanings of the term “natural”, we need to find a more solid and nuanced way to understand the
term. In this chapter, we will explore how Thomas Aquinas provide this, emphasizing the capacity for reason as what
is essential in our human nature anchored on our capacity for reason will become the basis of the natural law theory,
a theory which will provide us a unique way of determining the moral status of our actions.

THOMAS AQUINAS

There have been various thinkers and systems of though emerging throughout history that
could be said to present a natural law theory. Amon them, the one we will be focusing is the
medieval thinker Thomas Aquinas. It has to be recognized, however, that his natural law theory
is part of a larger discussion, which is his moral theory is taken as a whole. This moral theory, in
turn, is part of a larger project, which is Aquinas’ vision of the Christian Faith. Before we turn to
the natural law theory, let us take a look at these contexts.

THE CONTEXT OF THE CHRISTIAN STORY

The fundamental truth maintained and elaborated by Aquinas in all his works is the promise
right at the center of the Christian faith: that we are created by God in order to ultimately
return to Him. The structure of his magnum opus “Summa Theologia” follows the trajectory of this
story.
There are three parts to this voluminous work.

1. In the first part, Aquinas speaks of God, and although we acknowledge that our limited
human intellect cannot fully grasp Him, we nevertheless are able to say something
concerning His goodness, His might, and his creative power. Recognizing then that we are
created by God, we move on to the second part.
2. The second part deals with man or the dynamic of human life. This is characterized by our
pursuit of happiness. Which we should realize rests ultimately not on any particular good
thing that is created by God, but in the highest good which is God Himself. Our striving for
this ultimate happiness, while important, will not in itself bring us to this blessed state. In
other words, salvation is only possible through the presence of God’s grace and that grace
has become perfectly incarnate in the person of Jesus. Thus, the third part focuses on Jesus
as our Savior.

3. Given that our concern here is the question of ethics, it would seem clear that what would
be of greatest interest to us is the second part or the section of this story that centers on
human life and its striving toward God. However, bringing up the notion that living a good
life leads us to God could easily be misunderstood as a simple exhortation to obey certain
rules as given to us through Church doctrines or by following certain passages lifted
randomly from sacred Scriptures. In other words, we may fall into the danger of the divine
command theory, which we had explored in the first chapter. Instead, we should hope to
find that there is much greater complexity, but also coherence, to the ethics of Aquinas.

THE CONTEXT OF AQUINAS’S ETHICS

A full consideration of Aquinas’s ethics would require us to explore his discussion of other matters, such as
how in our pursuit of happiness, we direct our actions toward specific ends. We might explore how emotions- “the
passions”- are involved in this process, and therefore require a proper order if they are to properly contribute to a
good life. We might explore how our actions are related to certain disposition (often referred to as “habit”) in a
dynamic way since our actions both arise from our habits and at the same time reinforce them. We might explore his
discussion of how we develop either good or bad habits with a good disposition leading us toward making moral
choice, thereby contributing to our moral virtue, and a bad disposition inclining us toward making immoral choice,
bringing us to vice. The Christian life, therefore, is about developing the capacities given to us by God into a
disposition of virtue inclined toward the good.

Aquinas also puts forward that there is within us a conscience that directs our moral thinking. This does not
refer to some simple intuition or gut feeling. For Aquinas, there is a sense of right and wrong in us that we are obliged
to obey. However, he also adds that this sense of right and wrong must be informed, guided, and ultimately grounded
in an objective basis for mortality.

So, we are called to heed the voice of conscience and enjoined to develop and maintain a life of virtue.
However, these both require content, so we need something more. We need a basis for our conscience to be properly
informed, and we need a clearer guidepost on whether certain decisions we make lead us toward virtue of vice. Being
told that one should heed one’s conscience or that one should try to be virtuous, does very little to guide people as to
what specifically should be done in a given situation. Thus, there is a need for a clearer basis of ethics, a ground that
will more concretely direct our sense of what is right and wrong. For Aquinas, this would be the natural law.
We can recall how the ethical approach called the divine command theory urges a person toward unthinking
obedience to religious precepts. Given the problems of this simplistic approach to ethics, we can contrast how the
moral theory of Aquinas requires the judicious use of reason. In doing so, one’s sense of right and wrong would be
grounded on something stable: human nature itself.

We will start by exploring how Aquinas restates the Christian message, making use of a philosophical
vocabulary appropriated from the ancient Greeks. We then look at how Aquinas speaks of the essence and also the
varieties of law. From there, we will be able to explore the precepts of the Natural Law.
SPECIFIC PRINCIPLES UNDER NATURAL LAW THEORY

THE NATURAL LAW

Summa Theologiae, Question 94, Article 23
Thomas Aquinas
Since, however, good has the nature of an end, and evil the nature of a contrary, hence it is that all
those things to which man has natural inclination, are naturally apprehended by a reason as being good, and
consequently as objects of pursuit, and their contraries as evil, and objects of avoidance. Wherefore according to
the order of natural inclination, is the order of the precepts of the natural law. Because in man there is first of all
an inclination to good in accordance with the nature which he has in common with all substances: inasmuch as
every substance seeks the preservation of its own being, according to its nature: and by reason of this inclination,
whatever is a means of preserving human life, and of warding off its obstacles, belongs to him more specially,
according to that nature which he has in common with other animals: and in virtue of this inclination, those
things are said to belong to the natural law, “which nature has taught to all animals,: such as said to belong to the
natural law, “which nature has taught to all animals,” such as sexual intercourse, education of offspring and so
forth. Thirdly, there is in man an inclination to good, according to the nature of his reason, which nature is proper
to him: thus man has a natural inclination to know the truth about God, and to live in society: and in this respect,
whatever pertains to this inclination belongs to the natural law; for instance, to shun ignorance, to avoid
offending those among whom one has to love, and other such things regarding the above inclination.

In Common with Other Beings

In reading Aquinas, we have to consider how we, human beings, are both unique and at the same time
participating in the community of the rest of creation. Our presence in the rest of creation does not only mean that
we interact with creatures that are not human, but that there is also in our nature something that shares in the
nature of other beings.
Aquinas thus identifies first that there is in our nature, common with all other beings, a desire to preserve
one’s own being. A makahiya leaf folds inward and protects itself when touched. A cat covers and then tries to run
away when it feels threatened. Similarly, human beings have that natural inclination to preserve their being. For this
reason, Aquinas tells us that it is according to the natural law to preserve human life. We can thus say that it would be
a violation of the natural law to, and therefore unethical to take the life of another. Murder, for instance, would be a
clear example of a violation of the natural law. On a more controversial note, it seems that taking one’s own life would
be unacceptable. Even in the form of physician-assisted suicide. On a more positive note, we can confidently posit
that acts that promote the continuation of life are to be lauded as ethical because they are in the line with the natural
law.

In Common with Other Animals

Aquinas then goes on to say that there is in our human nature, common with other animals, a desire that has
to do with sexual intercourse and the care of one’s offspring. As a matter of fact, animals periodically engage in sexual
intercourse at a specific time of “heat” and this could result in offspring. In human beings, too, that natural inclination
to engage in the sexual act and to reproduce exists.

The intrinsic connection between the sexual act and fecundity gives rise to a number of notions of what is
acceptable and unacceptable in varying degrees of contentiousness. An ethical issue that is hotly contested in some
parts of the world is whether abortion is acceptable. From the stance of the natural law, the act of preventing the
emergence of new life would be considered unacceptable. Not so controversial, perhaps, would be the claims that we
could more easily make about how it is good to care for the young, to make sure that they are properly fed, sheltered,
and educated. On the other hand, it is bad to abuse the young, to force children into hard labor or to deprive them of
basic needs or otherwise abuse them in a physical or emotional way.

With regard to the sexual act, the moral judgments get more volatile. This argument seems to provide
ground for rejecting various forms of contraception since these allow for the sexual act to take place but inhibit
procreation. This also seems to justify the claim that any form of the sexual act that could not lead to offspring must
be considered deviant. One of these is the homosexual act

To explain, Thomas writes: “… certain special sins are said to be against nature; thus, contrary to sexual
intercourse, which is natural to all animals, is unisexual lust, which has received the special name of the unnatural
crime. The question can be raised as to whether all animals “naturally” engage in heterosexual (rather than unisexual
or homosexual”) intercourse as Aquinas (with the much more rudimentary scientific knowledge of his time)
believed. Another question is whether there must be a necessary connection between the act of sexual intercourse
and procreation.

Uniquely Human

After the first wo inclinations, Aquinas presents a third reason which states that we have an inclination to
good according to the nature of our reason. With this, we have a natural inclination to know the truth about God and
to live in society. It is of interest that this is followed by matters of both an epistemic and a social concern. The
examples given to us of what would be in line with this inclination are to shun ignorance and to avoid offending those
people with whom one live. We could surmise on this basis that acts of deception or fraud would be unacceptable to
Aquinas. This, as mentioned, is surmise because this is not something we are told directly by Thomas.

In fact, a characteristic of the text which may be frustrating to anyone trying to read Aquinas is that he does
not go into great detail here enumerating what specific acts would be clearly ethical or unethical. Instead, he gave
certain general guideposts: the epistemic concern, which is that we know we pursue the truth, and the social
concern, which is that we know we live in relation to others. The question of what particular acts would be in line
with these or not is something that we have to determine for ourselves through the use of reason. Let us elaborate on
this further.
First, we had been presented with these three inclinations as bases for moral valuation. In light of this, we
know that preserving the self is good. Contrary to common misconception, the sexual inclination and the sexual act
are considered good things, not something to be deplored or dismissed. However, reason is not only another
inclination that we have in par with the others. Instead, reason is the defining part of human nature. Thomas tells us
that there is a priority among the powers of our soul, with the intellectual directing and commanding our sensitive
and nutritive capacities. What this amount to is the need to recognize that while our other inclinations are good, as
they are in our nature, what it means to be human 54is, precisely to exercise our reason in our consideration of how
the whole self should be comported toward the good. I cannot simply say, “Sex is natural,” if what I mean by that is
that I could engage in the act in any way I like without through or care. Instead, we are enjoined to make full use of
our reason and determine when the performance of our natural inclinations is appropriate.

Second, recognizing how being rational is what is proper to man, the apparent vagueness of the third
inclination that Aquinas mentions is counter-balanced by the recognition that he is not interested in providing
precepts that one would simply, unthinkingly, follow. To say that the human being is rational is to recognize that we
should take up the burden of thinking carefully how a particular act may or may not be a violation of our nature. It is
to take the trouble to think carefully about how our acts would either contribute to, detract from, the common good.

For this reason, in making human laws, additions that are not at all problematic for the natural law are
possible. At first glance, it may seem like there is nothing “natural” about obeying traffic rules or paying taxes.
However, if it has been decided that these contribute to the common good, then they could, in fact, be proper
extensions of the natural law. As Aquinas puts it, nothing hinders a change in the natural law by way of addition,
since our reason has found and can find many things that benefit individual and communal human life.
 WEEK 10:THE ETHICAL THEORY OF NATURAL LAW

Natural law theory refers to the general view that moral rules and principles are objective and universal
truths can be discovered in the nature of things. Such a view has been extremely influential in the history of Christian
moral tradition, particularly the one that was formulated by St. Thomas Aquinas.

At the outset, “it is important not to confuse ‘natural law’ as it pertains to morality with what modern
science means by a ‘natural law’, such as the law of gravity. Everyone is subject to the law of gravity and every other
scientific law. Such laws are descriptive generalizations and, as such, are not logically those sorts of things that can be
broken or defied. They are natural laws that immutable govern how the natural world operates” (Barry 1998:45).

According to the natural law tradition, to

know what morality demands, we need only to look to nature- human nature –and ask what it requires. “Morality I s
not found in some esoteric realm but rather relies on what can be known from a reflective investigation and deep
scrutiny of human nature by our mental faculties” (Mackinnon 1988:75).
The moral law, according to this tradition, is accessible to human reason. It is reason itself that determines
what we ought to do and not to do. And since reason is universal, it applies also universally to all human beings,
regardless of their social and cultural differences and upbringing.

Natural law refers to the laws that are built into the nature of life itself, and thus are knowable to all people
in all societies. Reason that is “built in” in all of us is what enables us to discover what is right and wrong and what’s
best for us.

THE STOICS’ INTERPRETATION OF THE NATURAL LAW

The belief that ethics or morality must be grounded on nature is possible the oldest in the history of Philosophical
thought.

Historically, the concept of natural law first appears among the Stoics during the first century B.C. The Stoics
made their mark in philosophy by leaving mankind with a certain attitude that views life and the world with a sense
of calmness- thus, the word “stoic” – comes to be associated with a particular attitude of serenity if not indifference,
on anything that arises in the universe.
The early Stoics believed that “human beings have within them a divine spark (logos spermatikos- ‘the
rational seed or sperm’) that enables them to discover the essential eternal laws that governed the whole cosmos
that are necessary in the attainment of individual happiness and social harmony”. (POJMA 2005:69)
The Stoics equated nature with law and reason and taught that what was important was to live a life
according to nature. They called this wisdom. By this, the Stoics seemed to mean the recognition that everything
happens according to a certain law, a necessity. The wise person knows that things must be as they are and achieves
happiness and a sense of purpose by learning how to accept the necessities of things and events.

This attitude, carried to the extreme was taken to mean that we cannot change the way things are, simply
because that’s what they are, nothing more and nothing less, the idea that things cannot be other than they will in
fact, be. This is understood by many as fatalism.
Moreover, the Stoics conceived the whole of the universe as governed by certain immutable laws that exhibit
rationality. Nothing in the world therefore happens by chance. Everything has its own end or purpose- a reason for its
own being (here, even the great Aristotle is obviously influenced by this thinking).
THE ARISTOTELIAN INFLUENCE ON NATURAL LAW THINKING
For Aristotle (384-322 B.C.), highly acknowledged as the greatest of all ancient philosophers somehow
following essentially the Stoics’ particular way of thinking, believes that everything that exists in nature serves some
particular and specific purpose and that we can never fully understand a thing (anything, in fact for that matter) until
we understand what it is for, or what its purpose for. “Natural law (appears mysterious only) if we forget that
everything has a law built into its nature. (Rice 1993:27).

The central idea here is that “we can learn by nature what we ought to do and not to do because nature
intends that certain thing be done or no be done” (Ellin 1995:93) In Aristotle’s view, however, the point applies
equally well to inanimate nature. One of his favorite examples is the acorn. The acorn’s purpose is to become an oak
tree. The whole process of how a thing develops from potentiality to actuality is possible because of the thing’s very
nature. In a way, natural law, as one author puts it, is simply “the story of how things work” (Rice 1993;27).

Furthermore, for Aristotle, every individual substance has an intrinsic nature or principle of operation,
which is dynamic, teleological, and specific. He holds that the purpose of any fully developed entity is to be itself. Self-
realization or actualization then is the very reason or purpose o anything that came to be or simple – “the reason for
being.
According to Aristotle, “the essence of a thing is an activity, something that the things does. This, he
understands as its essential characteristic function, that is, that which it does uniquely or better than other things.
This is why, so as to concretely illustrate - the essence of the heart is to pump blood; nothing else in the body can
perform this function. It is unique that no other can do it except itself” (Ellin 1995:94)

Aristotle points out that ‘some functions, such as growth and reproduction, human beings share with all
other living things; other functions such as sensual perceptions, they share with animals or the brutes. The thing that
humans can do that other cannot, or that particular and specific function or activity which human being does
uniquely or better than any other being in the world is what Aristotle calls as the very characteristic that makes man
truly human” (Ellin 1995:94).

Here, Aristotle concludes that the very function or activity that makes human distinct from the rest of
creation is the capacity to think. The activity of thinking, our rationality or intelligence in suitable ways is the
purpose and reason of what is meant to be human. To do what is natural according to our nature as rational is what is
good or right” (Ellin 1995-94)

To be good therefore is to be reasonable. To be reasonable is to act in accordance with our nature, which is
our rationality. To be good is to be rational in our actions and conduct.
Further, what this means is that to be moral is to exercise our capacity to reason or our ability to deliberate
on the things that we ought to do. We must not allow our lower faculties to dominate our decisions and actions. To be
human is to be reasonable in our conduct.

It is clear that for Aristotle, to follow nature is to follow reason. And to follow reason is the way to be good.
And to be good is what we ought to be. And what we ought to be is the purpose or reason of our being- the very goal
of human existence.

BASIC AND UNIVERSAL NATURAL HUMAN INCLINATIONS

There are basic and natural human tendencies or inclinations that are present in all of us according to St.
Thomas Aquinas. These are:

1. Self- Preservation or Survival – that is, man has to preserve himself in existence.

2. Propagation of our Species- that is, to unite sexually to produce offspring for the continuance of the next
generation of the human race.

3. To live in Peace and in Harmony with Other Men – that is, just and fair dealings with other, and

4. To seek for Truth and Knowledge of the Good – that is, to use his will and intellect to know the truth and
seek the good, including his highest good, which is eternal happiness with God.
 These basic inclinations and tendencies are precisely put into human nature by an all-knowing and wise
Creator to aid humans in the attainment of their final and ultimate or goal which is eternal happiness with God in
heaven (Beatific Vision).
NATURAL LAW AND CONTRACEPTION

The theory of Natural Law Ethics, as interpreted and articulated brilliantly by St. Thomas Aquinas during the
Medieval period (widely considered as the golden age of Christian Philosophy), became the central philosophical
basis of Catholic morality. In fact, it has dominated Roman Catholic thinking in a number of issues that confront
society for quite a long time.

A clear example of the concrete application of natural law theory is the Roman Catholic opposition to
contraception. “It is argued that the conception of a baby is the natural purpose of the sexual act. That act may also be
enjoyable which, at the same time, may strengthen the relationship between the couple. But positive these things
may be, they arise in the context of an act, which has an essential purpose the conception children” (Thompson
2003:251).

Thus, in view of this specific and particular natural purpose of the act, “anything that deliberately or willfully
frustrates that natural outcome (of the act) must be viewed as ethically wrong. Every sexual act should at least be
open to the possibility of conceiving a child. Anything outside of it is always morally unjustified” (Thompson
2003:251).

In the same respect, any other form of sexual intercourse that does not lead, or at least not open to the
possibility of conception like anal and oral intercourse, masturbation, homosexuality and the like are considered to
be morally wrong. All these acts are simply against nature. They are known as sexual perversions.

A SUMMARY OF THE CENTRAL IDEAS OF NATURAL LAW THEORY

1. Everything in the world has its own reason or purpose of being

2. This reason or purpose is true especially to human beings.
3. Humanity has an essential rational nature
4. Morality is governed by a law built into the nature of mas as laws of nature also govern natural
things.
5. Man can know, through the use of his reason, what is in accord with his own nature which is good.
6. The natural laws are universal and unchangeable and are the basis to judge individual cultures and
societies with regard to their norms and practices.
7. Moral laws, which are based on the natural law, have objective validity.
8. The first, self- evident precept of the natural law is: “Do good and avoid evil.”

SPECIFIC ETHICAL PRINCIPLES UNDER NATURAL LAW THEORY

 THE PRINCIPLE OF DOUBLE EFFECT

Moral thinkers following the doctrine of natural law are aware that there are certain complex
situations wherein the morality of an act cannot be categorized into a definite and simple labeling of good
and bad. There are situations in life wherein good and bad effects or consequences of an act are both present
and unavoidable.

In a problematic and complicated situation such as the one mentioned, which we can considers as a
moral dilemma, natural law theorists were able to develop a particular device to help people decide as to the
particular course of action or decision in such a situation. This ethical device is known as the “Principle of
Double Effect”.

The Principle of Double Effect is a moral principle that “provides a neat algorithm for solving all
moral disputes (and problems) in which an act will have two effect, one good and the other bad” (Pojman
2002:45). (This principle applies to a situation in which a good effect and an evil effect will result from an act
with a good or noble cause or intention/motive.
 In principle, an act that has good and bad effects is morally justified or permissible as long as certain
conditions are met or satisfied. These are:

1. The action intended, in and of itself must be good or at least morally indifferent or neutral.
2. The evil effect must not be directly intended but morally allowed only as a regrettable side
issue (side effects).
3. The evil effect must not be the means by which the good effect is achieved.
4. The good effect must outweigh the evil effect or at least proportional.

The first condition simply reaffirms the fundamental moral principle that one may never do evil in order to
achieve the good. Just because that act may also have some good consequences does not thereby make it justified.
Thus, first and foremost, the act intended must be in itself good or at least ethically neutral, otherwise it is wrong at
the very outset.

This first condition clearly rules out any consideration of actions that are bad in themselves or inherently
wrong and immoral. This goes to show that the primary moral consideration here is the nature of the act rather than
its motive and consequence.
The second condition concerns the motive or intention of the moral agent. What this means is that our
primary intention in doing the act is to achieve good effect. The negative effect, though foreseen at the outset, should
not be the primary reason for acting. One is only permitted to have the evil effect as an indirect consequence of the
act, something that is a “necessary evil.”
Here the motive or intention takes a central role in assessing the morality of the act. A good act that is done
out of a bad motive will automatically invalidate whatever moral worth the good act may have.
The third condition is a restatement of the traditional moral principle that says: “the end does not justify the
means” One is not morally justified to do something evil even with a good intention in mind, even if the reason or
purpose of acting is good but the means of obtaining it is wrong, it is wrong.

The fourth and the last condition points to the presence of a sufficient reason for allowing the evil effect to
happen while doing the act. When placed in the balance, the good effect should be of more weight than the evil effect
or at least proportional. The act is never justified if the evil effect is heavier than the good effect.

Common sense tells us that it is foolish to do something if more harm than good will come out of the act that
we intend to do,
It is important to take note that all the above conditions have to be fulfilled in order for an act to be morally
justified and permissible. If it happens that one of the conditions is not met, the entire act is deemed morally
objectionable and thus, should not be performed.

The Principle of Double Effect finds concrete relevance in troublesome cases that are commonplace in the
medical context. This is particularly invoked in situations where the action of the medical practitioner involves saving
and losing lives such as in the case of a woman whose life and that of the baby are equally both at risk due to a
delicate pregnancy or problems or complications in delivery.

 THE PRINCIPLE OF THE INVIOLABILITY OF LIFE

The principle of the inviolability of human life springs from the religious belief that life, any human
life, is of infinite value as it a sacred and precious gift from the Almighty Creator. It’s worth outweighs
everything in the world. It can never be sacrificed by whatever meaning and for whatever reasons.

No one’s life is more important or valuable than others. All lives are of infinite worth that we simply
cannot weigh one as against the other. Each individual life is in itself incalculable or immeasurable.

This principle applies to every human life, including the life of the unborn (fetus) that is still in the
process of developing in the womb of the mother. The unborn, even in the earliest stages of growth does
have all the basic natural right to life that must be protected from any harm.

Human life-from the moment of conception and through all subsequent stages- is sacred, because
human life is created in the image and likeness of God. This divine truth demands that we all must protect
 and preserve human life. Even an embryo is marked with a unique identity from the moment of conception.
INVIOLABILITY simply means that no innocent human life can be directly killed and disposed.

The principle of the inviolability of human life also gives every life, no matter how it is lived, an
equal worth and dignity to every other. This means that the life of a criminal is as important as the life of an
upright person. Our status in society does not also count when weighing the value of one’s life.

The issue of capital punishment or death penalty, of taking a life of one who has committed a
heinous crime against humanity, argued vigorously by some, puts the principle of life’s infinite value to an
acid test. Perhaps, the Principle of Forfeiture offers a clearer answer.

 THE PRINCIPLE OF FORFEITURE

There are real life cases wherein a person’s life is morally threatened by the presence of another
who is an aggressor. Here, the person who is in mortal danger is innocent (an innocent person is one who
has not willfully threatened anyone’s life nor having any intention to do harm to anyone in any way). In a
certain situation like this, the principle of forfeiture can be invoked.
The innocent person whose life is put in extreme risk by an intruder (which is hell-bent to seriously
harm the prospective victim) in this case can apply the principle of forfeiture as an act of self-defense.
“Natural law thinkers are of the opinion that even though you might have to kill your would-be assailant, it is
morally justified since in the first place your-would be assailant has forfeited his innocence (and his or her
right to life) by threatening yours” (Harris 1997:104)
Thus, in this case, “it is morally permissible for you to defend yourself, even to the point of taking
another life (if there is no other recourse or way out). The natural and fundamental human inclination and
tendency to self-preservation or survival on the part of the aggressor is herein forfeited in your favor”.
(Harris 1997:104).

Even legally (provided that it is really proven beyond any reasonable doubt that you acted in
genuine self-defense), your act is justified, and hence you will not be held accountable and cannot be
punished by a court of law. Here, “a distinction has to be made between killing (which is the act) and
(murder (which is a crime). Killing is taking the life if a non-innocent individual, while murder is the act of
depriving an innocent person of his/her life. The former is a just act, whereas the latter is unjust. (Harris
1997-1040)

Hence, in the same respect, when someone takes the life of a person who threatens one’s life, he or
she has not committed murder though the act of killing is involved.
What about a person’s life poses a serious and grave threat to society in general, as in the case of
hardened criminals who committed crimes which society considers as heinous and beastly? Does society
have the moral right to take the life away in a form of a capital punishment or death penalty?

This particular issue has been debated for so long in many countries and communities, both
Christian and non-Christian alike. The argument that would support it points to the fact that the criminal
having committed, and inhuman and savage act degrades himself or herself and thus deserves to be treated
in the same way (an eye for an eye, a tooth for a tooth). He or she forfeits his or her very dignity as a person
and his or her right to life by his or her action. Hence, society has the right to take it so as to serve the
common good.

 THE PRINCIPLE OF TOTALITY

A traditional element in biomedical discussions, the principle of totality refers to the view that a
part (of the human body, that is) exists for the good of the whole. This particular bioethical principle is often
invoked when a particular part or organ of the human body has to be cut off, mutilated, or removed.

However, a person is morally permitted to do this “only insofar as the general well-being of the
whole body require it”. (Timbreza, 1993:57). Hence, it is only when an infectious organ is putting the entire
body at risk, that it may be removed. Here, the preservation of the whole is more important than the
conservation of the part.
 Under the ethical principle of natural law, each person has a natural right to live and to continue in
existence. Anything that will obstruct or put in jeopardy that natural basic drive and tendency goes against
what is considered good. It is therefore morally justified for anyone to do whatever is necessary to protect
that right, provided no unjust harm is done to others.

Though the principle of totality primarily applies to amputations and the removal of infected and
diseased organs, it also involves the ethical and religious principle that says that persons are not the owners
of their bodies but only given the task of administration. Thus, the principle of totality is a way of affirming
that we may legitimately sacrifice a part of our body if this is necessary to preserve and maintain the health
of the entire body.

On this regard, therefore, we can say that the principle of totality considers as immoral the
mutilation or removal of healthy organs for commercial purposes.

 THE PRINCIPLE OF STEWARDSHIP

The principle of stewardship has its basis on the religious belief that all life comes from God, the supreme
creator and maker of all. This would imply that no individual person could claim that he or she is the owner
of anything in the world and that of his or her own body. We humans are only given the power to take good
care of creation and do not have sole authority to do whatever we want.

It is therefore morally wrong to commit actions such as suicide and euthanasia since stewardship
entail proper protection and responsible care of what the Almighty has given. It goes without saying
therefore that it is only God who has dominion over life and of our bodies. Our duty is to take care of them
until God takes them back from us in His own good time. (Timbresa 1993:57)

From the foregoing contentions, it follows that “one has (the moral) obligation to seek medical aid
when something goes wrong with (one’s) body. This would also mean that each person has a responsibility
not to behave in a way which will damage the body and take appropriate action to prevent ill heart”.
The principle of stewardship also finds concrete and practical application on issues concerning the
natural environment (the domain of environmental ethics, which is fast becoming as one of the pressing
issues in bioethical discussions among philosophers in contemporary times). The earth and everything in
nature as a gift from God, has to be taken care of and should not be abused in any way.

In this light, we human beings do not own it but rather, we are just caretakers whose responsibility
is to protect it from harm. This is not just an individual obligation, but also a collective one. This involves the
whole community. Environmental destruction today, more than ever, is a serious and genuine global threat.
All countries and individual citizens of the world have the moral duty to preserve and protect the
environment in whatever way they can.

 THE JUST WAY THEORY

A related principle and application of the principle of forfeiture is in the so-called Just War Theory.
The principle of forfeiture can be used not only to justify an act of individual self-defense (as in the anse
mentioned above) but also in the case of defending a whole country from an unjust aggressor (foreign
invader).
Whenever a sovereign nation like the Philippines is threatened by another country, it can decide to
go to war against another country. Though this may involve killing other people, the act is morally justified
on the ground that the aggressor country has forfeited its right to life by launching an offensive war to an
unsuspecting victim.
However, the Just War Theory (which actually refers only to a defensive kind of war) employed by a
country under attack to protect itself is only justified under certain specific conditions:

1. Lawful Authority- For a war to be just and thus justified, it has to come from lawful and competent authority.
 Under Article VI section 23 of the 1987 Philippine Constitution, only Congress, and not the Presidents (or any
other private individual or individuals), by a vote of two-thirds of both houses in joint session assembled,
voting separately, shall have the sole power to declare… a state of war.” However, such declaration applies only
in the case of a defensive war and never for an offensive one. The 1935 Philippine Constitution (Article II,
Section 2) explicitly renounces aggressive war as an instrument of national policy (the provision does not
prohibit the waging of a defensive war).

The decision to enter into such a serious matter such as declaring a state of war should
never be made by an individual all by himself, especially acting as a private person, nor by just a
small group of persons. The lawful authority must have the mandate of the whole community.

2. JUST CAUSE
- According to Just War tradition, war is justified only if it is waged to protect the innocents from
imminent harm. Speaking here of a “just cause” this may include the “punishment for offense or
restoration of what was unjustly seized.” As such, wars that are waged to invade and subjugate a
nation and its people are morally wrong and can never be justified. Just like in the case of an
individual person, nations do also have the right to defend themselves from unjust aggressors.
Hence, entering into a war with a just cause must include the violation of a nation’s right
such as its own claim to independence and sovereignty that is being out in jeopardy by the attack of
an unjust foreign aggressor.

3. LAST RESORT- War, even, when necessary, can only be justified if It is fought only as the last resort. This
simply means that waging a war can never be a first and primary option of a country against another.

This also implies that all possible peaceful and legal means to resolve conflicts must be
thoroughly exhausted and tried before one can resort to war. Diplomacy, dialogue, mediation,
negotiations, arbitrations, bargaining or compromise are some of the alternatives that can be
resorted to. Only when all these (and more) fail that war can be considered as a legitimate option.

4. GOOD INTENTION-countries that decide to go to war should have the element of good faith. This means that
one should only have good motive in waging the war. A question to ask here could be: “is the war for the sake
of peace and justice or is it driven by revenge, power and greed?”

Right intention is necessary, in order to promote the common good, peace, protection of human
rights, preservation of moral order, etc. wars of aggression without any previous provocation and
driven primarily, if not solely, by territorial conquest and destruction are simply immoral.

5. REASONABLE CHANCE OF SUCCES- war can only be justified if a nation that resorts to it has a reasonable
chance of attaining its objectives. It is never morally right to go to war knowing fully well that success is
virtually impossible, given one’s military capability and that of the enemy. Risking thousands (and even
millions) of lives, including the noncombatants is too great a price to pay for a war that does not have, from
the very beginning a chance of winning. Such a case can just do more harm than good, and this is never
allowed under the moral law. To be morally justified, a war should have a greater likelihood of victory than
defeat.

In short,” an unwinnable war is an immoral war”.

6. RIGHT USE OF MEANS- For a war to be justified, the right use of means should be intrinsically moral and
legal. Countries involved must only employ “ordinary” means of combat/ The use of weapons of mass
destruction, such as nuclear bombs, chemical or biological warfare, is a violation of this particular condition,
and thus morally objectionable.

7. PROPORTIONAL RESPONSE – Since war necessarily involves violence, any violent response thereof must be
directly proportional to the act of provocation or aggression coming from the enemy. The act of self-defense
allows only the kind of response that would repeal the attack and never to go to the extent of totally
pulverizing the enemy to the ground. There must be no wanton slaughter or destruction that has no direct
effect on the outcome of the wat. The moral duty to minimize harm entails that a nation should cause little
 harm as much as possible in trying to protect itself or else it will already be an over kill.

When all the requirements of a just war are already met and the war has been waged, it is also important to
bear in mind that the war should cease the moment its intended purpose has already been practically
accomplish. There should be no continuation of any hostile acts when peace has already been declared.

Finally, let it be said that even if there are situations or cases that would morally justify a war, it is always
the solemn moral duty of every man and woman of goodwill to avoid it from happening. The damages and
destructions of war (any kind of war for that matter) to lives and properties are simply too great a price to
pay for peace.

 JUSTIFIED REBELLION/REVOLUTION

War is defined as “a condition of armed and active hostility between two or more nations.” It is
different and distinct from the act of rebellion since the latter is defined as an “unlawful uprising of citizens
against their government.” This is the case where there is a Coup d’etat- which is “mutiny or disobedience to
lawfully constituted authority.
The natural law tradition, following the thinking of St. Thomas Aquinas, tends to approve of a
violent uprising against duly constituted legal authorities under certain extreme and rare situations.

Here are the striking similarities with the conditions under the Just War Theory:

1. When there is a clear and manifest long- standing tyranny and oppression that the basic and fundamental
rights and dignity of the citizens have been already trampled upon when the government has become
substantially evil and has lost sight of the common good as it only pursues its own self-interest to the
detriment of its own people.

2. When all peaceful and legal means to resolve the conflict have already been resorted and exhausted. When
constitutional procedures of reform (such as impeachment among others as provided for by the
Constitution) have already been tried but failed so that there is no other option available to the people.

3. When there is a reasonable probability that the revolt will be a success.

4. When the good to be achieved is well proportionate or of the same weight to the damage that would be
inflicted. If the harm that will result with the violent overthrow of the present government, such as cost to
human lives, and properties, is much greater, then the revolution is morally unjustified and should never
have been considered.

5. The decision to wage a violent revolt against the government should come from the majority and not just
from a few private individuals.

This means that “the judgment formed as the badness of a government is not (just) the opinion of
private persons or a mere party but of the great majority of the people.”

The reason for this that if the decision to revolt only comes from a few, then we can say that is not
democratic, for it does not have the support of the many.

All these elements should be present in order for any attempt of a violent and armed revolt against any
government to be morally legitimate.
 WEEK 11: THE DIVINE COMMAND THEORY

It is indeed undeniable that several of our ethical beliefs, of what is right and wrong, good and bad, what we come to hold as
moral or immoral, are primarily based on religion, either directly or indirectly.

According to some, religion is necessary for moral behavior. Without religion or some kind of belief in a supernatural being
or a divine reality. It would be impossible to lead a good life or even pursue anything of moral value. This particular ethical
belief and philosophy that grounds morality and the good life to religion is known in the realm of ethical thought as the
Divine Command Theory.

Simply stated, the Divine Command Theory claims that whatever God permits/commands and prohibits/forbids is what
makes certain actions right or wrong. More specifically what God says as right or good simply because God says as wrong or
bad simply because God says or commands it. On the other hand, whatever God says as wrong or bad is wrong or bad
simply because God commands or says it is wrong or bad, nothing more and nothing less.

Thus, the specific and sole basis and ground of morality, of what is good and bad, right and wrong is nothing but God’s will
(What God wants). This would mean that morality has no meaning and significance independent and apart God. God then
becomes the ultimate source of morality.

For instance, the act of stealing is wrong all because God forbids it. The same is true with murder, lying, cheating, etc. These
actions are wrong or evil precisely because God does not permit them to be done. Again, morality is totally dependent on
what God permits or allows or does not allow.

SOURCES OF KNOWLEDGE OF DIVINE COMMAND THEORY

Advocates and defenders of the Divine Command Theory provide us with the following as sources of our knowledge as to
what God wants us to do and not to do (See Barry, 1985):

1. Holy Scriptures. We can find out for ourselves what God would like us to do and avoid in the words found in the
Holy Scriptures. If you are a Christian you have the Bible, or, if you are a Muslim, you have the Koran. For the
Christian, the ten commandments personally handed by God to Moses at Mt. Senai formed the basis of what we are
supposed to do and not to do.

2. The “Voice” of Conscience. These concerns the idea that God speaks to us through that “tiny little voice” within
each person known as conscience. It is said that we can know what is good and bad if we listen carefully to this
voice. Our conscience tells us to do what is right and avoid what is wrong. And since everyone has a conscience,
whether one acknowledges or recognizes it or not, the divine will is then open to everyone, regardless of one’s
religion.

3. Religious Authorities. Throughout history, God’s command to His people have been taught by those who are given
the primary task and responsibility to spread God’s words. Priests, Pastors, Rabbi, Imam and others are viewed as
God’s instrument to make known what kind of life He wants His people to lead. Thus, even if, for the sake of
argument, one is not certain as to what his/her conscience tells him/her, one can always ask for help and guidance
from religious authorities.

JUSTIFICATIONS FOR OBEYING WHAT GOD COMMANDS

One argument that is put forward why obeying what God commands is good is that God knows everything. Being infinite in
wisdom and in knowledge, God fully knows what is good as well as what is bad for all of us. Thus, following God’s
commands would be for our best interest. All other norms or teachings become secondary and even irrelevant since what
matters at the end is knowing God’s will for us and following it.

Another related reason why we have to obey what God wants is the fact that we are all limited in our knowledge and
judgment as to what is right or wrong, good or bad. Since we are all prone to errors in our conduct and decision due to our
inherent limitations as mortals, it would be wise for us to surrender to God’s will to direct our actions in the right path.
Again, another related reason why obeying God is good is that, if God is the ultimate source of morality, and thus, has the
power to reward and punish in accordance to his commands, then, human beings just have to follow to avoid punishment in
the end. This may sound too negative, but the reality remains that God is a God of justice and retribution is an integral
element of that justice.
CRITICISMS OF THE DIVINE COMMAND THEORY

1. Plato’s Criticism. The oldest objection to the Divine Command Theory comes from
ancient Greek philosopher Plato (c.428-348 B.C.). In one of his famous works called the Euthyphro, Plato asks: “Is
something right because God commands it, or it is right that is why God commands it?” Here, the objection points to the
very reason why God commands something as right. Plato would like to show that goodness is not dependent on God
but rather it is the other way around.
More specifically, Plato, it appears, wonders if God Himself has any reasons for calling certain actions as right or wrong,
good or bad. In the Divine Command Theory, Plato points out that God cannot have any reasons. God’s will alone be the
reason why some actions are good and others are bad.

2. Religious Pluralism. If God’s law is the only correct and valid norm and standard of morality, then how do we
determine, in the midst of religious plurality in the world today, (each having its own standard of what is good and
what is bad) which religion truly expresses God’s will? Though a lot of similarities are noticeable among the various
religious beliefs and traditions, it is also an undeniable fact that there are also a lot of radical differences that exist
among them.

3. The Problem of Interpretation by Religious Authorities. Since religious authorities are also human beings who
have their own shortcomings and limitations, it would be unwise to take everything that they say with regard to
their way of interpreting what God wants. Even within the Christian religion for instance, conflicts for
interpretation have arisen in several occasions that led the Vatican (the Center of Christendom where power is also
located in terms of interpreting matters of morality, at least for the Catholic Christians) to expel a number of its
flock who dared to challenge its own interpretation.

4. The Fallibility of Conscience. Many people would say that the authority of conscience as a guide to proper ethical
and moral behavior and conduct is overrated. As practically experience in several instances by numerous well-
meaning individuals, the dictate of the voice of conscience is really not clear and definite. There are also so many
people who do certain actions that are commonly viewed as bad or wrong claiming that they are just following
their own conscience.

5. Not Everyone Believes in God. Central to the belief that morality is grounded on the Divine Will is the assumption
leads to a serious flaw of the whole theory.
Atheist, many of whom also live good lives, do not appeal to any divine authority as a basis of their conduct. The
fact that there are many people who are moral and who do not believe in the existence of God undermines the claim
that we can only be good if we follow God’s will.

Finally, the most obvious difficulty of the belief that God’s will is the ground of morality
and therefore, should be followed is that anybody could easily claim that he or she is exactly doing what God wants. The
point here is that whether it is true or not, based on reality, is always and will always remain a question. Invoking God’s
name is easy. Knowing whether one is really doing what one claims to be coming from God is an entirely different story.

All these problems and objections, in one way or the other, to some extent, posed a serious challenge to the acceptance of
the Divine Command Theory as a reasonable basis of morality. This does not mean however, that the whole theory collapses
because of these objections. This only means that there may be other reasons that may perhaps make the theory stronger
other than what its advocates and defenders provide. The search of these “better reasons” is a task for everyone who is
serious in pursuing honest philosophical thought.
 Week 13: VIRTUE ETHICS

Virtue Ethics is the ethical framework that is concerned with understanding the good as a matter of developing the
virtuous character of a person. Previous chapters emphasized different aspects of ethics: consequences of an act for
utilitarianism, natural inclinations for natural law, and autonomy for deontology. Virtue ethics, on the other hand focuses on
the formation one’s character brought about by determining and doing virtuous acts.
The two major thinkers of Ancient Greece, Plato and Aristotle, had discourses concerning virtue. But Aristotle ’s book
entitled Nicomachean Ethics is the first comprehensive and programmatic study of virtue ethics.

Aristotle’s discourse of ethics departs from the Platonic understanding of reality and conception of the good. Both Plato and
Aristotle affirm rationality as the highest faculty of a person and having such characteristic enables a person to realize the
very purpose of her existence. But at the end, they differ in their appreciation of reality and nature, which, in turn, results in
their contrasting stand on what the ethical principle should be.

For Plato, the real is outside the realm of any human sensory experience but can somehow be grasped by one ’s intellect. The
truth and, ultimately, the good are in the sphere of forms or ideas transcending daily human condition. On the other hand,
for Aristotle, the real is found within our everyday encounter with objects in the world. What makes nature intelligible is its
character of having both form and matter. Therefore, the truth and the good cannot exist apart from the object and are not
independent of our experience.

When one speaks of the truth, for example, how beautiful Juan Luna ’s Spoliarium is, she cannot discuss its beauty separately
from the particular painting itself. Same is true with understanding the good: the particular act of goodness that one does in
the world is more important than any conception of the good that is outside and beyond the realm of experience. One sees
the ethical theory of Aristotle as engaging the good in our day-to-day living.

HAPPINESS AND ULTIMATE PURPOSE

Aristotle begins his discussion of ethics by showing that every act that a person does is directed toward a particular
purpose, aim, or what the Greeks called telos. There is a purpose why one does something, and for Aristotle, a person ’s
action manifests a good that she aspires for. Every pursuit of a person hopes to achieve a good. One eats for the purpose of
the good that it gives sustenance to the body. A person pursues a chosen career, aiming for good, that is, to provide a better
future for her family. A person will not do anything which is not beneficial to her. Even a drug user “think ” that substance
abuse will cause her good. This does not necessarily mean that using drug is good but a “drug addict ” would want to believe
that such act is good. Therefore, for Aristotle, the good is considered to be the telos or purpose for which all acts seek to
achieve.

One must understand that an individual does actions and pursuits in life and correspondingly each of these
activities has different aims. Aristotle is aware that one does an act not only to achieve a particular purpose but also
believes such purpose can be utilized for a higher goal or activity, which then can be used to achieve an even higher purpose
and so on. In other words, the different goods that one pursues from a hierarchy of teloi (plural form of telos).

When one diligently writes down notes while listening to a lecture given by the teacher, she does this for the
purpose of being able to remember the lessons of the course. This purpose of remembering, in turn, becomes an act to
achieve a higher aim which is to pass the examination given by the teacher, which then becomes a product that can help the
person attain the goal of having a passing mark in the course. It is important for Aristotle that one becomes clear of the
hierarchy of goals that the different acts produce in order for a person to distinguish which actions are higher than the
other.

With the condition that there is a hierarchy of telos, Aristotle then asks about the highest purpose, which is the
ultimate good of a human being. Aristotle discusses the general criteria in order for one to recognize the highest good of
man. First, the highest good of a person must be final. As a final end, it is no longer utilized for the sake of arriving at a much
higher end. In our example above, the purpose of remembering the lessons in the course, that is why one writes down notes,
is not the final end because it is clear that such purpose is aimed at achieving a much higher goal. Second, the ultimate telos
of a person must be self-sufficient. Satisfaction in life is arrived at once this highest good is attained. Nothing else is sought
after and desired, once this self-sufficient goal is achieved, since this is already considered as the best possible good in life.
Again, in the example given above, the goal of remembering the lessons in the course is not yet the best possible good
because a person can still seek for other more satisfying goals in her life.

One can therefore say that happiness seems to fit the first criterion of being the final end of a human being. For it is
clear that conditions for having wealth, power, and pleasures are not chosen for themselves but for the sake of being a
means to achieve happiness. If one accumulates wealth, for example, she would want to have not just richness but also
power and other desirable things as well, such as honor and pleasures. But all of these ends are ultimately for the sake of
the final end which is happiness. In itself, happiness seems to be the final end and the highest good of a person since no
other superior end is still being desired for.

The local saying “Madaling maging tao, mahirap magpakatao ” can be understood in the light of Aristotle ’s thoughts
on the function of a good person. Any human being can perform the activity of reason; thus, being human is achievable.
However, a good human being strives hard in doing an activity in an excellent way. Therefore, the task of being human
becomes more difficult because doing such activity well takes more effort on the part of the person.

VIRTUE AS EXCELLENCE

Achieving the highest purpose of a human person concerns the ability to function according to reason to reason
and to perform an activity well or excellently. This excellent way of doing things is called virtue or arete by the Greeks.
Aristotle is quick to add that virtue is something that one strives for in time. One does not become an excellent person
overnight: “For one swallow does not make a summer, nor does one day; and so too one day, or a short time, does not make
a man blessed and happy.” This means that being virtuous cannot be accomplished by a single act. It is commendable if a
minor participant in a crime becomes a whistle-blower, exposing all the grave acts that were committed by his cohorts. But
one should be careful in judgment of calling immediately that individual as being a “person of virtue ”. Being an excellent
individual works on doing well in her day-to-day existence.

What exactly make a human being excellent? Aristotle says that excellence is an activity of the human soul and
therefore, one needs to understand the very structure of a person ’s soul which must be directed by her rational activity in
an excellent way. For Aristotle, the human soul is divided into two parts: the irrational element and the rational faculty. The
irrational element of man consists of the vegetative and appetitive aspects. The vegetative aspect functions as giving
nutrition and providing the activity of physical growth in a person. As an irrational element, this part of man is not in the
realm where virtue is exercised because, as the term suggests, it cannot be dictated by reason. The vegetative aspect of the
soul follows the natural processes involved in the physical activities and growth of a person. Whereas the appetitive aspect
works as a desiring faculty of man. The act of desiring in itself is an impulse that naturally runs counter to reason and most
of the time refuses to go along with reason. Thus, this aspect belongs to the irrational part of the soul. Sexual impulse, for
example, is so strong in a person that one tends to ignore reasonable demands to control such impulse. However, unlike the
vegetative aspect, the desiring faculty of man can be subjected to reason. Aristotle says, “Now, even this seems to have a
share in the rational principle, as we said; at any rate in the continent man, it obeys the rational principle ”. Desires are
subject to reason even though these do not arise from the rational part of the soul.

In contrast, the rational faculty of man exercise excellence in him. One can rightly or wrongly apply the use of
reason in this part. This faculty is further divided into two aspects: moral, which concerns the act of doing, and intellectual,
which concerns the act of knowing. These two aspects are basically where the function of reason is exercised.

One rational aspect where a person can attain excellence is in the intellectual faculty of the soul. As stated by
Aristotle, this excellence is attained through teaching. Through time, one learns from the vast experiences in life where she
gains knowledge on this thing. One learns and gains wisdom by being taught or by learning. There are two ways by which
one can attain intellectual excellence: Philosophic and practical. Philosophic wisdom deals with attaining knowledge about
the fundamental principles and truths that govern the universe (e.g., general theory on the origin of things). It helps one
understand in general the meaning of life. Practical wisdom, on the other hand, is an excellence in knowing the right
conduct in carrying out a particular act. In other words, one can attain a wisdom that can provide us with a guide on how to
behave in our daily lives.

Although the condition of being excellent can be attained by a person through the intellectual aspect of the soul,
this situation does not make her into a morally good individual. However, Aristotle suggests that although the rational
functions of a person (moral and intellectual) are distinct from each other, it is necessary for humans to attain the
intellectual virtue of practical wisdom in order to accomplish a morally virtuous act.

Moral Virtue and Mesotes

As stated by Aristotle, developing a practical wisdom involves learning from experiences. Knowledge is not
inherent to a person. Knowing the right thing to do when one is confronted by a choice is not easy. One needs to develop this
knowledge by exercising the faculty of practical reason in her daily life. In attaining practical wisdom, she may initially make
mistakes on how reason is applied to a particular moral choice or action. But through these mistakes, she will be able to
sustain practical wisdom to help steer another’s ability to know morally right choices and actions. In other words, she is
able to mature and grow in her capacity of knowing what to do and living morally right choices and actions. In other words,
she is able to mature and grow in her capacity of knowing what to do and living a morally upright life.
This is why when it comes to life choices, one can seek the advice of elders in the community, those who gained rich life
experiences and practical wisdom, because they would be able to assist someone ’s moral deliberation. Parents can advise
their children how to behave in front of family members and relatives. Senior members of the community like priests,
counselors, and leaders may also guide the young members on how relationships with others are fostered.

Bro. Armin Luistro, with his practical wisdom and experience, has observed the possible effect of television violence on the
young so he issued guidelines on television viewing for children. He says that good values instilled on children are
“sometimes removed from the consciousness of young people ” because of television violence. As former Secretary of the
Department of Education, he possibly learned so much about the consequence of such situation on the young.

However, when practical wisdom guides the conduct of making morally right choices and actions, what does it identify as
the proper and right thing to do? As maintained by Aristotle, it is the middle, intermediate, or mesotes for the Greeks that is
aimed at by a morally virtuous person.

A morally virtuous person targets the mesotes. For Aristotle, the task of targeting the mean is always difficult because every
situation is different from one another. Thus, the mesotes is constantly moving depending on the circumstance where she is
in. The mean is not the same for all individuals. As pointed out by Aristotle, the mean is simply an arithmetical proportion.
Therefore, the task of being moral involves seriously looking into and understanding a situation and assessing properly
every particular detail relevant to the determination of the mean. One can be angry with someone, but the degree and state
of anger depends accordingly the nature of the person she is angry with. The aid of reason dictates how human should show
different anger toward a child and a mature individual. Mesotes determines whether the act applied is not excessive or
deficient. Likewise, an individual cannot be good at doing something haphazardly but reason demands a continuous
habituation of a skill to perfect an act. Targeting the middle entails being immersed in a moral circumstance, understanding
the experience, and eventually, developing the knowledge of identifying the proper way or the mean to address a particular
situation.

Aristotle provides examples of particular virtues and the corresponding excesses and deficiencies of these. These table
shows some of the virtues and their vices:

Aristotle’s Concept of the Golden Mean

Excess Middle Deficiency

Impulsiveness Self-control Indecisiveness

Recklessness Courage Cowardice
Prodigality Liberality Meanness

In the table, Aristotle identifies the virtue courage as the middle, in between the vices of being coward and reckless.
Cowardice is a deficiency in terms of feelings and passions. This means that one lacks the capacity to muster enough
bravery of carrying herself appropriately in a given situation. Recklessness, on the other hand, is an excess in terms of one ’s
feelings and passions. In this regard, one acts with a surplus of guts that she overdoes an act in such rashness and without
any deliberation. The virtue of having courage is being able to act daringly enough but able to weigh up possible
implications of such act that she proceeds with caution.

It is only through middle that a person is able to manifest her feelings, passions, and actions virtuously. For Aristotle, being
superfluous with regard to manifesting a virtue is no longer an ethical act because one has gone beyond the middle. Being
overly courageous (or “super courageous”) for instance does not make someone more virtuous because precisely in this
condition, she has gone beyond the middle. Filipinos have the penchant of using superlative words like “over ”, “super ”, “to
the max”, and “sobra” in describing a particular act that they normally identify as virtuous. Perhaps, Aristotle ’s view on
virtue is prescribing a clearer way by which Filipino can better understand it.
 WEEK 16 : DEONTOLOGY: Historical Origin of Deontological Ethics

The historical origin of this particular moral theory can be traced back to the early beginning of human civilization,
at a time “when the word of the chief, or the king, or God or any other recognized authority for the matter was given
unconditionally and without invitation to appeal on the basis of conseqences ”.

Here, the commands or edicts of the ones in authority and power are something that are taken and obeyed without
any further question or objection. Once the commands and orders are given and handed out from above, everyone below is
expected to follow unconditionally. Obedience is something absolute or categorical.

Consequently, one is not expected to pose any question but asked to take the command as it is given. Hence, the
word of the king or the chieftain is the law.

This kind of theory is something called Deontological, from the Greek root word “dein ” or “deon ” meaning “to be
obligated”, or simply “duty”. In this kind of theory or philosophy, an act or conduct is considered good or right, thus justified
morally, not by showing that it has good and beneficial consequences or effects but by virtue of its being an action that
emanates from a sense of duty or moral obligation.

Due to its central emphasis on the significance and value of duty or obligation as the main motivation or intention
in human actions, this theory in ethics has also come to be known in philosophy as Deontological Theory or Deontological
Ethics.

In fact, Deontological or simply duty ethics, recognizes only those actions that are done out of pure duty as the ones
having moral worth. Everything else does not give an act any moral value or ethical significance.

Kant’s Major Contribution to Deontological Theory

If one tries to scan the entire history of ethical philosophy, perhaps one cannot find a more avid defender of
Deontological theory in modern times than the great German Philosopher Immanuel Kant (1724-1804), a philosopher
whose remarkable contributions to the history of philosophical thought put him on the same level with the greatest of the
greats among the world’s foremost thinkers.

For some Kant, is recognized as the most important philosopher who has ever lived. The entirety of his philosophic
corpus, in the words of an author, is “brilliant, profound, rich, complex, and fascinating ”. It is said, with fairness, that no
other thinker has contributed as many important and brilliant ideas to the philosophical study of ethics as Kant.

The Good Will: The Core of Kant’s Ethics

Kant claims that what makes an act right/good and wrong/bad does not depend on its result or consequences,
since all these are simply beyond one’s control – hence a matter of luck or accident. (Things usually turn out the way they
are, not the way we want and expect them to be.) Thus, the consequences of actions are entirely out of our hands.

Hence, for him, morality, as the sole and exclusive domain of rational beings, should be something of which one
should have total control. If one is indeed fully accountable of his action and conduct, then chance or luck should be taken
out of the equation.

This, he believes, can only be achieved by appealing to some universal rational ethical principle- an ethical principle
that is in the form of a “maxim” that guides human actions at all times and in all situations.
Here, the center of Kant’s ethical philosophy is his primary emphasis on the importance of reason and the unqualified
rational nature of moral principles. Such a philosophy is indeed “a strict, hardheaded, and uncompromising view of
morality”.

This seemingly uncompromising stand has to be understood in view of Kant ’s own philosophical project that is to
set, once and for all, a kind of morality that is grounded firmly on an objective and rational foundation as well as build one
single set of moral principles for anyone who claims to be logical.

At the very outset of his brilliant philosophical work, Grounding for the Metaphysics of Morals (published in 1785),
Kant writes: “Nothing can be called good without qualification except good will. ” Having a good will or rather acting in good
will means doing an act with the right intentions or motives, in accordance with the right maxims or principles, doing one ’s
duty or obligation for its own sake rather than for personal gain or self-interest.

This goes against the ethics of utilitarianism, which prioritizes the consequences that one can achieve in acting. In
Kant, morality is primarily, if not solely, a matter of motive or intention and not a matter of what one can gain or achieve in
acting.

If one’s motive in doing an act is good and noble, regardless of its consequences or results (even if they are not
beneficial to you), then it’s good and thus your conduct is morally praise-worthy. You ought to be congratulated for doing
“the right thing”. As far as the ethics of Kant is concerned, that’s all that matters.

The good here is the one that you ought to do. You simply have to do the good because it ’s good. It ’s good because
it’s a moral duty for everyone to do the good. Kant ’s ethics is an ethics that is primarily based on good will. The good will is
good if it does its duty out of pure reverence to the moral law.

Duty over Inclination

In strong reaction to some philosophers, notably David Hume (who awakened Kant from his dogmatic slumbers)
who held that we act primarily on inclination (doing the thing that one feels like doing, and thus no obligation exists), Kant
considers such an account of morality totally mistaken. He believes that “a person is only acting morally only when he
suppresses his/her feelings and inclinations and does that which he/she is obliged to do.”

Hence, if one’s reason for acting is simply out from one ’s taste or inclination/feeling and as such as no demand or
obligation is present (for one is just acting on what one finds pleasant and beneficial), one cannot be said to be performing a
moral action. One cannot claim any moral praise for it.
The only act that is worthy to be called moral is an act that is done not out of inclination but one that is done out of duty.
Doing one’s duty is doing something that one is not inclined or willing to do, but that he/she does because he/she
recognizes that he/she ought to do it; an obligation exists and he/she must fulfill it ”.
For instance, a student who studies only because he is afraid to fail in a particular subject (and this would mean not being
able to graduate) is not a moral person. Nor the reason for studying is that he is merely inclined to.

Thus, to be a good person, in Kant’s view, is to act from a sense of duty alone. One should not be motivated by any
other reason except what emanates from this sense of moral obligation. Only and only then that one can truly say that he is
acting morally and deserves to be called a moral person.

Duty is Superior to Happiness

If being a good person, according to Kant, requires us to do what is right out from a sense of duty or moral
obligation, “our duties cannot consist simply in following rules that promote pleasure and the avoidance of pain as the
utilitarian claim, since that would make right actions depend upon consequences, on how well they satisfied our desires.

And if the consequences of our actions are the ones that give them moral worth, then morality becomes contingent
to something outside itself. In that case, morality would become not an end in itself but just a means to an end that would
leave us without a stable and firm foundation.
 For Kant, as we said, the rightness or wrongness of an act is not determined by its outcomes or results but by its
intrinsic property. Thus, for instance, “lying is morally wrong not because it results in the experience of pain instead of
pleasure say, we will be scolded by our parents and will be grounded for a week but because it is wrong in itself regardless
of the consequences. The same goes true for breaking a promise, cheating and the like.”

The Categorical Imperative: The Universalizability Principle

According to Kant “anytime we do a certain act voluntarily, we operate under some kind of maxim, rule or
directive”. A maxim is one which is the guiding reason or principle for acting under a particular situation. As free and
rational beings, we act on the basis of self-generated rules or laws or conduct, and this primarily makes us unique moral
beings.

More specifically, a maxim is a personal and subjective guiding principle on which we act or behave as contrary to
an objective and external principle or rule upon which we should act.

“To say maxims, underlie our daily conduct does not necessarily mean that we always abide by them ”. More often
than not, as one can perhaps readily observe even in one ’s own self, people are not even aware, at least explicitly, of the
maxims whereby they act or conduct themselves in specific situations.

As often is the case, “implicit maxims are most likely to come only to people ’s attention and to be made explicit
when they are asked to justify their behaviors to others or when they are asked to justify their actions to themselves ”. The
whole point here is this: maxims are part and parcel of our daily conduct and behavior, whether we are aware of them or
not.

The notion of the categorical imperative, many believed, is where Kant makes his greatest and lasting contribution
to ethical thought. Here, he introduces the concept of universalization, which holds that we must universalize our moral
judgments. It states that we must apply the judgments we make to everyone, without exception.

The Categorical Imperative tells us that it is morally wrong to act on a maxim that we could not will to be a
universal law. What has to be universalized is not the act per se but the maxim of the act. The main point here is very motive
of action.