PHILOSOPHICAL AND ETHICAL FOUNDATIONS OF VALUES

CHAPTER I.

The Natural Law

The Natural Law - the basic goods

The Moral Law

Philosophy
• There are as many definitions of philosophy as there are philosophies and philosophers.
• The western tradition has always associated philosophy with wisdom, forgetting the “love” that
precedes wisdom in its original meaning. Our culture has not been spared of this western
influence for pamimilosopo means also to be pedantic, to be theorizing and to juggle concepts
in a dull and narrow manner.
• But “to philosophize” was originally to search passionately for wisdom, to love it because one
was not in full possession of it. Far from being purely speculative, philosophy is first of all felt, a
passion, a desire, a value.

The Wisdom of the East

• The eastern tradition can offer us interesting answers, and we turn to the East for wisdom. The
Hindu word for philosophy is “darsana” which means “to see”, not just with the eyes or the
mind, but with one’s whole being.
• What is to be seen with one’s whole being is none other than the truth or the real, namely, what
is unchanging, eternal and universal.
• The Chinese tradition terms philosophy as “cheh-hsueh”. Hsueh means learning, but cheh is a
compound character made up of a hand, a measurement, and a mouth; that is to say philosophy
is learning to measure one’s words with one’s deeds.

Philosophy
• To philosophize is to know in a very different way from learning a skill; it is first of all to learn to
be moral where one’s speech, feelings, knowledge and action are integrated in one whole.
• The wise man is one who always knows the good to be realized in any concrete stituation. The
clever, on the other hand, is one who knows how to utilize persons or things for whatever end,
good or otherwise.
• Just as values generate an ought-to-be and an ought-to-do and call forth moral persons, so
philosophy invites us to be integrative.
• This integrative function of philosophy is more an ideal to be achieved rather than a guarantedd
role, for philosophy does not impose but springs from the responsible freedom of the
philosopher as a human being.
• Philosophy urges us to be moral persons, persons of integrity who are in self-possessed because
their speech, feelings, thinking and action are one. This unity derives from commitment to the
value of persons.
 • Philosophy invites us to be true to ourselves and our humanity, by committing ourselves to the
value of other humans.
• Just as love is the movement towards the realization of higher values, so philosophy moves us to
be responsive to the value of persons - to love.

Ethics
• Ethics (the study of values in human behaviors).
• ·Comes from the Greek word (Ethos), which means customs, usage, or character.
• ·It is the traditional manners, customs, habits, character or attitude of a community or a group,
which pertains to the group’s standards or norms.
• ·It is a set of rules of human behavior, which has been influenced by the standards set by the
society or by himself in relation to his society (Reyes 1981, 1).
• Ethics is clearly defined as a “a practical and normative science, based on reason, which studies
human acts, and provides norms for their goodness and badness (Timbreza 1993, 3). This
definition is to be explained as:
1.Ethics is science. Science is defined as a systematized body of knowledge. As a science, ethics is a
systematic study of the grounds and norms of morality. However, ethics is first and foremost a practical
science. As a practical science, ethics deals with a systematized body of knowledge that is applicable to
human action (Timbreza). For this reason, the primary consideration of Ethics is the application of
human knowledge and its practicality to human experience. Therefore, Ethics is to be considered a
necessary part of life, i.e., a part of man’s daily existence.

• Ethics is clearly defined as a “a practical and normative science, based on reason, which studies
human acts, and provides norms for their goodness and badness (Timbreza 1993, 3). This
definition is to be explained as:
2.Ethics is a normative science. As a normative science, ethics sets a basis or a norm for the
direction and regulation of human actions. It sets its rules and guidelines to maintain a sense of direction
to human actions. As a normative science, ethics aids man in distinguishing whether one’s action can be
considered good or bad.

• Ethics is clearly defined as a “a practical and normative science, based on reason, which studies
human acts, and provides norms for their goodness and badness (Timbreza 1993, 3). This
definition is to be explained as:
4.Ethics studies human acts. To explain this, it is necessary to distinguish between human acts
(actus humanus) and the acts of man (actus hominis).
• ·Human acts are those actions that are done by the human person based on human knowledge
and the full consent of the will. It is is that which proceeds from the deliberate free will of
human person (Glenn 1965,3).
• ·Acts of man are those actions that are done in the absence of either knowledge or will or of
both knowledge and will – the two conditions of human acts. In this case, this action comprises
all spontaneous, biological, and sensual processes like nutrition, breathing and sensual
impressions.
 • Ethics is clearly defined as a “a practical and normative science, based on reason, which
studies human acts, and provides norms for their goodness and badness (Timbreza
1993, 3). This definition is to be explained as:

5.Ethics provides norms for the goodness and badness of a certain act. Ethics is a dimension of
human existence whereby man is always oriented towards (Ryes, 2). Every human person is in
constant search for the meaning of his own life. In setting a meaning for his own existence, man
has to have an ideal vision or goal. Such vision or goal is that which will lead him to happiness.
Ethics is the one that provides the guidelines for which a human person can know if he is still
leading his life to the goal which he sets for himself. This makes Ethics very important in the life
of the human person.

Value

The ideal vision of man provides for him a sense of value. Value is defined as that which an
individual deems to be useful, desirable, or significant (Reyes, 3). Value sets in man an idea of
good that is inclined towards that which is objectively the fulfillment of the being of man.
Consequently, a good action is that which imposes a moral obligation or duty.

A. The Divine Command Theory

• is the view that morality is somehow dependent upon God, and that moral
obligation consists in obedience to God’s commands.

• it includes the claim that morality is ultimately based on the commands or

character of God, and that the morally right action is the one that God
commands or requires. The specific content of these divine commands
varies according to the particular religion and the particular views of the
individual divine command theorist, but all versions of the theory hold in
common the claim that morality and moral obligations ultimately depend
on God.
B. Natural Law

• is a popular name attributed to the model of ethics developed by St.

Thomas Aquinas during the Medieval period.

• It is also called Thomistic Ethics.

• The basic idea in natural law is that “Reason” is the source of the moral law
and that it directs us towards the “Good”.

• According to Aquinas, the “good” is the ultimate goal of the person’s

actions.

• The “good” is discoverable within the person’s nature.

• This explains why the basic goal of natural law is “to do good and avoid
evil.”

• Conscience serves as the guide in making moral decisions.

How do we know that a person is acting rightly or wrongly?

• according to Aquinas, an act is morally right if it is done in accordance with

the moral law.

• what is the moral law?

C. The Moral Law

• “reason” is the source of moral law; hence, the moral law is the dictate of
reason.

• But for Aquinas, the moral law comes from God’s Eternal Law.

• Indeed, for Aquinas, the moral law is the Divine Law expressed in human
nature, which reads: “Do good and avoid evil.”
If the moral law is “doing good and avoiding evil,” how do we know that one is
acting in accordance with the good?

• According to Aquinas, the “god” is that which is suitable to human nature

or that which is proper to human nature.

• And for Aquinas, we know that an action is good, that is, suitable to human
nature, if it is done in accordance with conscience.

If the moral law is “doing good and avoiding evil,” how do we know that one is
acting in accordance with the good?

• Aquinas understands conscience as the inner voice of the intellect or

reason which calls the human person to follow the moral law, that is to do
good and avoid evil.

• Conscience serves as the guide in making moral decisions.

 College of Teacher Education

A. The Divine Command Theory

 Can be used to refer to any one of a family of related ethical theories that take God’s
will to be the foundation of ethics. According to the general theory, things are morally good
or bad, or morally obligatory, permissible, or prohibited, because of God’s will or
commands.
 Is one in which the ultimate foundation for morality is the revealed will of God, or the
commands of God found in Scripture. (Scott Rae)
 Traces the rightness of actions to God’s will or commands
 Morality is Grounded in God’s Command
 The view that things are good because God commands them
 It is a type of General Command Duty Theory, the view that moral duties are
determined by an authority’s orders
 Example: Islamic Ethics
 Islam holds to a view God’s sovereignty where God can command whatever he
wills (Will being the primary attribute of deity.
 Surah 2:106 - “None of our revelations do we abrogate or cause to be forgotten,
but We substitute something better or similar. Knowest thou not that Allah hath
power over all things?”
 Morality is Grounded in God’s Character, and only expressed in his Commands.
 Example: Judeo-Christian Ethics
 Christian conception of God holds to a free sovereign will
 But God is bound by His Character
 There are things that God cannot command
 Freedom is exercised consistently with Character

Premises of Divine Command Theory

1. It assigns moral status to all actions; an action is either

a) Morally wrong
 b) Morally required
c) Morally permitted

2. It argues that the moral status/obligatory nature of all human actions come from God.
a) God does not explain Goodness as such
 There is one Good he cannot explain - himself
 Further, the Divine command theory is putting forth a theory of
Moral Obligation, which is distinct from speaking about “goodness” in
a general sense
 The Divine command Theorist looks at Moral Obligation
 It may be good to donate a kidney to a needy stranger, but
it wouldn’t be morally required
 The Divine command theorist does not say X is good
because God commands it
 X is a moral obligation because God commands it
 He cannot not say that God recognizes the moral
obligatoriness of an action, since before the command there is no
obligation
The command constitute the obligation
b) God does not explain obligation as such
 There is no obligation he cannot explain - obligation to
obey Him
 Divine commands constitute one’s obligation, they
don’t explain them
 Obligatoriness just is its being commanded by God
 Rather than obligatoriness being explained by God
 “In Virtue of” relation is an explanatory relation
 When X is the case in virtue of Y - this entails that
Y explains X
 Constitution relation is not always explanatory
  Water is constituted of H20 - this doesn’t explain water
at all, it just tells us what water is.

What is about God that makes his Commands = Obligation

 The commands of other authorities does not always entail obligation

 Key is in the Nature of Authority
 if God is omniscient (perfectly rational and void of factual errors), omnibenevolent
(seeks the good of the creature) perfectly just (holds creatures accountable) THEN
what he demands one would have to do
 One could not reject it on the basis of thinking God is in error
 One could not reject it on the basis that it wasn’t in one’s own interests
 One couldn’t reject it on the basis that it was somehow unfair
 One couldn’t reject it on the basis that one will see no consequences of
violating said command
 No rational basis to deny an obligation
 Divine command theory has to be a theory of Moral Obligation
 Only a certain type of God can ground moral obligations
 Cannot say a God is cruel, unjust, etc. Can plausibly ground our obligation
 Without a Transcendent Mind there can be no “ought” or duty
 Goodness and badness are value judgments
 Value judgment are the products of minds
 Moral obligation only makes sense in a teleological context
 Teleological: with an end or goal
 An “ought” implies intentionality
 Intentionality is ind dependent (matter intends nothing)
 Moral obligations are the products of minds
 Immanent minds can only posit values subjectively
 Subjective value judgments are incapable of demanding universal moral obligation
 A universal moral obligation implies a transcendent mind.

To God be the Glory. . .

What is natural law ethics?

Natural law ethics is a popular name attributed to the model of ethics developed by
Saint Thomas Aquinas during the medieval period. Because it was developed by Saint Thomas
Aquinas, natural law ethics is also called Thomistic ethics.

The basic idea in natural law ethics is that “Reason” is the source of the moral law and it directs
us towards the “Good”. According to Aquinas, the “Good” is the ultimate goal of the person’s
actions. And for Aquinas, the “Good” is discoverable within the person’s nature. This explains
why the basic goal of natural law ethics is “to do good and avoid evil”.

Now, how do we know that a person is acting rightly or wrongly?

According to Aquinas, an act is morally right and if it is done in accordance with a moral law.
Now what is the moral law?

As already mentioned, “reason “ is the source of moral law; hence, the moral law is the dictate
of reason. But for Aquinas, the moral law comes from God’s eternal law. Indeed, for Aquinas,
the moral law is the divine law expressed in human nature which reads: “Do good and avoid
evil.”

And so if the moral law is “doing good and avoiding evil,” how do we know that one is acting in
accordance with the good?

According to Aquinas the “good” is so that which is suitable to human nature or that which is
proper to human nature. And for Aquinas, we know that an action is good, that is, suitable to
human nature, if it is done in accordance with conscience.

Aquinas understands conscience as the inner voice of the intellect or reason which calls the
human person to follow the moral law. That is, to do good and avoid evil. As we can see, in
natural law ethics, conscience serves as the guide in making moral decisions.

Now how do we know that the one’s action obeys conscience?

According to Aquinas, an action obeys conscience if it satisfies the three-fold natural inclination
of the human person, namely: 1)self preservation, 2)just dealing with others, and 3)
propagation of human species.

1. Self-preservation, for Aquinas, is a natural inclination that urges the human person to take
care of her health or not to kill or put herself in danger. This explains why for Aquinas
suicide is absolutely wrong.
2. Just dealing with others urges us to treat others with the same respect that we accord
ourselves. Thus, for Aquinas, all forms of inhumanities, such as exploitation, seduction,
 deception, manipulation, cheating, kidnapping, murder, and intimidation, are absolutely
wrong too.
In terms of the propagation of human species, Aquinas believes that the reproductive
organ is by nature designed to reproduce and propagate human species. Any act of
intervention, therefore, that frustrates the very purpose of the reproductive organ is
unnatural, hence immoral. This explains why even masturbation is immoral in natural law
ethics.

It must be noted that for Aquinas if at least one of these three natural inclinations of the
human person is violated, then an act does not obey conscience; it is therefore immoral.
Needless to say, for an action to be considered moral in natural law ethics, it must be done
in accordance with conscience. Again, it must be done in accordance with the moral law,
that is, “ doing good and avoiding evil”.

Three Determinants of Moral Actions

In addition to the threefold natural inclinations of the human person, Aquinas introduced
three things that determine the morality of a human act, namely:
1) object of the human act,
2) it’s circumstance, and
3) it's end.

The object of the act refers to that which the will intends primarily and directly. It may
either be a thing or an action. Take, for example, the physician’s act of removing a tumor.
As we can see, the direct object of the act “is to remove a tumor”. Please note that the
circumstance in the end are also intended here, but not directly.

The circumstance refers to the condition which affects the morality of an action. It is
important to note that the circumstance may aggravate or mitigate the morality of the
human act.

Aquinas classified circumstance into:

1. quality of a person (Who)

2. quality or quantity of a moral object (what)
3. the circumstance of place (where),
4. the circumstance of means (by what means)
5. the circumstance of end (why)
6. manner in which the action is done (how)
7. time element involved in the performance of the action (when).
As to the first, it is bad to rape a woman but it is worse to rape a daughter.

As to the second, the act of a taxi driver who returns a wallet containing a couple of thousand
dollars is good in itself, but that of one who takes the initiative of returning $50,000 left by a
tourist is even better.

As to the third, smoking in public may not be good, but it is worse if one smokes inside a
church.

As to the fourth, to pray for a sick person is good in itself, but to give her money for medicine
for her medication is better.

As to the fifth, helping an orphan kid finish schooling is good, but doing it with the intention of
employing her later is better.

Now, to the sixth, killing might generally be conceived as evil. But in the case of unjust
aggression, it might be morally right to kill the aggressor.

And as to the seventh, it might not be a good idea to smoke inside the church, but it is worse to
do it while the mass is going on.

The end of the act refers to the purpose of the doer or the agent of the human act itself.
According to Aquinas, it can be taken as a circumstance because the end is an integral part of
every moral act.

For example, marrying a person one is engaged to is good in itself. But doing so while
motivated by the selfish end of, say, taking a big share of an inheritance, makes the whole
action morally wrong.

It must be noted that for Aquinas, all the three determinants of a human act must be all good
for an act to be considered good or morally right.

Four Principles of Double Effect

Sometimes a human act may produce two conflicting results, that is, one is good and the other
is evil. To address this dilemma, Aquinas formulated the four principles of double effect,
namely:
 1. the action intended must be good in itself or at least morally indifferent; otherwise, the
act is evil at the very outset;
2. the good effect must follow the action at least as immediately as the evil effect, or the
good and evil effects must occur simultaneously;
3. the foreseen evil effects should not be intended or approved but merely permitted to
occur; and
4. there must be a proportionate and sufficient reason for allowing the evil effect to occur
while performing the action.

According to Aquinas, all of the four principles must be satisfied for an action to be considered
morally right.

Let's take for example the act of removing a cancerous uterus of a pregnant woman which
necessarily implies abortion. As we can see the act will produce two results, one good and the
other is evil. Of course, the removal of the cancerous uterus of the pregnant woman will
definitely save her life which is the good result but at the same time, it will kill the fetus which is
the evil result. So what is the morality of the action if we apply Aquinas’s four principles of
double effect?

Please note that the ACT is simply to remove the cancerous uterus. So, obviously, we satisfy
principle #1 because the intention of removing the cancerous uterus is good in itself. We may
even view it as morally indifferent.

We also satisfy principle # 2 because of the good effect, that is, the recovery of the pregnant
woman follows the action immediately. And even if the fetus dies after the removal of the
cancerous uterus, at least this evil effect occurs simultaneously with a good effect.

Principle #3 is also satisfied because abortion, that is, the death of the fetus, was not intended.
It was just allowed to happen. As we can see, the main intention of removing the cancerous
uterus of the pregnant woman is to save her life. Even if the death of the fetus was foreseen,
according to Aquinas, it was just allowed to occur.

And lastly, principle #4 is also satisfied because there is indeed a sufficient reason for allowing
the evil effect, that is, abortion or the killing of the fetus, to happen. Needless to say, if we don’t
remove the cancerous uterus, then we lose the lives of the woman and the fetus. But if we
remove the cancerous uterus, at least, as Aquinas would have us believe, we save one life.

As we can see, the removal of a cancerous uterus of a pregnant woman which implies abortion
is morally right.
 Let us take another example that the killing of a drug Lord is good as it may produce more
benefits, that is, greatest happiness, to the greatest number of people concerned.

As is well known, illegal drugs have been destroying many lives, both young and old. So, killing
a drug Lord will produce a good result. However, the act produces an evil result too, that is,
murder. So, what is the morality of the act of killing the drug Lord from the vantage point of
Aquinas’s 4 principles of double effect?

A utilitarian may argue that the act of killing the drug Lord is good as it may produce more
benefits, that is, greatest happiness, to the greatest number of people concerned. However, for
Aquinas, the act of killing the drug Lord is intrinsically immoral because, as we can see, it does
not satisfy the first principle of the four principles of double effect. The first principle says that
the act must be good in itself or at least morally indifferent.

But the act of “killing” (the drug Lord) is evil in itself. Hence, even if this act produces more
benefits to many people concerned, for Aquinas, it is absolutely immoral.

This explains why the Roman Catholics, who adhere to Aquinas’s natural law ethics, strongly
oppose extrajudicial killing in general and killing a drug Lord in particular.

And so since the first principle is violated we need not proceed and check the remaining
principles because in the first place the act is already immoral.

To God be the Glory. .

B. Natural Law (Part 2)

- the Essential Need to Become a Person

According to George Berkeley (1685)

 Eternal laws of reason or will of God ‘Paul Tillich’ elaborates that will of God is our essential
being with its potentialities our nature declare as very Good by God.
 Command to become to what one potentially is, a person within a community of person.

Content of Natural Law is Filipino Concept of Magpakatao

1. Masamang tao – immoral actions

2. Mabuting tao – conducts himself according to his rational demands of his human nature.

Properties of Natural Law

1. It is universal
2. It is obligatory
3. It is recognizable
4. It is immutable or unchangeable

Contents of the Natural Law

Man discovers by the light of reason these moral principles contained in the natural law.

1. Formal Norms – those that relate to our character, to what kind of person we ought to be.
o Absolute principles/unchangeable
Example: Do good and avoid evil.
Be honest.
Do not be selfish.

Absolute Values: Justice, Truth, Diligence

2. Material Norms – relate to the sorts of actions we ought to do.

o the application of the formal norms to individual concrete action

Example: speech, killing helping

Interpreting the Material Norms

1. Theory of Physicalism
o Physicalist suggests that the physical and biological nature of man determines morality if
its opposes it immoral.
2. Theory of Personalism
o Personalist suggest that reason is the standard of morality.
Reason (recta ratio) right reason

o Dynamic tendency in the human person to know the truth, to group the whole of reality
as in:
o The Order of Reason – man participates in the Eternal Law through
reason in a way proper to him as a human being.

Moral Conscience – task of discerning and interpreting natural law.

Conscience – proximate norm of morality.

Conscience

- Latin “conscientia” means “trial of oneself” proximate norm of morality

- An act of the practical judgment of reason deciding upon an individual action as good and to be
performed or as evil and to be avoided.

Function – examine to judge and to pass a “sentence” on all moral actions.

Kinds of Conscience

1. Correct or True Conscience – judges incorrectly that what is good is evil and what is evil is good.

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

Error Conscience Come from the Following Factors:

a. Mistake in inferential thinking
b. Ignorance of the fact and other circumstances modifying human actions.
c. Ignorance of the fact and other circumstances modifying human actions.
d. Ignorance of future consequences.

o inculpable conscience – error is not willfully intended

o culpable conscience – error is due to neglect and malice

3. Certain Conscience - subjective assurance of the lawfulness or unlawfulness of certain act.

4. Doubtful conscience – unable to form definite judgments on a certain action.
5. Scrupulous Conscience – extremely afraid of committing evil
6. Lax Conscience – one which refuses to be bothered about the distinction good and evil.

The Compulsory Nature of Conscience

o It is the voice of God

o Operates within the realm of truth/sound reason
 o Infallible

Conscience is linked with human authority

1. It is linked with the State as it derives with the authority as it affirmed by natural law and Divine
revelation
2. It is linked with human community because conscience depends for help in community and
social authority in order to be informed correctly of its judgment.

Education of Conscience

- Obligation to cultivate a clear and true conscience

- The cultivation of good habits
- Militate against evil, condemning it where we find it
- Learn how to use our freedom

C. Natural Law (Part 2)

- the Essential Need to Become a Person

According to George Berkeley (1685)

 Eternal laws of reason or will of God ‘Paul Tillich’ elaborates that will of God is our essential
being with its potentialities our nature declare as very Good by God.
 Command to become to what one potentially is, a person within a community of person.

Content of Natural Law is Filipino Concept of Magpakatao

3. Masamang tao – immoral actions

4. Mabuting tao – conducts himself according to his rational demands of his human nature.

Properties of Natural Law

5. It is universal
6. It is obligatory
7. It is recognizable
8. It is immutable or unchangeable

Contents of the Natural Law

Man discovers by the light of reason these moral principles contained in the natural law.

3. Formal Norms – those that relate to our character, to what kind of person we ought to be.
o Absolute principles/unchangeable
Example: Do good and avoid evil.
Be honest.
Do not be selfish.
Absolute Values: Justice, Truth, Diligence

4. Material Norms – relate to the sorts of actions we ought to do.

o the application of the formal norms to individual concrete action

Example: speech, killing helping

Interpreting the Material Norms

3. Theory of Physicalism
o Physicalist suggests that the physical and biological nature of man determines morality if
its opposes it immoral.
4. Theory of Personalism
o Personalist suggest that reason is the standard of morality.

Reason (recta ratio) right reason

o Dynamic tendency in the human person to know the truth, to group the whole of reality
as in:
o The Order of Reason – man participates in the Eternal Law through
reason in a way proper to him as a human being.

Moral Conscience – task of discerning and interpreting natural law.

Conscience – proximate norm of morality.

Conscience

- Latin “conscientia” means “trial of oneself” proximate norm of morality

- An act of the practical judgment of reason deciding upon an individual action as good and to be
performed or as evil and to be avoided.

Function – examine to judge and to pass a “sentence” on all moral actions.

Kinds of Conscience

7. Correct or True Conscience – judges incorrectly that what is good is evil and what is evil is good.

8. Erroneous or False Conscience – judges incorrectly that what is good is evil and what is evil is
good.

Error Conscience Come from the Following Factors:

e. Mistake in inferential thinking
f. Ignorance of the fact and other circumstances modifying human actions.
 g. Ignorance of the fact and other circumstances modifying human actions.
h. Ignorance of future consequences.

o inculpable conscience – error is not willfully intended

o culpable conscience – error is due to neglect and malice

9. Certain Conscience - subjective assurance of the lawfulness or unlawfulness of certain act.

10. Doubtful conscience – unable to form definite judgments on a certain action.
11. Scrupulous Conscience – extremely afraid of committing evil
12. Lax Conscience – one which refuses to be bothered about the distinction good and evil.

The Compulsory Nature of Conscience

o It is the voice of God

o Operates within the realm of truth/sound reason
o Infallible

Conscience is linked with human authority

1. It is linked with the State as it derives with the authority as it affirmed by natural law and Divine
revelation

2. It is linked with human community because conscience depends for help in community and social
authority in order to be informed correctly of its judgment.

Education of Conscience

- Obligation to cultivate a clear and true conscience

- The cultivation of good habits
- Militate against evil, condemning it where we find it
- Learn how to use our freedom
Moral Law

A general rule of right living especially : such a rule or group of rules conceived as universal
and unchanging and as having the sanction of God's will, of conscience, of man's moral nature,
or of natural justice as revealed to human reason. (Merriam Webster)

The rules of behavior an individual or a group may follow out of personal conscience and th
at are not necessarily part of legislated law in the United States.

Moral law is a system of guidelines for behavior. These guidelines may or may not be part o
f a religion, codified in written form, or legally enforceable. For somepeople moral law is synony
mous with the commands of a divine being. For others, moral law is a set of universal rules that 
should apply to everyone.

Ethical principles held primarily by the followers of Christianity have influenced the develop
ment of U.S. secular law. As a result, Christian moral law and secularlaw overlap in many situati
ons. For example, murder, theft, prostitution, and other behaviors labeled immoral are also illeg
al. Moral turpitude is a legal term used to describe a crime that demonstrates depravity in one's 
public and private life, contrary to what is accepted and customary. People convicted of this cri
me can be disqualified from government office, lose their license to practice law, or be deporte
d (in the case of immigrants).

Passing laws is relatively easy when public policy makers can unanimously identify behavior 
that is socially unacceptable. Policy makers can then attempt to enforce socially correct behavio
r through legal channels. 

MORAL LAW

(originally posted on 1 February 2008, at Elmer at Random)

  

I. Definition and Nature of Moral Law

Moral law may be defined as that kind of nonjural law which sets the standards of good
and commendable conduct. It is that rule to which moral agents ought to conform all their
voluntary actions, and is enforced by sanctions equal to the value of the precept.

It is the rule for the government of free and intelligent action, as opposed to necessary and
unintelligent action. It is the law of liberty, as opposed to the law of necessity–of motive and
free choice, as opposed to force of every kind. Moral law is primarily a rule for the direction of
the action of free will, and strictly of free will only.

But secondarily, and less strictly, it is the rule for the regulation of all those actions and
states of mind and body that follow the free actions of will by a law of necessity. Thus, moral
law controls involuntary mental states and outward action, only by securing conformity of the
actions of free will to its precept.

Moral law may be said to resemble divine and natural law. Divine law is the law of the
religious faith. Moral law, while also concerned with the precepts of good and right conduct as
the basis of its norms, is not necessarily concerned with the law of religious faith.

For a person may not be religious and yet still be ethical. Moral and natural laws apply
equally to all persons everywhere and yet they are not identical: moral law is ethical in
foundation; natural law is strictly metaphysical. Physical law is the totality of uniformities and
orders of sequence which combine together to govern physical phenomena. Moral law differs
from jural law insofar as enforcement is concerned. While jural law is enforceable in the courts,
moral law is enforced only by indefinite authority for there are no courts in which it is
administered as such.

 
II. Essential Attributes of Moral Law

A. Subjectivity. It is an idea of reason, developed in the mind of the subject; an idea, or

conception, of that state of will, or course of action, which is obligatory upon a moral agent. No
one can be a moral agent, or the subject of moral law, unless he has this idea developed; for
this idea is identical with the law. It is the law developed, or revealed within himself. Thus he
becomes “a law to himself,” his own reason affirming his obligation to conform to this idea, or
law.

B. Objectivity. Moral law may be regarded as a rule of duty, prescribed by the supreme

Lawgiver, and external to self. If man has been given an objective final end by the Creator, he
will be under the obligation to strive for it. And when he looks to that objective, an order which
has to be followed will become visible to him: the moral order. This moral order is shown to us
through the moral law.
 

C. Liberty, as opposed to Necessity. Kant formulated the idea of an autonomous, independent

morality. It means an ethics which is not only free from any considerations of happiness and
profit, but also free from any demands imposed upon man by God. Moral goodness is the value
in itself, and it merits to be realized for the sake of its own dignity, not for the sake of any
external authority who wills it, be it even the authority of God.
 

D. Fitness. Its precept must prescribe and require only those actions of the will which are
suitable to the nature and relations of moral beings. Here, the social order must constantly
yield to the good welfare of the person. It strives for the fulfillment of the basic needs of food,
clothing, housing, and a life in peace and liberty. This is confirmed by the conventions on
human rights.
 

E. Universality. The conditions and circumstances being the same, it requires, and must require,
of all moral agents, the same things, in whatever world they may be found.
 

F. Impartiality. Moral law is no respecter of persons–knows no privileged classes. It demands

one thing of all, without regard to anything, except the fact that they are moral agents. By this
it is not intended, that the same course of outward conduct is required of all; but the same
state of heart in all–that all shall have one ultimate intention–that all shall consecrate
themselves to one end–that all shall entirely conform, in heart and life, to their nature and
relations.
 
G. Justice. That which is unjust cannot be law. Justice, as an attribute of moral law, must
respect both the precept and the sanction. Sanctions belong to the very essence and nature of
moral law. A law without sanctions is no law; it is only counsel, or advice. Sanctions are the
motives which the law presents, to secure obedience to the precept. Consequently, they should
always be graduated by the importance of the precept; and that is not properly law which does
not promise, expressly or by implication, a reward proportionate to the merit of obedience, and
threaten punishment equal to the guilt of disobedience. Law cannot be unjust, either in precept
or sanction: and it should always be remembered, that what is unjust, is not law, cannot be law.
It is contrary to the true definition of law. Moral law is a rule of action, founded in the nature
and relations of moral beings, sustained by sanctions equal to the merit of obedience, and the
guilt of disobedience.
 

H. Practicability. The moral demand must be possible to the subject. A law must be physically
and morally possible. It is physically impossible if it commands actions that are completely
beyond the forces and means of a person. Thus, a lunatic cannot be required to vote, and a
dumb person cannot be obliged to sing the national anthem. If however only a part of a law is
impossible, then the possible part must be fulfilled, as in the case of taxation.
 

I. Independence. It is founded in the self-existent nature of God, independent from the will of
any being. It is an eternal and necessary idea of the divine reason and the self-existent rule of
the divine conduct.
 

J. Immutability. Moral law can never change, or be changed. It always requires of every moral
agent a state of heart, and course of conduct, precisely suited to his nature and relations. Moral
law is not a statute, an enactment, that has its origin or its foundation in the will of any being. It
is the law of nature, the law which the nature or constitution of every moral agent imposes on
himself, and which God imposes upon us because it is entirely suited to our nature and
relations, and is therefore naturally obligatory upon us. It is the unalterable demand of the
reason, that the whole being, whatever there is of it at any time, shall be entirely consecrated
to the highest good of universal being.
 

K. Unity. Moral law proposes but one ultimate end of pursuit: love or benevolence. It is the idea
of perfect, universal, and constant consecration of the whole being, to the highest good of
being.
 

L. Equity. Moral law demands that the interest and well-being of every member of the universal
family shall be regarded by each according to its relative or comparative value, and that in no
case shall it be sacrificed or wholly neglected, unless it be forfeited by crime. Laws must respect
the demands of distributive justice. It must distribute burdens and privileges equally and
according to the capacities of the subjects. This is particularly true for the laws of taxation.
 

M. Exclusiveness. That is, moral law is the only possible rule of moral obligation. A distinction is
usually made between moral, ceremonial, civil, and positive laws. This distinction is in some
respects convenient, but is liable to mislead and to create an impression that something can be
obligatory, in other words can be law, that has not been the attributes of moral law. Every
other rule is absolutely excluded by the very nature of moral law. Surely there can be no law
that is or can be obligatory upon moral agents but one suited to, and founded in their nature,
relations, and circumstances. This is the law of right.
 

To God be the Glory. .

PLATO

Platos’ concept of the self can be gathered from his notion of the Soul. We cannot find in
Plato a full articulation of the systematic concept of the “self”eSpecially when you search it in
the ancient greek philosophy.

The ideal of the self, the perfect self. Man was omniscient or all-knowing before he came
into this world. Because of his separation from the paradise of truth and knowledge and his
long exile on earth, he forgot most of the knowledge he had.

Happiness which is the fruit of virtue, is attained by the constant imitation of the Divine
exemplar of virtue which is embodied in man’s former perfect self.

For Plato, the true self of the human person is the Rational Soul.

He conceived the self as a “KNOWER”. The concept of the self and knowledge is
inextricably linked (means they cannot be considered separately) because his concept of the
self is practically constructed as the basis of his reflections on the nature of the rational soul as
the highest for of cognition.

Just like his teacher, Socrates, Plato believes on the reality of dichotomous self which are
physical and ideal self. Physical realm or the Body is the material and the destructible part of
the human person. While the soul is the immaterial and indestructible part.

But Plato believes that the soul is an entity distinct from the body. Indeed for Plato, the
soul is the self.

As we can see the body and the soul can be separated. In fact, Plato believes that the soul
is residing in the body temporarily. In Plato’s idea of the self, we believe that when the human
person dies the soul departs from the body, leaving the body to decompose.

Because the soul is immaterial and indesructible, it cannot die, it is eternal.

Plato introduced the SOUL as a Tripartite self. What is this tripartite self according to plato?
There are three composition of the tripartite self.

1. Reason/RATIONAL SOUL- it helps us understand the \

 2. Passion/SPIRITUAL SOUL.

3. Physical/APPETITIVE SOUL.

Reason/Rational soul for Plato is a Divine essence. Because it helps us to understand

eternal truth. According to Plato, the Rational soul is located in the head. Being located in the
head, the rational soul enables the human person to think, reflect, analyze and do other
cognitive function.

The Spiritual Soul on the other hand is located in the chest = it enables the person to
experience love, empathy, anger, joy, happiness, sadness and other emotional feelings.

 Physical/APPETITIVE SOUL= is located in the abdomen. This is the part of the soul that
drives the person o experience physical pain, hunger, thirst sexual desires and other
physical wants.
 According to Plato, the RATIONAL SOUL is SUPERIOR to the spiritual and appetitive soul as
it serves as the moral and rational guide.The primary goal is attaining a sense of well-being
or happiness.
 Sense of well-being is the result of fulfilling the three needs associated with head, heart
and stomach. The reason (head) must take charge to oversee the spirited element and
bodily appetites.
 Sense of well-being is the result of fulfilling the three needs associated with head, heart
and stomach
 The reason (head) must take charge to oversee the spirited element and bodily appetites.
 To attain happiness, the self, therefore,must be intellectually, emotionally, and biologically
balanced.
To God be the Glory. . .
The Virtue Ethics of Aristotle

The philosophical inquiry into ethics began with ancient Greeks. Although the main pre-
occupation of the ancient philosophers during that time was about trying to find an answer as regards
the question “where did everything come from?”, the sophists tried to focus their inquiry into a man as
a human person and as a thinking being. From the question on whether the human person is capable of
attaining knowledge or not, philosophers started to inquire about the function of man as a human
person, which led to the determining of one’s social responsibility and the goodness of his social
practices. To this, philosophers like Herodotus (485-430 BCE) claimed that what is good is relative to a
specific culture. This inspired Protagoras (480-410 BCE) to say that “man is the measure of all things.”
This idea led to the question as regards whether there is really a universal moral principle that will serve
as the basis for doing good deeds. This led to the development of the ethical relativism.

Socrates was considered to be relativist but believed in the objective ethical standards. He
pointed out that the ethical standards could not be pleasure and pain but the good and evil. A person
who is taking pleasure from being unjust could not be considered a good person. A good deed is
obtained when one is doing justice to others. Justice, for Socrates, is when there is a proper balance
between the rational, spirited and appetitive aspects of every person’s soul. A person will become happy
when he has a well-ordered soul. A person who has a well-ordered soul is the one who is doing good
deeds for the others. But to be able to do good deeds, one must live an ascetic and intellectually
rigorous way of life.

In order for the person to live a good life, he must be able to realize his function. Every human
person has a function to fulfill. Injustices occur when the human person does not recognize his own
function and instead does the function of others which leads to conflict. Just as there are three orders of
the soul (vegetative, sensitive, and rational), so does the community have the three levels. In Plato’s
Republic, he held that society is divided into three levels (the peasants, the military, and the
philosopher-king. Each of these levels has particular roles to play. Injustices arise when the peasants, for
instance, would function as a philosopher-king. An ethical action happens when the human person
performs his function in a society.

These ethical principles started by Socrates and developed by Plato influenced the ethical beliefs
of Aristotle (384-322 BCE), who was then considered as the most intelligent student of Plato.

The Beginning of the Philosophy of Aristotle

Aristotle was born in 384 BCE in Stagira, a Greek colony of Thrace in Northern Greece. He had
connections with the royal family of Macedonia because his father Nicomachus was a physician to King
Amuntas II of Macedonia (Soccio, 168).

Aristotle must have learned basic anatomy and dissection from his father. His parents died when
he was young. After the death of his parents, his education was directed by Proxenus of Atarneus. At the
age of 17, Aristotle was sent to Athens to study at Plato’s Academy where he remained for nearly
twenty years as a student and as a teacher until Plato’s death in 384/347 BCE. (Law, 248).

At the academy, Aristotle earned a reputation as the mind and reader of the school (Stumpf &
Fieser, 75) Diogenes Laertius says that on one occasion when Plato read aloud a difficult treatise about
the soul, Aristotle “was the only person who sat it out, while all the rest rose up and went away” (Soccio,
169).

Accordingly, Plato is supposed to have remarked that his Academy consisted of two parts: the
body of his students and the brain of Aristotle. Although Aristotle disagreed with Plato on important
philosophical matters, he built an altar to Plato at his teacher’s death. This was because his experience
at the academy was an exercise in friendship as well as in learning because Plato was, to him, not only a
revered philosopher but also a friend (Hakim 1987, 73).

Upon the death of Plato, Aristotle was expecting that he would be the next master of the
Academy. But the trustees of the Academy picked a native Athenian instead. This was because the saw
Aristotle as a “foreigner.” It was also possible that the reason why he was not chosen to be head of the
Academy was because his opposition with some of Plato’s doctrines (Law). The trustees picked
Speussipus (408-339/8 BCE) to be Plato’s successor. Because of this, Aristotle left Athens and stayed for
3 years in Assos, a city of Troad (Honderich, 53).

 In 344 BCE, his friendship with Hermias, ruler of the city and a former fellow student at
the Academy, led to Aritotle’s marriage to Pythias, the ruler’s niece and adopted a
daughter. Pythias had a large dowry but Aristotle happily invested in this marriage. Later
on, Pythias bore Aristotle a daughter.

In the same year, Aristotle’s life was disrupted because his political benefactor, Hermeias
offended the King of Persia. Shortly, after Aristotle and Phytias fled to the island of Lesbos, Hermeias
was crucified by the Persian King. While on Lesbos, Aristotle studied natural history, and Pythias died
giving birth to their daughter. Aristotle never forgot Pythias. He even asked that her bones be buried
with him. Later on, Aristotle lived with a woman named Herpyllis. Their long and happy relationship
gave Aristotle a son whom he named Nicomachus, to whom he dedicated the Nicomachean Ethics
(Soccio, 169-170).

 In 343 BCE, Aristotle was invited by King Philip of Macedon to train his 13-year-old son,
Alexander (later known as Alexander the Great). It was said that as a boy, Alexander
was wild and crude, but Aristotle was able to instill into the mind of Alexander the
respect for knowledge and science.

Alexander was grateful for the education he received from Aristotle so much so that lated on,
upon the start of his military campaign, Alexander supplied his master with the financial means in order
to form a library and to assemble a museum of natural history with which Aristotle enriched his school.
  In 340 BCE, Philip sent Aristotle back to the latter’s hometown of Stagira so that he
could write code of laws in order to restore the community, which had been disrupted
by war.

 In 334 BCE, when Aristotle was 49 years old, he returned to Athens where he founded
his own school of philosophy, possibly from the money of Alexander. Aristotle dedicated
his school to the god Apollo Lyceus. Hence, he named his school Lyceum, which he built
at the very spot that was mentioned by Plato as the favorite haunt of Socrates (Hakim
74).

At the Lyceum, the pattern of the Academy was duplicated – a close community, friendly, intent
on learning, given to much dialogue particularly while strolling along the garden path, the peripatos. It
was for this method of teaching that Aristotle’s students were called Peripatetics (Hakim). During his
days in Lyceum, Aristotle is also said to have formed the first great library by collecting hundreds of
manuscripts, maps, and specimens, which he used as illustrations during his lectures.

The students of Lyceum rended to be from the middle class, whereas the students of Plato’s
Academy were more aristocratic. For a short period of time, the two schools were bitter rivals. However,
as each concentrated on its own particular interests, this rivalry died down. The Academy stressed
mathematics and “pure” understanding, while Aristotle’s students collected anthropological studies of
barbarian cultures, chronologies of various wars and games, the organs and living habits of animals, the
nature and locations of plants, and so on (Soccio).

When Alexander the Great died in 323 BCE, a strong anti –Macedonian feeling arouse in Athens.
Like Socrates, Aristotle was also charged with impiety. Because of this, he left Athens so that, according
to him, he did not want the Athenians to sin twice against philosophy. He fled to Chalcis, his mother’s
native city, where he died in 322 BCE of a digestive disease of long standing.

Aristotle was known to be the man who had created the first important library. He is the
greatest ruler of the ancient world, invented logic, and shaped the thinking of an entire culture. In his
last will, he expressed sensitive human qualities by providing his relatives adequately, preventing his
slaves from being sold and providing that some slaves should be emancipated. (Stumpf and Fieser, 78).

The Philosophy of Aristotle

Aristotle was deeply influenced by Plato but was suspicious of other worldly elements in his
teacher’s thinking, and, in particular, the view that knowledge of the world cannot be accessed via the
senses. Aristotle saw dangers in Plato’s rationalistic idealism.

After Plato’s effort to give a discussion on the concept of change, Aristotle took his turn in facing
the problem of the changing and the changeless. According to Aristotle, a thing would undergo change
only insofar as the nature of such thing permits it to be such, i.e., there must be a principle within such a
thing to allow for the change. Although the principle varies according to the kind of changed involved, in
general, they can be referred to as the principle of actuality and the principle of potentiality (Hakim, 79)
or simply act and potency. The act is the perfection of a being while the potency is the capability of a
being to attain another perfection.

In a physical thing, Aristotle calls this principle form, which signifies the act; and matter,which
signifies the potency or the capacity of the matter to obtain another act. This teaching is called the
hylomorphic doctrine. For Aristotle, a matter has its actuality in a being precise because it is determined
by form, as the actualizing principle, to be this particular individual. Because of this idea, Aristotle is
sometimes called the father of science because he was the first Western thinker of record to provide an
adequate analysis of a process of change based on the claim that form is inseparable from matter.

The Human Person for Aristotle

In applying this principle to a human person, Aristotle went away from jthe concept of Plato.
According to Aristotle, a human being is composed of a body and a soul. But unlike Plato, Aristotle
believed that the soul and the body are not separate entities in a human person. Rather, they are
correlative constituents of one being. A human being is neither body alone nor soul alone, but a single
substance composed of both the body and the soul.

According to Aristotle, the soul forms the entelechy, the definite form of the body (Stumpf &
Fieser, 91). Without the body, the soul will not be called a human person. Consequently, without the
soul, the body will not be called a human person as well. Aristotle considered the body and the soul to
be forming one substance. The soul is that part of the composite that animates and commands; while
the body is that part that is subordinate, as the pencil is to the poet or the slave to the master.

For Plato, the soul and the body are two separate entities. Hence, Plato could speak of the pre-
existence of the soul and the immortality of the individual soul. Aristotle, however, tied the soul and the
body so closely together that, according to him, with the death of the body, the soul will also die with it.
Inasmuch as Plato believed that the soul has pre-existence, he could describe learning as a process of
recollection. On the other hand, Aristotle, believed that the human mind is a tabula rasa or a blank slate.

Aristotle, held that the soul has two main parts: the rational and the irrational. The irrational
soul, which is closely united with the body, is divided into the vegetative part, which is manifested by
the activities of nutrition , growth and reproduction; and the desiring part which is further subdivided
into three progressive levels: the unruly and irrational sense desires and covetousness (epitumia),
spontaneous impulses (thumos), and the wishes and desires (boulesis).

The rational soul, which is completely independent of the body:

 Phronesis – known as the practical intellect, which is ordained towards action and
determines the appropriate means in order to attain the end. It aims to control the
desiring part of the irrational soul
  Speculative intellect – is the pure thought or intellection, the level of contemplation

Although man is composed of body and soul, he, however, possesses a very distinguishing
attribute – reason.

 Reason elevates man above any other creatures. It is that which makes man resemble
the Supreme Reason, which rules and guides the destinies of individual and nations, and
leads all things to their proper ends.
 The speculative intellect is that part of the rational soul that is closely connected with
reason. Through contemplation, man will be able to realize that all things are leading to
their proper ends. It was in this regard that his philosophy is identified as teleological,
from the Greek word (telos), which means “end” or “purpose” (Stumpf & Fieser, 92).

Every action of the human person is aiming towards an end. There are two types of ends,
according to Aristotle: the instrumental and the intrinsic end.

 Instrumental end is that which is done as means for other ends,

 Intrinsic end is that which is done for its own sake.

For example, when the pencil maker has already finished making a pencil, he has
already achieved his end of making a pencil. In this case, the pencil-maker has already
achieved its intrinsic end. However, the pencil can be a means for a poet to be able to
write his compositions. The end of the pencil-maker, in this case, became the means for
the writer to achieve his own end. Therefore, the pencil became only an instrumental
end in order for a poet to be able to achieve his own intrinsic end, i.e., to write a
composition.

The Aristotelian Ethics

According to Arostotle, ethics is not only science, or an (episteme), i.e., a knowledge that deals
with the absolute and eternal truths. Rather, ethics must be considered as a (techne), i.e., an art, which
is actually an art of living well.

 Aristotle regarded ethics as a dialectic method, a comparative opinions regarding good and bad,
and arriving at a set of prudential directives of limited generality.
 Ethics is considered, in this regard, as a practical science and it concerns that nature and
purpose of human action.
 In his Nichomachean Ethics, he focused on the purpose of human life.
 His teleological view is that each and everything that exists in the world exists for some purpose.

Every human person is naturally seeking towards the attainment of happiness. The nature and
purpose of human action tend towards happiness, which Aristotle termed as (eudaimonia).
Eudaimonia implies that a person is fully aware, vital, and alert. This is more than being free of cares
or worries. It implies exhilaration – great suffering and great joy, as well as great passions. It implies
a full life, not a pinched, restricted one.
 Happiness, according to Aristotle must not be connected with pleasure, inasmuch as pleasure is
connected with the irrational part of the soul. A life devoted solely to pleasure is a life that is fit only
for a cattle. Pleasure is not the goal of life; nor is the acquisition of wealth. Arisotle rejected fame
and public success. He believed that these would not lead him to eudaimonia (the highest or fullest
happiness) because, according to him, the more self-sufficient we are, the happier we will be; and
the famous are less self-sufficient than most because they need bodyguards, managers, financial
advisers, etc. An ordinary man has a greater peace of mind, security, and satisfaction in knowing
that he can provide for his own needs than there is in depending on others.

The highest and fullest happiness, according to Aristotle, comes from a life of reason and
contemplation – not a life of inactivity or imbalance but a rationally ordered life in which
intellectual, physical, and social needs are all met under the governance of reason and moderation.
According to Aristotle, a reasonable person does not avoid life. Rather, he engages in it fully.

Man can only live a full life if he would be living with the polis or the society. A rich and full life
is a social life. For Aristotle, no man would choose to live without friends. A human being is a
political creature designed by nature to live with the others. Hence, all the actions of the humah
person can be adjudged as good or bad depending on the goodness or badness of its effect on
others.

From the objective point of view, a morally virtuous act consists of a measured activity,
following the rule of the or just middle i.e., “neither deficient nor excessive.” According to
Aristotle, any action that is done or indulge excessively or insufficiently would go out of bounds
and would become unreasonable and improper to the nature of the human being (Reyes, 38).
People should avoid the two extremes, i.e., too much and too little. Instead, every person
should act according to mesotes ‘just middle’.

Subjectively, virtue is an activity that proceeds from certain proper dispositions. In this case, a
virtuous act is that which proceeds from a habitual state or disposition acquired through
constant practice, where the doing of the virtuous act has become a kind of second nature on
the part of the human person. Such action has been done firmly and surely without fail or
without any doubt or hesitation. An action is done, after going through agonizing doubts and
temptations, is a sign that a human person has not acquired mastery over his unruly desires and
passions.

Furthermore, a virtuous act is that which proceeds from the right intention. This means that the
action is desired solely for its own sake. In this regard, a moral virtue is a rationally measured
activity following the rule of the just middle, motivated by right intention and proceeding from a
permanent disposition acquired through habitual action.

An Action that Proceeds from Contemplation

In order for the human person to be sure that his action is done in permanent
disposition, such action should be done in the act of contemplation.Performing such activity is
said to be related to the moral virtues. This is because whenever an action is performed based
on comtemplation, such action is said to be coming from phronesis or the practical wisdom,
which provides the insight to the truth about the intrinsic worth and excellence beauty or
goodness or the kalon of the action done.

As an action, the phronesis is the practical intellect that properly decides to act. It takes
the appropriate means in the situation in view of the intended goal and takes command of one’s
desire and passion. In this case, practical wisdom is the proper activity and virtue of the practical
intellect by which the human person, as the source of action, is the union of desire and thought.

In applying the phronesis, Aristotle, like Plato, viewed the communal life of the polis as
the proper place for the exercise of the moral virtue. In fact, it is the very life of moral virtues
and thus, the polis constitutes one of the ends of the human person. In which case, Aristotle’s
view on life can be likened to the view of Confucius that life is a blessing because it is an
opportunity to be with the community where happiness really abounds.

According to Aristotle, the main problem of morality is seen to be how to discipline the
lower desires and passions and how to educate and cultivate the intellectual part of the soul in
order to attain man’s fulfillment.

Aristotle’s concept of the good differs from that of Plato’s. For Plato, good signifies a
transcendent, otherworldly end of man. However, for Aristotle, the moral end is seen as
something immanent in human activity and achievable in this life. Goodness can be obtained
when one performs his function in the community. Such action must be rooted from
contemplation and must proceed from the habitual action. When a human person performs his
function, which Aristotle called the ergon in a habitual fashion, he must be able to do such
function in consideration of what will be the arête, which pertains to excellence.

In order to get the assurance that the action of the human person is good, such action
must originate from contemplation. A person must be able to have a good idea and such idea
must be transformed into action. A person who is performing his action according to his
function ergon in the most excellent way arête and in habitual fashion is acting as a human
person. If he does his action habitually, such habit will eventually make up his character and
such character will determine his destiny. Aristotle claimed that it is important to establish one’s
character based on his good deeds inasmuch as such character will establish the value of the
human person as a human person.

To God be the Glory!

The Natural Law Ethics

The Virtue Ethics of Aristotle paved the way for the development of the Natural Law
Ethics developed by St. Thomas Aquinas (1225 – 7 March 1274), a prominent theologian and
philosopher of the medieval period. One of the great achievements of St. Thomas was that he
was able to bring together into a formidable synthesis the insights of classical philosophy,
particularly the philosophy of Aristotle, and the Christian theology. Aquinas adopted the ethics
of Aristotle but transformed it by introducing the two fundamental notions: the notion of God
as Creator and the Source of the beingness of man and the world. And the notion of the
synderesis. More specifically, Aquinas Christianized the philosophy of Aristotle.

Life of St. Thomas Aquinas

The son of Landulph, count of Aquino, Saint Thomas Aquinas was born circa 1225 in
Roccasecca, Italy, near Aquino, Terra di Lavoro, in the Kingdom of Sicily. Thomas had eight
siblings, and was the youngest child. His mother, Theodora, was countess of Teano. Though
Thomas' family members were descendants of Emperors Frederick I and Henry VI, they were
considered to be of lower nobility.

Before Saint Thomas Aquinas was born, a holy hermit shared a prediction with his
mother, foretelling that her son would enter the Order of Friars Preachers, become a great
learner and achieve unequaled sanctity.

Following the tradition of the period, Saint Thomas Aquinas was sent to the Abbey of
Monte Cassino to train among Benedictine monks when he was just 5 years old. In Wisdom
8:19, Saint Thomas Aquinas is described as "a witty child" who "had received a good soul." At
Monte Cassino, the quizzical young boy repeatedly posed the question, "What is God?" to his
benefactors. Saint Thomas Aquinas remained at the monastery until he was 13 years old, when
the political climate forced him to return to Naples.

Education

Saint Thomas Aquinas spent the next five years completing his primary education at a
Benedictine house in Naples. During those years, he studied Aristotle's work, which would later
become a major launching point for Saint Thomas Aquinas's own exploration of philosophy. At
the Benedictine house, which was closely affiliated with the University of Naples, Thomas also
developed an interest in more contemporary monastic orders. He was particularly drawn to
those that emphasized a life of spiritual service, in contrast with the more traditional views and
sheltered lifestyle he'd observed at the Abbey of Monte Cassino.
 Circa 1239, Saint Thomas Aquinas began attending the University of Naples when he
was about 14. In 1243, he secretly joined an order of Dominican monks, receiving the habit in
1244. When his family found out, they felt so betrayed that he had turned his back on the
principles to which they subscribed that they decided to kidnap him. Thomas's family held him
captive for an entire year, imprisoned in the fortress of San Giovanni at Rocca Secca. During this
time, they attempted to deprogram Thomas of his new beliefs. Thomas held fast to the ideas he
had learned at university, however, and went back to the Dominican order following his release
in 1245

From 1245 to 1252, Saint  Thomas Aquinas continued to pursue his studies with the
Dominicans in Naples, Paris and Cologne. He was ordained in Cologne, Germany, in 1250, and
went on to teach theology at the University of Paris. Under the tutelage of Saint Albert the
Great, Saint Thomas Aquinas subsequently earned his doctorate in theology. Also, he earned
the title Universal Teacher. Consistent with the holy hermit's prediction, Thomas proved an
exemplary scholar, though, ironically, his modesty sometimes led his classmates to misperceive
him as dim-witted. After reading Thomas's thesis and thinking it brilliant, his professor, Saint
Albert the Great, proclaimed in Thomas's defense, "We call this young man a dumb ox, but his
bellowing in doctrine will one day resound throughout the world!"

Later Life and Death

In June 1272, Saint Thomas Aquinas agreed to go to Naples and start a theological
studies program for the Dominican house neighboring the university. While he was still writing
prolifically, his works began to suffer in quality.

During the Feast of Saint Nicolas in 1273, Saint Thomas Aquinas had a mystical vision
that made writing seem unimportant to him. At mass, he reportedly heard a voice coming from
a crucifix that said, "Thou hast written well of me, Thomas; what reward wilt thou have?" to
which Saint Thomas Aquinas replied, "None other than thyself, Lord."

When Saint Thomas Aquinas's confessor, Father Reginald of Piperno, urged him to keep
writing, he replied, "I can do no more. Such secrets have been revealed to me that all I have
written now appears to be of little value." Saint Thomas Aquinas never wrote again.

In January 1274, Saint Thomas Aquinas embarked on a trip to Lyon, France, on foot to
serve on the Second Council, but never made it there. Along the way, he fell ill at the Cistercian
monastery of Fossanova, Italy. The monks wanted Saint Thomas Aquinas to stay at the castle,
but, sensing that his death was near, Thomas preferred to remain at the monastery, saying, "If
the Lord wishes to take me away, it is better that I be found in a religious house than in the
dwelling of a layperson."
 On March 7, 1274, Pope Gregory X called him to Lyons in France to participate in a
council. While on his way to Lyons, he died at the age of 49 in Fossanova, a Cistercian abbey
south of Rome, where the guesthouse in which he died can still be seen. St. Thomas was later
on canonized in1323 by Pope John XXII.

Thomas left a huge literacy legacy. Its vastness was considered to be very remarkable
because no one would even think that it was all composed within a 20-year span only. His most
renowned literary achievements are his two major theological works, the Summa Contra
Gentiles and the Summa Theologiae (Stumpf & Fieser, 165).

The Philosophy and Theology of St. Thomas

After completing his education, Saint Thomas Aquinas devoted himself to a life of
traveling, writing, teaching, public speaking and preaching. Religious institutions and
universities alike yearned to benefit from the wisdom of "The Christian Apostle."

Aquinas thought and wrote as a Christian. He was primarily a theologian but he made it
a point that philosophy and theology would play complementary roles in the human person’s
quest for truth. Indeed, Aquinas held that there are still differences between theology and
philosophy. In the first place, philosophy begins with the immediate objects of sense experience
and reasons upward to more general conceptions; and eventually to the conception of God.

On the other hand, theology begins with a faith in God and interprets all things as
creation of God. Although there is a difference in approach, Aquinas held that they do not
actually contradict each other. According to St. Thomas, some truths, such as the mystery of
the incarnation, can be known only through revelation while others, such as the existence of
God, are known through both equally.

According to St. Thomas, human beings are incapable of knowing the nature of God in
this life because our knowledge is limited by its origin in sense-experience. Besides, the divine
reality is far above the capability of human understanding. However, it is a natural function of
the human mind to link effects which it encounters in nature to their causes. Based upon these
principles, St. Thomas offered the five proofs of God’s existence, which is known in the Summa
Theologiae as the Quinquae Viae or the Five Ways (ST. I, 3).

Saint Thomas Aquinas believed that the existence of God could be proven in five ways,
mainly by: 1) observing movement in the world as proof of God, the "Immovable Mover"; 2)
observing cause and effect and identifying God as the cause of everything; 3) concluding that
the impermanent nature of beings proves the existence of a necessary being, God, who
originates only from within himself; 4) noticing varying levels of human perfection and
determining that a supreme, perfect being must therefore exist; and 5) knowing that natural
beings could not have intelligence without it being granted to them it by God. Subsequent to
defending people's ability

to naturally perceive proof of God, Thomas also tackled the challenge of protecting God's image
as an all-powerful being.

Saint Thomas Aquinas also uniquely addressed appropriate social behavior toward God.
In so doing, he gave his ideas a contemporary—some would say timeless—everyday context.
Thomas believed that the laws of the state were, in fact, a natural product of human nature,
and were crucial to social welfare. By abiding by the social laws of the state, people could earn
eternal salvation of their souls in the afterlife, he purported. Saint Thomas Aquinas identified
three types of laws: natural, positive and eternal. According to his treatise, natural law prompts
man to act in accordance with achieving his goals and governs man's sense of right and wrong;
positive law is the law of the state, or government, and should always be a manifestation of
natural law; and eternal law, in the case of rational beings, depends on reason and is put into
action through free will, which also works toward the accomplishment of man's spiritual goals.

The Nature of God

According to St. Thomas, the imperfect goodness and wisdom of God’s creatures may
be taken to represent or mirror the perfection of these qualities in God as their Creator, so that
the term good and wise cannot be wholly out of place in statements about God. “Good” and
“wise” are not equivocal terms, i.e., of entirely different meaning when applied to both God and
His creatures, nor are they univocal terms , i.e., with exactly the same meaning when applied to
both. Rather, they are analogical terms, i.e., the terms are both the same and yet different up
to certain extent. In others words, there is some sort of resemblance or analogy. (Stumpf and
Fieser, 171-172).

Because human beings are affects of God’s creative activity, and such perfection should
also be found in an effect, hence, good ness and wisdom, which can somehow be found in the
human person, must be found in a more perfect manner to God, who is the cause of the
existence of the human person. In this regard, goodness and wisdom must pre-exist
transcendentally in God.

The Relationship of God with His Creatures

 Although the philosophy of St. Thomas was strongly influenced by the philosophy of
Aristotle, St. Thomas, however went away from Aristotle’s belief that there is no such thing as
Divine Creation. St. Thomas, on the other hand, held that God is the first cause of everything
which He Himself is uncaused. However, why did God create this world?

According to St. Thomas, God’s purpose in creation is to communicate His perfection,

which is Hid goodness, by bringing into existence outside of Himself a world which is best as a
whole (O’Donnell, 56). What is best as a whole is a hierarchy of being with different degrees of

goodness, showing the manifold ways in which God’s perfection is communicable. St. Thomas
strongly upheld that the universe would not be perfect if only one grade of goodness were
found in things. In this case, the universe should be acting as one single entity.

Creatures are considered contingent beings, i.e., without God, they would not have
come into existence.

The Nature of the Human Person

 St Thomas believed that human nature has both its source and ultimate end in
God. He believed that God is not only the final end of human beings, but he is
also the very ground of the existence of both the human beings and the world.
Following the Neo-platonic view, the one God is that of which everything is but a
participation and imitation; from whom all things proceed and to whom all
things return. The moral end of a person is not simply a natural end which he by
nature tends. It is the good in which a person, in his innermost being, yearns for
and made manifest to him in syderesis and conscience (Reyes, 51).

 For Thomas, conscience is the concrete particular judgment by which, in a given

situation, a person knows what he ought to do. On the other hand, synderesis is
more general as it is the intellectual habit or disposition by which, the human
person, in any given situation, is in a possession of the fundamental principles of
morality – do good and avoid evil (Reyes).

 Because God created the human person in his own image and likeness, it follows
that the human person is also to be considered good because the Creator is the
Summum Bonum or the Highest Good. In this case, it is necessary that the
human person should be following his nature as good in order to achieve the
real purpose of his existence. Doing evil, therefore, is not in accordance with the
real nature of the human person. It is for this reason that the real meaning of
one’s existence can only be obtained when the human person would be able to
 do good deeds and follow his nature as good (Davies 1998, 252). If the human
person goes against his nature of goodness, then he is going against the moral
law.

 Morallaw is the dictate of the voice of reason. This dictate is expressed in the
moral principle: “the good must be done, and evil must be avoided.” Now, in
order to determine whether a person is acting rightly or wrongly, he must see to
it that he is following the voice of reason. Therefore, a person will know that he
is acting wrongly if he heeds against it. (Timbreza 1993, 51).

 Whenever a person is faced with a particular situation, the voice of conscience

will serve as the natural guide in making a moral decision. A human person will
be able to know if he is doing the right thing if and when he follows the voice of
his conscience. Consequently, if he heeds against it, he will feel a sense of guilt,
self-reproach, or remorse.

 For St. Thomas, morality is not an arbitrary set of rules for behavior. The basis of
moral obligation, according to him, is found, first of all, in the very nature of
humanity. In this case, the goodness of an action cannot be determined
according to what is suitable to or proper for human nature. Therefore, if an act
is suitable to human nature, then the action is good or moral; if it is not, then the
action is bad or immoral and, for this reason, it must be avoided. In other words,
a person will be able to know that a particular act is good if it is in accordance
with the human nature. Therefore, human nature can be considered as the
proximate norm of morality.

The Threefold Natural Inclination of the Human Person

St. Thomas held that the human person has three natural inclinations: (1) self-
preservation; (2) just dealings with others; and (3) propagation of species (Timbreza, 52). As a
rational being, a person is under a basic natural obligation to protect his or her life and health.
Hence, putting one’s life in danger and harming one’s self must be considered wrong (Stumpf &
Fieser 198-199). Because we have the natural inclination to preserve ourselves, we, therefore,
have the duty not to put ourselves in unnecessary jeopardy as this is unnatural and, therefore,
immoral. Moreover, any act that promotes health. Vigor, and vitality is considered to be natural
and, therefore, to be considered by nature as morally good.
 The capacity of the human person to reason out leads him to treat others with the same
dignity and respect that he accords to himself. Therefore, subjecting others to indignities,
degradations, and inhumanities is against human nature. Moreover, all forms of inhumanity to
human beings are by nature evil.

The third natural inclination which is the inclination to propagate the species forms the
basis of the union of both the husband and wife. According to the principle, the reproductive

organs, by their very nature, designed to reproduce and perpetuate the human species.
Therefore, any act of intervention that will frustrate and stifle the very purpose for which the
human reproductive organs have, is unnatural and, therefore, immoral. Moreover, any form of
contraceptives would defeat the very purpose of reproduction inasmuch as it destroys the
reproductive organ’s reason for existence.

The Happiness of Human Person

All things are directed to one good as their last end. In the case of human beings, each and
every individual human being is always geared towards the happiness as his goal. Such
happiness is that which is considered by the human being as good. But how can a human
person obtain this goal?

 Happiness cannot be obtained in wealth because wealth is only sought for the
sake of something else; since wealth is good only when the human person uses
it. However, St. Thomas believed that the supreme good is sought for its own,
and not for another’s sake. Hence, wealth is not the human person’s supreme
good. Moreover, such good cannot also be found in worldly power; nor can it
also be found in the goods of the body. This is because the body is only
subordinated to the soul. In which case, to search for the goods of the body will
never make the human person obtain complete satisfaction.

 Thomas held that the human person’s ultimate happiness consists in

contemplating God and not in the goods of the body. In this case, the human
person’s ultimate happiness consists only in wisdom and not in any others
sciences. The contemplation based on the sciences has the lowest things for
their object. But happiness must consist in operation of the intellect in relation
to the highest object of intelligence. Therefore, the human person’s ultimate
happiness consists in wisdom based on the consideration of divine thigs. It is
therefore, evident by way of induction that the human person’s ultimate
happiness consists solely in the contemplation of God.
  In the contemplation of the Divine Being, the human person must also find ways
and means in order to be with this Divine Being in order to obtain the ultimate
happiness. In this case, the human person’s action should always be geared
towards God. Therefore each and every human person will have the
responsibility the channel his action in view of his nature as a human being.
Every human person should always be aware of the morality of his action.
However, how can a human person know whether he is acting morally or
immorally?

The Three Determinants of Moral Action

Since the human being has been endowed with reason, he is, therefore, capable of
determining whether his action is good or bad. On Thomas’ ethical principle, there are three
factors that can help a human person determine whether his action is to be considered morally
acceptable or not.

The first determinant of moral action is the object or the end of an action (finis opera).
This is that the witch the act naturally tends before all else. In other words, if the object
conforms to the norms of morality, then the object is considered to be good. In this case, the
end of the action is the natural purpose of an act or that in which the act, in its very nature,
terminates our results. Hence, if the action is in consonance with the natural moral law, then
the action is to be considered morally acceptable.

The second determinant of moral action is the circumstances (circumstantiae). This is

that condition which, when super added to the nature of the moral act, will certainly affect its
morality. This means that a given circumstance, or a set of circumstances, will either mitigate or
aggravate the goodness or badness of a particular action.

The third determinant of moral action is the intention of the agent (finis operantis).
The finis operantis or the intention of the agent is the reason why the agent acts. When the
human person does a certain action, he has to make it sure that the action will be for a good
end. For Saint Thomas, a good act with a bad motive makes the moral action bad. Likewise, a
person may not employ an evil means in order to obtain a good end. Aquinas believed that the
morality of an action depends on the end. According to Saint Thomas, human acts are good if
they promote the purpose of God and His honor. For this reason, an act is considered evil if it
deviates from the reason and divine moral law.
 From the ethical principle of Aristotle, Aquinas took the idea that a thing should ask in
accordance with his nature. Thomas upheld the principle: agree sequitur esse (action follows
being). Therefore, if a thing is serving its purpose based on the reason for its creation, then
that object is considered to be a good object. In this case, if a human being would act in
accordance with its nature as a human person, then he is considered to be a moral person.

Moreover, because the human person is endowed with reason, he should, therefore,
incline himself towards goodness, i.e., in other words he should always be heeding his
conscience. In that case, the rationality of the human person makes him responsible for the
effects of his action.

The Moral Principles As Basis Of Human Action

According to Saint Thomas there are different moral principles that may serve as the
basis for a moral action. These are:

1. The Principle Of Double Effect. This principle is applied to a situation in which a good
affect an evil effect will result into a good cause. In a situation wherein doing a particular
action will yield two effects - a good one and evil one - the principle of double effect
will be used in trying to resolve the conflict in order to obtain a better or a more moral
result. In the resolution of this conflict, four conditions of this principle at issue must be
met:

a. The action directly intended must be good in itself, or at least morally

indifferent. In order to consider the action as moral, it should always have a good
effect. Or if a good effect will be impossible to obtain, the consideration should
be that it must not have an intended evil effect.

b. The good effect must follow from the action at least as immediately as the evil
effect, or the evil effect may follow from the good effect. In other words, either
the good effect or the evil effect must occur simultaneously. It should not be
that the good effect will not be arrived at.

c. The forseen evil affect may not be intended or approved, but merely permitted
to occur. It is said that the evil effect is only permitted to occur in order for the
good effect to occur.
 d. There must be a proportionate and sufficient reason for allowing the evil effect
to occur while performing the action. (Timbreza 1997, 56-57)

2. The Principle Of Totality. The principle states that an individual may be given the right
to cut off, mutilate, or remove any defective or worn-out non-functioning part of his
body if it is for the general well-being of the whole body (Timbreza, 57). This principle is
actually related to the principle of double effect inasmuch as this involves employing evil
actions, i.e., mutilation of a certain part of the body, in order to attain a good effect, i.e.,
saving the whole body from a greater harm.

Although cutting off over certain parts of a body may be permitted to occur, the
principal, nevertheless, forbids the donation of a healthy organ if such were to weaken
the health of the donor. Although the action may be for the purpose of saving another
person from the imminent danger of death, the principle of totality is still forbids the

giving of organs if this will be leading to the death of the donor. This is because it may
conflict with the donor’s natural inclination towards self- preservation, and would seem
to violate the sanctity of the individual person.

3. The Principle of Stewardship. This principle declares that the human life comes from
God and no individual is the master of his own body (Timbreza). Therefore, the human
person has the responsibility of protecting and cultivating his spiritual and bodily
functions. As caretakers, human beings have the duty to take good care of their body.
This principle involves taking good care as well of the body of others because God has
placed this responsibility to us; hence, we will also have the responsibility of taking good
care of the others.

4. The Principle of Inviolability of Life. These principle states that life is God’s and has
been loaned to us. In this regard, the life that we are living is inviolable and sacred. In as
much as the owner of this body is God and because God is holy, therefore, this body is
also holy. Inasmuch as this body is owned by God, he is the only one who has complete
control and dominion over the person’s life. Therefore, it is the duty of every individual
person to take care of this life until God takes it back from us.

The principle of inviolability of life also states that no person has the right to take away
one’s life and that of others because life belongs to God. Because life is God’s, no
individual has the right to hasten the death of another person even if the person is
suffering from incurable sickness; nor does he have the right to take steps to bring
about the death of others or by failing to take steps to prolong the life of others through
ordinary treatment.
5. The Principle Of Sexuality And Procreation. This principle underscores the two-fold
purpose of sexual union: unitas et procreation (unity and procreation). Every individual
person has the natural inclination towards the propagation of the species. Hence, it is
natural for a human person to incline himself towards sexual activity and to enjoy
sexual union. It has to be understood that the primary purpose is to have union
between the two bodies but physically and spiritually. This is why in Genesis 2, 24, it was
written: “This is why a man leaves his father and mother and becomes attached to his
wife, and they become one flesh.”

The principle sexuality and procreation, therefore, states that the part of every person's
duty of taking good care of the body is the duty to be united to another, i.e., to the
opposite sex, in order to bear fruit so that the life that comes from God may be
generated. For this reason, human beings are to be considered as God’s co-creators.

Hence, the principle involves the expression of loving union and companionship.
Therefore, sex should not be taken as a means for the fulfillment of desires. Rather, the
sexual union should be taken as a means towards procreation and the nurturing of
children.

To God be the Glory!