Chapter 1
The Imperatives of Ethics

Ethics presupposes some imperatives or sine qua non, those without which Ethics would not be possible.
These imperatives are: 1) the existence of God or a Supreme Being; 2) the existence of human freedom; 3) the existence of an afterlife, i.e. life beyond the grave, or the immortality of the soul.

1. The existence of God or a Supreme Being Without the existence of God or a Supreme Being, Ethics would make no sense. There is no reason for man to deny himself evil but pleasurable acts if there were no final judge to dispense justice. When one speaks off morality or the goodness or badness of human acts, one idea, is presupposed: retribution. Retribution means that good acts deserve reward; bad acts deserve punishment. Reward and punishment are presupposed by morality. Who metes out reward or punishment? It must be a Lawgiver or an Arbiter of Morality, One who dispenses retributive justice. Without this being, the whole structure of Ethics will collapse. At this early point, it must be explained that cultures other than the Christian speak of retribution in a different way. In some cases, the Supreme Being is not a personal God in Whom Christians believe, but rather a law or a process. These cultures had been in existence long before the biblical and Christian eras. The people of these ancient cultures arrived at these concepts by way of human reasoning without the aid of divine revelation. The Indians do not accept the existence of a personal God but they nevertheless accept the existence of a supreme being called Brahman which is the totality of reality. Owing to their ancient culture, the Indians, many centuries prior to the birth of Christ, had already conceived of a supreme being that encompasses all, or includes everything, past, present and future in itself. The Indian concept is pantheistic according to which, everything is Brahman, and Brahman is everything. The Indians conceive of morality and of the idea ensuing therefrom, namely retribution through their belief in the existence of a general law, the Rta," that oversees all things in the universe and sees to it that everything is brought ineluctably to its end: All plants and animals follow a certain way of behaving according to Rta. The same is true with minerals, heavenly bodies, etc. A special law under Rta which governs man exclusively is called karma. According to the law of karma, everything that man does has a built in reward or punishment. This means that if men perform good acts, reward will follow, sooner or later. If men perform evil deeds, punishment will surely follow. In case retribution is not done in this life, the Indians believe that in the next life, one is reborn to enjoy reward or to suffer punishment as the case may be. Hence, for the Indians, there is no need for a personal judge, because karma takes care that strict justice is meted out. The Chinese, likewise, do not believe in a personal deity. They believe in some kind of law or order or nature which they called tao, literally meaning “way". The Chinese accept a natural morality according to which one who follows tao or who conforms to nature, performs a good act, and anyone who acts in a contrary manner performs an evil act. Consequent upon good actions is health and the good life and upon bad actions, sickness and bad luck. Hence, the Chinese admit that every act implies its own retribution. Enjoyment or suffering results from good or bad actions respectively. Christians believe that there is only one life. Either one is saved or lost in this life. They believe in a Natural Moral Law which, if followed, would ensure happiness in this life, and salvation or eternal happiness in the next.

2. The Existence of Human Freedom No Ethics is likewise possible without human freedom. Responsibility, which is an indispensable factor in Ethics, would be meaningless if men were not free. If men were like robots who followed the commands of their master, they would not be responsible for their actions. If men were programmed to follow the good all the time and be repelled always by the evil, they would not deserve reward and punishment. Retribution is deserved only if men had the choice to do or not to do, to follow or not to follow. Children who have no notion of what they are doing, or who are not free to do or not to do, have no responsibility over their actions. On the other hand, older persons who know what they do and are free to do so have responsibility. Persons who suffer from mental diseases and have no control over their actions are likewise not responsible for these acts. Civil law all the world over is based on responsibility which in turn is based on freedom. Freedom always involves an option of whether to do or not to do. Man is not like the plant that has to tend towards the sun, or like the brute animals that tend towards food and sex, without having an option to do otherwise. If plants produce a bountiful harvest, they are not rewarded; or if brute animals bite a person, they are not put into prison. Men, on the other hand, are rewarded or put into prison because they could have done otherwise but did not. Ethics is the science of the morality of human acts which presupposes responsibility, which in turn is based on the freedom to do or not to do. Orienta1-thinkers, however, do not emphasize freedom as much as the Western thinkers do.

3. The Existence of an Afterlife That the soul is immortal, or that the soul will outlive the body, is a postulate in Ethics. If there were no life beyond the grave, i.e. if man's life were to end absolutely in death, there would be no point in discussing justice. A man could murder and steal and perform all evil deeds in this life, knowing that upon death, all these evil deeds would be erased. Such, however, is not the case. Good deeds will be rewarded and evil deeds punished. If good deeds are not rewarded in this life, or if evil deeds are unpunished in this world, proper retribution will be done in the next life. The immortality of the soul is therefore a cornerstone in Ethics. This is the reason men regard death with morbidity and apprehension. Not knowing what lies beyond the grave, they look upon death with mortal fear. Indeed, because all unpaid debts will be paid in the next life, and all unrewarded good deeds in this life will be justly rewarded in the next life. In the Christian religion man is believed to have but one life. After he dies, he either goes to heaven or hell or purgatory. If he lived a really bad life, he is plunged into hell and if he still has unrepented evil deeds but is not dastardly enough to deserve hell, he goes to purgatory where he is purged of all dross, after which he goes to heaven. The good person goes to heaven without passing through purgatory. In the Christian religion, man is never reborn. Again, cultures other than the Christian have various interpretations of the next life wherein proper retribution will be meted out. The Indians do not accept the existence of a hell or of eternal damnation. They believe that life on earth is hell, and the punishment for evil deeds is rebirth, which means that one comes back to earth again and again. Once proper compensation is made for evil deeds, one gets to Nirvana, the counterpart of the Christian heaven, and one is never reborn. The purpose therefore of reincarnation or rebirth or metempsychosis is retribution or the proper compensation of good or evil deeds. The Chinese are a this-world people and their philosophy is focused on life on earth rather than on the afterlife. They believe that every act carries its own punishment or compensation depending on whether one conforms to the law of heaven which is nature to them. For example, good effects accompany moderate eating; evil effects accompany heavy smoking or drinking. These good and bad effects may not be immediately discernible, but they are already in the body and will become more manifest at a later time.

Chapter 2
The Ultimate-Purpose of Human Life

Purpose is that for which an action is done. One's purpose or reason for studying is to learn and earn a degree necessary for employment. One builds a house to have a permanent dwelling place; one gets married to procreate and to establish a family. All our actions, provided they are human acts, have a purpose or end or objective. We eat to satisfy hunger; we bathe in order to be clean; we stand up in order to do something and so on. There is no human act without a purpose. Is there a general purpose of human acts? Is there one common end or objective of human acts? One thing is certain. We do not perform an act in order to inflict pain upon ourselves. No one consciously seeks misery or unhappiness.
Reflecting upon what we do, we are led to a common purpose or objective. Every human act has happiness for a purpose or objective. It happens sometimes that we undergo an operation or have a tooth extracted for the purppse of achieving health which is indispensable to happiness. We do not undergo an operation or have a tooth extracted for the purpose of experiencing pain and inconvenience. We agree to an operation or tooth extraction in spite, not because, of pain. In this case, a greater happiness is achieved by the removal of the inconvenience brought about by them. If all our human acts have happiness as purpose or end or objective, would it also be the ultimate end or purpose of human life itself? What do all men consciously strive for? What do all men naturally tend to? All men strive to be happy. The over-all purpose of human life is happiness. Why does a person eat or drink or make merry? Or why does he scale heights or go through hardships to accomplish an end? Or why does he drink and gamble and stake everything he has. If one examines all these human acts, one inevitably arrives at happiness as a common objective. No matter how diverse human acts are, such as those of a lazy person or an ambitious one, or a politician, an artist or a religious person, all these acts are done in view of happiness. We may not agree as to what can make us happy, but collectively, men act for the sake of happiness. People, however, may not be aware all the time that they aim to be happy. This is because they do not have the habit of examining their deeper purposes. But a reflection on this point would easily yield the answer. All men live and work for happiness. In some Constitutions, the pursuit of happiness of individuals is enshrined. A more important question is: if men have diverse concepts of happiness, what will make men truly happy? Is there only one concept of happiness that will satisfy man as a human being? While there are indeed diverse concepts of happiness that individuals pursue, i.e., food, drink, sex, art, success, still there is one concept of happiness that will satisfy man as man. Food satisfies the body but only until it is satiated. Likewise with drink and sex. Art satisfies the mind and soul, but even art has its limit, beyond which it cannot satisfy man's craving for happiness: Success has to be constantly nurtured; otherwise, success loses its glitter. Everything is pursued for the sake of happiness; for no other reason do men indulge in food or drink or sex or art were it not for the elusive happiness they erroneously think is in these things. Men, however, soon realize that these things do not only give lasting happiness but may even result in pain when overindulged in.

A. Wealth If the above do not make men happy, what about money? Men do not seem to have enough of money. The millionaire does not stop at millions but desires to make billions. Money is hoarded or is used to buy goods that would produce more money. Would money satisfy man's craving for happiness? Further thought on the matter would easily yield a negative answer. Money is desired only because of its buying power or for the power that it wields. But what if there were no things to buy due to some war or depression? Would there still be a desire for money?

B. Power Would power constitute happiness? Again, power has its limitations. Power can even be cumbersome. In some cases, powerful persons are annoyed at the prerequisites of ppwer. Sycophants plague them with requests accompanied by flattery.

C. Good Looks Would good looks satisfy man's craving for happiness? A man ages, and hence, his good looks will not last forever.

D. Requirements of Lasting Happiness What can satisfy man's craving for happiness must be total, permanent, lasting and eternal. If a man knew that an enjoyable party would soon end, would his happiness be complete? If a man realizes that old age and death are inevitable, how can he find lasting satisfaction in this life? True happiness must have no admixture or misery, pain or unhappiness. Nothing in this world is permanent or lasting. Neither money nor power nor popularity nor good looks. Hence, what can make a person happy cannot be in this world, for nothing in this world is eternal. The poet Robert Browning wrote, "Man's reach should exceed his grasp, or what's a heaven for?" If man could possess everything he desired on earth, indeed, what's a heaven for? What can make a man happy lies in the satisfaction of his capacities of man as man. What are the qualities that make man distinctly man? Not his body or senses since he has these in common with brute animals. Not his capacity to nourish himself, grow and reproduce, because plants can do the same. What make man distinctly man are his faculties of intellect and will, and hence man's satisfaction lies in total truth and total goodness.c

E. Intellect and Will must be satisfied The intellect of man seeks truth and will not stop until it possesses truth without error. The will of man is always inclined toward the good. The good in this sense is the pleasurable good not the moral good. For instance, a person is attracted to liquor because he looks upon it as a pleasurable good. He drinks in spite of the hangover or the threat of liver cancer. A person is attracted to illicit sex even when he knows that it is a moral evil. This is because he looks upon it as a good,i.e., a psychological good that will give him pleasure. What is the total or absolute truth and good? What is the truth that can satisfy the craving of man's intellect? What is the good that will satisfy the craving of man’s will?

F. God is the satisfaction of man’s cravings There is only one total truth, and that is God or the Supreme Being. There is only one total good, and that is God or the Supreme Being. The above statement is not a religious but a philosophical one. It is not due to faith or any membership in a religious sect. One arrives at these conclusions through the use of one's reasoning power. Truth in the world continues to elude man. Through the centuries men have thought that they held the truth, only to realize later that it was an imperfect one. Total satisfaction of men's yearnings has not been had in this world. Even the usual goods that men desire, like food, drink, sex, money ,power, good looks, eventually lose their luster due to aging, boredom, and satiety. The wise man is he who does not stake his entire life on any of the above goods because he knows that what can satisfy man's craving can only be the lasting or eternal. God alone can satisfy man's will. St. Augustine expressed the sentiment very aptly when he said, "Our hearts were made for thee, O God, and they will be restless until they rest in thee." [See his Confessions.] The skeptical man will, however, ask: how can God satisfy my craving as a human being if I am not even sure about His existence? Or, the believer can even say that while he admits the existence of God, he does not see how God could satisfy his innermost desires. Many believers consider God as a God of fear and they cannot connect the Supreme Being to their human cravings. Some would even say that if they were rich and forever young and could have the usual pleasures of life to an unlimited degree, they could not desire anything more. This situation is very much like that of a young child who, because he thoroughly enjoys his lollipop and is loathing to share it with anyone, hides behind a door to indulge his pleasure. If per chance an older person offers him a thousand pesos in exchange for the lollipop, the young child would keep his lollipop rather than accept an amount of money which could buy him a carload of lollipops. This is because he does not understand the purchasing power of money and cannot postpone the pleasure he is presently enjoying. He cannot wait for a future but greater pleasure which to him is uncertain. When a person disclaims that God is the satisfaction of all human desires, and that he would rather have his "heaven on earth," it is only because, like the young child, he does not understand that a future and enormously greater happiness awaits him,and that he would rather indulge his small pleasure here and now. That God or the Supreme Being is the satisfaction of all our desires is a theme orchestrated by saints and mystics and wise men all the world over. Eastern as well as Western philosophers have copiously written about experiences beyond the reach of logic and common sense. The Muslim sufi was known to have exclaimed, "I went from God to God, until they cried from me in me, 'O Thou I'. The Indian rishi or seers understood that only Brahman or the Supreme Being could satisfy all human desires, and thus the path that yoga treads is ananda marga or the "path to joy" because it leads to union with the Supreme Being. What welds religions together is the common aspirations they share towards a Supreme Being whether he is called God or Allah or Brahman. Hence the idea that God or the Supreme Being alone can satisfy man as man transcends geographical boundaries and time zones. It is not confined to Christian writers and/ or Catholic saints. If we therefore search ourselves deeply for the satisfaction of our deepest human desires, we would find that only the Creator can satisfy His creatures. Hence, God or the Supreme Being is the ultimate purpose of human life because He alone can make man completely happy. God or the Supreme Being is the beginning as well as the end of human existence, truly the Alpha and Omega, the first and last letters of the Greek alphabet.

Chapter 3
Law and the Standard of Morality How can one know whether an act is good or bad? What is the yardstick or standard to determine the morality of an act? What is the standard of morality? Any standard must be plain and objective for everyone to understand. It must also be the same for everyone. There is a standard meter, a standard yardstick, a standard kilogram. Any other measuring stick or balance must conform to the standard in order to determine its rightness or wrongness. In school examinations, there is always a correct answer sheet against which answers can be compared.

A. Criterion of Morality What is the standard of morality which is the criterion or norm of the goodness or badness of human acts? The immediate or proximate norm of morality is rational human nature or man as man, meaning human nature as considered by right reason. Chapter II explained that man possesses qualities in common with plants and animals, but the qualities that make him truly human are intellect and will. His spirit composed of his intellect and will, must lord over his lower nature. Eating, sleeping and sex, if subordinated to man's higher nature, are good. They become evil when his body or lower nature, to which these activities belong, tends to subjugate or rule over his higher nature. When they are done extremely or illicitly, they are evil. All activities of man as man such as thinking, willing, loving are in themselves good provided they do not inordinately oppress the body, If one studies and works intellectually and wills towards the acquisition of spiritual goods, these activities are good. If, however, one tends to overdo study and work to the detriment of health, these activities become evil. If one loves physical goods inordinately so as to sacrifice one's higher nature, then this love ceases to be good.

B. Is God's will the criterion or norm? Some persons believe that God's will ought to be the immediate or proximate norm of morality, or that God's will ought to determine the goodness or badness of human acts. It is indeed good to think so, but how does one determine God's will? Is it written in the sky or communicated by an angel? If it is not, then it does not satisfy the qualities of a standard namely objectivity and plainness. God's will is not the proximate standard of morality.

C. Is conscience the criterion or norm? Some persons erroneously believe that conscience or "that tiny voice" is the standard of morality. Conscience can be manipulated or it can be too strict or too lenient. Conscience is not objective and hence, it cannot be the proximate standard of morality. Conscience can be scrupulous or unscrupulous: A scrupulous conscience considers any infraction of the law as a grievous sin or fault, and an unscrupulous conscience considers acts like stealing and cheating as minor faults and hence allowable. If the goodness or badness of human acts were to be left to the conscience of an individual, every act would either be minor or grievous, because conscience is subjective. Conscience, however, can be honed and perfected, although it is rare to acquire a tender conscience which is an exact conscience. Why then do many people consider conscience as a voice that should always be followed even when erroneous? What is conscience? Conscience is the intelligence of man interpreting a law. Given a law, man's conscience or intelligence applies it to a given situation. Without any other means available to check one's interpretation, one indeed has to follow the dictates of conscience. One often hears people who say, "My conscience is clear." Conscience, per se, however, is not enough. One should seek advice, admonition and second opinions from those who are objective and wise. However, in case the person strongly believes that what he is going to do is the correct action and has no doubt about it, then he is obliged to follow his conscience. This is known in" Ethics as the "obligatory force of conscience". It is evident from the above that there is a law according to which one applies his conscience. One does not prescribe no-matter-what. There is an objective law which rational human nature must conform to. This is the moral law which is the expression of God's will to His creatures. The moral law is what rational human nature will eventually discover.

D. Elements of Law To determine the moral law, one must know what law is. Law is defined as an ordinance of reason, promulgated by one who has charge of the community for the common good. There are therefore four elements in law: it must be 1) an ordinance of reason; 2) by one who has charge of the community; 3) for the common good, and 4) promulgated. A law is always reasonable; otherwise, it is not a law. It must be made by one who has charge of the community, which means that one is the authorized ruler. It must be for the common good which means that law is not oppressive or detrimental to the constituents. It must be promulgated or made known; otherwise, how would the constituents be able to follow said law?

E. Three kinds of law

Ethics teaches that there are three kinds of laws: 1. The Eternal Law, whereby God directs all creatures unto the end of the universe; 2. The Natural Law, whereby God impresses His mind and will upon creatures through principles intrinsic or natural to them; and 3. The Positive Law, which is a rule of action freely established by a competent authority in some external, palpable sign.

The Eternal Law is indeed the mind and will of God commanding the natural order of the universe to be observed, forbidding it to be disturbed. This truth flows from the imperative that God exists and that He is the creator of the universe. If God has no control over his creatures, He could not be the Supreme Being. The Natural Law is a component of the Eternal Law as it applies to man. In the extended sense, there is also a Natural Law of plants, animals and heavenly bodies. That a plant acts like a plant or that an animal acts naturally as an animal is due to the Natural Law. This means that every creature follows a law connatural to it. In the case of man, however, Natural Law means the moral law. The Positive Law further clarifies the Natural Law by means of the formulation of clear and unequivocal directives of morality such as the Ten Commandments and any law of a duly constitutive authority. The positive law could come from God or men to help individuals conform to the Natural Law. The Positive Law is based upon the Natural Law which in turn is part of the Eternal Law. The Positive Law further clarifies the Natural Law to help men attain their last end; it supplements the Natural Law. The Natural Law, insofar as it applies to men, is also called Moral Law or natural Moral Law. This law is imprinted in at birth as it will be shown below. Of the four elements of the law, the fourth element, namely, promulgation, is the most difficult to explain. How can a law be made known to all men of all ages, countries, nationalities, beliefs? In the past, a town crier would announce to the citizens that a law had just been passed extracting from them a new tax, but that was done in one town or city or country. How can the moral law be made known to all men?
F. Synderesis St. Thomas Aquinas writes that all men, at the moment of birth bear an imprint of the creator, enabling them to follow a law which the creator in his divine wisdom has decreed that all men follow for their happiness and well-being on earth. This imprint is called synderesis which is a quasi-angelic power to determine what the Natural Moral Law is. It is not knowledge in the strict sense, for the mind of man at the moment of birth is a tabula rasa or blank tablet on which nothing is written.

G. Natural Moral Law is cryptically and simply expressed as “Do good and avoid evil.” The reasoning is that all men, whether they are born in a sophisticated city or in a backward village, would know this law. There is no need to go to school to now this law. Everyone would know that he ought to do good and to avoid what he knows to be evil. The Natural Moral Law is what conscience applies to a human act. One normally checks with the Ten Commandments to ascertain whether an act is good or not. Christians are fortunate in that God gave precise commandments to follow. Other believers like the pre-biblical ones, the Indians and the Chinese, were bereft of such a revelation and they had to make do with whatever their intelligence revealed to them.

Chapter 4
Definition of Human Acts and Responsibility

A human act is defined as an act done with full knowledge and full deliberation; Any act done without full knowledge and/or full deliberation is called act of man. Responsibility belongs to, or IS consequent upon; human acts but not to acts of man. The degree of responsibility depends on the degree of knowledge and deliberation. Factors that affect knowledge and deliberation will therefore affect responsibility. These factors are ignorance, concupiscence, fear and violence.

A. Ignorance
1. Ignorance, being the absence of knowledge, affects responsibility or accountability. There are two kinds of ignorance: vincible and invincible.
Vincible ignorance is the absence of knowledge which due diligence can dispel. Invincible ignorance is the absence of knowledge which no amount of diligence can dispel. Vincible ignorance is of three kinds: supine or gross, crass, and affected.
Supine or gross ignorance occurs when scarcely any effort has been exerted; crass ignorance occurs in a person who ought to know but does not; affectedly ignorance occurs when a person deliberately refuses to know in order to give ignorance as an excuse. Supine or gross ignorance occurs in a person who does not know the time of the day or the day of the week; crass ignorance, in an engineer who does not know strength of materials; affected ignorance in one who refuses to know the law in order to give ignorance as an excuse. Vincible ignorance does not absolve a person completely of responsibility. His responsibility depends on the amount of knowledge at the moment he performs an act. An example of invincible ignorance is the absence of knowledge of computer technology in a medieval mall, or of the atomic bomb in a primitive mall. When a person is ignorant of a Church law prohibiting marriage between cousins, the person is invincibly ignorant, and is completely absolved of responsibility. Another example of invincible ignorance is the lack of knowledge regarding the new ethical considerations of the use and disconnection of respirators in persons who are considered clinically dead.

B. Civil vs. moral responsibility
It should, however, be emphasized that ignorance of civil law is not an excuse. One cannot give as an excuse his not knowing the maximum limit of speeding even if, in fact, he does not know. Or that one does not know the law regarding taxes be therefore different from moral responsibility. The knowledge of civil law is obligatory on the part of the citizens; otherwise, they would give ignorance of the law as an excuse, and that can spell a breakdown of law and order. Civil responsibility is a matter between a citizen and the civil authority, and therefore some transparence is required. Moral responsibility, on the other hand, is a matter between a person and God who sees whether the person is vincibly or invincibly ignorant, and therefore ignorance ofthemoral1aw can absolve a person of moral responsibility.

C. Concupiscence
2. Concupiscence is an impulsive tendency towards a sensible good or away from a sensible evil. There are two kinds of concupiscence: antecedent and consequent. Antecedent concupiscence is characteristic of an act that arises without the command of the will; consequent concupiscence, that of an act which arises by a command of the will or with its consent. An act of antecedent concupiscence is unfree and is therefore an act of man, whereas that of consequent concupiscence is a human act. A person is exempted from responsibility if the act done was of antecedent concupiscence, whereas a person incurs full responsibility for acts of consequent concupiscence. An example of antecedent concupiscence is the arousal of emotions unbidden by the will upon sight of a sexual scene. If the emotion continues with the consent of the will, it becomes consequent concupiscence. An arousal of hatred upon seeing an enemy is antecedent concupiscence but fanning of the hatred in order to make it more intense becomes consequent concupiscence.

D. Fear
3. Fear. Ethicians usually single out fear though it is only one of the eleven passions of men that can be either antecedent or consequent concupiscence. The reason is that a person can act through fear or out of fear, which case he is not free, and therefore not responsible for his act. A common example of a person acting out of fear is a bank teller who is the victim of a hold-up. Under normal circumstances, he would not hand over the money in his custody except to the properly authorized person. When he is, however, at the point of a gun, he could panic and hand it over to the gunman. Most hold-up victims act out of fear, rendering their actions acts of man. When the fear is so great as to remove' all freedom, the person is completely absolved from guilt or accountability or responsibility. However, responsibility could still be retained if the fear involved could have been remedied by asking for help or any other device.

E. Violence
4. Violence is the use of force, to compel a person to act. It is evident that acts of Violence done on a person are acts of man and the Victim involved is freed from all responsibility. If a bank president is hog-tied and threatened to be shot if the tellers do not open the vaults, this is an act of Violence. .If the tellers therefore open the vaults, they Will be freed from all responsibility. If a person were to be collared and asked to perform an indecent act at gunpoint, the person would have no choice to do otherwise. In this case, the act is an act of man and the victim is not responsible for the act. Rape is an example of concupiscence, fear and violence. A victim of rape could be acting out of either antecedent or consequent concupiscence. The person could consent or not, out of fear. Or she could be a victim of violence.

F. Freedom Special attention must be devoted to freedom because the degree of responsibility depends on freedom. The classical concept of freedom is the existence of choice or options. This means that one who IS free has an option to do or not to do, to choose this or that. Where there is only one option, there is no freedom. When one chooses, one must have at least two options to choose from. Contemporary researches on freedom, however, while not rejecting the classical concept, have added fresh dimensions to the topic. Is freedom merely theoretical, i.e., can it be spoken of only in the abstract? Would it be freedom if it were only discussed academically without recourse to the concrete circumstances in which it is always enmeshed? For example, it is easy for a person to say he would never lie or steal or murder in hypothetical situations. However, if the person were to be concretely situated, like in a case of a jobless father whose child is dying of hunger, would he not still even if he vowed never to? For contemporary thinkers, freedom is not an abstraction but, something concrete and already being done.
Freedom can be looked at in two ways. It can be discussed in a purely theoretical manner as one would discourse on extra terrestrial beings or on past historical events which are fixed once and for all; or it can be considered as an act or a continuous process that cannot be arrested or congealed. Until freedom is translated into an act, it is a misnomer. If however, freedom is choice, that choice or option is again enmeshed in a welter of concreteness: a concrete situation, in a concrete place and a concrete time; these concrete considerations can determine one's choice, rendering the decision unfree. When one decides, it is always in a world already constituted, involving a definite person, place and time. Do not the hereditary and physical qualities of a person weigh on a so-called free decision? If the person were hungry to the point of death, is any decision that he makes a truly free one? The biblical character Esau sold his birthright for a mess of porridge because he was dying of hunger. Similarly, when one is sick or physically tired his condition for the moment could weigh so heavily that his freedom is rendered inexistent. There is physiological or biological determinism. How far can the will dominate the body's needs and desires or vice versa? This condition poses a grave ethical question. When the biological conditions of a person are such that he is necessitated towards an act which he does not approve of but which is dictated by the physical, is he still free? Was Esau still free?
Ethics must consider this aspect of freedom which might have been overlooked in the past. Conditions are' such that a modification of responsibility will to be made. We are no longer living in a black and white world where the1ines choices are clear cut. There are now gray areas which could recast our views on Ethics.
Questions such as the following can be asked. Is a person, under the influence of liquor or drugs considered free? If he is not, are the acts he performs imputable to him? Is he responsible for those actions committed under the influence of liquor or drugs? Evidently, under the influence of liquor or drugs, the acts performed are acts of man. However, there is a moral consideration to be discussed. Does the person know that when he is under the influence of liquor he acts irrationally? Usually he knows because of past events. If therefore a person drinks in order to perform criminal acts, then he is responsible for these acts. The same is true for drug takers. Freedom begins from the intention of the drinking of liquor or of the taking of drug. So does responsibility. Hence, from the above considerations, a person is considered free and therefore responsible for actions done under the influence of liquor or drugs.

Chapter 5
The Morality of Human Acts

To determine the over-all goodness or badness of a human act, it is helpful to divide it into constitutive parts. Every human act has an end, means and circumstances. For a human act to be good, all the constitutive parts, namely, the end, means and circumstances must be good. This is the meaning "Of the Scholastic dictum; Bonum ex integra causa; malum ex quocumque defectu. In order to be good, a thing must be totally good, single defect renders it evil. This means that a human act is considered good only if the end; means and circumstances are good; when any of these three constitutive parts is evil, the entire human act is considered evil, even if the two other parts are good.

A. Constitutive parts of human acts

The end of a human act is the objective, the reason, the intention for doing an act. All human acts have ends or objectives or reasons behind them. If one stands up, it is either to answer a phone or to get a glass of water to drink or to fetch something or to do something else. The means of a human act is the action or the deed itself. Stealing is the act of getting what is not one's property. Murder is the act of shooting or stabbing or strangling or poisoning. Lying is the act of speaking the opposite of the truth. The circumstances of a human act are the external considerations of time, place, manner, or what answers to when, where and how or how much. The human acts of eating moderately, taking walks for exercise, sleeping adequately are good, since the end, means and circumstances are all good. If one eats excessively or runs great lengths on a heart ailment or sleeps beyond regular hours, these actions become evil. For while the act of eating, walking and sleeping are good, the circumstances which accompany them, namely excess, render these otherwise good actions evil. Or, walking may be good or at least neutral, but when one walks in order to murder a personal enemy, this action becomes evil because the end or intention is evil. Moderation seems to be the rule of thumb in naturally good actions. Too much of a good thing is evil. In so far as evil is concerned, however, even a small amount of it is evil, let alone a moderation of it. It is therefore false reasoning to say that stealing just the right amount, or murdering and raping the right person moderately is good.

B. Intrinsically evil human acts

If the act itself is evil, no amount of it is excusable. Actions like stealing, cheating, lying, rape, murder are in themselves evil and are not tolerated under any circumstances.
1. Under special circumstances, however, what is normally termed stealing may not be so anymore. St. Thomas Aquinas explains that in times of extreme necessity, the goods of the world belong to everyone; This means that under abnormal circumstances like war or famine or isolation, the right of private property must give in to the higher right to life. Thus, if a number of people are marooned on an island with nothing to eat, a person who happens to have a can of biscuits no longer enjoys the right to property because the other persons have a higher right namely the right to physical existence. The owner cannot reason out that he brought the can of food to shield him from hunger, because the abnormal circumstances of unavailability of food removes his right over his food. If, therefore, one of the persons marooned is denied a biscuit when he asks for it in order to stay alive, he can, according to St. Thomas, get a biscuit because then, "the goods of the world belong to everyone" or the act would not constitute stealing. A famous example is that of Jean Val jean in Victor Hugo's Les Miserables. Valjean "stole" a loaf of bread to give to his sister and nephews who were starving to death due to extreme poverty. For that "crime" Valjean spent 19 years in the gallows. Applying Aquinas' reasoning, one concludes that this is a case of extreme circumstance, and Val jean had the right to life and could get what after all belonged to him. If, however, Valjean stole a diamond necklace to buy food for his destitute relatives, this would have constituted real stealing and Aquinas' doctrine would not be applicable. Or when circumstances do not warrant such an action, the act of getting what is not one's own is still stealing; In other words, stealing is always evil, but what St. Thomas depicted was a to tally different act. It was not stealing anymore.

2. Cheating is a form of stealing considered evil. Many students nowadays resort to cheating without knowing that it is an evil act. They even consider it a wise move especially when they ca.'1 get away with it, believing that they have put one over their teachers, Cheating is dishonesty; it is claiming what is not one's own. Shortchanging a customer, looking at a classmate's answer during examinations, lessening one's income in order to evade taxes, coming late or leaving early in one's work, smuggling, are all forms of cheating and are considered stealing. Likewise, being an accessory to stealing or cheating is evil. The sale of stolen goods or smuggled items and the purchase thereof are forms of cheating and therefore evil. All these are forms of stealing.

3. Lying is intrinsically evil since it is contrary to truth. Truth is God's imprint on man. Hence, anything untrue is evil. Lying is never permissible even if it be to save a kingdom. There are no white lies. All lies are black. There are other ways of circumventing, if indeed the truth is embarrassing; or the truth would hurt or cause undue harm. These are equivocation (or double meaning),fine distinctions and mental reservations. Equivocation is allowed under special circumstances. Under oppressive rule, citizens can make use of equivocation to escape repressive laws. Observe the following response to a query before a referendum asking the citizenry to answer "yes" or "no" to allow the dictator to stay in power. To answer "yes" would have been a doing right lie. To say "no" would have been suicidal. When a citizen was asked in public what he would vote in the referendum, he said:
Bilang isang Filipino
Nararapat bumoto ng matalino
Upang ang ating gobierno
Ay lalong maging matino.:- When the Lord was asked whether it was allowed to revere both Caesar and God at the same time with the intention to trap him, the Lord's answer was a classic in making fine distinctions: "Render unto Caesar the things that are Caesar's, and to God the things that are God’s.” Mental reservations can sometimes be resorted to. When a pest asks for a person at the door or on the telephone, one can answer, "He/she is not at home." What was Withheld or reserved was the continuation, "for you"; Or if a snoop neighbor who has no business to know asks where we had been at 12:00 midnight, we can answer that we were in school which was the truth --but, and here is the mental reservation-which notorious borrower who does not pay his debts asks us whether we have money, knowing as we do that he is going to borrow, we may answer, "I have no money ..." but we hold on reserve , "to lend you." Mental reservations, however, are not always allowed. One ought not to lie to a person in authority like parents, guardians; teachers, police officers: If parents ask their children where they had been, the children may not resort to mental reservations. Or if a wife asks her husband if he has money for their children's matriculation, he may not resort to mental reservation if indeed he has the money. Under oath; one may not likewise mentally withhold or reserve information. Or if asked by a customs official whether one has anything to declare, one may not say "No" if indeed one is carrying dutiable goods. This would be a lie. One must,' however, use tact when one answers a patient who is moribund or nearing death. While it is true that one must not lie to him, one ought not to be blatant in telling him that he has only three months to live. What ought to be answered must not be contrary to the truth but which must not be brutal either: A good answer is that some special remedies are being discovered and prescribed for his illness, and that while one is alive, there is hope.
4. Rape is intolerable under any circumstance because it is the use of force and violence to drag one to sex. Rape is usually whenever there is no consent on the part of either spouse.
5. Murder is a crime in any region any time. Murder is defined as "killing a person without having a right to. Hangmen, executioners, guillotiners are appointed by the State to kill persons found guilty of heinous crimes. During war, soldiers kill the enemy. These kinds of killing do not constitute one's right must be stressed that killing in self-defense is allowed only when there is an actual struggle and not a mere threat or hint to kill. What about cannibals who kill for their food? Cannibals do not murder but merely kill, if it is for food. Cannibals, however, are also capable of murder when they take the life of people they despise. Hence, a distinction must be made between murder and killing. Killing, per se, is not evil, but murder is. Suicide is self-murder and therefore evil. Suicide is taking one’s own life as though it were his. The pagan philosopher, Plato, wrote that we are mere sentries in life and we may not leave our post until the appointed time. (See Phaedo.)

C. Intrinsically good acts may deteriorate into evil There are some human acts that are not patently evil, unlike the above-mentioned examples. There are, however, intrinsically good acts like praying, giving alms, helping people which can deteriorate into evil. In these cases, the rule must be applied: for a human act to be considered good, all the three constitutive parts, the end, means and circumstances, must be good. Praying is in itself good. The end or purpose is to open one's heart to God. But there are some persons who stay in church all day long; neglecting their children. In this case, the end and the means are good, but because the circumstances, namely, length of time, is out of focus, the entire act becomes questionable. This means that it can ho longer be said that prayer is always and thoroughly good. In all things, propriety proper manner of doing things. During a fire, some persons volunteer to help victims carry out their belongings. On the surface, the-act is good. The end or purpose of these persons, however, is to steal these belongings when no one looks. Because-the end is evil, the entire act becomes evil. Sometimes the end or purpose is to help the poor ,which is a good intention. But the means employed is actual stealing or extortion. The entire act becomes evil. The proper means should have been petition, appeal, and moral suasion. The end never justifies the means. The Machiavellian doctrine that “the end justifies the means" is patently wrong. One may not murder or steal or rape in order to save a life or even a kingdom. Almsgiving is good in itself because the poor are helped. But if the intention of almsgiving is to obtain a tax shelter for dubious income, the act of almsgiving acquires a different slant. On the other hand, if the intention is good, there should be no thought anymore as to what a beggar will do with the money. If the help is given with the right motive, the alms is good even if the recipient of the largess uses the money for or for gambling. Circumstances, which is the third constitutive part of a human act, deserve special treatment. The circumstances, if good, do not make an act good if the act is evil. Circumstances in fact, can make an evil act worse. A murder, whether committed in church or on the beach or in the schoolroom, is evil. Stealing is in itself evil, but when committed at night, it becomes worse. On the other hand, praying is good whether done in a movie house or swimming pool or disco pub. However, when praying becomes extended as to pre-empt a person’s duties like working or taking care of a family, the circumstance of extension or time renders praying questionable. Walking may be good but excessive walking to the detriment of health renders a good action evil. Circumstances can enhance the goodness or badness of a human act but do not render an evil act good, and can even render a good act evil.

D. The principle of Double Effect No book on Ethics would be complete without the principle of two fold effect. There are cases where the intention or end of a human act is good but evil occurs as a result of the well intended human act. For example, in time of war, a general may consider that the planting of mines during nighttime may be the best way to win a war and to prevent more, bloodletting. He commands a number of soldiers to plant the mines; As these soldiers were trying to accomplish their mission, the mines exploded and killed one or two of the soldiers. This is a case of a twofold effect which is permissible in Ethics. Let us examine the constitutive parts of the human act. The end or purpose, namely to defeat the enemy and finish the war, is good. The means employed is the planting of mines in enemy territory which in itself is neutral or amoral. The circumstances nighttime or under the cover of darkness is propitious to the accomplishment of the mission, and hence good. Did the general intend the killing of the soldiers? Did he foresee that the mines would explode? In both cases, the answer is negative. In this case, the act of planting mines had a double effect, one of which was unintended, namely, the killing of the soldiers. The other effect was the termination of the war. Care must be taken that this principle is not abused. First, the means should not in themselves be evil or that they be at least neutral or amoral. Once the means employed are evil, the entire human act becomes evil, owing to the principle of “In order that an act be considered good, all the three constitutive parts must be good; a single defect renders it evil.” Second, the end to be achieved must be a proportionately immense good; in this case, the end of war. Third, the evil effect must not be directly intended; otherwise this single defect would render the entire act evil. The truth is that only experts can make full use of this principle. Those who are not adept at ethical laws are cautioned against it. For all intents and purposes, the laws regarding the three constitutive parts of a human act are to be observed. It is not within the compass of this work to deal with cases involving the medicine or science. Suffice it to say that each discipline has extraordinary cases wherein this principle could be applicable.

E. No act is in the concrete indifferent. A human act when mulled over or theoretically pursued may be done, that human act becomes either good or bad and no longer indifferent. For example, if one just wonders about walking or drinking or writing a poem or studying one's lesson or cleaning one's gun, these acts are indifferent. If one actually walks for health reasons, walking becomes good. The same applies to drinking. Actually writing a poem or studying one's lesson for a good end are good acts. Cleaning one gun will either be good or bad depending on one's intention if one cleans a gun to prevent it from rusting, the act is good; if done for the purpose of shooting an enemy during peace, the act is evil. Walking can even become evil lithe assassin walks to the place of his crime, whereas walking to church or to a home is good. Drinking is in itself in different; but when concretely done, it becomes either good or evil depending on whether one intends to get drunk or merely to socialize; This is the meaning of the ethical dictum No act is in the concrete indifferent. All-our concrete actions therefore are either good or bad, provided they are done consciously. Unconscious actions like somnambulism or those actions done during sleep, or actions done under hypnosis are acts of man and therefore involve no responsibility.