modifiers of human act

1. Conditions Affecting/ Modifiers of the
Morality of Human Act
1. Ignorance
2. Fear
3. Concupiscence
4. Violence
5. Habit
6. Temperament

2. 1) Ignorance
- lack of knowledge in a person who is capable of knowing
- in some cases, we are responsible for knowledge, in
other cases we are not
1.1 Ignorance of the law
– lack of knowledge that a particular law exists
Example. When a driver does not know that there
is an 80-kilometer-per-hour speed limit for a
particular road.
1.2 Ignorance of the fact
– lack of realization that
one is violating a law
Example. A driver knows that
there is an 80-kilometer-per-
hour speed limit but does not
realize that he is traveling at 100.

3. 1.3. Vincible ignorance
– that which can and should be dispelled.
It implies culpable negligence; the subject
could know and ought to know.
a) simple vincible ignorance
– present when one makes some, but
not sufficient, effort to dispel his ignorance
Suppose a nurse is unsure of dosage. She refers to the doctor’s order
sheet and finds that she is unable to read his handwriting. She knows that
the doctor is at his office but does not bother to call him. As she
administers the medication, guessing at the dosage, she is guilty of simple
vincible ignorance.

4. b) crass vincible ignorance
– that which results
from mere lack of effort
Let us suppose that a
moral problem arises
from an operating
supervisor. On the shelf
over her desk is a good
medical ethics book with
an excellent index that
could quickly solve the
problem. However, she
does not bother. She is
in crass vincible
ignorance.

5. c) affected vincible ignorance
– that which is deliberately
fostered in order to avoid any
obligation that knowledge might bring
to light.
Let us imagine a nurse who accepts
employment with a doctor who frequently
practices artificial insemination. She may suspect
that this is immoral or something which is contrary
to the teaching of her Church but carefully avoids
inquiring or even discussing the matter with
anybody, lest she discover that she is cooperating
in immorality and be obliged to leave her well-
paying job.
She is guilty of affected vincible ignorance.
It is affected because she wants to be ignorant,
and it is vincible because she could dispel the
ignorant easily.

6. 1.4 Invincible ignorance
– that which cannot be dispelled. This situation
may exist either because the individual is unable
to secure adequate information, even after reasonable
effort, or because he simply does not know that there is a
problem. In other words, “he is ignorant of his
ignorance”.
The person cannot be expected to take steps to
enlighten himself because he is unaware that he is in need
of any enlightenment.
For example, a certain nurses’ aid customarily tells
lies by way of making excuses for minor faults and feels
that, since they harm no one, they are in no way sinful.
She is ignorant of that fact that she is in need of
enlightenment.

7. Invincible
ignorance
eliminates
responsibility.
Vincible ignorance
does not eliminate
moral responsibility
but lessens it.
Moral Principles

8. 2) Fear
• it is one of the emotions.
• agitation or disturbance of mind
resulting from some present or
imminent danger.
2.1 Light fear – fear in which
the evil threatening is either
present-but-slight or grave-but-
remote.

9. Grave-but-remote
A man fears that he may die of cancer in his life, but his
fear is light because the grave danger is very remote.
Present-but-slight
An elderly lady experiences
fear when she hears someone
passing her door at night, but
her fear is only slight because
she knows it is probably her
neighbor arriving home at usual.
This is what is meant by a
present-but slight threatening
fear.

10. • intrinsic grave fear
- is that agitation of the mind which
arises because of a disposition within
one’s mind or body. The fear of cancer
is intrinsic.
• extrinsic grave fear
- is that agitation of the mind which
arises from something outside oneself.
Grave Fear
- is that which is present when the
evil threatening is considered as
serious.

11. Free extrinsic fear may be justly caused, such as a
nurse’s fear of being dismissed if she does not cooperate in an
immoral act.
a) Necessary extrinsic
fear arises because of some
external physical law of
nature, such as fear when a
house is on fire.
b) Free extrinsic fear
arises from the free will of
some other person, such as
fear of a robber in a house.

12. Moral Principle:
Fear diminishes the voluntary nature
of the act.

13. Some considerations:
1) Some acts are done because of fear. The
act would not have been done had fear not been
present. Some acts, on the other hand, are done
with fear present but would have been done anyway.
Any acts that are done, and would have been done,
whether fear was present or not are clearly voluntary,
and if they are wrong, the person is morally
responsible.
2) A sinful act done because of fear is
somewhat less free and therefore less sinful than act
done not under the influence of fear.

14. 3) Concupiscence
• is the rebellion of the passions
against reason
•revolt of the sense faculties of
man against the dominion of his
higher faculty of reason
• the tendency of human nature
toward evil.

15. An evil action performed in the heat of passion is different,
perhaps quite different – from an evil action that is
calculated.

16. 3.1 Antecedent concupiscence –
the sort which precedes an act of the
will and is not willfully stimulated,
such as sudden anger.
3.2 Consequent concupiscence –
that which is stimulated by the will,
such as anger deliberately fostered.

17. Moral Principles:
It is obvious that certain emotions, such as anger,
discouragement, or grief, can so influence a person’s state
of mind that the use of reason and free will is lessened.
Antecedent concupiscence lessens the
voluntary nature of human acts and lessens the
degree of moral responsibility accordingly.
Consequent concupiscence does not lessen
moral responsibility; rather a person acting with
consequent concupiscence is completely
responsible.

18. 4) Violence
• external force applied by
someone on another in order to
compel him to perform an action
against his will.
• in cases where the victim gives
complete resistance, the
violence is classified as perfect
violence.
• however, if the victim offers
insufficient resistance, the
violence is classified as
imperfect violence.

19. 4.1 Perfect Violence
physically perfect violence
– in which all possible forms
of resisting is utilized
If a woman walking along a
dark street at night is attacked,
and she attempts to fight off the
attackers with all the physical
powers at her command, she has
been the victim of physically
perfect violence.

20. morally perfect violence
– is that in which all powers
of resistance should be used
but not employed for a good
reason.
A man being robbed attempts
to fight the robber but soon
realizes that further resistance
will probably result in his
death

21. 4.2 Imperfect Violence – is that
in which some resistance is
shown but not as much as
should be.
A stenographer who is working
after hours in an almost empty
building is approached by the
department head. The man,
suddenly filled with lustful intentions,
makes certain rough and violent
advances. The young woman for a
moment puts up some resistance and
feels that additional resistance might
terminate the incident. However, she
quickly ceases resistance and gives
in to the man. The stenographer is
the victim of imperfect violence.

22. a) Regarding perfect violence,
the moral principle is this: that which
is done from perfect violence is
entirely involuntary, and so in such
cases there is no moral responsibility.
If an individual is a victim in the
absolute sense of the word, no
sensible person will condemn him. If
the victim makes a judgment that
resistance is utterly useless, he need
not resist. There is no obligation to do
what is useless.
Moral Principles Concerning Violence

23. b) Regarding
imperfect violence:
that which is done
under the influence
of imperfect
violence is less
voluntary, and so
the moral
responsibility is
lessened but not
taken away
completely.

24. 5) Other Factors Affecting
Voluntary Nature of Human
Actions
5.1 Habit
- an inclination to perform some
particular action, acquired by
repetition and characterized by
decreased power of resistance and
an increased facility of performance.
- “a stable quality superadded to a
faculty positively inclining a person
to act in a certain way.”
- often referred to as “second
nature”

25. Habit does not destroy
the voluntary nature of
our acts. A person is at
least in some way
responsible for acts done
from habit as long as the
habit is consciously
allowed to endure.
Moral Principles Concerning Habit

26. In performing an
act through habit,
that particular act
may not be
completely voluntary
in itself, but it is at
least voluntary in the
sense that the habit
was freely formed by
the repetition of
several previous
acts.

27. 5.2 Temperament
- disposition
- is the sumtotal of those
qualities which mark an
individual
- both heredity and
environment play a part in
forming a person’s
temperament.

28. Psychologists list four major
temperaments and their
characteristics:
a) Sanguine – pleasing, agreeable, not a
good leader because not very stable.
b) Choleric – domineering, strong-willed,
good leader
c) Melancholic – pessimistic, brooding,
usually scrupulous, despairs easily.
d) Phlegmatic – easy going, lacking
initiative, trustworthy

29. Moral Principles
Concerning
Temperament
A person’s temperament
can affect his will to the
extent of somewhat
lessening the completely
voluntary nature of his
actions.

30. Cautions Regarding Moral Judgment
1) Placing a judgment upon the
objective morality of a human act
in the concrete involves a
consideration of all the conditions
which affect morality: the nature of
the act itself, the purpose of the
agent, the circumstances,
ignorance, fear, concupiscence,
violence, habit, and even
temperament.

31. 2) Everyone has a
conscience but everyone also
has a duty of enlightening his
conscience.
3) A particular caution must
be given regarding the judging
of one’s own case.
In this regard, great wisdom is
expressed in the old saying, “nemo
judex in propia causa” – no one is a
judge in his own case. When an
important personal moral problem
presents itself, it is time to seek
competent advice.