Modifiers of Human Act

1. Human Act
PreviousTopic: HUMANACT
Human Act
CHRIST THE KING COLLEGE DE MARANDING
Maranding, Lala,Lanao delNorte
OfficeoftheVPforReligiousFormation
Modifiers of
Modifiers of

2. Modifiers of human acts – the things that
may affect human acts in the essential
qualities of KNOWLEDGE, FREEDOM and
VOLUNTARINESS and make them less
perfectly human.
Such modifiers lessen the moral character of
the human act and consequently diminish
the responsibility of the agent.

3. A. Ignorance
Ignorance is the absent of
knowledge. It may be defined
as the ABSENCE OF
INTELLECTUAL KNOWLEDGE
OF MAN.

4. A.1. Ignorance in its Object
The thing of which a person maybe ignorant is a matter of law, fact or
penalty.
a. Ignorance of Law – is the ignorance of the existence
of a duty, role or regulation.
b. Ignorance of Fact – is ignorance of the nature or
circumstances of an act as forbidden. It is lack of
knowledge that what one actually doing comes
under the prohibition of a known law.
c. Ignorance of Penalty – is lack of knowledge of the
precise sanction affixed to the law.

5. A.2. Ignorance in its Subject
In the person whom it exist, ignorance (of law, fact or
penalty) is either VINCIBLE or INVINCIBLE.
a. Vincible Ignorance – is ignorance that can be dispelled by
the use of ordinary diligence. The person is in consequence
or in fault (culpable ignorance).
 Degrees of Vincible Ignorance
1. Crass or Supine Ignorance – total or nearly total, lack of effort to dispel
it
2. Simply Vincible – some effort worthy the name, but not persevering
and whole-hearted effort, be unsuccessfully employed to dispel it.
3. Affected – positive effort is made to retain it.

6. A.2. Ignorance in its Subject
b. Invincible Ignorance – is ignorance that
ordinary and proper diligence cannot dispel it.
It is never the fault of the person (inculpable
ignorance).
Degrees of Invincible Ignorance
1. Physically invincible – no human effort can dispel it.
2. Morally Invincible – when such effort as would be
truly characteristic of good and prudent men in the
circumstances, is found powerless to dispel it.
(Extremely difficult to dispel it)

7. A.3. Ignorance in its Result
We consider ignorance (of fact, law or penalty) with
reference to acts performed while ignorance exists.
a. Antecedent Ignorance – is that which precedes all consent
of the will. It does not differ from invincible ignorance.
b. Concomitant Ignorance – is that ignorance which, so to
speak, accompanies an act that would have been
performed even if the ignorance did not exist. An act done
in concomitant ignorance is non-voluntary.

8. A.3. Ignorance in its Result
We consider ignorance (of fact, law or penalty) with
reference to acts performed while ignorance exists.
c. Consequent Ignorance – is that which follows upon
the act of the will. It does not differ from vincible
ignorance.
• Directly Willed – positively avoids knowledge in the matter
• Indirectly Willed – one fails to acquire knowledge through
sheer carelessness.

9. Classification of Ignorance Scheme
Ignorance
In its OBJECT
1. Of law
2. Of fact
3. Of penalty
In its SUBJECT
Vincible
1. Simply vincible
2. Crass or Supine
vincible
3. Affected
Invincible
1. Physically
2. Morally
In its RESULT
Antecedent
Concomitant
Consequent
1. Directly willed
2. Indirectly
willed

10. Ethical Principles of Ignorance that Modify
Human Act
• 1st Principle: Invincible ignorance destroys the voluntariness
of an act.
• 2nd Principle: Vincible ignorance does not destroy the
voluntariness of an act.
• 3rd Principle: Vincible ignorance lessens the voluntariness of
an act.
• 4th Principle: Affected ignorance is one way lessens and in
another way increases voluntariness.

11. B. Concupiscence
The term CONCUPISCENCE means the bodily
appetites or tendencies which are called the
PASSIONS.
Love, hatred; joy, grief; desire, aversion or horror;
hope, despair; courage or daring, fear; and anger

12. B.1. Antecedent Concupiscence
The passions are called antecedent when they
spring into action unstimulated by any act of the
will; that is, when they are antecedently to the
will-act.
It is an ACT OF MAN therefore non-voluntary act
and the agent is not responsible for it.

13. B.2. Consequent Concupiscence
The passions are called consequent when the
will, directly or indirectly, stirs them up or
foster them.
It is the fault of the AGENT, for it is willed,
either directly or indirectly, that is, either in
itself or in cause. The agent is, in
consequence, responsible for it.

14. Ethical Principles of Concupiscence that
Modify Human Act
•1st Principle: Antecedent concupiscence lessens
the voluntariness of an act.
•2nd Principle: Antecedent concupiscence does
not destroy the voluntariness of an act.
•3rd Principle: Consequent concupiscence,
however great, does not lessen the voluntariness
of an act.

15. C. Fear
It is the shrinking back of the mind from danger.
It is the agitation of mind (ranging from slight
disturbance to actual panic) brought about by
the apprehension of impending evil.
Actions may proceed FROM FEAR as their cause,
or may be done WITH FEAR as an accompanying
circumstances.

16. Ethical Principles of Fear that Modify Human
Act
•Principle:
An act done from fear, however
great, is simply voluntary, although it
is regularly also conditionally
involuntary.

17. D. Violence
It is an external force applied by free
cause (that is, by a cause with free will;
by man) for the purpose of compelling a
person to perform an act which is
against his will.

18. Ethical Principles of Violence that Modify
Human Act
•Principle:
Acts elicited by the will are not subject to
violence; external acts caused by
violence, to which due resistance is
offered, are in no wise imputable to the
agent.

19. E. Habits
Ethics understand habits as OPERATIVE
HABIT, which is a lasting readiness and
facility, born of frequently repeated acts,
for acting in a certain manner.

20. Ethical Principles of Habit that Modify Human
Act
•Principle:
Habit does not destroy voluntariness; an
act from habit are always voluntary, at
least in cause, as long as the habit is
allowed to endure.

21. 1. “Ignorance of the law excuses no one”, what is your
understanding with this famous dictum? How is it
related to our topic on Ignorance? Would you agree
with it? Or not? Why?
2. What is your stand regarding on people saying
“Kapit-patalim”? Is it human act or act of man? If
human act, under what modifier does it belong?
Explain briefly.