General Ethics 2022

The Moral Agent and the Morality of Human Act

Source: Juvy S. Reyes, “The Human Action as a Hermeneutic Response to a Moral Experience,”
General Ethics: An Introduction (Bulacan, Philippines: Subverso Publishing House, 2018), 73-96.

I. Distinction between Human Acts and Acts of Man

We learned that although culture is a factor that helps shape the agent’s moral behavior,
it cannot be the ultimate determinant of what is right and wrong. We also learned that human
persons undergo development stages in forming their moral character, and such character
becomes the basis in ethical decisions. In today’s session, we talk about the morality of human
acts.
There are two general types of actions by human agents: (1) the acts of man, an act devoid
of moral value; (2) human act, an act with moral value as it is the product of reason and will’s
determination. Acts of man are actions which proceed from the natural programming of the body
such as “instinctive, thoughtless movements, mannerisms, and reflex actions...” (De Finance,
1991: 35) or acts performed in infancy, infirmity mind or the weakness of senility - acts done in
sleep, in delirium, in the state of unconsciousness - are not considered to be correctly human
actions as they happen outside the control of the human agent. Hence, acts of man are based on
instincts or driven by factors other than reason and free will. Human acts “proceed from the
deliberate free will of man, which are proper to man as man.” In other words, human actions are
those which proceed from the free and conscious acts of man always done for a purpose.

II. Knowledge, Consciousness, Freedom as elements of Moral Human Acts

Human actions require knowledge or consciousness for the act to be moral or not. For
instance, a person unaware that his/her friend is allergic to peanuts serves her a peanut butter
sandwich. Had he/she known about her allergy, she could have served a sandwich with a
different filling. What is lacking in action is knowledge. In the absence of knowledge is ignorance.
Ignorance is said to be the absence of knowledge that ought to be there. Hence, a condition of
ignorance does not automatically cancel out moral responsibility except when such ignorance is
totally beyond remedy. There are two kinds of ignorance: (1) Ignorance in its Object, such as,
Ignorance of the Law – is the ignorance in the existence of a duty, rule, or regulation. For instance,
a young freshman comes to class with a fever to take an exam in chemistry not knowing that a
memo has been passed prohibiting anyone to attend his class with symptoms manifesting
AH1N1; (2) Ignorance of Fact – ignorance of nature/circumstances of a forbidden act. For instance,
a pedestrian violates the law not knowing that the underpass is in use already. On the other hand,
a person who does things with knowledge, whether partial or full, is accountable for his/her
action.

1 University of the Philippines – Cebu

 General Ethics 2022

Human actions also require freedom in which the act is carried out voluntarily. A moral
agent is free in his choices or decision that no one can make him change his mind. He/she can be
enticed, induced, persuaded but never forced. But the exercise of freedom is only possible in the
presence of knowledge because a choice can only be made if one is aware of the options at hand.
One may experience being compelled by strong forces outside and even natural forces inside
oneself, but those forces, depending on their pull's strength, may strip the act of those qualities
that make a human act worthy of being considered truly human. Such as the case of a
psychologically derange person whose normal sensibility and freedom is taken over by
indifference or irrational obsession.
On the contrary, a well aware person of the situation and his/her choices are guided by
reason towards doing what is judge morally right but chooses otherwise becomes all the more
liable/responsible for his/her choice. Thus, human actions emanate from our decision as they
involve responsibility on our part. This means that the moment we choose certain actions, we
become liable over them and their possible consequences and become liable to ourselves. And
because the human agent cannot be disassociated from his/her action, his/her choice of an action
that is done repeatedly/consistently defines his/her.

III. Emotions/feelings playing a significant role in Moral Decision

Emotions are indeed part of our configurations as human beings. Although Western
ethical theories give more weight on the role of reason in making ethical decisions, our actual
moral experiences demonstrate how emotions play an active role in dealing with them. As
Greenfield (2007: 15) puts it: “emotions are part of our basic responses to a meaningful situation, and
as a result, emotional responses cannot be isolated from our ability to recognize a moral issue or
dilemma and our willingness to act.”
We recognize a moral dilemma or even after we do a deliberate act through the presence
of an initial “feeling”. “It does not feel right” or “it does not sit well to me” are our typical
expressions when something is wrong; this is what we call Moral Awareness. When a thing does
not feel right, we give it a second look or analysis or a careful thought to find the reason for such
feeling. It implies that there are times that we decide not only what “we think” is reasonable but
what “we strongly feel” reasonable. Such as “it feels wrong to congratulate someone for a position
or an honor he/she does not deserve,” or “it feels bad to kick a kitten,” or “to curse/ say bad words
to someone in public.” This clearly shows that we frequently find ourselves deciding based on
feelings rather than on reason.
Interestingly, advanced neurological science called Neuro-ethics examines the
neurobiological basis of cognition and emotions in moral reasoning and claims that emotion and
reason do not necessarily oppose each other. The presence of emotion is indicative of a normally
functioning brain and serves as a trigger calling the attention of the mind towards its proper

2 University of the Philippines – Cebu

 General Ethics 2022

object. In other words, “emotions and thinking are ... complementary, synergistic, parallel
processes, constantly blending and interacting as a person functions” (Greenfield 2007). Once
emotion as automatic neural responses enters our consciousness, feelings emerged. This means
that reason is not purely dispassionate but is emotionally engaged, and at times our moral
prejudice is emotion-based and, partly, of emotional nature. Thus, this means that we should use
our emotions as a “compass” in making ethical decisions? Not necessarily!

IV. The Limits of Feelings and the value of Reason in Moral Decision
The presence of regrets reflects healthy emotion and maturity. A regretful person is one who
looks back into his actions and re-examines them through the light of reason. It is an admission
of fault only if one is honest enough to own up his guilt. Although it is a healthy emotion,
experiencing regret can be painful, for it summons us, rouses us from sleep, takes away our focus,
and makes us feel bad about ourselves. But why do we experience regret in the first place? Regret
is a product of wrong or bad decisions and, usually, these kinds of decisions are done by the
upsurge of emotions. When a sudden rush of intense emotions grips us, we jump into action.
Observe yourselves when you are angry, don’t you say things which later you will regret? Words
that you wouldn’t want to say in normal condition but would quickly come out of your mouth
like hard-bullets or sharp knives, leaving your target wounded and your relationship dead? The
problem is that “what is said cannot be unsaid.” Others are doing worst as they let some violent
physicality as a means to express their emotions or letting social media be a public stage of one’s
frustration towards another. Thus, although it might be true that emotions inform and guide our
reason towards a particular decision, emotional upsurges can be so strong a force that it clouds
our mind. A human agent who regularly gives in to the dictates of emotions becomes less and
less reasonable as emotions are now holding the rein with the reason relegated to the back seat.
Rachels (2007: 11) avers:
When we feel strongly about an issue, it is tempting to assume that we know what the truth
must be without considering the other side's arguments. Unfortunately... we cannot rely on our
feelings, no matter who powerful they may be. Our feelings may be irrational; they may be
nothing but the products of prejudice, selfishness, or cultural conditioning.

V. Impartiality as Determinant of Reasonability

Over-reliance on emotions or feelings in making moral decisions is problematic because
emotions are fleeting, particular, biased, and variable. To ensure the right moral decision, we
should allow our reason to guide our emotions to their proper direction and train ourselves to
the importance of impartiality. To be impartial is to strike a balance between “my interest” and
the interests of everyone. Moral neutrality demands that we “acknowledge that other people’s

3 University of the Philippines – Cebu

 General Ethics 2022

welfare is just as important as our own [and not to] treat the members of other group as somehow
morally inferior” (Rachels 2007: 13). What is the proper way of making moral decisions?
Human agents cannot only proceed to act without thinking. To act without thinking made
the moral agent strongly culpable/responsible for the consequences of his/her actions. But how
do we act in a way expressing our moral reasoning? Rachels (2007:11-13) enumerates three
significant steps involved in moral reasoning:
First, to identify the case's facts: Here, we need to consider the questions of how, why,
where, when, who, and what. Some cases are far more complex that more questions will need to
be asked, and thorough investigation is required.
Second, the ethical issues involved: Is the incident involving ethical issues? Ethical issues
show competing interests or benefits; without conflicting positions, there can be no issue.
Third, consult Moral Principles: There are varieties of moral principles, but not all of
them may apply to the matter. Some of these moral principles are categorized as
Consequentialism (Ethical Egoism, Group Consequentialism, Utilitarianism), Deontological
Ethics, Virtue Ethics, Christian Ethics, Moral Absolutism, Utilitarianism, and Moral
Relativism which we will discuss soon.
Lastly, applying the most appropriate moral principles: Because ethical situations are
real, deliberating it inside your head does not make you a moral agent. It is not enough to identify
the moral principle that best applies to your case; you need to decide and take a stand, a
responsibility.

VI. The Importance of Moral Courage

The last stage demands existence of moral courage. Making a decision and executing a
decision is the same difference between a Nelson Mandela and a complacent South African who
complained about apartheid but never did anything about it. There is a big difference between
those who speak up against injustices and those who suffer in silence. In the earlier discussion,
we pointed out the essential elements of the human act: knowledge, consciousness, and freedom.
One could have all these elements, but unless he/she made a concrete response or execution,
he/she would never be considered a moral agent. To be a truly moral person requires an act of
moral courage to fight for what is right even if a self is sacrificed. We have known many
personalities and politicians in our society that are a product of reputable universities but ending
up rotten and publicly corrupt. This only proves the point that knowledge does not necessarily
guarantee morality. It is one thing to know the right thing, and it is another to actually stand up
and do exactly what one believes he/she should do. What lacks is the Will Power, the moral
courage, the strength of character to stand up for what is right, true, and proper.

4 University of the Philippines – Cebu

 General Ethics 2022

VII. When Moral Imagination is a Necessity

It is often times easy to make moral decision in life when there is only one alternative to
choose from; or when one’s choice wouldn’t put one’s life at risk; or when all facts/information
are presented that we could already foresee clearly the consequences of our decision; or when
we are able to ensure the support of those who will be affected by our decision that any decision
we make they will be there 100% to back us up. The moral problem, however, lies when there
are more alternatives to choose from; the choice would surely result to risking one’s life; there
are no facts available to help use and the pressure is too much because we are frightened not
knowing the consequences of our decisions; and worst we are not even sure if those who will be
affected by our decision will truly help, support, understand us that we are afraid we might find
ourselves carrying the burden of a wrong decision alone by ourselves. In such a moral dilemma
we either make that “leap of faith” to make a choice or not to do anything. It is precisely in such
a situation that moral imagination is needed.

VIII. What is Moral Imagination?

When confronted with moral dilemma, moral imagination becomes a necessary ingredient
in making responsible moral judgement. Only through imagination can one project alternate
ways to frame experience, to form mental images of real or unreal phenomena or events and
develop different scenarios or different perspectives on those phenomena or events as a result
broaden, evaluate, even change one’s moral point of view. Mark Johnson, in his book Moral
Imagination defines it as “ability to imaginatively discern various possibilities for acting within
a given situation and to envision the potential help and harm that are likely to result from a
given action.
Moral imagination is usually distinguished from reason for the be imaginative one need
not be restricted by reason. But this does not mean that moral obligation is intrinsically
irrational for one can create imaginative representation of possible worlds that, though unreal,
nevertheless it has logic and consistency.

IX. Moral Imagination and Sympathy

In his Theory of Mental Sentiments, Smith argues that “how selfish soever man may be supposed,
there are evidently some principles in his nature, which interest him in the fortune of others.” One of these
principles is “sympathy.” For Smith, sympathy is neither empathy nor any other sentiment or passion.
When I sympathize, I placed myself in another’s situation, not because of how the situation feels to me or
might affect me but rather as if I were that person. I project myself to into another’s experience in order to
understand what another person is feeling, rather than merely to relate that situation to my own.
Sympathy, then, is the recognition and comprehension of what another feels or might feel in a situation as
5 University of the Philippines – Cebu
 General Ethics 2022

I cognitively understand the emotion at others without actually feeling them. Smith claims that humans
are intrinsically social beings and “can subsist only in society” but he also argued that it is possible to
imaginatively step back from one’s situation within society and view it from another’s perspective. He
contends that each of us has an active imagination which enables use mentally to recreate another’s
feelings, passions, and point of view. In this imaginative process of sympathy one does not literary feel
the passion of another, rather, one understands what another experiencing from that person’s perspectives.
Sympathy is also a general principle of “fellow understanding” that enables me to understand another’s
passion and interest even if I resent or even abhor those passions or that person.
Thus, sympathy, along with imagination, allows us to disengage ourselves and evaluate a situation
or person more dispassionately, judiciously, or impartially. We must, however, understand that moral
imagination is a necessary but not a sufficient condition for moral decision-making.

X. Doing Moral Imagination

First, moral imagination begins not with the general but with particular, a particular person of moral or
immoral character, an event, a situation, a dilemma, or a conflict.
Second, to “imagine is to make oneself absent from the whole of things to become disengaged…distanced
from reality and ordinary experience” as Paul Ricoeur claims. Being imaginative and at the same time
acting as disengaged spectator allows one not only to get a critical and evaluative perspective on a script
or mental model, but also allows one to be self-reflective: to step back from one’s situation and view the
event or oneself from another vantage point, but never a view from nowhere.
And, lastly, moral imagination delas with possibilities or ideals that even if not practical, at least,
theoretically viable and actualizable. The possibilities should have a normative or prescriptive character;
they concern what one ought to do, with right or wrong, with virtue, with positive and negative
consequences, or with what common morality calls “good” or “evil”.

6 University of the Philippines – Cebu