1.NATURAL LAW ( ST.

THOMAS AQUINAS )
Natural law was espoused by Saint Thomas Aquinas, who viewed the world as being
created by God and understood that humans are rational beings capable of using their intellect to
comprehend the world. By extension, God enabled humans to reason in a natural way to make
ethical choices. Aquinas viewed the first principle of natural law as: “good is to be done and
promoted, and evil is to be avoided” (White, 2006, p.29).
Natural law asserts that what is good is natural, and what is natural is good. Unlike
Thomas Hobbes’ cynical view in the social contract theory, Aquinas viewed humans as being
naturally inclined to do good rather than evil. Because of the natural inclination toward doing
good, Aquinas viewed morality as a universal set of rights and wrongs that are shared across
cultures.
He delineated two basic human inclinations:
1) To preserve one’s own life
2) To preserve the human species
Followers of natural law would suggest that the decision is moral if it furthers human life
or preserves one’s own life. Should the decision go against human life or preserving your own
life, the decision is immoral.

1.1. MORAL GOODS

Moral good" refers to actions, behaviors, or character traits that are considered right,
beneficial, and worthy, often aligning with societal values and principles of ethics.
In natural law theory, particularly as formulated by Thomas Aquinas, the self-
preservation, procreation, knowledge, sociability, and fellowship with God. This represent
fundamental moral goods or ends that humans are naturally inclined to pursue. These are not
simply desires but rather essential aspects of a flourishing human life, and therefore, actions that
promote them are considered morally good.
These moral goods are the following:
 Self-preservation- this refers to the basic instinct to preserve one's own
life, a fundamental aspect of human nature.
 Procreation- this encompasses the drive to perpetuate the human species,
including family formation and the rearing of offspring.
 Knowledge- this signifies the pursuit of truth and understanding,
including both theoretical knowledge and practical wisdom.
 Sociability- this refers to the natural inclination to live in a community
and to interact with others in a way that promotes the common good.
  Fellowship with God- this is a spiritual aspect, referring to the desire to
know and worship God, and to live in accordance with God's will.

1.2. HUMAN ACTS AND ACTS OF MAN

Human Acts are different from Acts of man. We cannot talk about goodness and badness
of an act if we are dealing with acts of man. Only with human acts can we determined whether
an act is moral or immoral.
Human Acts- acts with conscious knowledge, acts that are done freely, acts done with
consent. Human acts are those that are freely chosen in consequence of a judgment of
conscience.
Determinants of Human Acts
1) Knowledge- an action performed by conscious agent who is aware of its
action and its consequences.
2) Freedom- it must be performed by an agent who is acting freely, without
any external factors affecting its actions.
3) Voluntariness- it must be performed by an agent who decides willfully to
perform the act.

Acts of man - are acts that happen "naturally acts done without self-awareness without
deliberation, reflection, consent. Instinctive, spontaneous acts that human beings share with other
animals. It is an action done by an agent, which does not have one or more determinants of
Human Acts.

1.3. MODIFIES OF RESPONSIBILITY

This are factors that can influence or diminish an individual's accountability for their
actions, including ignorance, passions, fear, violence, and habit.
1) Ignorance- a lack of knowledge, which can be moral or intellectual, can
diminish responsibility.
 Invincible ignorance- this type of ignorance is so strong that it opposes
the will, making an action involuntary.
 Vincible ignorance- this type of ignorance can be overcome with effort
and is therefore less likely to diminish responsibility.
 2) Passions- strong emotions or tendencies, like love, hate, or anger, can
cloud judgment and make it difficult to make balanced decisions, potentially reducing
responsibility.
3) Fear- an unpleasant emotion that can lead to actions taken out of
desperation or panic, potentially diminishing responsibility.
4) Violence- when an action is the result of coercion or force, the person's
responsibility can be diminished.
5) Habit- repeated actions can become ingrained, making it difficult to act
otherwise, potentially reducing responsibility.

1.4.DETERMINANTS OF MORALITY
Are called because they are the basis for judging whether an act is good or evil, moral or
immoral. They are the following: (1) the end of act itself, (2) the end of the doer, and (3) the
circumstances of the act.
1. The end of the act-determines whether an act is intrinsically or extrinsically good or
evil. Any act which is consistent with the natural tendencies of human nature is intrinsically
good. But those that are contrary to reason are intrinsically evil, such as murder, abortion,
kidnapping, robbery, and rape. We speak of these acts as being contrary to natural law.
 Actions which are neutral or indifferent to the norm of morality are
extrinsically good or evil. These actions are either good or bad not on account of their
nature, but because of factors or circumstances concomitant to them. The act of eating,
for example, is an amoral act and is neither morally good or bad. But either over-eating or
excessive dieting could be unhealthy and therefore, morally objectionable
 Action which are intrinsically evil or prohibited at all times actions which
are extrinsically evil may permitted when the factors which render them evil are removed
or corrected. It is fact that some actions entail pain and suffering, while some do bring
pleasures to their doers. Pain or pleasures do not define whether an act of moral or
immoral regardless whether it is a painful or pleasurable experience.

2. The end of the doer- is the purpose or motive which the doer wishes to accomplish by
his action. Without a motive, an act is accidental and involuntary. A good motive is truthful,
prudent, temperate, and just. It is the most equitable for the most number of people, or in the
words of the existentialist" the most loving of all in a given situation.
"The End does not justify the means" is a fundamental moral principle. It affirms that
one should not do wrong (means) in order to attain a good purpose (end) The motive of a person,
no matter how noble, does not excuse an act which is intrinsically evil. The desire to pass a
subject does not justify a students who for cheats in the examination. Likewise, the need to feed
a family does not justify torture of a suspect by the police. The rule is-don't do wrong even if this
will result in something good.

3. Circumstances of the act- are the historical elements surrounding the commission of
an act, such as the status of the doer, the place the time, or the intensity of an act. The
circumstances are hinted by the interrogative pronouns-who, what, where, with. whom, why,
how, and where.
1) "Who" refers either to the doer of the act or the recipient of the act. It has
to do with the age, status, relation, schooling, social standing, an economic situation of
those involved in an act.
2) "What" refers to the act itself, or the quality and quantity of the result of
such act. Robbery, for instance, what is stolen and how much is stolen are aggravating
factors. Likewise, the numbers of victims determines the seriousness of the murder.
3) "Where" refers to the place where the act is committed. A crime inside a
church is more scandalous than the committed in a seclude place. Murder in a
marketplace is more heinous than that done in a mountain trail.
4) "With whom" refers to the companion or accomplices in an act. The more
people are involved in the commission of an act, the more serious in the crime.
5) "Why" refers to the motive of the doer, as discussed earlier.
6) "How" refers to the manners of the act is perpetrated. Homicide
committed with much cruelty is a heinous crime.
7) "When" refers to the time of the act. A murder committed when the victim
when the victim is sleeping is more offensive than the one done when the victim is wide
awake.

1.5. CONSCIENCE AS MORAL PRACTICAL JUDGEMENT

Moral conscience, present at the heart of the person, enjoins him at the appropriate
moment to do good and to avoid evil. Conscience is our lived knowledge of good and evil, our
judgment about how we should act, and our commitment to do so. A moral faculty or feeling
prompting us to see that certain actions are morally right or wrong. Conscience is the person's
moral faculty, the inner core and sanctuary where one knows oneself in confrontation with God
and with fellowmen.
Conscience is a particular instance of the operation of reason. A process in which the
general norms of the moral law are applied to a concrete action which a person is about to
perform or has performed. Tells the person that his moral obligation is here and now or judging
is past acts.
 2 Essential parts of Conscience:
Synderesis- discovers very basic moral principles; the use of right reason by which we
learn basic moral principles and understand that we have to do good and avoid evil.
'Conscientia' (conscience) = practical reason which tells us what to do in particular
situations (end - judgement of conscience).
Conscience is a practical moral judgment (ultimate practical judgment) on the morality of
a particular action commanding to do what is good and to avoid what is evil. When in doubt to
obey or not. Inferential reasoning using principles of natural law. Connecting link between law
and individual acts.

Two basic elements of conscience:

1. Moral judgment that discerns what is right or wrong
2.Moral obligation or command to do the good and avoid the evil.

1.6. PRINCIPLE OF DOUBLE EFFECT

The principle of double effect-also known as the rule of double effect; the doctrine of
double effect, often abbreviated as DDE or PDE, double-effect reasoning; or simply double
effect-is a set of ethical criteria which Christian philosophers, and some others, have advocated
for evaluating the permissibility of acting when one's otherwise legitimate act may also cause an
effect one would otherwise be obliged to avoid (sedation and a slightly shortened life). The first
known example of double-effect reasoning is Thomas Aquinas' treatment of homicidal self-
defense, in his work Summa Theologica.
The principle of double effect is based on the idea that there is a morally relevant
difference between an "intended" consequence of an act and one that is foreseen by the actor but
not calculated to achieve his motive. So, for example, the principle is invoked to consider the
terror bombing of non-combatants having as its goal victory in a legitimate war morally out of
bounds, while holding as ethically in bounds an act of strategic bombing that similarly harms
non-combatants with foresight as a side effect of destroying a legitimate military target. Because
double effect propose that consequentially similar acts can be morally different, double effect is
most often criticized by consequentialists who consider the consequences of actions entirely
determinative of the action's morality.
The doctrine consists of four conditions that must be satisfied before an act is morally
permissible:
1. The nature-of-the-act condition. The action must be either morally good or indifferent.
 2. The means-end condition. The bad effect must not be the means by which one achieves
the good effect.
3. The right-intention condition. The intention must be the achieving of only the good
effect, with the bad effect being only an unintended side effect.
4. The proportionality condition. The bad effect must not be disproportionate to the good
effect.

2. UTILITARIANISM
2.1. ORIGINS AND NATURE OF THEORY ( JEREMY BENTHAM AND JOHN
STUART MILL )
ORIGINS
Utilitarianism or Utilitarian Theory comes from the Latin word, utilis, which means
useful, beneficial, profitable, advantageous, and serviceable. It is considered to be the most
influential teleological or consequentialist. It is claimed to have long originated from the Greek
Epicurus (341-271 B.C.) who thought that the end or purpose of all actions is primarily to attain
pleasure for oneself the limitation of desires and removing the fear of death and gods.
In Utilitarianism, what is good or right is anything useful, beneficial, advantageous, and
serviceable in the consequences or ends (telos). The end justifies the means including the
intention. Intentions and means are neither good nor bad. Utilitarianism opposes duty, reason,
virtue, God, emotion, self-interest, and love as the basis of morality.

NATURE OF THEORY
Jeremy Bentham ( known as the Father of Utilitarianism )
Is the founder of Utilitarianism. He is greatly respected for having made prisons more
humane, campaigning for greater democracy and free education. Improving working conditions,
employment, minimum wage, sickness benefits and old-age insurance. His opposition to empires
including his country and slave trades are all proofs of his “Utilitarian Ethics.”
Bentham has defined the human person and his actions as basically governed or
motivated by pleasure and pain. This fundamental role of pleasure and pain holds that everything
pleasurable is good and everything painful is evil or bad. Happiness is pleasure that is desirable
in the end. The human person and his actions are guided by his utility principle.
Utility Principle
"The greatest good is that which produces the greatest pleasure for the greatest number."
There are two types of Utilitarianism
2.2. ACT UTILITARIANISM AND RULE UTILITARIANISM
In Act Utilitarianism, the principle of utility is directly applied to every moral action.
The right act is the one that brings about the best end or the least amount of wrong or bad end.
Nicollo Machiavelli's principle: "A prince may hurt some individuals and would be justified in
his actions if it were for the benefit of the whole state " is an exact Act Utilitarianism. Bentham
suggested a hedonic calculus or utility calculus that could be used to determine the moral status
and circumstance of the action. He called it the "felicific calculus" (from Latin: Felicitas or felix
fruitful, blessed, happy).
In Rule Utilitarianism, the principle of utility is applied to validate any rule of conduct
or moral principle. The right or good rule is the one which brings about the best end or the least
amount of wrong or bad end. Legal laws that are enacted for the common good are Rule
Utilitarian. This is because the wrong or bad actions that the government punishes are any
violations of the law or rule. For example, if a person is faced with the decision of whether to tell
a lie or truth to the person, a rule utilitarian might believe that it is generally good to tell the truth
because following the rule of "always telling the truth" would, in the long run, lead to more
overall well-being than if everyone were to lie occasionally.
John Stuart Mill ( known as the "most influential English-speaking Philosopher of the 19th
century )
He was a great follower of Bentham. He attempted to correct the misconceptions about
Utilitarianism. He observed that Utilitarianism was misunderstood by construing utility as mere
pleasure and happiness as mere quantity.
Mill further developed Bentham's utility principle which has hedonistic or pleasure
tendencies. The felicific calculus is not possible because qualities cannot be quantified. He
emphasized the quality of happiness as the core of utilitarianism. He proposes an improved
version of utilitarianism with the happiness principle.
Happiness Principle
"The greatest good is greatest happiness for the greatest number of people."
 This promotes the capability of achieving quality happiness or higher pleasures for the
most amount of people. It is the sole basis of morality, the very desire, and end of all. Everything
is just a means to happiness such as rights.
Mill believed that people become unhappy because of selfishness and lack of mental
cultivation. Education should help nurture appropriate values that can make people selfless. Evils
of the world such as diseases and poverty can be eliminated if only people work together. Mill
thought that virtuous people such as heroes and martyrs do not deny themselves happiness.
Rather, they sacrifice happiness for the greatest end or the happiness for the greatest number of
people. Having an attitude of self-sacrifice is the best chance of gaining happiness but not good
in itself. It is good for promoting happiness. Utilitarianism may be godless since happiness may
not be the will of God. But Mill thinks that if God desires the happiness of all his people, then
utilitarianism could be a better religion.

2.3. BUSINESS’ FASCINATION WITH UTILITARIANISM

There is an undeniable attraction of business with utilitarianism precisely because

business is fundamentally result oriented or profit oriented. Being result-oriented, business is
very flexible when it comes to exploring different means, short-term or long-term as long as they
gain good profit and satisfy especially the customers. Business exists primarily for profit or
financial interest that brings success and happiness through the exchanges of goods and services.
Business commerce and trade have co-existed with humanity since immemorial to provide basic
human needs that lead to happiness. Happiness can be in the form of high customer satisfaction,
(increased profits, outstanding reputation, workers' highest performance, and stakeholders' full
satisfaction.

The business has practically become both an institution and a profession. Rule
Utilitarianism has been the principle of business institutions and professionals which manifest in
their rules: "Customer is always right;" "Profit is sweet, even if it comes from deception
(Sophocles); and,. "Profit is a by-product of work; happiness is its chief product" Henry Ford).
Business institutions have grown into corporations, companies, establishments, commercial
enterprises, and firms that provide socio economic pleasures to particular groups of people. But
as a profession, business has become a provider of quality services that uphold values and
principles for the greatest happiness of the greatest number of people.
Businesses have essentially been a consequence of an urgent need or demand. They
evolve to solve some social, political, and economic problems. Commercial establishments have
been built to provide food, clothing, and shelter to everyone. Utilitarian business decision-
making prioritizes a result that provides higher cash flow or income. But the income is just a
symbol of the happiness or satisfaction of all the owners and stakeholders. So the greater return
of investment or profit, the happier those who own and run the business including its customers.
The business principle of cost-benefit would weigh the advantages and disadvantages of
any decision just as the utilitarian is focused on benefits and pains. This is a very basic method in
solving business problems. All solutions should be beneficial to the organization. A business
solution to problems is considered as the utility or usefulness of every move or decision. Workers
and their performance are often measured by their usefulness. Besides, many businesses consider
hiring employees who have the potentials to work at their best for the greater good of the
business and the greatest happiness of everyone in the business.