Ethics vs.

Morality:

The text explores the subtle difference between "ethics" and "morality." Etymologically, both
derive from words meaning "custom," making them closely related. However, the text
distinguishes them functionally:

Ethics: Is a theoretical, normative science that provides principles for judging human actions as
good or bad, right or wrong. It offers knowledge about morality but doesn't guarantee moral
behavior.

Morality: Is the practical application of ethical principles; it's the doing of ethics. One can know
ethical principles (ethics) but only become moral (morality) by acting upon them.

Custom:

The text also defines "custom" as a rule of human conduct established through repeated actions
and generally accepted within a society. Both ethics and morality are connected to this concept
of societal norms.

t contrasts them with postulates in established scientific theories (like the Theory of Gravity or
Relativity). Unlike scientific postulates that are proven by other sciences, ethical postulates,
such as the existence of God, intellect and free will, and the immortality of the soul, are not
proven scientifically but are instead foundational assumptions within moral philosophy.

Psychology is described as a descriptive philosophy that examines man's intellect, free will, and
conduct. Ethics, on the other hand, guides man's intellect to translate moral truths into action
(conduct). It poses the question of how man ought to behave, unlike psychology which
describes how man does behave.

Ethics and Sociology: Sociology studies human relations, which depend on a proper social order
and laws. These laws, in turn, reflect ethical principles of right and wrong, showing a close
connection between the two fields.

Ethics and Logic: Logic deals with correct thinking, while ethics deals with correct action. They
are closely related, as correct thinking is necessary for correct action.

Ethics and Anthropology: Anthropology studies human origins and the behavior of early
humans. Ethics, conversely, focuses on the principles of right conduct applicable to all people
throughout history.
Ethics and Moral Theology: Both moral philosophy (ethics) and moral theology share the goal of
human attainment of God. However, they differ in their basis: moral philosophy uses reason,
while moral theology relies on faith and divine revelation.

This section argues that morality exists solely within the context of humanity and that man is
the only moral being. This assertion is supported by three key reasons:

Man as a Being of Action and Responsibility: Humans act and are aware of their actions,
understanding that they are responsible for the consequences. This awareness of responsibility
is fundamental to morality.

Man's Intellect: Humans possess intellect, enabling them to discern right from wrong, good
from bad. This capacity for moral judgment is essential for moral agency. Those lacking this
capacity (e.g., morons, infants) are not considered moral agents.

Man's Free Will: Humans have the freedom to choose their actions. This free will empowers
them to choose between good and bad, right and wrong, making them accountable for their
choices.

The section concludes by highlighting four postulates of actions in ethics: that actions are either
right or wrong; that some actions are obligatory while others are not; that humans are
responsible for their actions; and that right actions are rewardable, while wrong actions are
punishable. The existence of these postulates further underscores the unique moral capacity of
humankind.

It argues that it is man's rationality, his ability to reason, that makes him a moral agent. The text
uses an Aristotelian view, stating that while man is both an animal (possessing senses and
instincts) and a rational being (possessing knowledge, intellect, and will), it is his rationality that
distinguishes him and allows for moral agency. The diagram visually represents this duality,
showing how man's animal nature and rational nature intersect. The text emphasizes that
lacking rationality doesn't negate one's humanity, but it does prevent them from being a moral
agent.

Man as an Animal: The passage begins by acknowledging that humans, like animals, acquire
knowledge through their senses and are driven by instincts (e.g., hunger, thirst, sex). It argues
that man, being an animal, is subject to these drives just like any other animal.
Man as a Rational Animal: However, the passage argues that what sets man apart is his
rationality. This rationality allows him to go beyond mere sensory perception. He processes
sensory information through intellect, forming abstract concepts and making judgments. This
ability to reason distinguishes him from other animals.

Morality and Rationality: The author contends that man's animality alone doesn't grant him a
license to be moral. It is his rationality, his ability to understand himself as a moral being, that
allows for morality.

Perception and Intellect: The passage emphasizes that human perception is not simply a passive
reception of sensory data. It is actively processed by intellect, leading to analysis, assessment,
criticism, and intellectualization.

 Intellect and Will as Correlative Faculties: Intellect (reason) and will (choice) are presented as
intrinsically linked and essential for man's role as a moral agent.

 Intellect vs. Will (Comparison Chart): A chart is presented to highlight the differences and
connections between intellect and will:

 Intellect: Associated with wisdom, truth, thinking, knowing, and the highest goal.

 Will: Associated with virtue, good, doing, choosing, and purpose.

 Intellect Guides, Will Chooses: The passage emphasizes that intellect allows humans to
understand right and wrong, while the will empowers them to choose between them.

 Intellect Enables Truth, Will Enables Good: Intellect enables the search for truth, which leads
to wisdom. The will, on the other hand, allows humans to act upon that wisdom and strive for
good.

 Discipline and Physiological Drives: The passage suggests that humans can inject "a dose of
discipline" into their physiological drives through intellect and will, implying the ability to
control and direct these drives.

This passage focuses on the concrete basis of morality, moving beyond the abstract discussion
of intellect and will to explore how morality becomes real and applicable in human experience.
Here's a breakdown:

Key Points:
Virtue (Virtus): The passage defines "virtue" (derived from the Latin "virtus," meaning "man") as
"what is proper to man." It emphasizes that in the moral realm, man has the fundamental
option to choose between right and wrong, good and bad.

Moral Imperative: This choice is presented as a moral imperative, a demand inherent in ethics.
This is particularly emphasized in the Catholic Christian moral tradition.

Freedom and Moral Responsibility: Even though humans have the freedom to choose wrongly
or badly, they remain morally responsible for their actions.

Morality Beyond Intellect and Will: The passage raises questions about whether morality is
solely a matter of intellect and will, or just a conceptual framework. It argues that morality is
not merely cerebral but becomes real through experience.

Morality as Applied Ethics: Morality is realized when it is applied to concrete situations,

Three Scenarios of Moral Experience: The passage outlines three scenarios where moral
experience arises:

Encountering a Moral Experience: Any situation that presents a choice or dilemma with moral
implications.

Encountering a Moral Problem: A situation that specifically challenges one's moral compass.

Moral Obligation: When a problem demands a specific moral action.

Moral Problem as Trigger: The passage clarifies that not all experiences are moral, but only
those that create a moral problem. Similarly, not all problems are moral, but only those that call
for a moral obligation.

Obligation as the Key: The central argument is that obligation is what transforms a problem or
experience into a moral one.

In essence, this passage shifts the focus from the internal workings of intellect and will to the
external, experiential dimension of morality. It argues that morality becomes concrete and real
through situations that present moral problems and demand moral obligations. The concept of
"obligation" is crucial in understanding how abstract moral principles translate into lived ethical
experiences.

Obligation as the Basis of Morality: The passage reiterates that there is no morality without
obligation. Morality is intrinsically linked to the concept of "ought."
"Ought" and Degrees of Obligation: "Ought" is presented as one degree of moral obligation,
with others being "must" and "should." These degrees imply varying levels of necessity or
advisability.

Freedom and Responsibility: Despite these degrees, humans are ultimately responsible for their
actions because they possess freedom.

Moral Questions and Obligation: When faced with a moral problem, individuals are confronted
with questions like "What ought I to do?", "What must I do?", and "What should I do?" These
questions highlight the obligation inherent in the situation.

Will and Options: The human will allows individuals to consider various options in fulfilling their
obligations. This introduces the concept of polarity in morality.

Polarity in Morality: Polarity signifies the freedom to choose between good and bad, or right
and wrong responses to one's obligation.

Diagrammatic Representation: The passage includes a diagram illustrating this polarity:

Man (in his freedom) is positioned in the center.

Actions on either side represent the choices: good/right/better vs. bad/wrong/worse.

The diagram suggests that the individual's will can move towards either end of the spectrum.

In essence, this passage clarifies that "obligation" is the cornerstone of morality. While different
degrees of obligation exist, humans are ultimately free to choose how they respond. This
freedom introduces a polarity of good and bad choices, making moral decision-making a
complex process of navigating obligation through the exercise of will.