CHAPTER IV: Human Acts
Ethics BSCE-1B
Prepared by:
Pachong, Geah B.
Winni, Jennifer
Valdez, Nathaniel
Amogcao, Martin
Macasieb, Jayvee
Prepared for:
Sir Martin Wapan (Ethics Instuctor)
CHAPTER IV: HUMAN ACT
I. What is Human Act?
This is referred to as the human activity of man by which he attains an end he
wants to obtain. A human act does not refer to the animal acts of man. Since is not
purely human or spiritual, but also animal in nature, he has some activities in common
with brutes like feeling, hearing, eating, taste and smell. Such animal activities, which
are called ACTS OF MAN, are not classified as human acts.
Human acts are those acts of rationality of man. They are the rational acts of
human person which involves understanding and free will. They are the free and
conscious acts of a human being proper to man alone, emanating from deliberate and
free will. Paul J. Glenn defines human act as “an act which proceeds from the deliberate
free will of man”.
On the other hand, ACTS OF MAN are the activities of man as animal. These acts
are not deliberately done, nor voluntary; they are performed without the free will of the
agent. Examples of these are beating of the heart, acts done during sleep or dream,
sensations by the five sense organs; seeing, eating, among others. The following are
signs of acts of man.
1. They are done indeliberately. The agent performing the act is not conscious of his
actions going on. The action he is doing is not under the command of his
consciousness.
2. The acts are not done freely. They may be done by force, that is, without the
freedom of choice of choice of the person.
3. The acts are done involuntarily. The acts do not emanate from the heart of the
agent.
Acts of man, since they are not deliberately, freely, and voluntarily done, do not
demand responsibility and imputability from the agent. For this reason, acts of man are
not subject to morality. They are amoral acts. Thus, they are not the concern of the study
of ethics.
II. Essential Qualities of Human Acts
There are three essential qualities required of an act in order to be classified as human
act:
1. The act must be deliberate. The agent does it consciously; he knows that he is doing
the act and aware of its consequences, good or evil.
2. The act must be free. The person who is doing the act must be free from external force
beyond his control, or from any strong influence. Otherwise, the act is not his own. The
act must not be done out of fear.
3. The act must be voluntary. The act is done out of the will and decision of the agent.
The act emanates from the bottom of his heart.
Since the human act is done knowingly, freely, and voluntarily, the agent becomes
responsible of such act. Being so, whatever shall be the con- sequence of the act, he will
be accountable for it. Whether the consequence of the act is good or evil, reward or
punishment, the agent shall be imputable for it. In other words, human act being moral
in nature is the concern of ethics. For a human act can be morally good or morally evil.
Examples of human act are the following:
an act of decision to select a degree course
an act of killing someone
an act of marriage
choice of life partner to love
to vote for a candidate
act of teaching or studying, et cetera.
III. Classification of Human Acts
Human acts are classified as ELICITED ACTS and COMMANDED ACTS. Elicited acts
emanate from the will of the agent. It is a will-act begun and completed in the will
without bodily involvement. Commanded acts are body-mind acts done to carry out
the elicited act of the subject or agent. For example, Pedro has the will-act of going to
the court to play basketball. This is the elicited act. To carry it out, he walks (body and
mind) to the court with the ball in hand to shoot. This is the commanded act.
Paul Glenn enumerates six elicited acts. They are the following:
1. Wish- It is a natural inclination of the will towards an object. The wishing of the will
includes objects that are possible or impossible to be realized by the wishing subject.
For instance, "I wish to be- come a millionaire." "I wish to tour around the globe." "I
wish to become President of the country." These wishes can be possibly or impossibly
attainable.
2. Intention- This is the will's tendency towards something attainable but not
obligatory, however. For instance, an invitation to attend a birthday party; to go for a
walk at the park; or to visit a friend.
3. Consent- Consent is the acceptance of the will to implement the agent's intention.
An invited person consents to go to the affair for instance.
4. Election-. The agent chooses from among a variety of means what he believes to
be the most effective to carry out an intention. If I go to Manila, I select to go by bus
instead of the airplane, or taxi.
5. Use- This is the will's command to make use of the selected means in carrying out
the intention. Since I chose to go to Manila by bus, I start calling up the company
office for the trip; prepare things for
the trip's purpose and then go.
6. Fruition- This is the enjoyment of the will as a result of the attainment of the
object desired earlier. The invited person enjoyed the affair. Using the bus in going to
Manila, with the realization or accomplishment of the objectives of the trip, I enjoyed
the success.
Command acts, on the other hand, are those acts involving both body and mind,
necessary to carry out the elicited acts. This kind of acts has three classifications; which
are the following:
1. Internal Acts- These acts refer to the purely mental faculties under the command of
the will. Examples of these are: deliberate imagination for a certain purpose; intentional
recall; meditation; rationalization; controlling one" emotions; among others.
2. External Acts- These acts are done by the body as commanded by the will.
Illustrative examples are the following: talking, deliberate motion like running, walking,
hand gestures, writing or eat3ing. While these acts are classified as "acts of man", they
become human acts when done with advertence and with the will.
3. Mixed- As the term connotes, mixed acts are those done by both bodily and mental
powers. Examples are the act of studying, sharp shooting, chess playing, among others.
These acts employ both body and mind.
IV. The Existence of Human Act
What causes human act to exist? What motivates it to be performed? What is in the
mind of the agent in doing the act? A human act cannot be caused to be performed
without an object in view. For every act that is done, there is always a corresponding
end, or a goal. It is this end in view that gives the act the reason for its existence. If there
is an act, the agent has an objective in mind. To attain such, he makes the act as a
means to reach that objective or end.
V. Human Act and Responsibility
Responsibility is the ability of a person to respond to a need or problem in a given
situation. That ability to respond is an internal quality of a person, which is free and
voluntary yet morally obligatory in himself. A responsible person has that feeling of
moral obligation to do an act as a response to the demand of the situation. The agent,
who is a moral person, feels that he must do "what-ought-to-be-done" to the demand of
the pre- vailing situation. His conscience "tells" him from within that he must do
something for the situation. "Gawin mo ang dapat mong gawin." (Do what you ought to
do.), yet the agent remains free to do or to refuse the call.
The agent's act of responding to the call is a free, conscious, and voluntary act, hence
moral in nature. The agent becomes responsible then for whatever is the consequence.
Responding positively would mean him re- ward, growth and fulfillment as a person.
Denial to the call would mean retardation and self-destruction for him (Dy, Jr.)
Situations we encounter in our life are part of our personal growing. While these
situations are inevitable and at times destructive, they are, on the other hand, beneficial
for us in which we employ our God-given potentials and talents.
To illustrate, we recall the EDSA Revolution in February 1986. Phenomenal in scope,
the so-called "People's Power Revolution" was nationally waged as a great response to
the political call of the hour, where the national situation was under the following political
condition:
1. There was dictatorship in the regime.
2. There was rampant violation of human rights here and there.
3. Graft and corruption in government offices and agencies.
The situation was in great demand for political reforms and brave people ready to
sacrifice life to initiate the needed change. Fidel Ramos and Juan Ponce Enrile together
with church leaders headed by Cardinal Sin and presidential candidate Cory Aquino stood
up gallantly, made a nation-wide call for people's power and participation at the Epifanio
de los Santos Avenue (EDSA) on February 23-26, 1986. The colossal act was made in
order to save democracy from the claws of dictatorship. The objective was accomplished
due to the participation and cooperation of all sectors of society.
Another case of a situation. Poverty struck thousands of people in India causing
thousands of deaths due to hunger. There was a great call to the situation. A great lover
from eastern Europe by the name Mother Teresa led the response to the situation. As a
religious Sister, she made the campaign for the procurement of foods to feed the hungry
thousands and build hospitals to cure the sick and the dying. Mother Teresa responded
favor- ably to the call of the situation. As a result, she was considered a "living Saint" by
the Christian world before she died in 1998 aside from her "Nobel Prize" awarded by the
civil world.
Natural calamities in the Philippines like the 1990 killer earthquake, had victims go
homeless and hungry. Filipinos and people abroad alike responded favorably to the needs
of the victims, donating in cash or in kind to alleviate their sufferings. Foods, clothing,
shelter and medicine, and ser- vices flowed towards rehabilitation centers.
Certainly, these generous donors who made happy the victims were rewarded the
feelings of joy and happiness accompanied with gratitude and appreciation from the
recipients benefited.
VI. Free Will and Freedom
Free will and freedom, which are almost synonymous, are vital elements of human
act. The morality of human act is determined by the presence of the two, aside from
knowledge and voluntariness. Hence, their need for a brief presentation here to provide
the student a deeper background for human act.
HUMAN FREE WILL. "Will" is man's natural tendency of being attracted to what is good
and beautiful and to be repulsed from what is evil and ugly, after they have been
presented by the intellect. As a faculty, will is the counterpart of the intellect. To
illustrate, a beautiful lady is presented to a gentleman; the lady attracts the attention
and WILL (love) of the man. In other words, the gentleman wills (is attracted to) the lady.
On the other hand, we know that poison is evil and ugly. A poisonous snake, being ugly,
re- pulses the will of man; the man avoids it. Murder and rape are evil acts (heinous
crimes punishable by death) for both victims and agent (criminal). While the agent is
attracted to do it, it does not mean it is good for him. for if the evil acts are to be done to
him, to be the victim, he would repulse it.
The will is free when it acts without any pressure from outside. It is free when it is
attracted to or repulses anything on a natural tendency. We call this human free will. So,
in the performance of a human act, the free will is involved, as the free will contributes to
the humanity of the act. The act cannot be human without the free will. Without it, the
act would be classified as an "act of man". Free will makes the agent become responsible
and accountable for his act.
St. Thomas defines freedom of the will as the "power which men have of determining
their actions according to the judgement of their reason" (Summa Theo. Vol.1:737).
FREEDOM. Negatively defined, freedom is the absence of constriction. Positively, it is
the power to be and to act under free will and choice. So, a human person does to realize
and fulfill himself as a free being. But freedom unlimited does not exist in this world. Our
freedom is "situated" or limited by the rights of others, things or persons. Our
environment, social or physical, constricts our freedom.
We cannot be free from air, we need and depend on oxygen for existence. Our body is
not free and cannot be freed from space and time. Parents are not free to choose their
children, and vice versa; children cannot choose their father and mother. We are subject
to history, to our past, present and future. Without the future, we cannot live. But man
remains man despite the limitations of human freedom. "Man cannot be reduced to
historicity, to his environment, to determinism.
VII. The Modifiers of Human Act
The degree or intensity of the morality of human acts depend upon the presence of
certain factors that affects the commission or human acts. These factors are called
modifiers, namely, ignorance, concupiscence, fear, violence, and habit. These can affect
human acts in their essential qualities of knowledge, freedom and voluntariness. They
can reduce the moral character of the human act, which in turn would diminish the
responsibility and imputability in the agent.
IGNORANCE. Ignorance is the lack of knowledge in man of a certain thing expected to
have been known by him. it is a negation of knowledge ordinarily. But intellectual
ignorance is more than just a negation. It also means the presence of what is falsely
supposed to be knowledge (Glenn: 26). For example, I violated a traffic law not
deliberately because I was not aware of it. This is purely lack of knowledge. But
supposedly I know that there is a traffic law on "EVEN" and "ODD" numbers. But I
thought that such law is applicable only to public utility vehicles but not on my private
car. This is positive ignorance which we call "mistake" or "error".
How does ignorance affect the morality of human act?
Let us consider first ignorance in its three aspects: ignorance in its object, ignorance
in its subject, and ignorance in its result.
1. Ignorance in its Object- This refers to the subject's ignorance of the law, fact, or
corresponding penalty. "Ignorance of law" is the absence of knowledge a person ought to
possess. Just as a lawyer is expected to be knowledgeable of laws, so a member of a
community is expected to be aware of the moral practices of his
group.
"Ignorance of fact" is ignorance of the nature or circumstances of an act that is
generally forbidden in the community. The agent knows the law but violated it
unknowingly due to some misinformation about its details and implementation, or due to
some other factors. It is immoral to marry a blood-sister; but the brother married his
sister due to ignorance of his relation. A driver violated a traffic rule not intentionally but
due to non-legible traffic signs. “Ignorance of penalty" is lack of knowledge of the
sanction imposed by the law to violators. A criminal may not have dared violate the law
had he known that the penalty for such is death.
2. Ignorance in its Subject- This aspect of ignorance lies in the agent who has no
knowledge of the law, fact or penalty. This ignorance is either "vincible" or "invincible".
Vincible ignorance is one that can easily be overcome through diligence and exertion of
efforts by the subject. It is an ignorance that is not insurmountable. Ignorance of the law
on voting age is not a difficult problem to solve; you can just inquire from local comelec
personnel.
There are some people who purposely refuse to acquire knowledge of a certain
thing they are expected to know. For instance, certain individuals refuse to read a
memorandum, or a law, preferring to remain ignorant in order to escape responsibility
and accountability when he violates such. This is called affected ignorance.
Invincible ignorance is one which the subject concerned can- not possibly
overcome due to lack of means, among other factors. An illiterate beggar cannot
overcome his ignorance of the Philippine Constitution due to the lack of means to go for
education. Or a deaf, illiterate Catholic eats meat on Ash Wednesday and Good Friday
(fasting and abstinence for Catholics, a church law) totally unaware of the abstinence
days. Here his ignorance is invincible (Glenn:30).
3. Ignorance in its Result- This refers to the relation of ignorance to the act done out
of ignorance. It has three forms of appearance: antecedent ignorance, concomitant
ignorance and consequent ignorance.
Antecedent ignorance precedes the consent of the will. An American lover lived-in
with a Filipina without marriage ceremony. His ignorance existed even before courting,
he being an American. Had he known the law, he would have married the woman first.
Concomitant ignorance accompanies an act that would be formed even if there
was no ignorance. In other words, somehow the agent has some degree of knowledge of
the law, yet he refuses to obey due to an accompanying ignorance. A Christian knows
that he has to go to Holy Mass on Sundays, but he is not interested to go because he is
ignorant of the spiritual value thereof.
Consequent ignorance is a vincible ignorance but the subject deliberately refuses
to conquer it. The agent advertently does not make any effort to dispel the ignorance in
order to escape responsibility and accountability.
VIII. Moral Principles
From the above deliberations on ignorance, some moral principles are formulated, as
ignorance affects or modifies the morality of human act. They are the following:
PRINCIPLE 1. INVINCIBLE IGNORANCE MAKES AN ACT INVOLUNTARY.
A person cannot be held morally responsible and accountable for an act done due
to ignorance he cannot possibly dispel or overcome not of his own negligence or fault but
due to impossible means or fate.
For an act to be voluntary, knowledge and freedom must be present, upon which
voluntariness depends. But they were lacking, thus, the act is involuntary.
A man, for instance, marries a woman totally without the knowledge that they are
blood sister and brother. The two cannot be morally condemned for their marriage due to
total unawareness that they are bloodily related. They were picked up as babies
separately; one at the Quiapo church door and the other at the Baguio cathedral's steps
some 30 years ago, the one adopted by sisters in a convent and the other, by a family.
PRINCIPLE 2. VINCIBLE IGNORANCE DOES NOT RENDER THE ACT INVOLUNTARY,
BUT REDUCES THE VOLUNTARINESS AND THE CORRESPONDING
ACCOUNTABILITY OVER THE ACT (Agapay:22)
Vincible ignorance is within the ability of the person to overcome it. If only he
exercises an effort and diligence, he can acquire the knowledge. But he does not do it
despite the fact that he is aware of his ignorance and the capacity to subdue it. His
awareness makes him responsible; therefore, he is accountable for the consequence of
the act. But the fact of ignorance is still there. So, there must be a corresponding
reduction of the accountability. For example, a newly Christianized pagan doubts whether
it is immoral to have premarital sex relation with a future wife or not. He goes on with
the relation without making the effort to inquire from church authorities to re- move the
doubt or ignorance. Vincible ignorance lessens the voluntariness of the act and renders it
less human (Glenn:34).
PRINCIPLE 3. AFFECTED IGNORANCE IN A WAY REDUCES AND, IN ANOTHER WAY,
INTENSIFIES VOLUNTARINESS.
Affected ignorance is vincible but the agent willfully does not exert effort to dispel it. For
this reason, he has some degree of voluntariness. The fact that there is ignorance,
however, means less voluntariness on the part of the agent. Accountability on the result
of the act is affected on both sides. Refusal or negligence to cast out the ignorance
means blame on the agent, at the same time to be excused accordingly for his
ignorance. It should be noted here, however, that ignorance, invincible or vincible,
should not be used as a justification for an evil act done. Prevention is better than cure.
Ignorance used as an excuse is a poor way of justification. Oftentimes, it is a "defense
mechanism".
CONCUPISCENCE. Concupiscence, as a modifier of human acts, refers to bodily
tendencies (appetite) of man sometimes called the passions. Examples of this are the
following: love, hatred, joy, sorrow, desire, anger, hope, despair, fear, and daring; among
others. We simply take them as one in our discussion.
These passions most often if not always occur in man when stimulated externally. The
passions or concupiscence are called antecedent when they suddenly spring up into
action without the sanction of the will. They are called consequent when the will acts on
them favorably.
Antecedent concupiscence is an ACT OF MAN and not human act (Glenn:36), and is
not a voluntary act. Since the passions are somewhat sudden reactions without
deliberation, there is no amount of voluntariness in- volved. Thus, the agent is not
responsible and accountable for the consequence of the act. Consequent concupiscence,
however, involves knowledge and consent of the agent, so he is responsible for the act
and, therefore, accountable for its consequence.
PRINCIPLE 4. ANTECEDENT CONCUPISCENCE DIMINISHES THE VOLUNTARINESS
OF THE ACT.
The passions are not totally rational acts of the intellect when they act without the
approval and accompaniment of the will-act. Since antecedent concupiscence occur as
sudden reactions to external stimulants there is not much involvement of knowledge and
freedom required for voluntariness.
There was no adequate control of the intellect. Antecedent concupiscence,
therefore, lessens the responsibility and corresponding accountability the act.
PRINCIPLE 5. ANTECEDENT CONCUPISCENCE DOES NOT ELIMINATE
VOLUNTARINESS OF AN ACT.
While antecedent concupiscence diminishes voluntariness, it does not altogether
eliminate the same. The word "diminish" simply means reduction of its quantity or
intensity, implying that voluntariness is still present. For this reason, the agent is still
responsible and accountable for the act, although the imputability is diminished. Murder
done without deliberation is given a lighter punishment than one committed with pre-
meditation.
FEAR. Fear refers to a person's perturbed state of mind due to an im- pending
danger or evil that might befall him anytime. For example, the danger of a predicted
strong earthquake that might damage properties and kill people. Or, when a thief steals
with fear. Fear is classified as passion because it affects the commission of an act. With
such state of mind, people act in fear. Some act OUT-OF-FEAR, others ACT-IN-FEAR. Glenn
differentiates the two kinds of fear with the following explanation: when one vacates his
home due to an imminently coming strong earthquake, or when one has to kill an enemy
to defend himself, he is acting out-of-fear. When a soldier fights to kill enemies in the
battlefield, however, he is acting out of fear. When a priest goes to preach Christ's gospel
in communist lands, he is acting in fear.
PRINCIPLE 6. ACTS DONE IN FEAR ARE VOLUNTARY (Glenn:41).
An agent performing an act with fear is in full control of his act. The act emanates
from himself; he does it willfully. There is awareness, freedom and voluntariness in the
agent. For this reason, he is responsible and accountable, for the act is truly human act.
Acting with fear is simply accompanying circumstances.
PRINCIPLE 6. AN ACT DONE OUT OF FEAR, HOWEVER GREAT, IS SIMPLY
VOLUNTARY, ALTHOUGH IT IS ALSO REGULARLY CONDITIONALLY INVOLUNTARY
(Glenn:41)
While the act is done out of fear, the agent remains in control of his mind
commanding the act to be done. The act then is voluntary and is a human act, not act of
man. He freely chooses to proceed with the act instead of giving in to the demand of
fear.
But the act can also be regularly involuntary if it is done due to intense fear or out
of panic. In this case, the act loses its quality of human act. Were it not for the intense
fear, the agent would not do the act. For instance, a suspect admits a crime for fear of
torture or death by his captors or arresting police officers.
VIOLENCE. Violence refers to a physical external force inflicted on a person by a
free agent for the purpose of compelling said person to do an act against his will. Martyrs
bodily suffer or even die to force them to retract their faith. Suspects are tortured to
forcibly admit a crime they did not commit. The point here is: the act they perform is
against their will. For if they do not, violence will be inflicted on them. But the will can
exert effort to command the body to resist the violence.
PRINCIPLE 7. EXTERNAL ACT WHICH ARE COMMANDED, PER- FORMED BY A
PERSON UNDER PENDING VIO- LENCE WHICH COULD BE REASONABLY RE-
SISTED, ARE INVOLUNTARY AND, THEREFORE, NOT IMPUTABLE (Agapay:25).
It is but instinctive for a human person to resist violence being inflicted to him by
an aggressor. In this sense, it is a moral duty to make resistance. One should not easily
surrender without any attempt for self-defense. If resistance is futile, how- ever, Agapay
(Ibid.) suggests intrinsic resistance by withholding consent as last resort.
HABIT. Habit refers to repeatable acts of a person done with facility and ease. In
the words of Agapay, "habits are acquired inclinations towards something to be done"
(Ibid.). Habits remain voluntary in the agent. Repetition or frequency of the performance
of the act does not in any way affect the voluntariness of such act. The agent is fully
aware and free in doing the act. The agent remains responsible for the act and the result
of it is imputable to him. Habitual act is a human act.
THE INDIRECT VOLUNTARY ACT. There are acts done for certain specific purposes.
But acts when performed can have multiple effects other than those directly intended by
the agent. For example, a policeman is running in pursuit of a murderer in a crowded
market. The criminal was submerged in the crowd, holding his gun ready to shoot the
pursuing officer. At a glimpse of the criminal's head in the crowd, the policeman shot the
murderer dead. But the same bullets that killed the culprit also killed an innocent
salesgirl nearby.
Moral problem: Is the policeman responsible for the killing of the salesgirl? Did he
intend to kill her? Was he aware that if he shoots the enemy in a crowd, others might be
killed, too? Was he under freedom to refrain from shooting? Did he foresee the evil effect
of his act?
PRINCIPLE 8. AN AGENT IS RESPONSIBLE FOR THE EVIL EF- FECT OF HIS
INDIRECT VOLUNTARY ACT.
The policeman intended the killing of the enemy without any for the killing of the
innocent salesgirl; let us assume this in him. The officer, however, must be aware that
the bullets from his gun does not select to kill only the enemy. And in a crowd, the
policeman is aware that stray bullets may kill anybody. This is most likely to happen in a
crowd. Besides, he has the prudence and choice to refrain from doing it, aware of and
foreseeing the danger. In short, the act done was a human act. Hence, the agent is
responsible and, therefore, accountable for the evil side effect of the act.
PRINCIPLE 9. THE PRINCIPLE OF DOUBLE EFFECT
An act may result to dual effects, one good and the other evil. An agent is allowed
to perform such act provided the following requirements are fulfilled (Ignacio,1985:13-
14).
1. The act must be good in itself or at least morally neutral.
2. The good effect must be greater than the evil one, or equally important at least.
3. The act is the only means to attain the good effect.
4. The evil effect must be the last to happen.
5. The agent must be honest in his intention.
We have the following examples to illustrate:
CASE A:
A passenger plane was on fire. In five minutes, it would explode killing all the
passengers. The plane was flying 33,000 feet high above the earth's surface. Tano, one
of the passengers, was confronted with two options: to remain in the plane and wait for
the explosion or hope for non-explosion; or, to jump down to earth to escape death by
the explosion. But there were no parachutes to use. To jump down could also mean death
upon hitting the ground. Tano chose to jump down.
Question: Was Tano morally right in doing the act? While he selected to jump down to
escape death by the explosion, would he not also meet death by hitting the ground?
Were all the requirements for the act to be allowed fulfilled?
Answer:
Tano was right in his act. All the requirements were fulfilled. Even if he were to die upon
hitting the ground, it is not suicide. The act is justified. The intention of Tano in jumping is
to escape death, not to commit suicide. The good intention (to escape death) was ahead
of the possible death. Priority was to save his life; possibility of death on the ground was
remote. The intention was good and honest.
CASE B. (Ignacio:15)
A patient is suffering from a severe incurable pain. There is no medical relief possible. He
is predicted to suffer for a number of years to come. All resources for support were
already exhausted. A hopeless
case.
Question: Can the physician inject a drug to the patient to end his life of awful agony?
Answer: The act of injecting is itself evil. The intent of the act is also evil: killing life. The
good effect which is ending the suffering comes behind the evil effect. The evil effect
which is killing life is ahead of it. Ultimately and in reality, there is no good effect
because the patient is already dead so he would not enjoy the absence of the suffering.
The good effect (forgetting suffering) is less important than the evil effect (loss of life).
The physician's intention is not honest. Human life is far greater than the ending of
suffering. The act done, therefore, is morally evil, hence not morally allowed to be done.
