Skip to document
Welcome to StudocuSign in to access the best study resources
Guest user
0followers
HomeMy LibraryAsk AI
  • You don't have any recent items yet.
My Library
  • You don't have any courses yet.
  • You don't have any books yet.
  • You don't have any Studylists yet.

Conscience and its Role in Moral Decision-Making

laksjsn
Course

Accountancy and Business Management (ABM001)

71 Documents
Students shared 71 documents in this course
Academic year: 2022/2023
Uploaded by:
Anonymous Student
This document has been uploaded by a student, just like you, who decided to remain anonymous.
Manuel S. Enverga University Foundation Candelaria

Comments

Please sign in or register to post comments.

Students also viewed

Related documents

Preview text

Conscience and Its Role in Moral Decision-Making Man, as very special creature of God, has been endowed with sufficient tools to live a moral life. With reason and will, guided by natural moral law (all these are innate in man), he has the ability to distinguish what is good and what is bad. Aside from this ability, there is an inner voice within man that helps him determine the good that must be done and the evil that must be shunned.

What is conscience? According to Agapay (1991), conscience is the proximate norm of morality. As it is believed to be innate in man, it directly confronts an action as good or evil. A Latin word “conscientia” has a beautiful definition of it according to Tiilich. It literally means “trial of oneself”. If you are familiar with the proceedings in the court hearing, you must have known the significant people in the process, that is, the judge, the prosecutor, the defense, the witness, and of course, the accused. In the function of conscience, that is, a “trial of oneself”, all these roles are played by one at the same person, that is, “you”. Through your conscience, you will undergo the same process. Being the accused, you are the only witness of your actions. You, as the prosecutor, will insist that you truly have done wrong, based on your testimony as the witness. Of course, you, as the defense, will justify the wrong act. Nevertheless, whatever you do, you will be the only one who will judge your action, either to “convict” you or “dismiss” the case that declared you “not guilty”. How do you apply this description in your life? Were you able to relate with this? From the above mentioned definitions of conscience, its role in moral decision-making is clear. This gives us the direction to act and not to act in a certain way, to choose or not to choose the good to be done and the evil to ashamed. As Panizo puts it, “Conscience is an act of the practical judgment or reason deciding upon an individual action as good and to be performed or as evil and to be avoided. It is practical because its conclusion is realistic.

Kinds of Conscience 1. Correct or True Conscience – It judges good as good and evil as evil. A person who honestly helps another person in need without asking for any remuneration is better is better than a person who only extends help while expecting others to help him in return. Cheating is bad and cannot be justifiable. 2. Erroneous or False Conscience – It judges good as evil and evil as good. A person who supports a corrupt politician is worse than a person who works with him. Cheating is good if it is the only possible means to academically survive. There are two kinds of erroneous conscience. First, inculpable conscience which means that the wrong act committed and unsound judgment is not directly willed. It may be considered as “ignorance of the fact”. For instance, if unknowingly, Juan used fake money to purchase goods from the grocery store. Juan is inculpable because the act was not maliciously committed. Second, culpable conscience is the opposite of the former. In this case the wrong act is done with malice, voluntarily, and with evil motive. For instance, Juan used fake money to purchase goods during rush hours in the grocery to ensure that he could use the money. In this case, he is culpable because he voluntarily and maliciously performed the act with evil motive to cheat the cashier. 3. Certain Conscience – It is based on a subjective assurance of an act that is lawful or unlawful. Having extramarital affair is considered good and justifiable based on one’s point of view. There is nothing wrong if the judgment conforms with true conscience, however, it is not just wrong, it is actually dangerous if the judgment has rooted from an erroneous conscience. 4. Doubtful Conscience – It cannot form a definite judgment on a certain action because of doubt. It may sound good. The problem with it is the delay that may be incurred because of the

process. A person clarifies his doubts before he acts, thus, he can perform good actions most of the time. 5. Scrupulous Conscience – It cannot form a definite judgment on a certain action because of fear to commit mistakes or evil acts. Action is not just doubted, it is not actually performed because of fear. A person may decide not to recite in class because of fear that others may not like his opinion. 6. Lax Conscience – It is manifested by indifferent acts in performing an act, either good or evil. A person performs action regardless of its positive or negative effects. He does not mind nor care about the results of his actions.

Conscience is innate in human beings. No human being has no conscience. When you hear somebody saying, “Wala kang konsensya!”, does it really mean that such person is an exception? If not, then what do you do by this? “Walang konsensya” is a person who is not bothered by doing any evil act. For instance, telling a lie become seemingly good for a person who always lies and has no sign of remorse for the effects of his act of lying. If a person has become used in cheating, he may cheat in all forms, from cheating in an examination to cheating in a relationship. His conscience may fall under any of the kinds of conscience. He is gifted with conscience. There are times that the circumstances force him to become who he is, but his conscience is still within him. We have duty towards our conscience. We have to form it. We have to be informed of the ways to correct it. We have to choose people who will assist us in the formation of our conscience. There are four ways to correct our conscience. First, we have to endlessly search to find the real truth by using our intellect, will, and freedom. With intellectual power, we have the ability to discover the truth. Second, we have to consistently perform good acts, until good becomes better, then best, and finally developed into virtues that can help us in making sound decisions. Being good is the result of consistent acts of doing good. Third, we have to translate the principle of “doing good and avoiding evil” in our daily lives until it becomes part of our system, and become as natural as we breathe. Facing a moral dilemma is less troublesome when we already have developed the practice of choosing and doing what is good and right. Fourth, we have to exercise our real and authentic freedom to become responsible person. As a free agent, we are responsible in all our actions, thus, making a choice based on the true concept of freedom liberates us from more liabilities.

THE ACT

Man as Actor: His Understanding of Human Act and Act of Man Man acts purposively. No normal person acts aimlessly for when he acts, his actions always lead toward a certain and definitive end. Aren’t you puzzled when you hear a millennial’s answer when asked: “What are you doing?” – his answer is simply: “Nothing”. Does it mean that he is really doing nothing? He has possible reasons why he answered that way. One, maybe, he doesn’t want to talk to you, and he wants to end your conversation abruptly. But to think that he is really doing nothing, that is not reasonably acceptable. For Agapay (1991), action constitutes a person, an individual in control of himself and accountable to hiself.

This is another determinant of morality. A human act is action performed knowingly, freely, and voluntarily. An act is good or bad based on the determinants of morality which define the action. An act is bad if by its nature it is truly bad, and a good act is good if by nature is truly good. The act itself is being considered. As discussed above, the motive of the act is also considered as another determinant of morality. An act that is good or bad depends on the motive of the doer. For instance, doing projects that will benefit the public is good act of an authority like an elected government official; however, if his motive of doing the project is for popularity, to win in the next election again, and not for the genuine public service, then, his good act becomes bad.

The circumstances of human act are: 1. Who (Circumstance of Person) – It refers to the doer of an act and/or the receiver of an act. In this circumstance, among the factors taken into consideration are: age, societal and economical status, family background, educational attainment, and health, of both the doer and the receiver of an act. For example, a mentally challenged person is expectedly incapable of doing moral decisions, thus, he is not accountable on his actions. Considering the legal age based on the existing law, a “minor” person is not held fully responsible for his actions. However, for an educated person who is capable of using his intellect and can fully exercise his free well, he is always and at all times held responsible for his actions. As the uncle of Parker, in the popular movie “Spiderman”, said, “With great power comes great responsibility.” 2. What (Circumstance of the nature of the act) – It refers to the act itself. An act is naturally good or evil based on our ability to determine its nature regardless of other circumstances. Acts like honestly helping others, and showing real love and respect to others forms of inflicting harms to others are really evil acts. Even if the motive of the doer is good, if the act itself is evil, then the act is considered evil. 3. Where (Circumstance of Place) – It refers to the place where the act is performed. There are neutral actions, i, neither good nor bad, that become good or evil because of this circumstance. For example, washing clothes is neither good nor bad. It is good when done at the proper place and wrong otherwise, like on the altar. In the case of riding-in-tandem, in the Philippine setting, their act of killing is evil, and it becomes grievously evil when done before many spectators and mostly children. 4. With Whom (Circumstance of Accomplices) – It refers to an act performed with the involvement of other people. These people, just like in the circumstance of “who”, must be evaluated based on the factors such as age, etc. For example, drinking involving “minor” is wrong, but it becomes grievously evil when an adult joined and tolerated them of doing the act. Another example is the case of gang rape. Rape as itself is evil, but becomes grievously evil if done by group of people. In the case of our elected officials who are found guilty of plunder/corruption, their act is grievously evil compared with a snatcher who grabbed a cellphone from a pedestrian. 5. Why (Circumstance of Motive) – It refers to the ends of the doer, as discussed above. 6. How (Circumstance of Manner) – It refers to the manner how an act is performed. In the case of self-defense, we can only consider this act as morally acceptable if the act is supported with reasons. For instance, we have to look into other circumstances such as: weapon, defender’s ability, etc. If accidentally, the defender could kill the aggressor using the latter’s weapon, then it can be considered self-defense, nevertheless, if the defender used a weapon greater than the aggressor’s, then self-defense is questionable and doubtful. 7. When (Circumstance of Time) - It refers to the time when an act is performed. Killing is evil in itself, but such act is grave if performed when the victim is unconscious or sleeping.

Definition, Importance, Origin, and Disadvantages of Feelings Feeling is something that we share with others. Before we delve into this concept of feelings, let us talk about levels of sharing. There are three levels of sharing such as: superficial, intellectual, and gut level. When we talk about issues without factual basis, then we are simply sharing in the superficial level. In lay term, this level is called “tsismis”. Until you found proof to your claim, it remains in this level. In the social context, it is now known as “fake news”. When you share, is it only in this level? When we talk about things with factual basis, be it your own opinion supported by existing facts or be it a narrative of already acceptable factual claims, then we are sharing in the intellectual level. It involves our rational ability to justify claims based on facts. In this level, we do not accept truth simply because somebody has claimed it as truth. As intellectual beings, we are not rationally satisfied unless we hold on factual basis. The last level is expressed when we share things that emerged from our feelings. It is the gut level. Does it require intelligence? Can we rationalize our feelings? When we fall in love, do we rationalize the value of love before we actually experience it? When we are angry, do we set our mind to experience such feeling? Let us now look into this concept of feelings. Look at the distinction between the acts of “feeling and thinking”. It was said that these two are distinct but intertwined. I may say “I think” when I really mean “I feel” and vice versa, thus, we could say that these two may be used interchangeably, however, these two are also distinct. We do not say “I think I’m not gloomy today”nor“I feel my answers to the questions are incorrect”. This sets the idea that these two have distinct objects, that is, the object of feeling is not of thinking and vice versa. The common attitude toward feeling is ambivalent. We are hesitant to consider feeling to consider feeling as important. Definitely, as rational beings, we do not say that feeling and thinking as of equal worth. They cannot be compared because of their separate objects of concern. They are both important because of their distinct values. Sometimes, we tend to look down in feeling. We screen out feelings because they are unstable and fleeting. Our advice is that we must not be overcome by our strong feelings, such as love and anger. However, we also dislike cold and indifferent people, people with no feelings. We look down on feeling, yet, when we act we want it with feelings. Say for instance, when a teacher teaches, he uses his feelings not just to get the attention of his students nor motivate them, but to highlight specific points of learning. Thus, we love passionate teachers who really teach with passion, with feelings. What is feeling? “To feel is to be involved in something” in a person, concept, myself, process, problem, or another feeling. Feeling can be in foreground or background: “I am involved in something” (background). “I am involved in something” (foreground). Most of the time, feeling is in the background unless intense. As involvement, feeling is an interiorization of the world. It is immediate, spontaneous link, response to world than thinking. Confront with annoying circumstance, we cannot avoid to get annoyed, as it is our immediate response to such stimulus. In the same manner, we cannot dictate our feeling not to appreciate the beauty of an art work if it really gives you such feeling of appreciation. It is more immediate because it involves the body. Our bodily movements are used to express what and how we feel. You smile when you feel smiling. You do not wait for reason to dictate you to smile, it’s immediate, it’s spontaneous. Like when we are sleepy, you express it by frowning. When you control your feeling, you also control the expressions of feeling. Here, we do not conceal the fact that we feel but what we feel. Some comedians shared that because of their job they have to make people happy by also showing a “happy face” before them, although deep within their hearts, they are having troubles e. “crying in the inside but laughing in the outside”: a genuine smile is different from plastic smile.

Reference/s: Angulo, Joselito B., et al. (2019). Ethics: A Heuristic Approach. Mindshapers Co., Inc.

Was this document helpful?

Conscience and its Role in Moral Decision-Making

Course: Accountancy and Business Management (ABM001)

71 Documents
Students shared 71 documents in this course

University: Manuel S. Enverga University Foundation Candelaria

Was this document helpful?
Conscience and Its Role in Moral Decision-Making
Man, as very special creature of God, has been endowed with sufficient tools to live a moral life.
With reason and will, guided by natural moral law (all these are innate in man), he has the ability to
distinguish what is good and what is bad. Aside from this ability, there is an inner voice within man that
helps him determine the good that must be done and the evil that must be shunned.
What is conscience?
According to Agapay (1991), conscience is the proximate norm of morality. As it is believed to be
innate in man, it directly confronts an action as good or evil. A Latin word “conscientia” has a beautiful
definition of it according to Tiilich. It literally means “trial of oneself”. If you are familiar with the
proceedings in the court hearing, you must have known the significant people in the process, that is, the
judge, the prosecutor, the defense, the witness, and of course, the accused. In the function of
conscience, that is, a “trial of oneself”, all these roles are played by one at the same person, that is,
“you”.
Through your conscience, you will undergo the same process. Being the accused, you are the
only witness of your actions. You, as the prosecutor, will insist that you truly have done wrong, based on
your testimony as the witness. Of course, you, as the defense, will justify the wrong act. Nevertheless,
whatever you do, you will be the only one who will judge your action, either to “convict” you or
“dismiss” the case that declared you “not guilty”. How do you apply this description in your life? Were
you able to relate with this?
From the above mentioned definitions of conscience, its role in moral decision-making is clear.
This gives us the direction to act and not to act in a certain way, to choose or not to choose the good to
be done and the evil to ashamed. As Panizo puts it, “Conscience is an act of the practical judgment or
reason deciding upon an individual action as good and to be performed or as evil and to be avoided. It is
practical because its conclusion is realistic.
Kinds of Conscience
1. Correct or True Conscience – It judges good as good and evil as evil. A person who honestly
helps another person in need without asking for any remuneration is better is better than a
person who only extends help while expecting others to help him in return. Cheating is bad and
cannot be justifiable.
2. Erroneous or False Conscience – It judges good as evil and evil as good. A person who supports
a corrupt politician is worse than a person who works with him. Cheating is good if it is the only
possible means to academically survive. There are two kinds of erroneous conscience. First,
inculpable conscience which means that the wrong act committed and unsound judgment is not
directly willed. It may be considered as “ignorance of the fact”. For instance, if unknowingly,
Juan used fake money to purchase goods from the grocery store. Juan is inculpable because the
act was not maliciously committed. Second, culpable conscience is the opposite of the former.
In this case the wrong act is done with malice, voluntarily, and with evil motive. For instance,
Juan used fake money to purchase goods during rush hours in the grocery to ensure that he
could use the money. In this case, he is culpable because he voluntarily and maliciously
performed the act with evil motive to cheat the cashier.
3. Certain Conscience – It is based on a subjective assurance of an act that is lawful or unlawful.
Having extramarital affair is considered good and justifiable based on one’s point of view. There
is nothing wrong if the judgment conforms with true conscience, however, it is not just wrong, it
is actually dangerous if the judgment has rooted from an erroneous conscience.
4. Doubtful Conscience – It cannot form a definite judgment on a certain action because of doubt.
It may sound good. The problem with it is the delay that may be incurred because of the

Students also viewed

Related documents