MT - 3. Human Act (Personal Act)

3. Human Act (Personal Act)

Conscience, the moral source and resource within the person makes him aware of his obligation and instructs him about what he should do and should not do. Consequent up on this is the person’s obligation to make choices and decisions in the light of conscience’s directive and act accordingly. And this is human or personal act. Every being perfects itself through its actions which flow from its nature. And man specifically perfects himself through human acts. All the activities proceeding from man may be divided in to human and non-human. A human act is one which enjoys rational knowledge and free concern. In other words it is the fruit of the exercise of his intellect and free will. What we mean here is Psychological freedom which consists in the ability to act without coercion or inner compulsion. Mentally and psychologically he has sufficient self mastery to be the owner of his own act. Because the will chooses freely under the guidance of the intellect, it is called an act of rational self-determination, different from instinctual self-determination found in animals. The consequence of a personal act is responsibility for the act and its consequences. When a man knows the nature of his actions and its consequences and does it freely, he can’t but be responsible for that. Human act is the basic unit of moral evaluation, though morality so to say resides in the deeper realms of the person, namely in will, and the totality of inner faculties, often symbolized by heart, which is concretely understood as the centre of the person. But this inner morality is expressed and realized in and through free choices and actions.

Human act may be perfect or imperfect. The former enjoys full freedom and full knowledge. Here we mean only fullness within the normal human limitation, which however can make him fully responsible for his actions. If there is defect in knowledge or concern or both, the act is imperfectly human and responsibility is accordingly reduced. Acts of a fully drunken person or under the impact of vehement passion are for examples of non-human acts.

Another division is human act in effect and human act in cause. The former refers to an act, the effect of which is sufficiently foreseen and willed. The latter refers to an act whose effect is not foreseen but probable effects are foreseen and the cause for it is freely placed. Since he who is responsible for the cause is also responsible, for the effect thereof, the person is accountable, and the act is human, but in a different way, as expressed by the phrase ‘in case’.

Another important distinction is direct and indirect. A human act is direct in as far as its effect is willed in itself either as an end or as a means to something else, is indirect when an effect is not willed in itself, but foreseen and tolerated as a necessary side effect of an act in which the direct effect is willed in itself.

Impediments

We all want to be masters or owners of our actions and that requires that our acts to be human. However there are certain factors which intervene and bar our actions from being human or considerably reduce its humanness. Such factors are called impediments to human acts.

They are divided into direct and indirect impediments.
Direct impediments are those which interfere with the knowledge or free concern or both, required for a human act. Direct impediments are ignorance, passion, violence (force) and also fear.
Indirect impediments do not directly affect knowledge or concern but affect the personality and through the personality affect the actions, they are therefore personality factors. Important ones are temperament, habit and psychopathology.
Let us look at them individually. It is important to have sufficient grasp of the role of the impediments. If the role of the impediment is under emphasized, the role of the responsibility will be over emphasized; if the role of the impediment is overemphasized, the role of the responsibility will be deemphasized. Hence try for a balanced evaluation (appreciation) as far as possible.

Direct impediments [Ignorance, Passion, Violence / Force, Fear]

1. Ignorance

Ignorance is the absence of due knowledge, and different from nascence – simply absence of any knowledge. Ignorance therefore implies a moral failure to process the required knowledge. However there is no absolute criterion to decide what the required knowledge is with regard to every person. It depends on the age, qualification, status, and profession etc of the person; in short what may be reasonably expected of him. Ignorance is divided into that of law and fact. 1st refers to ignorance about the existence or extension of a law; and 2nd refers to ignorance about a fact that is bound by a particular law. An important distinction is evincible and invincible. Evincible ignorance can be remedied by reasonable diligence and means; invincible is that which can’t be remedied by reasonable diligence and means. I.e. by employing reasonable and available means and exerting reasonably good efforts. It may be asked whether there can be invincible ignorance since it is something duly expected of a person. We mean by invincible that ignorance which can’t be remedied by reasonable efforts and means; not absolutely invincible. The following norms may be noted.

 Invincible ignorance render the act non-human. Therefore the person is not responsible for the consequences of such act. However one should be cautious in deciding or judging a particular ignorance to be invincible. Hence the person’s usual moral earnestness sense of duty should be taken into account. For e.g. it is not easy or safe to presume invincible ignorance in a lax conscience person.
 Evincible ignorance doesn’t render the act non-human, because it was remediable. However he need not be held responsible as a malicious person. Because he might not have done the act, if he knew that his ignorance will lead to very unpleasant consequences.

2. Passion

Passion refers to any strong emotion, which is a psycho physiologically disturbed state of the organism. Another definition – a physiological overflow of a perception. Since human being is a substantial union of mind and body his mental perception may have overflowing influence on his physiological reactions. The perception may be something pleasant or unpleasant, giving rise to pleasant or unpleasant emotions, like joy, happiness or fear, anger, sorrow and so on. The intensity of the emotions depends primarily on the measure of attraction or repulsion felt in the perception. Usually negative emotions are problematic. The stronger the emotions, the less the capability for making balanced and objective deliberation, hence passion is an impediment to human act. Evidently it includes also sexual passion but not only that. A sound principle is ‘keep the head above the heart’; means that we should learn to control our emotions by reason. But there can be many occasions in life when passion becomes strong and even subdue reason.

Passion may be divided into antecedent and consequent. The former refers to passion aroused without the consent or cooperation of the will; here the person is not responsible for the passion. Consequent passion is passion aroused with the consent or cooperation of the will, therefore the agent is responsible for the arousal of the passion. Passion from the point of view of intensity may be divided into vehement, strong and light.
(1)The vehement is so strong that it clouds the reason so that the individual suffers something like a blackout, disabling him for thinking and deliberation.
(2)The second causes strong or grave disturbance in the thinking process, but no serious as the former.
(3)The 3rd refers to a slight arousal of passion which will be quite within the control of the reason.
Norms may be noted:
 Antecedent and vehement passions renders the act non – human and excuse the person from the consequences of the acts.
 Antecedent and strong passion renders the act less human, reducing responsibility, commensurate with the intensity of the passion.
 Antecedent and light passion usually does not affect the humanness of the act and reason.
 Consequent passion of which ever intensity does not affect the humanness of the act and does not excuse from the responsibility, because the very passion is wilful. Again his responsibility may not be equated with that of a malicious agent. It may be noted that people in general are capable of controlling their emotions reasonably. However there are very sensitive people, especially I the area of anger and sexuality, easily moved by comparatively ordinary stimuli and they have to be properly understood.

3. Violence / Force

This is force exerted on a person against his will, and beyond the power of his resistance. If the person concern can overpower the other person, technically there is no violence, even if certain force is exerted. A person who is forced to do something evil is supposed to resist, for various reasons:

1. Everyone has the obligation to avert the happening of evil.
2. Ward off the possibility of slackening his own descent.
3. Not to give the other the impression that one after all is at least partially consenting. However, if a person is forced to do something evil, totally against his will and he is prepared to resist to his at most, but resistance is certain to bring about the damage of another serious value in addition to the one already threatened; he may not be obliged to put up a resistance. This is so because resistance only causes the damage of another important value. This doesn’t at all mean that a person may not resist and bare a heroic witness to the 1st value threatened. We only say that everybody is not obliged to be such a heroic witness. Please note that here the individual is totally against committing any of the evil and also ready to resist if it would be fruitful and not causing another evil.

Violence is divided into absolute and relative. It is absolute when the force is totally against one’s consent and clearly beyond the power of resistance. Violence is relative either when their descent is not full or the individual does not try his maximum to resist evil or a combination of both. Absolute violence renders the act non-human and the person is free from the responsibility consequences. Relative violence renders the act less human, reducing the responsibility according to the intensity of the force.

4. Fear

We have already seen a category of fear under passion and it is sensitive fear, while here we speak about intellectual fear or mental agony. Difference between two is that in sensitive fear the psycho physiological system is seriously disturbed, while in mental agony, though there may be an on going sense of mental pain, pressure and duress, but the individual is physiologically sufficiently calm and quiet, to be able to make proper deliberation and evaluation of the act and its consequences. Of course there may be individual differences and some people may go on experiencing continuous or very frequent sensitive fear. “At being informed an ongoing threat or danger”. Fear therefore, even if it implies threat to values like life doesn’t reduce the act non-human as a rule, and therefore doesn’t excuse the person from responsibility, though it reduces the measure of consequence depending on the intensity of mental agony suffered.

Regarding the various impediments namely, ignorance, passion and violence, it can be meaningfully said that they cause the behaviour or act. Meaning to say that the individual was not wilfully involved. It may be said invincible ignorance cause the behaviour absolute violence cause behaviour etc. When it comes to mental agony normally we can’t say that because the person makes due deliberation and personal decision. He himself is responsible for that but fear does motivate the action. But motivation does not replace the cause; it persuades direct push for an action but does not take away our freedom.

Indirect impediments [Temperament, Habit, Psychopathology]

1. Temperament

Though not directly affected like the earlier impediments, this also exerts their influence on the humanness of the act and responsibility. Temperament is an innate leaning or predisposition for characteristic ways of reaction. The 3 dimensions of personality like emotionality, social orientation and activity level are usually classified under temporal factors. Recall in mind the different temperamental dimensions like excitable and non-excitable, introvert and extrovert, active and passive. As implied in definition temperament is mainly innate. As far as moral responsibility is concerned emotionality is a relevant factor. An excitable person is liable to be emoted very strongly than a non-excitable one, in the face of a same stimulus and may act out of that emotion, for e.g. anger or sexual appetite. The whole reaction is not the result of deliberation but partially may be due to deliberation, but mainly due to his temperament. Or after doing something wrong one person because of stronger feeling may engage in reparative activities and another one may not be so concerned about it. In such cases we should give due consideration to the role played by temperament.

2. Habit

Habit is facility acquired in doing something as a result of repeated practice, it is acquired. It may be voluntary or involuntary, depending on whether it was nurtured with consent of a person or without. Voluntary habits are usually good ones. Involuntary may be good or bad. If a habit has been established before the individual becomes responsible for his actions, he is not responsible for the habit as such, but has to keep on trying to get rid of habit. Similarly parents / guardians have responsibility to correct the bad habit if any of their children. In this context the sin committed under the force of habit is divided into habitual sin and sinful habit. Habitual sin is sin committed under the influence of habit, as a whole not totally, where person concerned is earnest to get rid of the habit and is working through self control, avoidance occasion and prayers and so on, to wipe out the habit. This should be the attitude and the way of behaviour of a person with bad habit. Man being weak and sinful may contract bad habits but should keep trying to free himself from bad habits, even if success is not at hand. Parents, teachers and so on have an obligation to reform the habits of those under their charge. When the individual does not try to get rid of the habit but tolerates it, even may be complacent in the habit, it is called sinful habit.

Because of the irresponsible attitude of the person, the very habit has become sinful. But the usage refers not only to the habit but also to the sin committed under its pressure. This is an attitude and mode of conduct which can not be justified. Habits usually do not render an act non-human, because normally they are not so strong. But exerts certain pressure, more or less, thus renders the act less human. Reducing the measure of responsibility in proportion to the strength of the habit.

However there can be cases of very strong habit as it happens certain compulsive behaviour (Compulsive masturbation), where individual freedom may be very much reduced. However the individual may be responsible in cause. Usually such people need a lot of understanding, help and support from the pastor. Different from the normal habit is cases of alcoholism and drug addiction. This is how biochemical bare and definitely are stronger than the psychological attraction and emotional appeal contained in usual habit. People suffering from such malady are here and now without to control themselves; again this is the factor of responsibility in cause. Though these people deserve very much empathy, understanding and support.

Psychopathology
Psychopathology refers to different kinds of psychological deserves. We make a broad division: Psychosis, Neurosis and personality disorder.
As we know psychosis is the most serious type of mental disease including schizophrenia, paranoia, and manic-depression so on. The common factor in psychosis is loss of the sense of reality in thinking, feeling and action. Therefore one may not expect a psychotic to behave normally. Because thinking and feeling are seriously damaged. Sometimes they may be clear in their mind and behave rather normally (lucid interval). Still a psychotic is presumed to be not responsible for his action.
Neurosis is a serious emotional disease, including various forms like anxiety neurosis, phobia, hysteria, depression and the like. A neurotic enjoys sense of reality and he also knows he has psychological problem. However he is a person who lives in constant anxiety in one way or another. Therefore he may be able to do certain things only under great fear, strain and so on. Neurosis need not render an act non-human. But it renders the act less human depending on the intensity of the disease.
Personality disorders are quite different from above ones, which enjoy very much sense of reality and practically devoid of anxiety, guilt and so on. Typical is the Psychopaths or morally insane people. They can do any cruel plan and the serious of that without feeling any remorse or guilt. Sometimes they are called people incapable of guilt and remorse. These people, though capable of very good thinking, planning, seem to have a kind of compulsion; do engage in certain types of crimes. Psychopathic doesn’t render the act non-human but less human depending on the gravity of the disease.
These are socio-economic factors not directly categorized as impediments, which can in fact forceful to engage in various unwanted behaviours, especially stealing, robbery, and sexual exploitation, scandalises behaviour and so on. These people should be understood against the background of their existence, especially the deprivation they suffer. Naturally they should be properly understood before accessing what is made of their responsibility for the acts done under the influence of their deprived life situations.