Ignorance Innocence  the absence of intellectual knowledge  the absence of knowledge in person who is not required to know what he does not know.

 From the standpoint of the object › refers to the “thing of which a person may be ignorant” › the thing of which the person lacks the required knowledge in law, fact and penalty.

 ignorance of the law is the ignorance of the existence of the duty, rule, or regulation  ignorance of fact refers to an ignorance of the nature or circumstances of an act as forbidden. Lack of knowledge that what one is actually doing comes under the prohibition of a known law.  Ignorance of penalty refers to the lack of knowledge of the precise sanction…affixed to the law.

 From the standpoint of the subject › refers to that ignorance on the part of the person by whom ignorance exists.

 Vincible ignorance › Can be dispelled or overcome by due amount of diligence › conquerable ignorance and therefore a vincibly ignorant person is culpable for his action (that proceeds from his ignorance) › a kind of ignorance that can be removed by the agent from himself in terms of ordinary efforts. › however if the agent does not exert any effort at all, then he is liable for his actions. The agent lacks due diligence and this is his fault.

 A Manila resident who violated traffic laws, not knowing of such laws before, would still be responsible for his act, because his ignorance is vincible.

 Invincible Ignorance › cannot be overcome by any amount of diligence or effort because under the circumstances it is impossible for one to know. › the agent is not responsible for his act either he does not realize his own state of ignorance, or because it is almost impossible for him to acquire the proper knowledge of the matter  he does not know that he is ignorance  he exerts effort (presupposing that he knows, he does not know what he must or ought to know) but his efforts are ineffective in removing his ignorance.

 A negrito who had been living all his life in the mountains, and who happened to come to Manila for the first time, and violated traffic laws, could not be held responsible for violating the law.

 From the standpoint of the act › Refers to the consideration of ignorance “with reference to the acts that are performed in ignorance”

BBelongs to man’s sensory appetites rrefer to the emotions and feelings of man in relation to his actions. tthese are irrational and interchangeably used with passions ddefined as appetites towards the possession of good and avoidance of evil

 concupiscence or passions are morally indifferent  they are movements of the sensitive or irrational appetite of man

 passions can be good “when ordered by the rational will to help man in the practice of virtue or in the attainment of that which is morally good”  passions can become bad when they are “used by the rational will to accomplish morally evil actions.

Consequent Antecedent  are those that arise “when the will, directly or indirectly, stirs them up or fosters them  antecedent actions can become consequent when they receive the approval of the rational will.  spring into action unstimulated by any act of the will, that is, when they arise antecedently to the will act › anger that occurs due to unjust treatment of another › the desire for revenge due to an act of cruelty done by another

 Antecedent concupiscence lessens voluntariness of an act;  Antecedent concupiscence does not destroy the voluntariness of an act; and  Consequent concupiscence, however great, does not lessen the voluntariness of an act

 MORAL PRINCIPLES › When we act because of fear, our will is dragged along, so to say, and so its freedom is restricted and our responsibility is diminished correspondingly. Great fear sometimes exempts a person from acts enjoined by positive law.

 Violence is an impulsive from without tending to force the agent to act against his will.

 Under certain conditions it is morally right to use force or violence in defense of certain basic rights, even if by the employment of such force or violence certain evil effects or effects may follow, such as the death of the aggressor.

 Man as a person possesses certain fundamental rights.  The existence of a right of one entails a corresponding duty on others to respect this right.  That if these rights are violated or denied, the possessor thereof has the right to defend, and use the means necessary to defend his rights

 Sometimes the employment of force or violence resulting in bloodshed or death of an aggressor is the only possible way to defend said rights.  The evil effect is not directly intended  Involves an act which has two effects (good and bad)  Between two evil effects, choose the lesser one.

 In short, violence springs from the principle that the possession of a right naturally includes the right to defend such right.  Right without power to defend itself is dead.

 “Violence can never be a means for solving social conflict, and class struggle which opposes one group to another cannot create justice since its premise is destruction and contempt for man. To construct a truly human society in the Philippines, every man and woman must take choice for justice and love, for solidarity and brotherhood, against selfishness and hatred.” (Pope John Paul II)

 Acts done owing to violence (i.e. acts one does because one is forced against his will to do) are not voluntary provided that due resistance is made. Consequently, the doer is not morally responsible for doing such acts  Acts done by force of habit are still voluntary, at least in cause, as long as the habit is allowed to stay.

 If a virgin is raped physically, entirely against her will, making all due resistance to the rapist, did she lose morally her virginity? Cite the moral principle applicable to this case.  Is a drug addict still morally responsible for his acts over which he has no more control? Explain your answer.

 If one intentionally shoots to kill another, who later was found to have been already dead before, did the former incur any moral guilt? Is he legally guilty?  Why is homicide through reckless imprudence a crime even if the driver never intended to kill?

 Two men were engaged in a fist fight. A policeman intervened and was stabbed by a balisong in the abdomen. The wound was not fatal, but the policeman, because of his crass ignorance had himself treated by a quack. As a result the wound developed into peritonitis causing the death of the policeman. Who is responsible for the death of the policeman? What moral principle applies here?

 Peter merely intended to burn the house of his enemy Juan. But the flames, fanned by strong winds, spread like wildfire and burned the whole town. Is Peter responsible or not for the burning of the town? Cite the moral principle that applies in this case.  When a man entertains adultery in his desires and thoughts and intends to consummate the act but fails, did he incur any moral guilt, and is he morally responsible? Explain your answer.