Answered

Part 2: from the Powerpoint on Human Acts vs Acts of Man
1. Explain what a human act is. What makes these acts proper to man? Why?
2. Explain what the Act of Man is. What makes these acts in common with animals? Why?
3. Between Human acts and Acts of Man, which of the two entails/implies responsibility from the moral
reasoner? Why?
4. What are the three component characteristics of "human acts" need to be evaluated in determining
moral responsibility? Develop a strategy on how to improve "reason", "freedom," and "will" to better
function as human beings.
4. Evaluate the case of "self-defense" using the necessary components. Explain using examples or
scenarios to distinguish "a self-defense case" vs. "not a self-defense case."?



Answer :

GinnyAnswer

Final answer:

A detailed explanation of human acts vs. Acts of Man, including what constitutes a human act, responsibility, characteristics, and a scenario on self-defense cases.


Explanation:

A human act refers to actions performed consciously and willingly by individuals while considering moral implications. These acts are proper to man due to their capacity for rational thought, decision-making, and moral responsibility.


An Act of Man involves actions driven mainly by instinct and impulse, similar to animal behavior. These acts lack the deliberate rational thought characteristic of human acts.


Human acts entail responsibility from the moral reasoner as they involve conscious choices based on reason and will. Acts of Man, being more instinctual, do not carry the same level of moral responsibility.


Three component characteristics of human acts that determine moral responsibility are reason (rational thinking), freedom (the ability to choose), and will (the intention behind the action). To improve these components, individuals can engage in critical thinking, cultivate self-discipline, and align actions with moral values.


Self-defense cases can be evaluated based on the necessity, proportionality, and intentions behind the actions. For example, a situation where a person defends themselves against immediate physical harm can be considered a self-defense case, whereas preemptively attacking someone without imminent danger does not qualify as self-defense.


Learn more about Human Acts vs. Act of Man here:

https://brainly.com/question/33530363


Other Questions