Chapter Two THE PROBLEM OF MORALITY 1S morality? How do the concepts of right and wrong, darise? What constitutes the good life? How do we grow moral decision? ~ Does motive, consequence or means the morality of human acts? What are ethical theories? F will probe into these questions. L The Basis of Morality morality is meant the rightness or wrongness, the goodness of human acts; or it refers to the way people conduct their ‘ording to some standard or rules of right and wrong, good d, or to the belief in what ought to be done and what ought to be d in the course of one’s struggle for a satisfying life. Thus, to Pmorality is to live up to some principles of what the society in h a person lives prescribes or holds as the ideal life for all. on from the social code, whether it is written or unwritten, is rally called immorality What renders the study of morality problematic is the fact that € are not always agreed on the norms of right and wrong. In ‘there is still a continuing debate on the question as to whether lity is relative or absolute. The so-called “moral relativists” inueé to claim that the concept of right or wrong, good or bad, is a r of opinion, of place or culture. The “moral absolutists’, on the er hand, say that morality is fixed, as it is believed to be a mandate or prescription from heaven that man should do good and evil. The author, however, without taking side in the debate on the Mature of morality, maintains that morality is rooted in man’s strugglefor survival. It must be borne in mind that “self-preservation” and the satisfaction of vital needs is the fundamental law of human existence. Any act, therefore, which undermines this law is bad, and act which enables man to safeguard his existence and to have a well-regulated but satisfying life is good. Morality, therefore, insofar as it defines or even prescribes what ought to be done in order for man to live “the good life” is part of the fundamental law of human survival. Il. The Concept of the Good Life The preservation of life is such that it puts us under’ an obligation to comply with its demands. These demands are physical, intellectual and social in nature. 4. Physical Demands To keep the body healthy, it must be nourished with adequate food, fresh air, sunshine, clear water and wholesome environment, let alone a provision for clothing and shelter. To deprive the body of such necessities is to let it deteriorate and lose its vitality. Good health or a healthy body is a condition to self-preservation and happy living. Should there be an act which ignores or thwarts the realization of life's physical demands, that act is definitely detrimental to human survival, hence, bad. 2. Intellectual Demands The saying that “man does not live by bread alone” simply means that man does not live in order to eat. Man eats in order to live a more abundant life. The fact is that in every man there is a longing for truth, for beauty and goodness much as this is not often recognized. Man has aspirations for greater freedom, for an ideal beyond his biological existence. This longing to transcend his merely physical life, makes man a cultured animal, a human being. The intellectual demands which have a spiritual dimension are so significant that without complying with them, man’s existence would not be exciting and worth living. 3. Social Demands Man, as the philosopher Aristotle says, is neither “god nor a beast”; hence, he has to live in society It is not by living in isolation that man can realize his potentialities. The so-called “social nature” 32nan arises from the empirical fact that man is not “self-sufficient”, j, therefore, he has to live in association with others in order to his needs and wants. As a member of society, however, man st respect the rights of others, abide by the laws of society and rate in the pursuit of the common good. For purposes of ing social stability and harmony, man should observe the Iden Rule: “Do unto others as you expect others to do unto to you" sus), or “Do not do to others what you do not want others to do fo fo you" (Confucius) Society imposes upon every person an obligation to respect the iefs, the traditions, and practices of the people. However, should Same beliefs, traditions and practices prove to be obstructive to an development, it is the duty of every intelligent member of ty to work for reforms or changes. To remain silent or escent when things go wrong as to jeopardize social welfare, is "abet the reign of evil. Non-involvement in issues or even in itroversies which affect the common welfare is moral cowardice, Bciety demands that for purposes of safeguarding collective survival id progress everyone should contribute their share in moral renewal nd social transformation. it is in compliance with the social mands that man’s life becomes socially useful, meaningful and slevant. Ill. Growth of Moral Thinking Morality, as hinted earlier, grows out of life. As life grows, so horality must grow, otherwise, it cannot respond to life's fundamental feeds and demands. But, as a person's life has three stages of development — childhood, adolescence and adulthood — so moral thinking undergoes or has also its childhood stage, its adolescent , and then its adulthood stage. Laurence Kohlberg, a professor moral education at Harvard University, calls these three stages as ipre-moral”, “conventional and “past conventional’ moralities. 1. The childhood or “pre-moral’ morality is characterized by blind conformity, fear of punishment, a sense of individualism or self-interest. The fact is that at this stage, people behave not because they have a reason for doing this, or for avoiding that, but because they believe that by; simply obeying what others command, they could avoid punishment and win their approval. This moral thinking is, therefore, based on one’s own self-interest — “to avoid pain and to have gain”. 2. The adolescent or “conventional” morality is marked by conformity to social conventions and to the standards of one's group or peers. Behavior is good or bad depending on whether it is in accord or not with the rules or conventions of society or with the expectations of the group or class to which a person belongs. To be respectable before the eyes of the public, or to appear “nice" to people is the moral ideal in this stage. 3. The adult or “post conventional” morality is what may be called reflective morality. In this stage people's moral thinking or decision-making is done not out of obedience to authority, or out of respect for existing social practice, but out of one’s best judgment as to what is right or wrong, good: or bad. In other words, post-conventional moral thinking is: no longer a matter of childish obedience to what people in authority would say, or blind conformity to social conventions or expectations, but a matter of reflective thinking. In this stage, the individual develops his sense of moral responsibility IV. The Place of Motive, Means and Consequence in Moral Judgment People who are not conversant with high ethical theories or principles judge the morality of human acts on the basis of motive, means or consequences. An action that is done with the best motive” or intention, with the best available means and has a good consequence is good, otherwise, it is considered morally bad. However, it often happens that an act which is done with a good honest motive has a bad or an evil consequence or result. Or ans action done with bad or evil motive leads to a good consequence. Which, indeed. should be considered — motive or consequence- Judging the morality of human act is still a bone of contention. The German philosopher, Immanuel Kant considered motive the “Good Will’, while the American philosopher, William Jame 34sized consequence as the standard of moral acts. The in of “means” has given rise a two conflicting points of view. fic philosophers contend that it is immoral to use a bad in order to attain a good end on the principle that “the end justifies the means”. Modern philosophers with pragmatic and iiavellian temper would argue however, that it does not matter, if ans are objectionable, so long as the end is attained. “The end the means’. Whether the morality of human act should be judged solely in of motive, or solely in terms of consequence by employing, any s is still debated in academic circles. What seems to be a better is that we should judge human conduct in terms of its efficacy omoting “the healthy, the happy, the socially useful and fully ped life” of people. Short of this aim, the controversy over , Means and consequence appears to be academic in nature. V. Ethical Theories thical theories are broad statements on what “ought to be the pursuit of “the good life”. There are many ethical theories fh have been evolved in the search for an ideal norm of morality ig which are: 4. The Authoritarian Ethics This ethical theory claims that the goodness or badness of uman acts depend on authority. For many people, the Fonouncements of authority on moral and religious matters have the acter of certainty and finality. Authority provides the much eded guidance in moral doubts or perplexities. In these terms, it is y to decide whether an act has to be done or to be avoided. A classic example .of authoritarian ethics is religious morality. is theory presupposes the existence of a God who had revealed a ‘moral code for man to follow. This is a popular belief among the great eligions, such as Judaism, Christianity and Islam. Though the Teligious codes and creeds of these religions do not always agree, there is, however, a consensus among them that the ultimate norm or standard of morality is conformity to the “divine will’. What the divine aywill ordains is not clear, but for the Jews, the Christians and the Muslims, the divine will is positively expressed in their respective scriptures. Thus, the morality of human acts depends on the will or authority of God In religious ethics, the function of the moralist is not to investigate, much less to question the alleged divine commands, but to interpret and to systematize them. God is said to be “infallible; hence, the wisdom of his laws should not be doubted. This being the case, there seems to be nothing left for the individual to do but to follow, albeit blindly, the divine will. The acceptance of God's will as a moral norm is full of difficulties. The fact that the codes or commandments attributed to God are most diverse, if not contradictory, suggests that the alleged “divine will’ cannot be relied on as the final arbiter of what is good or bad for all mankind, Notwithstanding the questionable character of teligious ethics, many people still patronize it not on the basis of critical thinking but on the basis of tradition and blind conformity to scriptural text. Another form of authoritarian ethics is that which accepts: customs or public opinion or the existing laws as the bases of right and wrong, good and bad. Briefly, this ethical theory maintains th: whatever conforms to established practices or to the prevaili climate of opinion or to legal requirements is morally good, otherwi: it is morally bad. Many persons claim that since customs an traditions represent or reflect the experience of the social group, t must be respected and considered the norms of social morality behavior. Defiance of social conventions is construed as a deviance, hence, social conformity is the best policy. “While # Rome”, so the saying goes, “do as the Romans do”, otherwise become ostracized Customs and traditions unquestionably have social Value They serve as frameworks of social unity, cooperation and harmo but to make them the bases of morality is to stunt the creativity individual in decision-making as to what is good for him and to Customs, traditions and many established beliefs, it must be bo mind, are conservative in nature. They are resistant to cha hence, to use them as norms or standards of what is ethical wo I to block the moral growth and development of people. Thus, religious ethics which cannot allow criticism because of its 36i, customary or traditional morality will only engender and blind conformity. Needless to say, customary one religious morality, has done much to hamper not lléctual but also the economic growth of people é world. Said that many people welcome authoritarian ethics, his be based on the authority of customs, or tradition, or law or family, because they are lazy or simply afraid to mora! de ns. They feel comfortable when others make for them. But, however convenient and comforting is the authority in times of moral perplexities, authoritarian ethics dividual of his freedom to decide for himself. 2. The Rationalistic Ethics What is known as rationalistic ethics is the moral theory whose $ are based on reason and not on outside authority. It was juel Kant' who formulated this ethical theory in his two books, (Critique of Practical Reason (1788), and The Metaphysics of (1797). According to Kant, ethics or moral philosophy is ed not with “what is”, but only with “what ought”, or the moral Which springs from his nature. How this moral ought arises is not ar, but Kant assumes that it is an “a priori law” which man gnizes as true and binding. To live in accordance with the moral is to live in accordance with the laws of reason. And to live in ‘ding with the law of reason is to live in accordance with the laws lature. For Kant, the laws of nature and the laws of reason are sentially one.” In this ethics formulated by Kant, the good motive or “the good is what determines the righteousness of human conduct. Kant 's that “nothing can possibly be conceived in the world, or even out bf if, which can be called good without qualification. except the Good wir. True, he tells us, we have intelligence, courage and other endowments, but they can be used to promote evil. Anything, ‘therefore, done outside of the good will dees not have any moral * Some writers would not call Kan’ts ethics rationalistic, but simply formalisti¢ ot even intuinistic. But, “since the source of one’s duty is reason, I prefer to-call it rationslistic. For a lucid interpretation of Kant’s ethics, see H. Titus, op. cit. p: 380, 3Tvalue. However, if a man acts from a good will, his acts are good, regardless of the consequences. Contrary, then, to the claim of the pragmatists that the determinants of morality are the consequences, Kant maintains that the moral quality of an act is determined by the good motive or the good will. And that motive or will alone is good, if it acts solely out of respect for the principle of duty. If the will to perform an act is governed by reason and not by desire or inclination, it is, according to Kant, absolute or unconditional. It becomes an absolute command, or, to use his phrase “The Categorical Imperative”. This Command or Imperative of reason rests on two main principles. The Principle of Universality and The Principle of Humanity. A. The Principle of Universality This principle is as follows: “Act only on that maxim whereby you can will that at the same time it should become a universal law’. What Kant wants to emphasize is that we should not do an act which cannot become a universal law. A man, for instance, who contemplates suicide after a series of misfortunes should ask himself if he really wants everybody under the same circumstance to commii suicide. According to Kant, that man will immediately realize tha suicide cannot and should not be a maxim for all, otherwise it wo! lead to the extinction of mankind. In short, this principle commanding us that before we do an act we should ask if that is wi we want others to do. B. The Principle of Humanity This principle is: “So act as fo treat humanity whether in person or in that of another never as a means but always as an For Kant, persons are ends in themselves. They should never used as means for one’s self-interest or aggrandizement. Sla prostitutions, exploitation, insofar as they degrade the indi person, or violate his dignity and freedom, are against the principle humanity. This does not, however, mean that hiring or emplo people to do something is an outright degradation of a pe humanity. What Kant condemns is the deliberate attempt to person perform an act against his will. 38€ commentators claim that Kant's rationalistic ethics is a atement of the Golden Rule, as enunciated by Confucius and an attempt to summarize the Decalogue or the Ten idment. To postulate, however, that there exists in man a 6f duty, or a moral sense is to assume that man has some sort leas” of what is morally right and morally wrong. Studies, , had shown that man’s sense of duty does not automatically om his nature but from constant nurture, and, therefore, to what Kant claims, it is not an “a priori” datum. There is, in 0 clear evidence that whenever a Person or an individual IS an act, he is aware of, or wants to be guided by, the ple of universality and humanity. What compels people to do or 9 do something in the concrete is always related, however, Ecily, to the pursuit of self-preservation and self-gratification. men should always act on what could or should be alized, and/or on what would not injure humanity “whether in Own person or in that of another’ sounds laudable, but it appears 2 an extravagant expectation. 3. The Self-Realization Ethics This theory is based on the belief that the development of all normal capacities of man — the cognitive, the affective and the ive powers — is the primary norm of morality. The argument is at without the capacity to think, to feel and to strive, man would not luman. Whatever leads, therefore, to the development of man’s ities, physically and spiritually, is good: and whatever obstructs development is evil. Some writers call the Self-Realization cs Moral Perfectionism. Advocates of Self-realization Ethics are Bt always agreed on what should be developed or perfected so man puld attain the good life. Plato, for instance, claims in his book, The Republic,* that what las to be developed is man’s rational powers rather than his emotion passion and appetites. Rationality is the essence of man, and it is ly logical that reason should control the emotions, desires and Ihe Republic is Plato's greatest work in political philosophy. In this book, Plato tries to define the ideal Bocicty in terms of “justice”ae appetites. This idea that reason is the highest faculty of man provided Plato with a justification to construct an ideal republic whose constituents are subject to the philosopher - kings. The state, so Plato Says, is but “the individual writ large”. Therefore, as there is order and Perfection in the individual so long as feason controls the heart (the feeling part of man) and the appetites (the desiring part), so there would be order and “justice” in the Republic so long as the producers of economic wealth and the soldiers are under the philosopher- king. Since it is through reason that man and the state can have a well-ordered life, Plato concludes that the ‘life of reason” is the highest goed of both the individual and society. For Aristotle, the brilliant student of Plato, the self-realization ethics is but the pursuit of intellectual excellence. Man is a rational animal, therefore, the cultivation of the intellectual life should be man’s highest priority. For, indeed, how can life, one must take only what is enough. would say, the road to the good life is moderation, or the observani of what this philosopher calls “the golden mean”,* or the middi ground between “excessive indulgence and excessive repression’ The slogan ‘in medio stat virtus’ (virtue lies in moderation) i precisely designed to remind us that the good life is one of pruden and moderation. As espoused by Plato and Aristotle, self-realization ethics fi an elitist character. In fact, in the ancient Greek city states, this more philosophy was practicable only among the aristocratic class to whi Plato and Aristotle belonged. To the slaves, the artisans Producers of economic goods, the dream to attain self-perfection development was a consummation devoutly to be Condemned as they were to a life of endless toil and labor, the sl. and workers of Ancient Greece could not have, and did not have, luxury to engage in intellectual and moral pursuits. It was only ruling class — the nobility and the landed gentry- which thrived” “The “Golden Mean” is well explained by Aristotle in his book: ‘Nicomachean Ethics. 40that had all the opportunities and freedom to practice the n "Golden Mean”, and live the Platonic “Life of Reason’. ethics of self-realization is understood in oriental thought h for spiritual liberation from this world of “illusion” and iness”. It is a belief among the Hindus, the Buddhists, the for as long as the self, the spirit, the soul or the “atman’” soned in the body, it can not attain “happiness” or “pure bliss”. ion implies not only the subordination of feelings and to reason, as Plato and Aristotle taught, but also the total yand even the contempt of this life. It appears that the moral ither Hinduism or Buddhism or Tacism, is the union, if not solution, of the individual self in a so-called “universal isness’ or in an eternal silence cailed “Nirvana” closer inspection, self-realization ethics appears to be an tion to egocentricism. With the self or the individual as the object ication and perfection, the regard and concern for “others” is , Ignored and forgotten. The excessive pre-occupation with ‘own perfection, if not balanced or counterchecked by a sincere for fellowmen, will only lead to the justification of using others means so long as one can get ahead of others. Self- ization without social responsibility or concern for others is a form 4, Pragmatic Ethics This is an ethical theory which holds that the morality of human ts depends on consequences or results. An action is right, if it ds to good consequences; wrong if it leads to bad consequences. According to this theory, no act is intrinsically right or wrong, good or |, outside of its consequences. Actions are, therefore, judged according to their usefulness or results. The word pragmatism comes from the Greek “pragma” which means practical. And because of its emphasis on what is practical, efficient, useful or satisfying, Pragmatism has been viewed as merely a more recent version of the Utilitarianism of John Stuart Mill (1806- 1910). Pragmatism was popularized by William James (1842-1 910), an American philosopher, who claims that an idea, theory or dispute Athas significance only if it moves us to satisfactory results. William James says: “Everything in the world is relative; the worth of ideas, doctrine, principles, and practices depend on how they function in the given situation. If they work well they may be judged true, good, right and beautiful etc.; if they do not work well, they may be judged false, evil, wrong, ugly, efc....”. Pragmatism is sometimes called Instrumentalism for the reason that it considers ideas, hypotheses and theories as mere instruments for solving concrete problems. Thus, as.a philosophy, Pragmatisi ignores all theories or speculations which have no bearing on the) practical struggles of life. For the pragmatist, the truth-value as we as the goodness of any idea, knowledge or belief lie in its utility o usefulness in contributing to personal and social progress. In pragmatism, what is true is good, and what is good is alst true. Truth and goodness are not distinct categories; they are o1 Therefore, if the truth of an idea or knowledge lies in its utility tt morality (the goodness or badness) of human action must be measured by its practicality or efficiency in leading us to a better life “Let me now say only this, that truth is one species of good not, as is usually understood, a category distinct from good, coordinate with it. The true is the name of whatever proves i be good in the way of belief, and good, foo, for definite, assign: reason....If there be any life that is really better we should lead ai there be any idea which, if believed in, would help us lead that then it would be really better for us to believe in that idea uw: indeed, belief in it incidentally clashed with other greater benefits.” It appears that the true and the good are not only convert terms, but also matters of expediency. It is in this sense Pragmatism does not espouse “a fixed ethical system’, as, in is an open corridor “for all other systems towards the world of + Quoted in Chester C. Maxey’s book, P¢ Philosophies, New York: The Macmillan Comp.§ truth, to put it briefly, is only the expedient in the way of our - Expedient in almost any fashion...” Was the well-respected American philosopher, Prof. John (1895-1925) who contributed much to the popularization of ic Ethics. Influenced by Charles Darwin's theory of evolution, ey views intelligence as a tool in the struggle for existence. The © of reality is a perpetual flux. The world is a realm of insurgent so that life and society are always in the state of growth and .. The ideal in such a universe that is always in the process oming’, is the proper adaptation of life to the changing ronment. Accordingly, there are three ways by which man can 3 with the problem of adjustment. First, by accommodation, that en we encounter bad conditions which cannot be altered, the thing to do is to welcome them, and thus inured or conditioned se inexorable circumstances, we shall find life's travail less Second, by reconstruction, that is we must try to alter existing aditions to suit our needs, We must not forget that, through Ive intelligence”, we can change the world into a better place to in. And third, by refigiousity, that is, to transpose the belief in ematural beings into a loyalty to values which can contribute to progress of humanity towards greater freedom and happiness in here and now. Thus, for John Dewey, religion is a form of an ealized social morality, as can be gathered from his book, A mmmon Faith, he says: “The ideal ends to which we attach our faith are not shadowy id unwavering. They assume concrete forms in our understanding ur relations to one another and the values contained in those dations. We who now live are parts of humanity that extends to mote past, a humanity that has reacted with nature. The things in ization we prize most are not of ourselves. They exist by grace of doings and sufferings of the continuous human community in hich we are linked. Ours is the responsibility of conserving, smitting, rectifying and expanding the heritage of values we have ved that those who come after us may receive it more solid and secure, more widely accessible and more generously shared than we have received it. Here are the elements of a religious faith that shall ‘Quoted in Prof. Amable G, Tuibeo's Philosophy of Morals, Naga City: Naga City Press, 1965, 43hot be confined to sect or class or race. Such a faith has always been implicitly the common faith of mankind.”® What, then, is the supreme good for which men must strive, and which must serve as the standard of human conduct? For Dewey, the supreme good is the growth of the individual and progress of society towards freedom and cooperative or democratic living. The ultimate values are not in the supernatural realm, but in the visible world of nature and human association. In these terms, the standard of human conduct is whatever could contribute to th realization of a better world. “Behavior is satisfactory, good and righ in the light of all foreseeable results for all persons involved.” lt appears that the ethics of pragmatism has a sociali dimension. What is sought is not simply the good of the individual b the welfare of society at large. Indeed, if man is human because his association with other, then he owes it to the community to alwat seek or work for “the greatest happiness of the greatest number.” 5. Situation Ethics or Situationism The Situation Ethics, otherwise known as “The New Morality” not exactly new, according to its proponent, Prof. Joseph Fletch In fact, he says, it is rooted in the classical western Christian mor What seems new, however, is the emphasis this ethics lays human freedom and responsibility in making moral decisi Situation ethics, insofar as it emphasizes personal decision than the mere adherence to a pre-established code of conduct, is’ a system or a rigid moral philosophy. According to Fletcher, Situation Ethics is in the middle gi between Legalism and Autinomianism. Let us first understand th two extreme ethical theories before we consider Situation Ethit propounded by Fletcher. A. Legalistic Ethics * John Dewey, Common Faith, p. 87, 45 quoted by Christian Weber, Basic Philosophies of ‘York: Rinehart & Winston, pp. 259-260, * Joseph Fletcher, The Situation Ethics. This small work has provoked much controversy in the as it was perceived to be an attack against traditional morality. Atethics or morality is one school of thought where is always encumbered with pre-fabricated rules or Principles, codified neatly in rules, are pot merely laxims to illuminate the situation but directives to be tions to a given moral problem or issue are already tablished, and consequently what one has to do a decision is to ask: “What does the law say"? The d law or rule becomes the determinant of morality ical example of legalistic morality is the religious ethics. vers of the World Religions, such as Judaism, Islam, etc., are legalistic in their moral thinking insofar as appeal to the “Law” or “the words of God’ to validate the their conduct. Legalistic ethics is similar to authoritarian ir as it allows the Law or authority to decide what an fas to do or not to do. Legalism, however convenient it aS a norm of morality, tends to minimize, if not to deny, the m OF the individual to make his own moral decision B. Antinomian Ethics legalism is a faithful and blind adherence to the law, morality ignores and even defies all moral laws, principles gulations. . Literally, the word antinomian is “against norms”. nents of this radical ethical theory claim that every normal idual who has come of age has the al ‘ity to make moral on regardless of external rules, regulations and other social tion. Antinomianists contend that there are no universally norms of morality; hence, “one must rely upon the situation in making moral decisions.” Every situation, they say, calls for a mse which will surely vary from one individual to another. lly, if the response to a particular situation varies with the idual, then, the so-called absolute norm of morality as advocated the legalists would be an absolute nonsense. Antinomian ethics has found expression in the writings of many istentialist writers. Jean Paul Sartre, the well-known existentialist if France, contends, in his book, Being and Nothingness, that ontology itself cannot formulate ethical precepts. It is concerned lely with what is, and we cannot possibly derive imperatives from 45ontology’s indicatives.”"° What Sartre wants to tell us is that, since the “oughtness” of human acts is non-factual, it cannot be subjected to an objective and universal norm or standard. Every individual is unique, and it would be an illusion to expect them to agree on what to do, or how to behave, in a particular situation. There being no valid universal principles which can hold true at all times and places, Sartre says that in every moment.of moral choice or decision “we have na excuses behind us and no justification before us. Since man is condemned fo be free’, he can do whatever he wants on the condition that he takes full responsibility for the consequence of his action. Legalistic ethics and Antinomian ethics are definitely opposing schools of thought. On the one hand, legalistic ethics requires that making moral decision, one must always adhere to establis! horms, regardless of the situation; hence, one must simply a “What does the law say?” On the other hand, antimonian ethie maintains that one must only rely on the situation, regardless of pre fabricated laws or moral norms, hence, one must only ask: “What & the most responsible thing for me to da under the situation?” There is no question that Legalism and Antinomian antithetical to each other, but it must be pointed out that both hi negative implications. Legalistic ethics, insofar as it insists on @ strict observance of the law in making a moral decision, leads ta moral conformism, thereby foreclosing one’s freedom to ma personal choice. Antinomian ethics, can easily lead to relativism and even anarchy, there being no longer any ol norm or law to regulate the moral choice of the individual. C. Christian Situation Ethics The Ghristian Situation Ethics stands “between legalism: antinomanian”. It appears that Christian Situationism is a synthe both Legalism and Antinomianism. This is what Prof. Joseph says: “The situationist enters into every decision-making fully armed with the ethical maxims of his community and its he} © This quotation from Jean Paul Sartre is actually a restatement of David Hume’s argument that fig is we cannot derive an “ought proposition”: Oughtness is not implied in the “issues” of things 46em with respect as illuminators of his problems. Just Prepared in any situation to compromise them or set @ situation if love seems better served by doing so”."! IS stated, the Situationist follows a moral law or ding to love's demands. In Christian Situation Ethics, to serve is Love, whose interpretation or concretization the situation. Any established moral law, rule or be put aside, if by following it, more harm could be ctis that “circumstances alter rules and Principles”, and it which could tell when the established law could be aF example: “Alms giving is good”. It is ‘an act intended to hunger or misery of a fellowman. But, however noble it intention behind alms-giving, it can be bad, if and when of alms would only perpetuate one's dependency. If such the result of alms-giving, then it does not make the person es the alm any better. It is not constructive to give alms all &, otherwise “beggars” will not learn to live on their own, , What is love? “Christian love is not desire. |t is agape, a rocal, neighbor-regarding; neighbor means everybody, even y. it is usually distinguished from friendship love (philia) and fomanic love (eros) both of which are selective and exclusive. © and philic fove have their place in human affairs but they are what is meant by agape or Christian love. Erotic and philic loves ‘ofional, but the effective principles of Christian love is will, ion. It is an attitude, not feeling.” * Christian Situation Ethics, insofar as it uses love as the only dard of action, is founded on the greatest law promulgated by r “Love God and your neighbor as you love yourself’. Fletcher is that “Everything else without exception, all laws and rules and ciples and ideals and norms, are only contingent, only valid if, 4y happen to serve love in any situatians”.* © Quoted from Fletcher's Situation Ethics by A. Tuibeo in an unpublished monograph for Ethies, liversity of the East, Manila, Philippines, 1982.For the Christian situationist, therefore, principles, maxims. or general rules are simply illuminators, not directors. In fact, the Christian situationist is ready to disregard established laws and rules” if by observing them, love cannot be served. In case of conflict) between law and love, it is the latter that must prevail over the former This is precisely what Christ did when he rejected the meticulor observance of the law in favor of the man whom he cured on 4 Sabbath day. For, as he said, “Man is not made for the Sabbath; bub) the Sabbath was made for man’. 6. The Marxist Ethics By Marxism is meant the combined works or ideas of Karl Map (1818-1883), Friedrich Engels (1820-1895) and Viadimir Lenin (1876 1929). Marxism grew out of the intense social struggle as a result the Industrial Revolution which created'so much wealth for some (ff capitalists) and at the same time so much misery for others workers). Marx, Engels and much later Lenin, thought that the ti has come to overhaul society (the economy, politics and culture) only to rectify the anomalous distribution of social production. j 1848, Marx and Engels published the Communist Manifesto whi outlined the programme and the methodology of achieving change. The Manifesto also carries the blueprint of the new i order where “private property” is abolished so that there might nots anymore a class of the rich and a class of the poor. What envisioned was “a classless society’, or Communism. Whether @ alternative social order will become a reality or not has been a SUB} of much debate, but the followers of the Marxism believe that prevailing social system must be transformed, otherwise there be no end to “man’s exploitation by man”. Prof. Alfred G. Meyer, in his book, Marxism: The Uj Theery and Practice, briefly defines Marxism as “an ideal, 2 pa movement and a way of life’. It is an ideal, because it si establish a new social order where “the free development of on condition to the free development of all’. It is a political mows because it is a struggle for the socialization of wealth and democratization of political power. It is, finally, a way of life, it is a call to all men and women te transcend their egoism centeredness so they could help transform society and hun 48@ the prevailing prejudice, Marxism stands for Philosophic Manuscript (1844) calls “human social ‘recovery’ Marxism is focused on the future state of al which, so the Marxists would insist, ought to Choices and decisions. If the individual is, indeed, a it is his duty to work for the social good as the ociety will ultimately redound to his own well-béing. Writer has put it, “the morally good action must be, in the af least, action for a just society, and bad action must ft impedes the realization of such society’.“ The follower NS, therefore, asked to subordinate his private interests to good. The moral ought, in Marxist ethics, arises from a ft to hasten the realization of the dreamed of “classless farxist ethics has an activist character, in the sense that it speak, “a call to arms” against all forms of human , Oppression and injustice. The moral ideal in Marxism is ncipation. What i moral is an act which has nothing to fealization of this vision or objective. In these terms, the orm of morality is the liberation of man from the greed of in. ism takes issue with the “dominant morality” in our society ‘One which favors the maintenance of the status quo. It is, in morality of the ruling class whose agenda is to perpetuate onomic and political domination of society. It is, therefore, not ing that the present moral code of our society strongly emns all forms of social agitation and criticism against the social presided over, and controlled by “the elites and oligarchs”, at is distressing, as far as Marxism is concerned, is the fact ganized religions, on account of their economic interests in the quo, lend their support, however subtly, to the dominant . By diverting the people’s attention to what Karl Marx calls “a the sky”, the organized religions are able to pacify many a Gial discontent and unrest, thereby helping the ruling elites and iarchs preserve the status quo. It is in this context that, apart from hoted from A, Tuibeo’s Basic Concepts of Logic and Ethics, Katha Publishing, Quezon City, 1984, p. 49taking issue with the dominant morality, Marxism has denounced, with good reason, religion as “the opium of the people”. The reason is that, instead of empowering the oppressed and the exploited to fight for social liberation, the organized religions, through their churches, just tell them “to improve their souls, but not to fight for better Conditions” in this world. Thus, the ruling classes and organized teligions are in conspiracy to preserve our class-divided society. In these terms, the dominant morality, insofar as it is backed up by the ideology of established religions, according to Marxists, a great obstacle to the realization of a just, humane and compassionate society for all mankind. The liberation of mankind is the ultimate objective of Marxi Ethics. This liberation means the freedom of all people fron economic want se they could have the leisure to engage in cultura and spiritual development. it is a fundamental thesis in Marxism tha when everybody receives “according to their need’, they will not grip against each other. Men will lear to live in brotherliness, coopera’ and peace. When will this millennium take place, nobody knows; it is an ethical imperative that everyone must cooperate in the so revolution. The supreme good is the realization of the “classl society” where all men and women can live “as comrades, frie and brothers or sisters to one another. 7. The Power Ethics The ethical theory which declares that power is the norm | morality was advanced by Friedrich Nietzsche (1844-1900 According to this German philosopher, life is a struggle for exis in which, following Darwin's theory of natural selection, only the can survive. If such is the case, then, the highest and ultimate is strength, and weakness the only fault. The good is that contributes to survival and victory, while the bad is that which ends in defeat. In the harsh struggle for survival, it would follow # is not humility but pride; not resignation but courage; not go but power which shall determine the history and destiny of men im world. The final goal of evolution is not the masses but the who will rule the earth “beyond good and evil”. This tersely, underlying philosophy of Friedrich Nietzsche, the philosop! which the Germans tried to build “the super race”. 30ethics which sought to “transvalue” the Christian ty, Tesignation and kindness was enunciated: by book, Thus Spoke Zarathustra. must be a creafor in good and in evil, verily he must oyer, and break values into pieces. Thus, the highest fihe highest goodness. But that is creative goodness. Let ereon, ye wisest men, however bad it be. To be Silent is Unuttered truths become poisonous. And whatever will ir truths, let it break? Many a house hath yet to be built. @ Zarathutra,"* nance with the theory of “natural selection”, Nietzsche extirpation of the weak in society to give way to the ture supermen of the earth. The weaklings, in the mind of fe only means to the realization of the super race of the fes. In the song of Zarathustra, this idea is weil @thus: - if iS good and great in man is that he is a bridge and not a can be loved in man is that he is a transition and a i Jove those who do not know how to live except in , for they are those going beyond. | lave the great despisers ihey are the great adorers; they are arrows of longing for the 1s: we those who do not seek beyond the stars for a reason to d fo be sacrificed, but who sacrificed themselves to earth in ihe earth may some day become supermen’s... it is time fo mark his goal. It is time for man to Plant the germ of his ope.” the evolution of the superman is accomplished, the fittest in strong aristocracy They can use any means if it is ssary to maintain their unity and power over the masses. Almost Machiavellian tone, Nietzsche says: “The essential thing 5 iN a good and healthy aristocracy is that it should not regard Nietzsche, Thus Spoke Zarathustra, as quoted by Will Durant, Story of Philosophy, p, 417,itself as a function either of the kingship or the commonwealth, but the significance and highest justification thereof that it should the accept with a good conscience the sacrifice of a legion of individu who for its sake, must be precisely suppressed and reduced a imperfect men, to slaves and instruments. Its fundamental belief mus be precisely that society is not allowed to exist for its sake, only asé foundation and scoffolding by means of which a select class or being may be able to elevate themselves to their duties, and in general, to: higher existence.” To Nietzsche, the mark of a living organization is its power fi exploit the weaker members for the benefit and interest of the stron and the powerful. Life is “a will to power’, and as such, it is, s Nietzsche says, essentially “appropriation, injury. obstruction own forms, incorporation, and at least, putting it mil “ exploitation...", otherwise, society would decay. Exploitation is in nature of things: “...exploitation does not belong to the depraved, imperfect and primitive society; it belongs to the nature of living €@s a primary organic function, it is a consequence of the intrinsic to power, which is precisely the will to life”. AS a consequence of this aristocratic state of the superma Nietzsche distinguishes two kinds of morality: the Herren Moral, am the Herden Moral —the morality of the masters and the morality off slaves or herd. The Herren (master) morality was the accey standard in classical antiquity, especially among the Spartans ai Romans, whose virtues were those of courage, enterprise, and pi The Herden (slaves) morality was the ideal among conquered peo who, in their subjugation and powerlessness, made hum resignation and forgiveness as valid virtues. Under the herd or sl morality, the love of danger, power and enterprise gave way to love peace, conformity and humility To the mind of Nietzsche, the Judeo-Christian religion had ¢ exacerbated the weakening of the aristocratic values and ct Men, since the time of Christ, declares Nietzsche, had lost strength and the power to assert themselves, for that man ff Galilee emphasized to all his followers that “he who takes u che, Beyond Good and Evil, as quoted by Mandelboum in Philesophie Problems, New Yor ‘Comp. 1957, p. 368. IBy Mandelbaum, op. cit, p. 368: 52ish by the sword,” and “if someone strikes thee on thy him also the right cheek’, or if somebody revile and he would merely advise his followers to pray and to e ‘they do not know what they are doing’. For ho sees life as an arena of fierce competition for survival ), the teaching of Christianity is self-defeating, a negation ‘to life”. So, in the height of exasperation, Nietzsche Europe is threatened with a new Buddhism!”, which is a Bf oriental passivity and non-violence; and “the whole Europe is based on the values which are useful to the iStianized Europe has become weak and stagnant © Nietzsche thought, the aristocratic will and vigor which 5S: in the process of struggle, selection, and survival, had d by the Christian ethics of humility, resignation, and love In order to restore the nobility of power, pride and joy of fife, Nietzsche announced “the death of God”, so that men m to love this life with courage and pride without supernatural men are thus divided into masters (Herren) and slaves ) there would be a distinction of moral values. What is good = masters has a different meaning from what is good for the . Nietzsche says: he distinction of moral values had originated in a ruling class, antly conscious of being different from the ruled class, the and the dependent of all sorts. In the first case, when it is the who determine the conception “good” it is the exalted, proud ion that is displayed. Let it be at once noted that in the first f morality, the antithesis “good” and “bad”, means practically the as “noble”, and the “despicable”, the antithesis “good and evil” Hf different origin. The cowardly, the timid, the insignificant, and those merely of wow utility are despised; moreover also, the distrustful, with their trained glances, self-abasing, the dog-like kind of men, who let selves be abused, the mendicant flatterers and above all the ; it is a fundamental belief of all aristocrats that the common eopie are untruthful. “We truthful ones” — the nobility of Ancient ece called themselves.it is obvious that everywhere the designation of moral values were first applied to men, where only derivatively and at a late period, applied to actions; it is a gross mistake, therefore, whe historians of morals start with the questions like: “Why have not sympathetic actions been praised? The noble type of man regards himself as a determiner of values; he does not require to be approved of; he passed judgment; What is injurfous fo me is also injurious itself’. He knows that it is he himself who confers honour on things; he is creator of values. He knows whatever he recognizes in himself, stich morally ts self-glorification.”"* ’ The slave morality which Nietzsche thought has found ft ultimate expression in the pacifism of Christ, and then preached by the Apostles as a means to temper the strong and the powerful of the earth, has a different notion of right and wrong, good and bad, Nietzsche continues to write: “/f is otherwise with the second type morality, the slave-morality. Supposing that the abused, oppressed, the suffering, the emancipated, the weary, and those uncertain of themselves, should moralize, what would be the common element in their moral estimates? Probably, a pessimistic suspicion with regard to the entire situation of man will find expression, perhap a condemnation of man, together with his situation. The slave has an unfavorable stand for the virtues of the powerful: he has skepticism and distrust, a requirement of distrust of every “good” that the honoured — he would feign persuade himself that every happint there is not genuine. On the other hand, those qualities which serve to alleviate existence of sufferers are bought into prominence and flooded light; it is here that sympathy, the kind helping hand, the warm heart, patience, diligence, humility and friendliness attain to honor; for here these are the most useful qualities, and almost the only means OF supporting the burden of existence. Slave morality is essentially the morality of ufility. Here origin of the famous antithesis, “good and evil’; power dangerousness are assumed to reside in the evil, a ce dreadfuiness, subtlety and strength which do not admit of bei despised. According to slave-morality, therefore, the evil arouses fear according to master-morality, it fs precisely the gooe 1 Quoted By Mandelbaum, op. cit., p. 369. S4Blouses it, while the bad man is regarded as the He. fat then, is the highest ideal in Nietzsche's moral philosophy? What must be the aim of human striving? To these, the pher would surely answer that it is not humanity that is the | but “the superman” whose evolution necessitates the ation and the sacrifice of the weaker people on earth, as he “| submit that egoism belongs to the essence of a noble soul, | an the unalterable belief that to a being such as me, other beings sf naturally be in subjection, and have to sacrifice themselves.” it is only in the continuous selection and elimination of the gs that the birth of the superman will arise. This goal was sized by Zarathustra, when he said, “Ye lonely ones of today, who stand apart, ye shall one day be a people; from you who have. Vouseies, a chosen people shall arise; from it the jan.” | The superman whom Nietzsche wanted to build upon the ruins lebris of other human brings has nothing to fear. Now the an is free to be what he wants to be, fo define his own e and to live “beyond good and evil”, for God is dead. With irreverence, the philosopher declaims: | “For the old Gods came to an end long ago. And verily it was a and joyful end of the Gods! They did not die lingering in the t, although that lie is told. On the contrary, they once upon @ Jaughed themselves unto death! That came to pass when, by a himself, the most ungodly word was uttered, the word: ‘There is ‘one God! Thow shall not have other gods before me”. An old grim d of a God, a jealous one, forgot himself thus. And then all the laughed and shook on their chairs and cried: “Is godliness not St that there are Gods, but no God." The power ethics, as formulated by Friedrich Nietzsche, may be bing to Christian and other religious sensibilities, but it is a allenge to conventional wisdom. We may not agree with lietzsche's proposal to “transvalue” the values of humility into pride; By Mandelbaum, op. E ged by Will Durata, op. cit, p. 417 it op. cit.,p. 417. 55resignation into courage; the love of peace and security into love of adventure and change, but was he Not right in saying that since life is an arena of fierce competition for Survival, power and not weakness is what would spell the difference? VI. Concluding Remarks The search for “the good life” has always preoccupied mankind since time immemorial. In fact, it is along, if not fo, this end that man has tried to re-create his life and the world. What man had always” hoped to have is a “happy, a healthy and a socially useful and fully developed life". What we call morally good and morally bad, right and wrong, is but our way of doing or avoiding things which might Jeopardize our existence. In these terms, morality is not a matter of Opinion, but a fundamental fequirement for survival. The various ethical theories, presented in this Chapter, must be” considered as serious attempts by some inquiring minds to define t ‘oughtness” of human action for Purposes of attaining the ideal life. That there are, however, different, and even conflicting, ethi theories is due to the fact that their proponents have differing conceptions of the end of life and of the world. These differences o: what is good or bad, right or wrong, are not a “disaster”, but a . Opportunity for us, to reflect an those theories and to gather fro! them what is best for us and for our fellowmen. Maybe from what the Various authors had said about the good life, we can also, if we only try to, form our own moral philosophy. Suggested Readings Albert, Ethel, Great Traditions in Ethics. New York: American Bor Company, 1953. Erwing, Alfred, The Definition of Good, New York: The Macmilla Company, 1947. Jordan, Elijah, The Good Life, Chicago: Chicago University Pi 1940.lliams, Foundations of Ethics, New York: Oxford University , 1949. 5 falter, The Concept of Morals, New York: The Macmillan ie: old, Ethics for Today, New York: American Book Comp., Review Questions nh What sense does the author claim that morality grows out of €? Do you agree that self-preservation requires that man ould be moral? Why? are the physical, intellectual and social demands related to ‘good life’? at role does motive, or consequence, or means have in moral judgment? you agree that a person's moral life has, or undergoes three ges of development, the “pre-moral”, the “conventional” and € “post-conventional”? Haw would you explain these stages? lat is authoritarian ethics, and what advantages or ‘disadvantages does it have for the individual? = What does Kant mean by principle of universality and principle ‘of humanity? How does man arrive at these principles? lat is meant by self-realization ethics, and what is its moral indard? Do you agree with Plato that the best life is “the life ‘of reason’, and with Aristotle that we should always observe “the golden mean’? Why? § Do you agree with the claim of Pragmatism that the goodness ‘or badness of human action should be based on consequences 57and practicality rather than on fixed rules, principles or absolute laws? Why? Prof. John Dewey claims that the best ethi norm, in order to attain a “well-adjusted life, are (a accommodation, (b) reconstruction, and (c) religiousne: ‘Would you agree with him or not? Why? 9, What is Situation ethics in general, and what can you say Legalism and Antinomianism? What is new in what Pr Joseph Fletcher calls “Christian Situation Ethics"? Why does say that where there is a conflict between Law and Love, it the latter that must prevail over the former? 10. Why does the ethics of Marxism have a political or revolutionary character? Do you agree with the claim present society should be re-constructed on a new basi Why? 11. Would you agree with Friedrich Nietzsche that since life i fierce competition for survival and glory, what we need is pri courage and love of danger rather than humility, resigni and love of peace? 12. What reason did Nietzsche have in proclaiming “the death God"? 13. What does the author say in the concluding remark? 58