UNIT 2

Science, Technology, Society,

and the Human Condition
CHAPTER 4
Human Flourishing
In Science and Technology

LEARNING OUTCOMES

At the end of this chapter, the student should be able to:

1. Discuss what technology reveals;
2. Examine modern technology and its role in human flourishing; and
3. Explain the role of art in a technological world .

The progress of human civilizations throughout history mirrors the development of science
and technology. The human person, as both the bearer and be neficiary of science and
technology, flourishes and finds meaning in the world that he/she builds. In the person’s
pursuit of the good life, he/she may unconsciously acquire, consume, or destroy what the
world has to offer. It is thus necessary to reflect on the things that truly matter. Science
and technology must be taken as part of human life that merits reflective and -as the
German philosopher Martin Heidegger says- meditative thinking. Science and technology,
despite its methodical and technical nature, gives meaning to the life of a person making
his/her way in the world.

To be able to appreciate the fruits of science and technology, they must be examined not only for
this function and instrumentality but also for their greater impact on humanity as wholes are all tools
that makes human lives easier because people with a certain good, convenience, or knowledge.
Meanwhile, medical research employs the best scientific and technological principles to come up
with cures for disease and ways to prevent illnesses to ensure a good quality of life.

TECHNOLOGY AS A MODE OF REVEALING

In his seminal work, Question of Technology, Martin Hleidegger usages us to question technology
and see beyond people’s common understanding of it.

According to ancient doctrine, the essence of a thing is considered to be what the thing is.
We ask the question concerning technology when we ask what it is. Everyone knows the two
statements that answer our question. Our says: Technology is a means to an end. The other
says; Technology is a human activity. The two definitions of technology belong together. For
to posit ends and procure and utilize the means to them is a human activity. The
manufacture and utilization of equipment, tools, and machines, the manufactured and used
things themselves, and the needs and ends that they serve, all belong to what technology is.
The whole complex of this contrivance is technology. Technology itself is a contrivance- in
Latin, an instrument tum. The current conception of technology, according to which it is a
means and a human activity, can therefore be called the instrumental and anthropological
definition of technology (Heidegger, 1997, p. 5).
This definition is correct but not necessarily true. The “true” entail so much more meaning and
significance. Heidegger, however, asserted that the true can be pursued through the correct. In
other words, the experience and understanding of what is correct lead us to what is true. Heidegger
urged people to envision technology as a mode of revealing as it shows so much more about the
human person and the world. Technology is a way of bringing forth, a making something. By
considering technology as a mode of revealing, then truth is brought forth. For instance, the truth
that the Earth is weeping could be revealed by the information and data taken by modern devices.
Whatever truth is uncovered, it will be something more meaningful and significant than the
superficial or practical use of technology.

Heidegger also put forward the ancient Greek concepts of aletheia, poeisis, and techne. Aletheia
means unhiddenness or disclosure. Poeisis is defined as bringing forth. For Aristotle, it means
making or predicting something for a purpose. It is sometimes used to refer to poetry and
composition. Finally, techne (the root word for technology) means skill, art, or craft. It is a means of
bringing forth something. Thus, in Heigegger’s work, technology is a poeisis the discloses or reveals
the truth.

On the other hand, to think of technology as poetry takes a different mindset, a more reflective and
sensitive way of looking at the world. This perspective is not easy to take especially in this era when
instant knowledge is demanded and split-second updates are the norm, and when the pursuit of
fame and fortune is unceasingly bannered on social media. There is so much noise in the world that
would take a disciplined stepping back to see what Heidegger meant and to appreciate how
technology could actually be poetry that brings forth truth.

TECHNOLOGY AS POEISIS:
APPLICABLE TO MODERN TECHNOLOGY
Does the idea that technology is poeisis apply to moderntechnology? Heidegger Characterize
modern technology as a challenging forth since it is very aggressive in its activity. Modern
technology may also be a mode of revealing but not as the harmonious bringing forth that is
describe in his thesis of technology as poeisis. Modern technology challenge nature and demand of
resources that are, most of the time,forcibly extracted for human consumption and storage. It brings
about a ‘setting upon” of the land. Mining is an example of modern technology that challenge forth
and brings about the setting upon of land. It extract mineral from the earth and forcefully assigns the
land as a mean to fulfill the never-ending demand of people.

With modern technology, revealing never come to as end. The revealing always happen on our own
terms as everything is on demand. Information at our fingertips, food harvested even out of
season, gravity defied to fly off to space –such is the capacity of the human person. We no
longer need to work with the rhythms of nature because we have learned to control it. We order
nature, and extract, process, make ready for consumption, and store what we have forced it to
reveal. Heidegger described modern technology as the age of switches, standing reserve, and
stockpiling for its own sake. This observation is manifest in the mechanization and digitization of
many aspect of our life–from agriculture to communications and transportation, among many others.

What kind of unconcealment is it, then, that is peculiar to that which results from this setting
upon those challenges? Everywhere everything is ordered .to stand by to be immediately on
hand, indeed to stand there just so that it may be on call for a further ordering. Whatever
ordered about on this way has its own standing-reserve (Heidegger, 1977, p.5)
QUETIONING AS THE PIETYOF THOUGHT
In this stepping back and taking stock of things, we begin to wonder and question. One may admire
the intricacy of mechanism and the sophistication of mobile applications. Another may marvel at the
people and circumstances allowed for such technology. There is no much wealth insights that that
can be gathered when people stop think and questioned “Questioning is the piety of thought,” stated
Heidegger in The Question concerning technology,

Normally, piety is associated with being religious. For Heidegger, however, piety means
obedience and submission. In addressing what technology has brought forth, one cannot help but be
submissive to what his/her thoughts and reflections elicit. Sometimes, thinking bring forth insights
that the mind has not yet fully understood or developed. There are times when one’s thinking brings
forth eureka moments. Whatever understanding found becomes significant because it is evoked by
questioning who or what we essentially are in the world. For example, it is known truth that we,
human being and everything around us, are made of same substance that constitutes stars.
Therefore, we actually are stardust. Do we just take this matter-of-factly or do we wonder at its
significance? It is when we start questioning that we submit ourselves to our thoughts. This king of
questioning leads one to search for his/her place in the universe and in the grand scale of things. It
is through this process that our builds a way towards knowing the truth of who he/she is a being in
this world.

ENFRAMING: WAY OF REVEALING IN MODERN

TECHNOLOGY
The way of revealing in modern technology is an enframing. This enframing that challenges forth
and sets upon nature is a way of looking at reality. In simpler terms it is as if nature is put in box or in
a frame so that it can be better understood and controlled according people’s desire. Poesisisis
concealed in enframing as nature is viewed as an orderable and calculable system of information.

In looking at the world, Heidegger distinguished between calculable thinking and meditative
thinking. In calculative thinking, as mentioned earlier, one orders and puts a system to nature so it
can be understood better and controlled. In in meditative thinking, one let nature revealed itself to
him/her without forcing it. One kind of thinking is not in itself better than the other. The human
person has the faculty for both and would do well to use them in synergy. However, people also
want control and are afraid of unpredictability, so calculative thinking is more often used. Enframing
is done because people want security, even if the ordering that happens in framing is violent and
even if the Earth is made as a big gasoline station from which we extract, stockpile, and put in
standing-reserve ready to be used as we fit.

HUMAN PERSON SWALLOWED BY TECHNOLOGY

Though it is true that the individual takes part in the revealing of nature, limits must still be
recognized. Humans do not really call the shots on the Earth. If we allow ourselves to get swallowed
by modern technology, we lose the essence of who we are as beings in this world. If we are
constantly plugged online and so loner have the capacity for authentic personal encounters, and
then we are truly swallowed by technology. If we cannot let go of the conveniences and profits
brought about by processes and industries that pollute the environment and cause climate change,
then technology has consumed our humanity.

Nevertheless, as expressed by the poet Holderlih, “But where danger is, grows the saving power
also.”The saving power lies in the essence of technology as technology. Essence is the way in
which things are, as that which endures. Heidegger further asserted that the “essence of technology
is nothing
technological” (1977). The essence of technology is not found in the instrumentality and functioned
of machine constructed, but in the significance such technology unfolds.

He also expressed that the various problems brought about by human’s dependence on the
technology cannot be simply resolved by refusing technology altogether. He stated:

Thus we shall never experience our relationship to the essence of technology so long as we
merely represent and pursue our technological, put up with it, or evade it. Everywhere
we remain unfree and chained to technology, whether we passionately affirm or denied
it. But we are delivered over to it in the worst possible way when we regard it as
something neutral; for this conception of it, to which today particularly like to pay
homage, makes us utterly blind to the essence of technology (1977, p. 1)

ART AS WAY OUT OF ENFARMING

Enframing, as the mode of revealing in modern technology tend to block poiesis. The poetry that
is foundin nature can no longer be easily appreciated when nature is enframed. If the Earthhas just
become a gas station for us, then we have become enfamed as well. In modern technology, the way
of revealing is no longer poetic; it is challenging. When instruments are observed linearly, its poetry
can no longer be found. For example, the watermill is a primitive structure compared to the
hydropower plant; or the first iPhone model is just an obsolete piece of machine. People no longer
realize how the watermill is more in tune with the rhythms of nature or how much genius went into
the building of the first iPhone.

Heidegger proposes art as a way out of this enframing. With art, we are better able to see the
poetic in nature in reality. It leads us away from calculative thinking and towards meditative thinking.
Through meditative thinking, we will recognize that nature is art par excellence;hence, nature is the
most poetic.

There was a time when it was not technology alone that hore the name techne. Once the
revealing that brings forth truth into the splendor of radiant appearance was also called
techne.

Once there was a time when the bringing-forth of the true into the beautiful was called
techne. The poiesis of the fine arts was also called techne.

At the outset of the destining of the West, in Greece, the arts scared to the supreme
height of the revealing granted them. They illuminated the presence (Gegenwart) of the gods
and the dialogue of divine and humans destining. And art was called simply techne. It was
a single, manifold revealing. It was pious, promos, i.e., yielding to the holding sway and the
safekeeping of truth.

The art were not derived from the artistic, Artworks were not enjoyed aesthetically. Art
was not a sector of cultural activity.

What was art-perhaps only for that brief but magnificent age? Why did not bear the
modest name techne? Because it was a revealing that brought forth and made present, and
therefore belonged within poiesis. It was finally that revealing which holds complete sway in
all the fine-arts, in poetry, and in everything poetical that obtained poiesis as its proper
name (Heidegger, 1977, p. 13).
 When meditatively looking at technology, one will begin to question its significance in his/he life
more than in its instrumental use. Technology is normally thought of as that witch solves problems,
but Heidegger asserted that it is something that must be questions. Again, it is in questioning that
build a way to understand. In the nuclear age, we view nature as a problem to be solved the
calculative thinking in which we perceive nature in a technical and scientific manner is becoming
more important in the modern world. On the other hand, it is meditative thinking that provides a way
for us to remain rooted in the essence of who we are. It grounds us so as not to let our technological
devices affect our real core and warp our nature.
Aristotle’s conception of the four causes was mechanical. As explained by Heidegger:

For centuries philosophy has taught that there are four causes: (1) the causa Material,
the material, the matter out of which, for examples, a silver chalice is made; (2) the causa
formalis, the form, the shape into which the material enters; (3) the causa finalis, the end,
for examples, the sacrificial rite in relation to which the chalice required is determined as to
its form and matter; (4) the causa effeciens. Which brings about the effect that is the
finished, actual chalice, in this instance, the silversmith. What technology is, when
represented as a means, discloses itself when we trace instrumentality back to fourfold
causality (1977, p. 2).

Though correct in the four causes, Aristotle remained in the mechanical sense and did not allow
for a lager truth to disclose itself. The poetic character may be hidden but it is there. For example,
the ancient Greek experience of cause is aition or indebtedness, not cause and effect. Thus, the
Greeks revere the sun because they are indebted to it, and not because the sun is the cause of
energy on Earth. Aition is responsible for bringing forth.
Though enframing happens, it cannot completely snuff out the poetic character of technology.
We ponder technology and question it. In so doing, we also become aware of the crisis we have
plunged the Earth into. The danger is made present and more palpable through our art and poetry.
Amid this realization, we remain hopeful because, as the poet Holderlin put it, “…poetically man
dwells upon this Earth” (Heidegger, 1977, p. 13).

QUESTIONS FOR REFLECTION

1. How is technology a mode of revealing?

2. In your daily experience of Technology, what else is revealed
to you aside from its function?
3. Why should technology be questioned?
4. How is Questioning the piety of thought?
5. How does art provide a way out of enframing?

ACTIVITY

Form five groups and pick a work of art that you feel best revels technology. Reflect and
discuss among yourselves how the artwork describe and reveals technology. Ground your
discussion from the concept learned in this chapter.
CHAPTER 5

Human Flourishing as Reflected in Progress

And Development:

LEARNING OUTCOMES

At the end of this chapter, the student should be able to:

1. Critique Human flourishing vis-à-vis the progress of science and technology;

2. Explain Hickel’s paradigm of “de-development”; and
3. Differentiate it from the traditional notions of growth and consumption.

How do we know that we are progressing? What are the indicators of development? What are the
indicators of development? More often than not, development is equated with growth and greater
consumption. The more that a population is able to consume, the wealthier it is. Likewise, the more
that a person is able to buy stuff, the planet, however, is already overburdened with human
activities. It is about time that we rethink our standards of development if we truly want to live the
good life. Jason Hickel, an anthropologist at he London School of Economics, challenges us to
rethink and reflect on a different paradigm of “de-development.”

Forget ‘developing’ poor countries,

It’s time to ‘de-develop’ rich countries
Jason Hickel

Heads of state are gathering in New York to sign the UN’s new sustainable development goals
(SDGS). The main objective is to eradicate poverty by 2030. Beyoncé, One Direction and Malala are
on board. It’s set to be a monumental international celebration.

Give all the fanfare, one might think the SDGs are about to offer a fresh plan for how to save
the world, but beneath all the hype it’s business as usual. The main strategy for eradicating poverty
is the same growth.

Growth has been the main object of development for the past 70 year, despite the fact that it is
not working since 1980, the global economy has grown by 380%, but the number of people living in
poverty on less than $5 (£3.20 ) a day has increased by more than 1.1 billion. That’s 17 times the
population of Britain. So much for the trickledown effect.

Orthodox economies insist that all we need is yet more growth. More progressive types tell us
that we need to shift some of the yields of growth from the richer segments of the population to the
poorer ones, evening things out a bit. Neither approach is adequate. Why? because even at current
level of average global consumption, we’re overshooting our planet bio-capacity by more than 50%
each year.

In other words, grown isn’t an option ant more-we’ve already grown too much. Scientists are
now telling us that we’re blowing past planetary boundaries at breakneck speed. And the hard truth
is that this global crisis is due almost entirely to overconsumption in rich countries
Right now, our planet only has enough resources for each of us to consume 1.8 “global hectares”
annually- a standardized unit that measures resources use and waste. The figure is roughly what the
average in Ghana or Guatemala consumes. By contrast people in the US and Canada consume
about 8 hectares peer person while Europeans consume 4.7 hectares-many times their fair share.

What does this mean for our theory of development? Economist Peter Edward argues that
instead of pushing poorer countries to catch up with rich ones, we should be thinking of ways to get
rich countries to “catch down” to more appropriate levels of development. We should look at scientist
where people live long and happy lives at relatively low levels of income and consumption not as
basket cases that need to be developed towards western models, but as exemplars of efficient
living.

How much do we really need to live long and happy lives? In the US, life expectancy is 79
years and GDP per capita is $53,000. But many countries have achieved similar life expectancy with
a mere fraction of this income. Cuba has a comparable life expectancy to the US and one of the
highest literacy rate in the world with GDP per capita of only $6,000 and consumption of only 1.9
hectares-right at the threshold of ecological sustainable. Similar claims can be made of Peru,
Ecuador, Honduras, Nicaragua and Tunisia.

Yes some of the excess income and consumption we see in the rich world yields
improvements in quality of life that are not captured by life expectancy, or even literacy rates. But
even if we look at measures of overall happiness and wellbeing in addition to life expectancy, a
number of low and middle income countries rank highly. Costa Rica manage to sustain one of the
highest happiness indicator and life expectancies in the world with per capita income on fourth that
of the US.

In light of this, perhaps we should regard such countries not as underdevelopment, but rather
as appropriately. And maybe we need to start calling on rich countries to justify their excesses.

The idea of “de-developing” rich countries might be prove to be a strong rallying cry in the
global south: but it will be tricky to sell to westerns. Tricky but not impossible. According to recent
consumer to reach, 70% of people in middle- and high-income countries believe overconsumption is
putting our planet and society at risk. A similar majority also believe we should strive to buy and own
less, and that doing so would not compromise. People sense there is something wrong with the
dominant model of economic progress and they are hungry for an alternative narrative.

The problem is that pundits promoting this kind of transition are using the wrong language.
They use terms such as de-growth, zero growth or-worst of all-de-development, which are
technically because but off-putting for anyone who’s not already on board. Such terms are repulsive
because they run against the purpose of life itself, it’s like asking people to stop moving positively
thorough life, to stop learning, improving, growing.

Negative formulation won’t get us anywhere. The idea of “steady-state” economics is a step in
the right direction and is growing in popularity, but still doesn’t get the farming right. We need to
reorient ourselves toward a positive future, truer from of progress. One that is geared toward quality
instead of quantity. One that is more sophisticated than just accumulating ever increasing amount of
stuff, which doesn’t make anyone happier anyway. What is certain is that GDP as a measure is not
going to get us there and we need to get rid of it.

Perhaps we might take a cue from Latin Americans, who are organizing alternative vision
around the indigenous concept of buenVivir, or good living. The west has own tradition of reflection
on the good life and it’s time we revive it. Robert and Edward Skidelsky take us down this road in his
book How Much is Enough? Where they lay out the possibility of intervention such as banning
advertising, a shorter working week and a basic income, all of which would improve our lives while
reducing consumption.

Either we slow down voluntarily or climate change will do it for us, we can’t go on ignoring the
laws of nature. But rethinking our theory of progress is not only an ecological imperative, it is also a
development one. If we do not act soon, all our hard-own gains against poverty will evaporate, as
food system collapse and mass famine re-emerges to as extent not seen since the 19th century.

This is not about giving anything up. And it’s certainly not about living a life of voluntary misery
or imposing harsh limit on human potential. On the contrary, it’s about reaching a higher level of
understanding and consciousness about what we’re doing here and why.
Source; Hickel, J. (2015). Forget developing poor countries, it’s time to de-develop rich countries. The Guardian Retrieved from the
https..://www.theguardian.com/global-dedevelopment-professionals-network/2015/sep/23/developing-poor-countries-de-develop-rich-coun
tries-sdgsl

READING EXERCISE

After reading the article, answer the following questions on the spaces provided

1. What is the main objective of the sustainable Development Goals of the United Nation?

____________________________________________________________________

____________________________________________________________________

2. What is the standardize unit that measures resource use and waste?

____________________________________________________________________

____________________________________________________________________

3, What is the standard response to eradicating poverty?

____________________________________________________________________

____________________________________________________________________

4. What is the threshold of the Earth for adequately sustaining life?

____________________________________________________________________

____________________________________________________________________

5. According to the majority of people in middle-and high-income countries, what puts the
planet and society at risk?

____________________________________________________________________

____________________________________________________________________

6. How many hectares should each of us consume annually hased on the resources
available in the planet?

____________________________________________________________________

____________________________________________________________________
 7. What are two indication of the quality of life given in the article?

_____________________________________________________________________

_____________________________________________________________________

8. What crisis in the planet would force us to slow down if we do not do so voluntarily?

_____________________________________________________________________

_____________________________________________________________________

9. According to Hickel, what must be done instead of urging poor countries to “catch up”
With rich ones?

_____________________________________________________________________

_____________________________________________________________________

10. How would the different areas of the world react to the idea of ”de-development”?

_____________________________________________________________________

_____________________________________________________________________

QUESTIONS FOR REFLECTION

1. Why must we change our paradigm of growth and consumption to that of “de-development”?

2. Why are the terms de-development, de-growth, and zero growth seemingly unacceptable to
the usual framework of human progress?

3. How have we been enframed by the nation of growth?

4. How do we improve our lives and yet reduce consumption?

5. what are the similarities and diffences between Heidegger’sTheQuestion Concerning

technology and Hickel’s article?

Activity

Watch the video clip titled The Magician’s Twin: CS lewis and the Case against
Scientism. Reflect on the nations of development that may evolve into scientism. In pairs, discuss
and take note of your thoughts on the video clip with the following guide questions. Be ready to
share your insight in class.
 1. What is scientism?

2. How is science comparable to magician?

3. Why is science more dangerous than magic?

4. What is the presented essence of modernity and the consequence?

5. what do we need for the science to be good?

CHAPTER 6
The Good Life

Learning Outcomes

At the end of this chapter, the student should be able to:

1. explain the concept of the good life as posited by Aristotle;

2. define the good life in their own words; and

3. examine shred concerns that make up the good life to come up with innovative and creative
Solution to contemporary issued guided by ethical standards.

Everyone is in pursuit of the good life. We do certain things because we want to achieve a
life which will make us happy and content. By studying and working hard, we try to attain this goal
not only for ourselves but also for our loved ones and the rest of humanity. People’s definition of the
good life may vary and differ in the particulars. In general, however, we recognize universal truth that
cut across our differences.

NICHOMACHEAN ETHICSAND MODERN CONCEPT

Aristotle, an important ancient Greek philosopher whose work spans from natural philosophy
to logic and political theory, attempted to explain what the good is. His definition may be useful in our
pursuitof the truth. In Nichomachinean Ethics. Aristotle stated:
All human activities aim at
some good. Every art and human
Inquiry, and similarity every action
and pursuit, is thought to aim
at some good; and for this reason
the good has been rightly declared
as that at which all things aim
( Nicomachean Ethics 2:2)

Figure 2:2 Aristotle (384-322 BC)

 Everyone is moving towards the good. Thus, completing one’s studies, training for a spot, or
taking a rest is a good. The good is expressed and manifested in many various ways for different
person and circumstances. The good life, however, is more than these countless expressions of
what is good. It is characterized by happiness that springs from living and going well.

…both the many and the cultivated call it happiness, and suppose that living well
and doing well are the same as being happy ( Nicomachean Ethics 1:4)

The ancient Greek called this concept of “living well and going well” as eudaimonia. The
word came from the Greek word cu meaning “good” and daimonmeaning “spirit.” Taken together, it
generally refers to the good life, which is marked by happiness and excellence. It is a flourishing life
filled with meaningful endeavors that empower the human person to be the best version of
himself/herself. If is a student, then he/she act to be the best version of a student by studying well
and fulfilling the demand of school. If one is an athlete, the he/she strives to be the best version of
an athlete by training hard as well as joining and winning in sports competitions.

Furthermore, according to Aristotle, happiness the ultimate end of human action. It is that
which people pursue for its own sake. Financial stability for one’s family, the power achieved from
winning the election, or the harmony and peace as reward for taking care of the environment-all
these and more are pursued for the sake of happiness.

Mow such a thing as happiness above all else. Is held to be; for this we choose
always for itself and never for the sake of something else, but honor, pleasure, reason, and
every virtue we choose indeed for themselves, but we choose them also for the sake of
happiness, judging that by means of them we shall be happy. Happiness, on the other hand.
no one choose for anything other than itself ( Nicomachean Ethics 2:7)

Happiness defines a good life. This happiness however is not the kind that comes from
sensate pleasure. It is that which comes from living a life of virtue, a life of excellence, manifested
from the personal to the global scale.

It is the activities that express virtue that control happiness, and the contrary
activities that control its contrary ( Nicomachean Ethics 1:10)

For example, making sure that one avoids sugary and processed foods to keep healthy is an
activity that expresses virtue. The resulting health adds to one’s well-being and happiness. Another
example is taking care of the environment through proper waste management which results in a
clean environment and adds people’s well-being and happiness. These virtuous actions require
discipline and practice. On the other hand, activities contrary to virtue are those which do not result
in happiness. The lack of discipline in eating healthful food eventually makes one stick. The lack of
concern for the environment destroys the Earth we live in. Thus, disregard for virtuous actions,
especially for sake of convenience and gratification, does not contribute to happiness. The good life
is marked by happiness brought about by virtuous human actions and decision that affect the
individual self and the greater community. It is characterized by a life flourishing of one self and
others. The good life does not happen in a bubble where only one person is flourishing; other have
to be it, too.

Virtue plays a significant role in the living and attainment of the good life. It is the constant
practice of the good no matter how difficult the circumstances may be. Virtue is the excellence of
character that empowers one to do and be good. Such virtues is cultivated with habit and discipline
as it not a one-time deed, but a constant and consistent series of actions. Everyone has the capacity
within himself/herself to be good, but he/she also has to be disciplined to make a habit of exercising
the good.

Virtue, then, being of two kinds, intellectual and moral intellectual virtue in the main
owes its birth and growth to teaching (for which reason it requires experience and time),
while moral virtue comes about as a result of habit ( Nicomachean Ethic 2:1).
 The onward progress of science and technology is also the movement towards the good life.
Science and technology are one of the highest expressions of human faculties. They allow us to
thrive and flourish in life if we so desire it. Science and technology may also corrupt a person, but
grounding oneself in virtue will help him/her steer of danger.

READING EXERCISE

Answer the following items.

_________1. It is that which all things aim.

_________2. It is an ancient Greek word which means living and doing well.

_________3. It is said to be the ultimate end of human action.

It is pursued for its own sake
__________4. He is the Ancient Greek philosopher known for nicomachean Ethics.

__________5. The good life means that I make sure I prove without necessarily taking the others
into consideration. True or false?
__________6. One does not need to eat healthfully to live the good life. True or false?

__________7. Excellence of character is innate. It does not have to be practiced. True all false?

__________8. It is the constant practice of the good.

__________9.For item 9 and 10, give Aristotle’s two kinds of virtue.

__________10.

QUESTION FOR REFLECTION

1. In your opinion, what constitute a good life?

2. What does Aristotle say about the good life? Does it sill
Stand in the contemporary world?

3. How is the progress of science and technology a movement

towards the good life?

ACTIVITY

Form group of four members each. View the short documentary film titled The sugar film.
Discuss among yourselves and report on how production and consumption of sugar affect your
journey towards the good life. How does unreflective consumption of good-in this case, sugar-affects
human life?
CHAPTER 7
When Technology and Humanity Cross

Learning Outcomes
At the end of this chapter, the students should be able to:

1. evaluate contemporary human experience to strengthen to human person functioning in

society.

2. discuss the importance of human rights to the face of changing social condition and
technological development; and

3. identify laws or policies in the country that protect the well-being of the person in
technological advancement and ethical dilemmas.

The good life entails living in a just and progressive society whose citizens have the freedom
to flourish. The human person has the autonomy to make choice which may enable the flourishing of
his/her self and society. The United Nation General Assembly proclaimed the Universal Declaration
of Human Rights (UDHR) on December 10, 1948 as the global standard of fundamental human
rights for universal recognition and protection. The UDHR begins, “Whereas recognition of the
inherent dignity and of the equal and inalienable rights of all members of the human family is the
foundation of freedom, justice and peace in the world”(UDHR Preamble). As implied, everyone has
absolute moral worth by virtue of being human. Human dignityis an ultimate core value of our
existence. When we fully recognize and appreciate this truth in ourselves and in all the person
around us, regardless of their status in life, then we pave the way for a just and progressive society.
It is in this kind of society that we are able to become fully human- more free, more rational, and
more loving. Human beings become more free when we are empowered to make choice for our
flourishing. We become more rational when we are able to value and apply the principles of logic an
d science in our lives. We become more loving when we ensure that human dignity lies at the
foundation of our endeavors, whether scientific or not. It entails knowing one’s fundamental human
rights that must always be protected in the face of changing conditions.

UNIVERSAL DECLARATION
OF HUMAN RIGHTS
The UDHR explicates the fundamental human rights in 30 articles. It outlines inalienable
human rights that are vital and necessary in the pursuit of the good life. These are the freedoms
everyone is entitled to and guaranteed by virtue of being human. The first articles state the essential
principle of being human in a just, free, and rational society. Everyone is born free and equal in
dignity and rights, the common experience, however, does not always manifest such truth. More
often than not, those who have more to offer are given special treatment, the goodlife, nevertheless,
as a life of justice, demand not just equal treatment of human beings but also preferential treatment
to those who have less or are disadvantaged. The first seven articles of the UDHR encapsulate the
spirit of this so-called “milestone document in the history of human rights.” They are as follow:

ARTICLE 1

All human being are born free and equal in dignity and rights. They are endowed with reason
and conscience and should act towards one another in a spirit brotherhood.
ARTICLE 2

Everyone is entitled to all the rights and freedoms set forth in this Declaration, without
distinction of any kind, such as race, colour, sex, language, religion, political or other opinion,
national or social origin, property, birth or other status. Furthermore, no distinction shall be made on
the basis of the political, jurisdictional or international status of the country or territory to which a
person belongs, whether it be independent, trust, non-self-governing or under any other limitation of
sovereignty.

ARTICLE 3

Everyone has the right to life, liberty and security of person.

ARTICLE 4

No one shall be held in slavery or servitude; slavery and thee slave trade shall be prohibited
in all their forms.

ARTICLE 5

No one shall be subjected to torture or to cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or

punishment

ARTICLE 6

Everyone has the right to recognition everywhere as a person before the law.

ARTICLE 7

All are equal before the law and are entitled without any discrimination to equal protection of
the law. All are entitled to equal protection against any discrimination in violation of this Declaration
and against any incitement to such discrimination.

The Universal Declaration of Human Rights has a long, bloody history. Crafted in 1948, after
World War II, the UDHR now serves as a common understanding of what each person’s
fundamental rights are. These rights apply to everyone, everywhere. It is imperative that we all know
and live these rights to prevent injustice and oppression.

HUMAN VS ROBOTS
The rise of the machines accompanying the progress in science and technology may render
humans useless. Manual labor is gradually being replaced by machinery. Computers become more
and more sophisticated. Robots, usually design like human beings, are created to perform complex
repetitive, or dangerous task. With the development of artificial Intelligence (AI). Robots may also
eventually act and decide like humans

In the possibility that machines adopt the nature of humans, there is need to reflect on the ethical
problems posed by such development.

Through the Philippines has not yet reached the point of producing robots on a commercial
scale for household use, it still behooves us to ponder the ramification of replacing person with
machinery . Much as the BBC News has reported the experts in South Korea are crafting ethical
guidelines to prevent humans form exploiting robots and vice versa ( Evans, 2007), and that
roboticists in Europe are lobbying for government legislation, such reality is generally unheard of in
the Philippines. To Filipinos, artificial Intelligence seems like the stuff of science fiction movies. Be
that as it may, its use in the country is surely gaining ground, especially in the business process
outsourcing (BPO) industry. Technology enables the growth of the BPO industry but it seems that it
is also technology what will kill the industry as we know it. Investorsand business people find as a
sure return of investment the use of business analytics is a means by which consumer and industry
data are used to come up with better decision-making. With the help of AI, decisions now arise from
sophisticated statistical analyses made from massive data. As of August 2017, it is estimated that a
million Filipino BPO workers may be affected and lose their jobs with the adoption of artificial
intelligence (Santos, 2017).

Unemployment is only one of the many ethical considerations in the widespread use AI.
What does this mean for human beings who can be replaced by machines? Is the value of the
person inversely proportional to that of a machine exhibiting artificial intelligence? How do we guard
against mistakes committed by machines? These point are but a sample of the questions that
should be solved when faced with technology that my become a threat to human dignity and
security. In the future, when machines and robots become more human-like, with all the attender
feelings and thoughts, people may also have to consider the ethical treatment for AI.

It is interesting to note that as machine and robots approach having a human-like nature,
humans may also have the tendency to become machines-like. Since many of the things people
need, from conveniences to information, are available with just the touch and swipe of the fingertips,
human begin to function more like automatons. The internet has become an instant go-to tool for
answer to questions. More often than not, people accept what the search engine, like Google,
spews, out in bytes size and forget how to process, read, think further, or put things is context. As
the internets get more intelligent, we are in danger of becoming less so. In the article, “is Google
making us stupid?” Nicolas Carr (2008) asserted that “as we come to rely on computers to mediate
out understanding of the world, it is our own intelligence that flattens into artificial intelligence”

The development of society along with science and technology gives rise to more and
complex issues. What is vital is that, at the very least, we are able to protect and exercise human
rights for everyone in our pursuit of the good life. It is important that amid these developments,
human being become more free, more rational, and more living in our practice of science and
technology.

As we examine contemporary issues vin science and technology-information, genetically

modified organism, nanotechnology, and climate change-we keep in mind that the building of a just
progressive society entails the constant practice of the good. It may be exhibited in exceptional
scientific methodologies, personal virtue, social responsibility, and global concern.

WHY THE FUTURE DOES NOT NEED US

Chief scientist and corporate executive officer of Sun Microsystem, Bill Joy, wrote in 200 a
controversial easy, “Why the future does not need us.” In his work, he contended that our most
powerful 21st-century technologies-genetics, nanotech, and robotic (GNR)-are threatening to make
human an endangered species. This possible extinction of the species may largely come out about
due to the unreflective and unquestioning acceptance of new technology by human. Joy also
asserted that:

Accustomed to living with almost routine scientific breakthroughs, we have yet to

come to terms with the fact that the most compelling 21st-century technologies-robotics,
genetic engineered organisms, and nanobots share a dangerous amplifying factor: they can
self-replicate. A bomb is blown up only once- but one bot can become many, and quickly get
out of control.

Each of these technologies also offers untold promise: the vision of near immortality
drives us forward: genetic engineering may soon provide treatment, if not outright cures,
from most diseases; and nanotechnology and nanomedicine can address yet more ills.
Together they could significantly extend our average life span and improve the quality of our
lives. Yet with each of these technologies, a sequence of small, individually sensible
advances leads to an accumulation of great power and, concomitantly, great danger (Joy,
2000).
 Humans should have learned the lesson in the atomic bombing of the Japanese cities of
Hiroshima and Nagasaki in 1945 that killed over a hundred thousand people. Brilliant physicists, led
by J. Robert Oppenheimer, brought into existence a deadly nuclear weapon. A definite testament to
the success of science and technology, the atomic bomb was also a fatal reminder of its destructive
power. Now with GNR, we are called to be circumspect and questioning of technology. Again, as
Heidegger (1977) propounded, it is in questioning that we build a way. GNR today is accessible to
small group and individuals and does not require funding and facilities as huge as those needed by
the nuclear weapons of mass destruction. This makes GNR more prone to accident and abuses. It is
scary to imagine that such accidents and abuses may self-replicate and spin out of control,
especially when placed in the hands of extremist group and individuals.

Science and technology may be the highest expression of human rationality. People are able
to shape or destroy the world with it. Theoretical physicist and mathematician Freeman Dyson, in the
documentary The Day after Trinity (1981), shared his thoughts and sentiment as scientist taking
part in the developing of nuclear power.

I have felt. The glitter of nuclear weapon. It is irresistible if you come to them as
ascientist. To feel it’s there in your hands, to release this energy that fuels the start, to let it
do your bidding. To perform these miracles, to lift a million tons of rock into the sky. It is
something that gives people an illusion of illimitable power, and it is, in some ways,
responsible for all our troubles-this, what you might call technical arrogance, that overcomes
people when they see what can do with their minds.

Human nature may be corrupted when the powers of our mind, our rationality, and our
science and technology become manifest. If we are not able to rein in the vanity and arrogance that
such power unleash, then we are on the way to destroying the world

The wasteland grows; woe unto him who harbor the wasteland within.
-Friedrich Nietzsche.