Curiosity and Chastity

Curiosity and Chastity

Curiosity is not really an extraordinary quality. We are all curious. We are creatures of curiosity. The word “curiosity”—or “curious”—has a root meaning, which is “care”. We care. Practically all that we do is based on “care”. As soon as we awaken in the morning we start “caring”. I care for my teeth, my wearing of clothes, my going to work or school…etc. Each time we turn to something and attend to it—be it a simple making of the coffee or a complex web surf—we “care”. We are curious. Just look at the different directions we have taken in our lives. They have been marked by a certain “care”.

Now, when we say that someone is a curious person we think of a good quality of that person. Curiosity, we say, makes that person search, ask questions, discover things. It is a great advantage to be curious. Remember that science and technology have been motivated a lot by curiosity. So there is such a thing as “scientific” curiosity.

But there can be unhealthy curiosity. For example, someone is curious about how to cheat. So that person researches on strategy to cheat. Take another example, the curiosity in gossiping. When someone gossips, there is a lot of information that is private but made public. There is also information that is false. Curiosity in gossip is so unhealthy because gossip is based on false truths. There is curiosity to engage in things that are not necessary, things deviate us from the path of authentic life. 

So when is curiosity healthy? How do we make it healthy curiosity? Well, believe it or not, but here is one word that can help us answer the question: chastity.

The word chastity has its Latin roots: castus "pure, cut off, separated." Castus is related to castration! When chaste we are “castrated”—we are “cut off”. But why use this word “castration”? It sounds morbid.

Wait…it is not as morbid as we might fear. In chastity we cut off from knowing everything about the lives of others. It is to cut off from the private space of others and we set a space of discretion and space of admitted ignorance. By doing this we allow the other person to have his or her own space. The other person has his or her “owness” that can never be under my scope of knowledge and action. In chastity we cut off from that tendency to infiltrate into the sphere—the sacred sphere—of the other person.
It is actually quite simple. I am not you and you are not me. No matter how hard we try, we can never really replace each other. Your thoughts and feelings are yours. Sure we share in thoughts and feelings. Someone eating unripe green mango may make me salivate. But I am not exactly tasting that taste of the other person. The experience is still his or hers...it "transcends" me. 

This reminds us of Genesis chapter 1 and Genesis 2/16-17 and 18.

Genesis 1 says we can have mastery over everything—but it is a mastery in the likeness of God. There is the “Sabbath distance”—the “mastery over mastery”. Just like God we do not impose absolutely our domination and mastery over others.

Genesis 2/16-18 tells us that “you may…but”. So we can let our desires go freely as much as we want; eat from all the fruit trees. But we recognize the limit; do not take from that one particular tree—the “prohibited tree”. Genesis 2 tells us that our desires must be responsible desires. We need to structure our freedom and give it its proper and respectful dynamism. If we do not do this we “die”. Relationships fall apart. We harm and destroy each other, like Cain killing Abel.

So this is chastity! It is a “castration”—a cutting—of exalted mastery and desire. It is a “trimming” off of the many things we add to our needs and desires and actions. Chastity is the cutting away of the “tralalas”—that word we use to refer to the “non-essentials”. In our modern society we are exposed to so many things—and many of those things are not exactly necessary. There is a kind of “exhibitionism” going on in our societies—the “exhibition” of many things that we do not need. Yet we consume. Social scientists have noted how modern societies are “consumerist”.

Playing the game of exhibitionism and consumerism can be quite “un-chaste”. Our society has become divided with the alienation of other social members and the alienation Nature. Prestige is characterized by “how much a person can buy”. Those who buy more have “more prestige”. Given the intensification of economic production we put so much pressure on the environment, damaging the “carrying capacity” of Nature. Mastery (of Genesis 1) and desire (of Genesis 2) run wild!

So let us connect this with curiosity. When is curiosity healthy? It is healthy when it is chaste. We are curious of the essentials…we “castrate” away from the non-essential. We give direction to our life adventure. We search for depths, meaning, and true happiness.

By way of conclusion, we can ask ourselves how the notions of curiosity and chastity can apply to our style of modernity. We can ask what is it that we say is the “meaning of life” today? We pursue what we think is “meaningful”—and so we are curious. We do exercise this curiosity. Can chastity, in the way we describe it here, have a part in our curiosity?   

An attempt to place “morality” in present discussions

An attempt to place “morality” in present discussions

In our society today we see a lot of criticisms and counter criticisms, accusations and counter accusations, many of which are in the field of politics. We see  also that suspicion of others can be basis for harsh treatment. Yes, of course we also see problems in corruption and competence. Some persons are accused as corrupt or incompetent.

Then, are we look at what is happening to the climate, we see big changes. We read about the fact that destructive changes are becoming more and more “normal”; we have to learn to adapt to the changes. We also face the problem not just of climate change but also of the pollution of the air and of our water systems. (Do we still trust the water from the faucet?) Underneath the ecological problems is how we treat our earth, seas and air. How are we engaged with “mother nature”?

One question that haunts me is this. Do we have room for the “moral”? Do we give ourselves the chance to evaluate our issues from a moral perspective? We might be quick in reading the technical-scientific in our issues. So we think of “constitutional change” or “policy change” or “technological change”. How about trying a moral view?

The sense of the “moral” can emerge in our upbringing. We grow up to recognize that other people also have their own ego and we need to relate with them not only according to my ego but also according to their ego. So we learn to recognize that they have their own thoughts and feelings too. We slowly realize that “life is not always about myself”.  

So we grow up being careful of how we step on the feelings and thoughts of others. We do not devour each other. We resist being too full of ourselves. We learn to communicate.

Again the human and social sciences will tell us that in all cultures there is this sense of prohibiting social members to step out of the human. For example anthropologists have noted that there are certain taboos in culture—like the taboo of incest, the taboo of murder and the taboo of telling lies. Underneath a taboo is the sense of humanity. It is human not to appropriate my mother (or the wife of my father). It is human not to destroy the life of someone else and not to destroy that which makes human life grow and develop. It is human to respect communication and not to pervert it. Social scientists tell us that there are social-cultural sanctions that make sure that the taboo are recognized.

Morality also enters when we experience the intolerable. When we hear that a child is raped, we are disturbed. “How is that possible?” we might ask. “It is intolerable”. We sense that some acts are inhuman—not human. Hindi makatao.

Some religious traditions would give a term: “conscience”. Conscience is a kind of inner-voice that awakens us to oppose the inhuman. It is a feature in us that tells us to seek for the fullness of our humanity. A philosopher-psychologist (Paul Diel) would say that as we step out of our human limits and we justify an action based simply on an exalted imagination, “conscience” is triggered to bring us back to concrete life—we are made to put our feet back in the ground.  

A philosopher (Dr. Ramon Reyes) would say that in morality we see our actions in the light of our ultimate fulfillment as humans. What is it that makes us fully human? What exactly is our ultimate goal—that which will show how true and authentically human we are? So conscience helps us evaluate our actions and makes us vigilant about what dehumanizes.

In some discussions a question is sometimes raised: are we not conditioned by our environment? Is it not correct to say that our “being-human” is a matter of what our culture and history say? So our “being-human” is a result of environmental conditioning? The notion of humanity is dependent on what culture says. If culture accepts that we be “dog-eat-dog”, then to be human is dog-eat-dog. Survival is, for example, an aspect of cultural living.

The question is valid. But what is interesting is to note that the questioned can be raised. The questioning is evidence that the human being can also recognize cultural conditioning (and create the human-social sciences!). The human being has the capacity (albeit limited, of course) to judge culture and change it.

We can look at our environment, question it and judge it. When we do so, we can operate in function of a more sensible and responsible action. We can question and judge the things that condition us so that we can determine better ways to live. Here is where we can talk of morality.

But looking at what condition us, we have sense of the unconditional. Beyond the social and cultural conditions, the moral is that which imposes on us as free and responsible human beings. We are capable of seeking even within our environmental conditioning ways to preserve our being humans. Even in the heart of environmental conditioning we have the ability to make the effort to humanize. We are grateful for certain persons in the past who have made the effort. They did what they could and they have transmitted to us their wisdom.

We ourselves can also reclaim this effort to humanize. We can recognize the unconditional in the midst of conditioning. We can still ground our actions on what does not depend on culture. We can make the effort to live not restricted to cultural impositions and to live according to common humanity.

The philosopher that helps us here is Immanuel Kant. He used the term “categorical imperative”. He says that we should act in such a way that we allow everybody else to do the same thing. Take one example. I will respect others and I want this action done by all. There is no exemption. So it will be absurd to say, “Of course I do not want humanity to be cheating, but for me in this moment I am exempted…I can cheat”.

The categorical imperative makes us seek for a life that is common to all humanity. It is a life in which we are ends and not means to each other’s actions. (Walang pagsasamantala ng kapwa). We seek for a social life that will allow, for example, respect to access to communication, human rights, common good. Culture might impose behavior but the categorical imperative will criticize the imposition if the imposition restricts common humanity. If a cultural behavior allows us to “use each other”—gamitan at pagsasamantalahan—the categorical imperative will raise its critical voice.

Do not do unto others what you do not want them to do unto you. Love others as oneself. Do not discriminate according to sex, belief, race and personal history. These look like universal enough and we cannot see the sense of violating them.

The treatment we make of “mother nature” can also be seen in the light of the categorical imperative. (Immanuel Kant, during his time, did not face the issue of ecology. We might have to add this issue since it is our present crisis.) Can we make it universal—that we allow others to also harm nature? Can we make exceptions and say that “of course I do not like nature to be destroyed but in my case there is an exception—I can violate nature”?

In our present political life we see the strong role of suspicion (and gossiping). Sometimes suspicion is a basis for decision. I suspect the personal history of this person—gossips are so impressive. Even in the absence of evidence, my suspicion can be used in imposing harassment and even torture towards a particular person. Because of my suspicion, even if evidence is not available, I will continue to harass the person in the hope of fishing for evidence. It is a pagsasamantala. This, for example, is a strong cultural behavior. Can we say that “all human judgment and decision already be based on suspicion?” Can we make this an imperative for all? But do we not also say, “I can suspect you but do not suspect me”? There are exemptions to the imperative. It cannot be categorical. The cultural practice, therefore, needs criticism.

Tyranny of the Arbitrary

A reflection on tyranny of the arbitrary

The word “arbitrary” can mean “that which depends on someone’s decision or choice”. Generally it implies less the use of reason and laws. It implies more the exclusive will of a person (or a group). Someone who holds power can be “arbitrary” towards another who does not hold power especially when laws are not the references of the decisions of the powerful. The powerful uses his/her own discretions and tastes to make decisions. To be arbitrary here is at the expense of the powerless.

Of course the arbitrary can be used for the sake of the people governed—the citizens. In this case the arbitrary is not tyrannical. Tyranny can work by using the law. In this case, tyranny is not arbitrary—the law is still the reference. Arbitrary becomes tyrannical when the reference exclusive of decisions is the person of the leader, his/her idiosyncrasies.

If we were under the rule of kings and queens, we will have to live with the fact that the will of the royal leader is the main reference in running the country. We can still think and make our own private thoughts and opinions, but the royal ruler is the “boss”. Siya ang masusunod. The ruler may impose sanctions and controls to make sure that we toe the royal line.

Things are different, of course, in modern times where we do not have kings and queens ruling over us. No, not kings and queens but, in principle, laws. So we have laws like the Constitution. But let us check our experiences. Our experiences reveal something sociological; let us call it the experience of the “majority taste”. In “majority taste”, the majority exercises a hold on morals and opinions. An individual is pushed from deep within to think and act like others.  A royal ruler may force people to behave in particular ways. The royal ruler, however, has no hold of our inner world—our thoughts and our hearts. In “majority taste” the majority has power even within us. It works on our wills and actions. Siya ang masusunod. But the siya is anonymous!

The majority is able to define the parameters of behavior—what sociologists call as “control”. If a person—say a journalist—does not toe the line of the majority taste, the journalist will be subjected to some form of “persecution”. This is a form of tyranny. It strikes at the deeper parts of the person.

Of course, everyone is still free to hold opinions and to think in any way he or she wants. Fine. But the pressure is exercised in such a way that a person will not want to think and hold opinions that will transform him or her into a stranger. Do we not all want “to belong” to…someone or some group? Do we not want to be “a part” of…relationships and associations? In a way we need to live in a society of people we resemble. If we do not have that resemblance, we feel “strange” and we feel treated as “strangers”. We have to flatter the majority.

The majority lives in self-adoration. And it is a tyranny. It is a tyranny because it weighs on everyone—obliging us to be “uniform” and to resemble each other as closely as possible. It is arbitrary because it relies heavily on the “tastes” of the majority independent of laws like the Constitution.

A modern leader then can take hold of governance and rule according to the “majority taste”. The leader governs not necessarily in terms of laws but in terms of his or her idiosyncrasies. Of course the leader will not admit this—it is too blatant, too “makapal”. Nor will the leader, however, admit to be simply subjected to the Constitution. The leader will, instead, come up with an ideology in the guise of a slogan. Underneath that ideology is the belief that it conforms with the “majority taste”. This is why surveys are crucial. The leader needs the consolation of a survey. “I am still popular” is translated as “I still resemble the majority”. The leader is supported by the majority that accepts the arbitrary decisions of the leader. The leader says what he or she wills, and it becomes “final”. It is arbitrary and it is tyrannical. The tyranny is not necessarily directed against the majority but against those who still work for the rule of the law.

The law is not just “talk”. To be “ruled by law” is to accept what is inherent in the human person. It is not enough the human is “subject”, as modernity and the enlightenment have proposed. It is precisely the “subject” that is author of the “majority taste”. The “subject” is still bound to be arbitrary. Is it possible to refer to what is not arbitrary and is the foundation of any given law? The “subject” himself or herself is subjected to this.

One possible approach is “oath-taking”—something that we see done in courts and in inaugurating assemblies. For example, just before assuming office the President takes an oath. If we look closely at the wording of the oaths taken, we notice that oaths refer to something higher than all of us—something higher than the Constitutions and certainly higher that the majority. The assumption of oath-taking is that the person doing it takes it seriously and agrees to be bound by the oath. So, in principle, it is also not just mere talk. An oath is authored by “subject” who has recognized the danger of the arbitrary and its potential  tyranny. The “subject” has recognized that there is a “higher authority” or “higher power” that serves as foundation for social and political life. It may be helpful to explore this.

The End Justifies the Means?

The End Justifies the Means?

Francisco C. Castro

Many would propose that right and wrong depend on results. We do good to bring about the happiness and well-being of others—as many others as can be. The idea here is that maybe there are government decisions that might be unjust now but will bring good fruits later. The government can close its eyes to human rights and dignity in order to start a “straight path” for a better future. Is this alright? Is it alright for the government to do this?

In today’s moral discussions, this is sometimes called “consequentialism” or “proportionalism”. It may have its roots in the older philosophy called “utilitarianism.” The general idea of all these—let us call them CPU—is “the ends justify the means”. Do what you want so long as the result is ok.

CPU would propose that the foundation of morality is in the ultimate outcome. The CPU thinks that it is not opposed to the Bible or Christianity. The Ten Commandments are still good guides, says the CPU. But they are general guides—that is all. We must apply them carefully, but they do not hold any absolute status. Lying is usually evil, according to the Ten Commandments, but there are exceptions. Sometimes we might have to tell a lie…so long as the result will do good for all and that everyone will come out ahead.

What must be the strategy of following this CPU? CPU would say: recognize that each situation is unique. We need to do a calculation of finding out what action in this unique situation would most lead to the best result.

In terms of conscience, the CPU will say that if conscience tells us to do bad now for the sake of a good result later, then follow the conscience. It is the conscience that will tell us the consequences. Anyway, we have good intentions.

So notice then the stand of CPU: we intend always the most effective means to bring about the good, fine, and so long as the good outcome outweighs any undesired evil.

There is, however, a problem here. We can never know always that what we do now will result in a greater good later. We cannot know with absolute certainty the future consequences. We therefore have to rely on something else. Our foresight is really limited. We cannot presume that we are all-knowing gods.

The premise of CPU is that we can always have good intentions. This is enough. The actual human act is morally neutral. The action becomes moral once it is linked with an intention for the good result. What I actually do is irrelevant, as long as the intention is ok. This is the CPU way.

In the Christian tradition—and in the Church—the dignity of the human person is absolute. The human is image of God. The human person can never become a means to an end. The CPU makes the human person a means—do something wrong now…anyway the end will be ok later. CPU would say that human rights can be violated…anyway later all will be ok. But, for the Church, human rights should not be violated at any moment.

In Catholic moral theology there are absolute norms. The Catholic has to stick to some absolute realities that will say what, at each moment of a moral action, is “good” or already “evil”. Moral decision is not easy, and conscience alone is not enough. Neither is result alone enough. In the line of Catholic moral theology, the Catholic needs to consult absolute norms—as present in the Scriptures, in Church tradition and in the Magisterium of the Church. Not everything can be determined by a single standard. A Catholic needs to look at the Catholic moral tradition.

In one of the encyclicals he wrote, Reconciliatio et Poenitentia, Pope John Paul II spoke of the loss of absolutes in the moral norm, the "overthrowing and downfall of moral values." (#18). He emphasized then that: "there exist acts which per se and in themselves, independently of circumstances, are always seriously wrong by reason of their object (#17)." In his encyclical Veritatis Splendor, Pope John Paul II insisted on the absolute feature of moral norms prohibiting evil: “When it is a matter of the moral norms prohibiting intrinsic evil, there are no privileges or exceptions for anyone. It makes no difference whether one is the master of the world or the ‘poorest of the poor’ on the face of the earth. Before the demands of morality we are all absolutely equal” (#96). The moral absolutes are so absolute that even God could not dispense with them! To do so would be to deny his very own being.

Of course we want a society from which corruption is eradicated. Of course we want to clean our government. This is a noble plan. It is righteous. But there is a danger when righteousness becomes self-righteousness. In another encyclical, Pope John Paul II said: “The State or the party which claims to be able to lead history towards perfect goodness, and which sets itself above all values, cannot tolerate the affirmation of an objective criterion of good and evil beyond the will of those in power, since such a criterion, in given circumstances, could be used to judge their actions” (Centesimus Annus #45). There is a danger in a state or party to claim that it can lead to a future—like passing through a “matuwid na daan”—without requiring for itself criticism and even opposition. Again it is a denial of something more absolute than its own stand. In this case, the state or party will justify the means—to the point of again, allowing violation of human rights and dignty—for its “matuwid na daan” ends.