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.
