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.