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.

Morose Delectation

“Morose delectation” A Philosophical Reflection

Consider an appetite. It is just an “appetite”. It need not be expressed. I might want to get angry at someone. I might harbor lust towards someone. I simply have appetites. There is no action that gears into the outer world. But even if the whole thing is just “inside” we already orient our thoughts. We orient our appetites.

· So, for example, I orient my anger—without blowing my top—towards someone. I might be moving in daily life nurturing anger towards someone. Each time I see this person I choose to get angry although I do not show it. Deep inside of me I am boiling.

· In terms of lust, I orient my lust towards some persons even without doing anything external. I might go through daily life choosing to be lustful towards particular individuals. So each time I encounter a person who is “my type”, I choose to be lustful although I keep my composure and avoid externalizing this appetite.

There is actually already a choice. Of course we may decide not to show anger. We may decide not to express lust. But we choose to dwell with the appetite. We take delight in the appetite.

· So I am glad (a delectation) with my anger towards this person.

· I am glad (again a delectation) with my lust towards this person.

Consequently, we provoke ourselves. We call ourselves and awaken ourselves to direct the appetite.

· I call myself to be angry at this person.

· I call myself to have lust towards that person.

As we make this call—this “self-call”—if we can term it so, we allow the rising movement of our appetite. We do not check it. We do not keep it in abeyance. We say “yes” to the appetite. We see it arising and we continue to let it arise. We refuse to drive it away and we stick to it.

In our bodies we feel something. The appetite is not totally dis-incarnate. It has a body component. We know this when we are angry. The heart beats, we feel some pulsations and blood pressure rises. We know this in lust. We feel parts of the body “acting out”. The breath gets shorter and the lungs expand irregularly. Already the body gives signals. Psychologists might even add more “psycho-somatic” signals here and there.

Here is where the word “morose” comes in. Morose means “delay”. There is a “delay of time”. What do we delay? We delay the passing away of the appetite. In street basketball we hear the phrase “one to sawa”. The points made start with one and the play continues until the kids get fed up—sawa na. The kids playing basketball delay the end of the game. They do not fix the limit. They might agree on “one to twelve” points. Reaching twelve points they stop playing. But “one to sawa” holds the agreement that they stop when they get fed up. Morose has something of this “one to sawa” feature in it. We dwell on an appetite until sawa na.

Actually, if we just observe an appetite, a while ago it was not here. Now it arises. Later it will pass away.

Take an example. A while ago I was walking down the street and I was not lustful. I have not been having this appetite. It was absent. But suddenly a person “of my type” shows up. Now the appetite of lust arises in me. Here I am encountering this person and my imagination starts to build up. My body begins to give signals here and there. After a while, even in the absence of that person, I refuse to let the lust fade away. I decide to stay lustful from “one to sawa”.

So, in the bus I continue recollecting the memory of that person I just met, and I might even add more images—maybe of other persons. Although the brief encounter is finished—it has passed away—I decide on letting it stay. I delay its passing away from my mind. This is morose.

In morose an appetite “touches” the mind, so to speak, and we refuse to let it pass. We delay its passing. This may look safe but it can be dangerous—if not harmful—if we dwell on evil thoughts. It is not always true that we are so reasonable and lucid and clean all the time. There are moments when we see arising in us very crazy thoughts—like thoughts about harming others and rejecting their dignity. How often do we decide on clinging on to those thoughts?

Let us face it, we have seen the ruin that morose delectation can do when a person not only harbors evil thoughts but expresses externally those thoughts in action. The actions can be withheld but morose delectation, because of its “one to sawa” characteristic, sustains them. A person keeps on exercising harm and violation on someone else because of that indwelling morose delectation. If that person is in such a powerful social-political position, imagine how the morose delectation of that person can direct unjustifiable actions and, at worse, even create institutions justifying the actions.

Because of the powerful person’s morose delectation and its externalization, the lucidity of seeking objectivity in actions and decisions is bracketed. Priority is given to the bloated contents of the morose delectation. We have no legal power against a hideous morose delectation because it stays internal to the person holding it. But, the way to address a powerful person of hideous morose delectation is to “nip the morose delectation in the bud”. More than the legal and political, there is the moral.

A Happy Society

A Happy Society
Francisco C. Castro

A “happy” society presupposes that we respect and revere each other. I can predict that the person in front of me respects and reveres me. He or she recognizes my “owness”. We are not “at war”, we are not using each other, we are not objects of each other’s desires, we are not rivals out to be simply practical and diplomatic. Respect and reverence are predictable. This marks societal “happiness”.

In a “happy” society we are not opaquely “alone” within each other’s desires and agenda. We do not have to first negotiate our moves with each other—worried that the other person will “pull a fast one” on me. We are not out to always guess what is the next move of someone else. We know that we will respect and revere each other. Social life is not lived on the basis of suspicion. This is a “happy” society.

To survive—and live in order to survive—is “way of life” wherein we have to suspect each other, wherein we first have to negotiate our dealings. It has become a moralizing way of life. If it marginalizes moral discourse, it has become moralizing. It has offered the dominance of a particular way of behaving. It has imposed norms of its own: Be “strong”, “fast”, “perfect”, “successful” and “sexy”. If you are not any of these, then stay in the margins.

Let us take an example. Let us talk about political life and governance. We can have all the beautiful laws passed. We can even assume that the laws are respected. Yet, politics and governance cannot move without the “morality” of its functionaries.

Now, political people and government officials have all the right to prefer their political interests over and above people’s interests. Persons in the government can prefer their partisan-institutional survival over and above their “love and concern for the poor”. There is no law prohibiting them from this mentality. No legal text will prohibit them from loving only their career and only themselves.

This is one reason why it is possible for a government administration to suspend from time to time its “moral ascendancy” for the sake of its institutional security.

Of course we can talk about morality today. But what morality are we referring to? Is it a traditional one marked by a certain religiosity? Can we still“agree” to respect and revere each other recognizing that none of us is omniscient? How do we situate moral discourse in our country today?