INTRODUCTION

Now to start. Let me ask. "Is Philosophizing difficult? Or better yet, is philosophy difficult?"
It is said that many claimed that philosophy is difficult. Well, it is indeed difficult, however,
it will only be true to those who do not aspire to philosophize but to those who search for
knowledge and know the importance of acquisition of truth, philosophy and
philosophizing will be as easy as pie.
 
Now, what makes philosophy difficult? It can distinguish a practical idea from a mere
speculative one. If people don't see the whole picture of philosophy, then they would tend
to focus on the speculative side rather than on the practical side. Due to technological
advancements and science, philosophy becomes inaccessible to the students. Students tend
to see memes, "fake news" and other deceiving trends in the internet. With this, students
would not want to philosophize because they find it impractical to make time to thinking
since it will only end up with nothing but pure ideas.
 
This misunderstanding of philosophy can be attributed to those teachers who are pounding
on their pride as intellectual people instead of dissecting the text and exploring it so that the
students would be able to understand it in the simplest way.
 
Philosophy being considered as purely speculative, it has lost its groundedness on life. The
tech advancements led people to seek for the tangible as they considered the intangible as
senseless and impractical. Modern people often consider that what is concrete is proper and
thus making what is abstract often times neglected.
 
And then, Philosophy would be too technical due to the use of philo jargons or highfalutin
terms in intellectual discussion. In this regard,  philosophy appears to be intended only to
highly-specialized individuals who do not ground themselves on life.
 
Now, what is philosophy?
It comes from two Greek words, Philein which means "to love" and Sophia which means
"wisdom".
 
The term wisdom refers to the principles of things, the first cause of all beings. It deals with
an understanding in the meaning of one's existence and the importance of the things
around him/her.
 
The chief goal of wisdom is a fundamental understanding of reality as it relates to living a good
life.
 
The beginning of Philosophy/Ancient Philosophy was COSMOCENTRIC meaning that
back then, everything revolved to universe. And metaphysics was the prevailing branch of
Philosophy. Now, how did philosophy come about? It is believed that the birthplace of
philosophy was the seaport town of Miletus, located across the Aegean sea from Athens, on
the western shores of Ionia in Asia Minor.
 
Why Miletus? Because it was the center for commerce. It gave them the luxury and time for
thinking and reflection. The Milesians gathered to talk about their curiosity, they started to
ask the question "Where does everything come from?" and "What is the source of the existence of
everything?" In trying to answer these questions, a philosopher, by the name of Thales
provided an answer, that everything must have come from water. Aristotle held that
perhaps Thales must have taken his conclusion from the idea that seeds of all things have a
moist nature, and water is the origin of the nature of moist things.
 
A contemporary and pupil of Thales, Anaximander agreed with his teacher that there is a
single basic stuff out of which everything comes. However, he disagreed with Thales in
believing that everything come from water. According to him, if everything comes from
water, then, where does this water come from? In this case, everything must come from an
original stuff, which he calls apeiron - indeterminate boundless.
 
Although, it was quite difficult for the part of westerners to understand the idea of
Anaximander as regards boundless. On the other hand, a young associate of Anaximander
and the third and last of the Milesian philosophers by the name of Anaximenes attempted
to reconcile the ideas of his two predecessors by designing air as the primary substance from
which all things have originated. He held that air is a definite substance and therefore,
providing a solution on the intangibility of Anaximander's apeiron. But just like
Anaximander's view, he held that air is spread everywhere but unlike the apeiron, it is
specific and tangible material substance that can be identified.
 
On a small island of Somos, there was a man by the name of Pythagoras who promulgated
the belief that everything comes from numbers. As strange as it sounds, but Pythagoras
believed that everything is measurable and can be numbered, then everything must have originated
from numbers.
 
On the other hand, Heraclitus of Ephesus, focused his attention to the problem of change.
He held that since everything that passes through fire changes. Thus, everything must have
come from fire.
 
A younger contemporary of Heraclitus, Parmenides of Alea, disagreed with Heraclitus
regarding in the concept of change. If Heraclitus would uphold the view that everything is
in constant change, Parmenides would hold the exact opposite view by saying that
CHANGE is an ILLUSION. Everything, according to him, is permanent.
 
Empedocles, a pluralist from Sicily, accept that change and motion are possible because
objects are composed of many particles, which are in themselves changeless. These
changeless elements out of which everything was made and everything came from are
earth, water, fire and air.
 
Later on, Leucippus, and Democritus of Abdera, held that everything is made up of atoms
moving in empty space.
 
 Pythagoras, on the other hand, believed that only God is truly wise and the wisdom of
human person is only derivative from the wisdom of God. He held that God is wisdom.
Human beings can only be friends or lovers of wisdom, hence the term philosophy.
 
Although, Pythagoras coined the term philosophy, it is Thales who is considered as the
father of philosophy.
 
 NOW, I've got a question. WHAT IS A GOOD LIFE? (Ask the students)
 
Good life became a problem when man started thinking. So people before the ancient times
never considered the self and other person as a problem since they were living in a utopia.
Their community was never tainted  by individuality and personal politics. And because
people back then were living in harmony, issues about truth, goodness and beauty were
never a problem. In this regard, people did not find the necessity of philosophizing.
 
And this was actually the case in the eastern world. They believe that man and nature were
actually one and inseparable. Although at that notion, the eastern people  were already
philosophizing, their aim for reasoning was not actually the attainment of material and
even intellectual greatness. Their aim of philosophizing was the perfection of the self.
 
On the other hand, even if mercantilism started in the east, normal activities were only for
the purpose of daily sustenance and not merely the perfection of being. In the east, people
believed that knowledge on things could only make their existence more difficult.
 
This was not, however, the case in the west, during ancient period. Inasmuch as the western
people live in diaspora, they were also bartering ideas or intellectual goods, although these
did not have a price. Since they were living in different regions, they started comparing
their customs and beliefs with others.
 
People began to philosophize and think of the reasons why there were lives more beautiful
than that of others. And because of this, discrimination arose. This led people to
discriminate others and look down on people whose lives were not as good as theirs. And
thus, when a man becomes more civilized, the he actually becomes uncivilized.
 
Talking about being civilized and otherwise, we can actually ask...
 
THE NEED TO REDEFINE ETHICS
 
Because of the development of science and technology, man's concept of goodness has
changed. When technological advancements took over, human's concept of goodness relate
to physical pleasures.
For modern people, the basis of morality does not anymore lie on the value of judgement
but rather in the measurement of pain and pleasure. We need to redefine ethics because
man's concept of it lead to desire happiness and so things contrary to what he ought to do.
The Moral Agent

An action can be considered moral or immoral depending on the decision of the person
acting on it.

There are cases when a particular situation will produce two results: one good and one evil. 
But not to do any action on the said situation will also produce an evil effect.  This situation
is what is called a dilemma. 

Dilemma comes from the Greek words diV, which means twice, and lemma, which means
assumptions or premise. 

A dilemma is composed of two conditional hypothetical statements as its major premise. Its
minor premise is a disjunction of the antecedent of the major premise; while the conclusion is
a disjunction of the consequent of the major. (LOGIC)

From the ethical point of view, dilemmas are experienced where an agent is confused about
the right decision to make because there are several competing values that are seemingly
equally important and urgent.

A person will be considered full of wisdom if he knows how to apply his knowledge on a
situation where there is a DILEMMA.

A man of wisdom is the one who knows when to make a moral standard and when to act on a
situation.

What moral standard will be followed?

For some:

  A moral standard is that which deals with matter that may seriously injure or may greatly
benefit human beings.

  What is beneficial to more people is morally good and that what will cause greater pain to
more people is morally evil.

An action is considered to be morally acceptable not because it is accepted by the majority

but on the goodness that such action would entail to the other.

As the rule of majority does not apply to moral standards. Moral standards, therefore, be
preferred to other values.

A human person must be able to discern right from wrong and be held accountable for his
own actions.
Accountability will still depend on the moral formation and the cultural beliefs and practices
that a person has. (Morality is biased to one’s cultural and moral behavior).

Cultural and moral behavior will affect one’s decision as regards the practicality and morality
of the act.

Theresa Ann Campo Pearson, an infant known to the public as “Baby Theresa,” was born in
Florida in 1992.  Baby Theresa had anencephaly, one of the worst genetic disorders.
Anencephalic infants are sometimes referred to as “babies without brains,” and this gives
roughly the right picture, but it is not quite accurate.  Important parts of the brain—the
cerebrum and cerebellum—are missing, as is the top of the skull. There is, however, a brain
stem, and so autonomic functions such as breathing and heart-beat are possible. 

In the United States, most cases of anencephaly are detected during pregnancy, and the
fetuses are usually aborted.  Of those not aborted, half are stillborn.  About 350 are born alive
each year, and they usually die within days.

Baby Theresa’s story is remarkable only because her parents made an unusual request. 
Knowing that their baby would die soon and could never be conscious, Theresa’s parents
volunteered her organs for transplant.  They thought her kidneys, liver, heart, lungs, and eyes
should go to other children who could benefit from them.  Her physicians agreed.  Thousands
of infants need transplants each year, and there are never enough organs available.  

But the organs were not taken, because Florida law forbids the removal of organs until the
donor is dead.  By the time Baby Theresa died, nine days later, it was too late for the other
children—her organs had deteriorated too much to be harvested and transplanted. 

Baby Theresa’s case was widely debated.  Should she have been killed so that her organs
could have been used to save other children?  A number of professional “ethicists”—people
employed by universities, hospitals, and law schools, who get paid to think about such things
—were asked by the press to comment.  Surprisingly, few of them agreed with the parents
and physicians.  Instead, they appealed to time-honoured philosophical principles to oppose
taking the organs.

“It just seems too horrifying to use people as means to other people’s ends,” said one such
expert.  Another explained: “It’s unethical to kill person A to save person B.” And a third
added: “What the parents are really asking for is, Kill this dying baby so that its organs may
be used for someone else.  Well, that’s really a horrendous proposition.”

        Is it horrendous?  Opinions were divided.  These ethicists thought so, while the parents
and doctors did not. 

What reasons or arguments can be given for each side.  What can be said to justify the
parents’ request or to justify thinking the request was wrong?
Christian moralists are also divided as regards their opinion.  For one, God’s commandments
should be taken as the basis in making moral decisions.  The end does not justify the means.

However, others would say that it would be uncharitable to allow the baby to life in such a
pitiable state.

A moral agent should, therefore, have a good standard in morality so as to make a sound
moral decision.

As to the soundness of a moral decision, one’s view would depend on his culture and his own
moral behavior.

Culture contributes to the moral upbringing of a person.

Influences:

 Family                                       

Community also work place

Religion

School

Pop culture (social media, movies, fads)

Do norms and values of a particular community where a person is a member of make a

person morally upright?

Filipinos will definitely have a different moral perspective and it is thereby difficult to come
up with a Filipino morality.

 Sources of values and moral varied.

 What is the ground of morality?

 Is there a possibility to have a universal moral principle which will bind all people in all
places and at all times?

Should culture be the ultimate determinant of values?

Cultural Relativism started from the Greek philosopher Protagoras of Abdera (490-420
BCE).

“There are no universal or absolute moral principle.  Standards of right or wrong are always
relative to a particular culture or society.”
Ethical systems and cultural beliefs vary from one culture to another.

All ethical systems are equal in validity and of relevance.

Moral standards are product of society.

Laws and moral rules are based upon convention.

As knowledge is relative to each person, moral judgments are also relative.

One’s concept of good may be different from other’s concept of goodness.

No one can say that these laws by which we can judge whether such laws are true and the
others are wrong. (Moral relativism).

In the interest of a peaceful and orderly society, people should respect and uphold the
customs, laws, and moral rules, which their tradition has carefully nurtured.

The different sets of moral principles are of equal worth and nobody can claim that their
moral beliefs and culture is better than that of the others.

Cultural relativists have the following claims:

Different societies have different moral codes;

The moral code of a society determines what is right within that society;

There is no objective standards that can be used to judge one society’s code as better than
another’s.

The moral code of our own society has no special status; it is but one among many.

It is arrogant for us to judge other cultures.  We should always be tolerant of them.

Because of plurality of social groups, with differing norms, moral relativist argue that there
exist no universal or absolute criteria by which they can be criticized.

According to Protagoras, the young should be educated to accept and support the tradition of
their society, not because this tradition is true but it makes possible a stable society.

Criticisms

This ethical school of thought seems to contradict the common beliefs and some
traditional practices of the people in several ways.
 (Since there is no absolute truth and that truth is relative to the system of belief of every
culture, then, ethical relativism should not insist that their theory should be accepted by
everyone.)

Ethical relativism is open to serious doubt and does not seem to be correct in all
cases.

Ethnocentrism

 It is the view that one particular ethnic group is somehow superior to all others.

 It is the view that a particular ethnic group’s system of beliefs and values is morally superior
to all others.

 Man-centered.

Theocentrism

 It is the view that God’s system of beliefs and values is morally superior to all others.

 Its followers believe that God’s law is the absolute standard by which we are to judge everyone
else’s system of beliefs and values.

 God-centred

(Both theocentrism and ethnocentrism upheld the idea that there is an absolute value system. In
this regard, both of them contradict cultural relativism because the latter denies universal moral
standard.)

According to Edmund Burke: “The only thing necessary for the triumph of evil is for good men
to do nothing.”

Many Filipinos don’t only condition themselves to NOT act against evil but to also NOT care
about it when it is staring at them in the face.

How can a once proud and honourable people, once lauded as one of the most progressive
nations of Southeast Asia become the laughingstock that it is today?

 
Strengths of Filipino Character

 Pakikipagkapwa-tao (regard for others).  This is manifested in a basic sense of justice

and fairness, and in concern for others.  This is demonstrated in pakikiramay and in the
practice of bayanihan (mutual assistance) and in the famous hospitality.
 Family Orientation.  To the Filipinos, one’s family is the source of personal identity, the
source of emotional and material support, and the person’s main commitment and
responsibility.
 Joy and Humor. Filipinos have a cheerful and fun-loving approach to life and its ups and
downs. Laughing at ourselves and our trouble is an important coping mechanism.
 Flexibility, adaptability and creativity.  Filipinos have a great capacity to adjust, and to
adapt to circumstances and to the surrounding environment, both physical and social.
 Hard work and industry.  The desire to raise one’s standard of living and to possess the
essentials of a decent life for one’s family, combined with the right opportunities and
incentives, stimulate the Filipino to work very hard.
 Faith and religiosity.  Innate religiosity enables Filipinos to comprehend and genuinely
accept reality in the context of God’s will and plan.  Thus, tragedy and bad fortune are
accepted and some optimism characterizes even the poorest lives.  This faith is related to
bahala na.
 Ability to survive.  Filipinos make do with what is available in the environment

Weaknesses

 Extreme Personalism.  Filipinos have a tendency to “take things personally.”  Because of

this personalistic world view, Filipinos have difficulty dealing with all forms of
impersonal stimuli.   Hence, one is uncomfortable with bureaucracy, with rules and
regulations, and with standard procedures—all of which tend to be impersonal.  Personal
contacts are involved in any transaction and are difficult to turn down.  Preference is
usually given to family and friends in hiring, delivery of services, and even in voting.  
 Extreme Family-Centeredness.  Excessive concern for the family creates an in-group to
which the Filipino is fiercely loyal, to the detriment of concern for the larger community
or the common good. Passivity and Lack of Initiative.  One waits to be told what has to
be done.  There is a strong reliance on others.  This is related to the attitude towards
authority.  Filipinos have a need for a strong authority figure and feel safer and more
secure in the presence of such an authority.  There is a high tolerance for inefficiency,
poor service, and even violations of one’s basic rights.
 Colonial Mentality.  This is made up of two dimensions: (1) lack of patriotism or an
active awareness, appreciation, and love of the Philippines; (2) an actual preferences for
things foreign. 
 Kanya-kanya Syndrome.  Filipinos have a selfish, self-serving attitude that generates a
feeling of envy and competitiveness towards others, particularly one’s peers, who seem to
have gained some status or prestige.  Towards them, Filipinos demonstrated the “crab
mentality.”  This syndrome results in the dampening of cooperative and community spirit
and in the denial of the rights of others.
  Lack of Discipline. Our lack of discipline often results in inefficient and wasteful work
systems, the violation of rules leading to more serious transgressions, and a casual work
ethic leading to carelessness and lack of follow-through.
 Lack of Self-Analysis and Self-Reflection.  Joking about the most serious matters prevents
us from looking deeply into the problem. The Filipino lack of self-analysis and our
emphasis upon form is reinforced by an educational system that is often more form than
substance and a legal system that tends to substitute law for reality.

For Plato, good signifies a transcendent, otherworldly end of man. However, for Aristotle, the moral end is
seen as something immanent in human activity and achievable in this life. Goodness can be obtained
when one performs his function in the community.