Philosophy of Man - Dr Diosdado Estamada

PHILOSOPHY OF MAN
Dr. DIOSDADO P. ESTIMADA
CAS Faculty

TOPIC OUTLINE
 Meaning of Philosophy
 The Fields of Philosophy
 The Purpose of Philosophy
 Video Presentation
 Brainstorming

 TOPIC DISCUSSION
 What is Philosophy?
 Etymological Definition. It comes from two Greek
words, “Philo” and “Sophia”, which mean love of
wisdom. Thus, a philosopher is a lover of wisdom.
 Real Definition. It is a search for meaning. The
word “search” means to look, to find, to seek. This
connotes something more serious and intense. It
is a quest.

Philosophy as a Concept
 Philosophy is a system of beliefs about reality.
It is one's integrated view of the world. It
includes an understanding of the nature of
existence, man, and his role in the world. It is
a necessary product of man’s rational mind.
 According to (Zulueta, 2010) philosophy makes man
think about the basic foundations of his outlook in life,
his knowledge and his beliefs.

The Difference Between
Philosophy and Theory
 Philosophy Vs. Theory
 Philosophy is an individual’s beliefs and has a great
deal with the way the individual chooses to live his/her
life and the way he/she views others.
 Theory on the other hand can be a scientific view, or
an idea that has not been proven to be tangible and
or factual.
 In short, Philosophy – set of belief about reality. This
is about man’s world view while theory is an
assumption of the existence of truth about reality.

The Difference Between Theory
and Law
 Theory Vs. Law
 According to science, a law is a generalized
statement set after a number of observations. A law
has no explanations or exceptions when it is framed.
It is an obvious fact recorded after observations.
A good example of this may be the force of gravity. It
is observed that an apple falls down on the surface of
the Earth. It is an undeniable fact. This observation
has no exceptions also. No one has ever observed a
reverse or alternative phenomenon. Hence it is
considered to be a law.

The Difference Between Theory
and Law
 A theory is the explanation of the
observational data set forward in the form of a law. In
simple words, a theory is the reasoning behind a law.
 A theory can be a strong one if it has a lot of evidence
to back it. It may also be regarded as a weak theory if
the amount of accuracy in its prediction is low. A
theory may become obsolete with time and be
replaced by a better one. A law, however, is a
universally observable fact. It is undeniable and never
fades away with the stretch of time.

The Difference Between
Philosophy and Principle
 Principles are "ought" statements. They refer to an
ideal...the way something ought to be.
 A philosophy is made up of principles, it is a broader
view regarding how things should be, along with some
support for why they should be that way based on
claims about the way things are.
 Thus, philosophy is considered to be a larger and more inclusive
abstraction, of which principle is a part.
 Example: Philosophy: all men are created equal, and entitled to
certain basic inalienable rights, including life, liberty and the
pursuit of happiness, because the alternative views always lead
to some kind of evil in which one man exploits another.
Principle: all men are entitled to liberty.


Division of Philosophy
General - Ontology
Metaphysics Cosmology
Special Theodicy
Psychology
Philosophy Epistemology
Logic
Ethics

1. Metaphysics- is the study about reality. (what is the ultimate
reality? Is reality one or many different things?
a. General - Ontology- this the philosophical exploration for what
reality is in the final analysis .
b. Special:
1.Cosmology – metaphysical science which studies the nature
of the world.(how is the world related to human beings? Is the world
created or has it been existing from all eternity.
2.. Theodicy – a philosophical study of God. (does God exist? what
are the proof of God’s existence? What is the problem of evil?
3. Psychology –studies of man’s nature as being endowed with
reason and intellect.
2.Epistemology- is the study of validity of human knowledge.
(what is knowledge? Is knowledge acquired exclusively through the
senses or by some other means? How do we know that what we
perceive through our senses is correct?
Four Disciplines of Philosophy

3. Logic- the study of correct thinking and reasoning. (this
the basic tool that philosophers use to investigate reality.
(what makes an argument valid or invalid?
4. Ethics- the study on the morality of human actions or
moral philosophy.(what is morally right? Are moral
values absolute or relative?
Thus, Philosophy of Man- is the philosophical study of
man. It is an endless inquiry in his attempt to understand
himself and the world he lives in, his dignity, truth,
freedom, justice, love, death, and his relations with
others and with God. It is
a course that delves into the origin of human life, the
nature of human life, and the reality of human existence.

Purpose of Philosophy
 One may find satisfaction and delight in philosophical
thinking or reasoning when he/she is able to:
 Understand himself/herself (sarili);
 Discover his/her inner self (loob);
 Recognize his/her otherness (social being);
 Accept self as part of nature, of the world
(microcosm);
 Understand the eschatology of human life; and
 With the help of reasons, believe in the existence of
Infinite Wisdom who is God.

The Purpose of Philosophy
 Philosophy enables us to understand ourselves better;
 Philosophy helps us understand others; our fellowmen;
 Philosophy helps us understand others’ ways of thinking
 Philosophy helps us understand the world and our place
and role in it;
 Philosophy helps us understand the significance, meaning,
value and finality of human life; and
 Philosophy helps us know and understand God in his
nature, essence, activities, and attributes.
 Thus, philosophy enables us to understand all things in their
ultimate causes, reasons, and principles through our
reasoning faculty.

Video Presentation
“My Philosophy in Life”
Note: Again, Philosophy is a system of beliefs about
reality. It is one's integrated view of the world. It
includes an understanding of the nature of existence,
man, and his role in the world. It is a necessary product
of man’s rational mind.

BRAINSTORMING
“My Philosophy in Life”
In triads, students will present and defend their
respective principles/philosophy in life, and learn
to accommodate to arrive at a group consensus.
(15 min). Each group will report the output for (7
min only)

MAN IN THE CONTEXT OF HIS
NATURE

Topic Outline
 Man is Basically a Being
 Man’s Composition
 Brainstorming
 Guessing Games

NATURE
 Man is a living paradox. He is simple yet complex.
He is a flesh-spirit and a divide union.
 Man possesses a body. This categorical
statement creates no problem and meets no
objection. The judgment is immediate.
 However, to be able to state that man has a soul
and spirit requires an explanation.
 So, who really am I? Is the soul the heart and
mind of the human being? What must I do to be
happy and perfect? Is my life now worth living for
others?

NATURE
 These are critical questions which requires
self reflection.
 Thus, the application of the methods of
philosophy marks the beginning of the
philosophy of man. These methods try to find
answers to questions on the complexities of
man’s existence.

Man’s Composition
There are three philosophical thoughts with
regard to elements constituting man. These
systems are:
1. Dualism – advocates specifically that man is
a composite of two elements: Body and Spirit.
The dualist thought is sub-divided into two
views; the radical and the moderate

Man’s Composition
The radical dualism stresses that there is a radical
difference between the body and the spirit.
 The spirit is placed in a privileged position, or regarded as
the better component between the two. The implication is
that the spirit is seen as the important principle of human
goodness.
 The body, on the other hand, is placed under unprivileged
position and is considered as the wellspring of human evil
and the prison cell of the spirit.
 Plato with his theory of idealism posited the view that
man is just a carbon copy of his self, originating from the
world of the spirit or realm of ideas. He was exiled into
this world of matter and imprisoned in the body

Man’s Composition
 The moderate dualism, on the other hand,
emphasizes the unity of the two elements.
 Aristotle disagreed with his former mentor, Plato.
With his theory of realism, Aristotle propounded that
man’s existence realistically is a constitution of the
body and soul, mind and matter, sense and intellect,
passion and reason.
 He categorically affirmed that the spirit is the
principle that gives form, shape and human powers
to the otherwise lifeless and formless mass of matter,
the body, for without the spirit, the body will fall back
to dust.

Man’s Composition
 However, the Christians led by St. Augustine and St.
Thomas would disagree with any of the two-mentioned
dualistic views on the composition of man.
 Using the Scripture as basis, they believe that man is a
tripartite being: body, soul and spirit. (Trinity)
 The body is the outer part of man, which one can sensibly
perceive. Through it, he can have contact with the world
around him.
 The soul is the inner part of man, which cannot be seen.
It consists of three parts: the mind, the emotions and the
will.

Man’s Composition
 The spirit is the innermost part of man by which he
can commune with God. This core self is believed to
be the temple of God. Moreover, ‘the spirit is the
essential part of man’s nature, the heart of all human
life.
 God is spirit, man is spirit, and therefore greater that
the material universe. The spirit is an immortal being,
eluding the test of biologist or chemist” (Lockyer,
1964 as quoted by Ardales).

Man’s Composition
 2. Monism
As a doctrine, monism holds that man is only of one simple
element. This monistic view is split into two camps:
a. The idealistic monism, and
b. The materialist monism
 The former upholds the idea that man is purely spiritual.
Advocates of this idea were the ancient Hindus.
 This is outlined in Hinduism’s Upanishads. George
Berkeley, a British philosopher in the 18th century claimed
that matter has no real existence independent from the
mind, there is no matter.

Man’s Composition
 On the other hand, materialist monism argues that
only the body is real. Man in his body. The idea of
the spirit is only an illusion. The staunch advocate of
this idea is Karl Marx who claimed that man is a
purely material entity.
 However, it fails to explain man’s self-consciousness
as a being with interiority and subjectivity, with
freedom, a capacity to love and interrelate,
transcending the material self.

Man’s Composition
3. The New Monism
 The new monism started with the idea that man is a
unitary being with a material existence that has a
mysterious dimension that belongs to the realm of
the spiritual.
 The humanistic thinkers see man as a total
otherness. This otherness of man suggests that he is
not merely a body that there is something special in
man that goes beyond the physical.

Man’s Composition
 This is the mysterious man as body-spirit, or man as
incarnate spirit. The privileged positioning of the
spirit or of the body would not happen under this
philosophy. What is privileged in the new monism is
neither the spirit nor the body, but the totality of man.

Brainstorming
Guide Question:
 1. Your respective body is a reality. Does it move because of
the pumping of its heart and the thinking of the brain?
 2. Is the soul the heart and the mind of the human being?
 3.Are the soul the spirit one or distinct?
 4. Which will you value most, the body or the soul?

A. BASIC ANTHROPOLOGY
MAN IS A PERSON
MAN IS A SUBSTANTIAL UNITY
MAN IS A SOCIAL BEING
MAN POSSESSES DIGNITY AND RIGHTS

A. BASIC ANTHROPOLOGY
MAJOR THEMES
A CONCRETE INDIVIDUAL SUBSTANCE
ENDOWED WITH REASON
1. MAN IS A PERSON

2. MAN IS A SUBSTANTIAL UNITY:
A UNION OF BODY AND SOUL
Man possesses a complete specific nature.
Man is not merely an individual substance with a
unique existence, a self-subsistent substance

2. MAN IS A SUBSTANTIAL UNITY:
MAN IS AN AUTONOMOUS BEING
BECAUSE OF HIS RATIONAL NATURE MAN IS ENDOWED WITH:
INTELLIGENCE TO UNDERSTAND THE WORLD
FREEDOM TO SELF-GOVERN IN THE WORLD

THE HUMAN PERSON IS THE MOST
PERFECT
IN THE WHOLE NATURE
(SAINT THOMAS AQUINAS)
WITH REASON TO UNDERSTAND THE WORLD
&
WILL TO DIRECT HIMSELF TO TRUE GOOD

3. MAN IS A SOCIAL BEING
Man is a relational being. He is open to himself and to
others.
Hence, man is inter-subjectivity, a community of LOVE

4. MAN POSSESSES DIGNITY AND RIGHTS
DIGNITY IS RELATED TO GOODNESS, EXCELLENCE, AND PERFECTION
THE CHARACTERISTICS OF MAN THAT POINT TO HIS DIGNITY ARE
INTELLIGENCE, FREEDOM, & LOVE

IN HIS ENCYCLICAL ENTITLED HUMANAE VITAE, POPE
JOHN PAUL II
HIGHLIGHTED THE INCOMPARABLE WORTH OF THE
HUMAN PERSON
HE HUMAN PERSON POSSESSES DIGNITY THAT HAS
NO PRICE BUT VALUE
(IMMANUEL KANT)

TO BE A HUMAN BEING IS TO BE A FELLOW HUMAN
MARTIN BUBER
I EXIST IN THE MEASURE THAT I EXIST FOR
OTHERS
FOR AFTER ALL, TO BE IS TO LOVE
E. MOUNIER
THE FACE OF THE OTHER TELLS ME THAT IT IS IMP
TO KILL THE PERSON WITH THAT FACE
E. LEVINAS

KEY CONCEPTS OF MAN AS PERSON
1.) AUTONOMY
MAN MUST BE VIEWED IN THE LIGHT OF
THE UNIQUE VOCATION OF EACH PERSONS
2.) SELF-REALIZATION
THROUGH HIS FREE ACTIVITY,
MAN CANNOT BE JUDGED IN ABSTRACTION
FROM THE CONCRETE STATE OF THE ACTING
PERSON
3.) RESPONSIBILITY
MAN DEVELOPS HIS PERSONALITY THROUGH
INTER-SUBJECTIVITY

B. CHRISTIAN ANTHROPOLOGY
MAN IS A CREATURE
MAN IS THE IMAGE OF GOD
MAN IS FALLEN BUT REDEEMED
NATURE AND GRACE

1. MAN IS A CREATURE
GOD IS IMMANENT TO HIS CREATURES JUST AS HE IS TRANSCENDENT
TO BELIEVE IN GOD AS CREATOR IS TO LOOK UPON
COSMIC EVOLUTION AS GOD’S CONTINUING ACTION
THIS VISION SHOULD MAKE
MAN RESPONSIBLE, LOVING, AND CARING

TO AFFIRM GOD AS CREATOR
IS TO HIGHLIGHT MAN’S
RELATIONSHIP WITH GOD
ALL HUMAN ACTIVITIES ARE SEEN AS
EXPRESSIONS OF THE CREATIVE,
IMMANENT AND PERSONAL ACTION OF
GOD

Man’s likeness to God is not only in his
reason but also in his responsible conduct.
He has the capacity to respond freely to the
call of God.
2. MAN IS THE IMAGE OF GOD
MAN APPEARS AS THE FIRST CREATURE THAT IS
CONSCIOUS OF WHERE HE HAS COME FROM
AND OF THE POTENTIALITIES OPEN TO HIM

BECAUSE OF THIS REALITY OF MAN CARE MUST
BE TAKEN THAT THERE BE NO MANIPULATION
THAT MAKES MAN LESS HUMAN THAT VIOLATES
THE DIGNITY OF HIS PERSONALITY MADE TO
THE IMAGE OF GOD.

3. MAN IS FALLEN AND REDEEMED
FROM THE DAWN OF HISTORY, MAN ABUSED HIS FREEDOM
SET HIMSELF AGAINST GOD AND
SOUGHT TO FIND FULFILLMENT APART FROM GOD.

AS A CONSEQUENCE, MAN BECAME AWARE OF
HIS LIMITATIONS AND HIS ABILITY TO BECOME
WHAT HE OUGHT AND DESIRES TO BECOME.
MAN’S REASON HAS BEEN CLOUDED
AND HIS WILL WEAKENED BY SIN
AND THUS THE IMAGE OF GOD HAS BEEN DISTORTED

THROUGH THE INCARNATION
GOD HAS ENTERED HUMAN HISTORY
AND RESTORED THE IMAGE OF GOD IN MAN.
“ON ACCOUNT OF HIS GREAT LOVE, HE
BACAME WHAT WE ARE THAT HE MIGHT MAKE
US WHAT HE IS.”
(ST. IRINAEUS)

THE CHRISTIAN RESPONSE TO GOD’S CALL MUST
INVOLVE ENTRUSTING ONESELF COMPLETELY TO
THE LORD.
EACH MORAL CHOICE IS A STEP OF FAITH INTO THE
FUTURE
WHICH PREPARES FOR THE NEXT STEP INTO THE
UNKNOWN DESTINY
WHICH GOD HAS PREPARED FOR THOSE WHO LOVE HIM.

NATURE AND GRACE
GRACE IS A GRATUITUOUS GIFT OF GOD TO ALL PERSONS
PERSONS
IT IS A SHARE IN THE VERY NATURE OF GOD
IT IMPLIES THE INDWELLING OF THE BLESSED TRINITY
IN THE SOUL OF MAN

S IS A DESTINY GOING BEYOND THE CAPACITY OF MA
HENCE IT IS CALLED SUPERNATURAL.
CHRISTIAN LIFE CONSISTS IN CONFORMING TO
THE WORKINGS OF THE HOLY SPIRIT IN
THE DEPTHS OF MAN’S HEART.

Man and Society
 Man and the State
 Human Relationship and The Necessity of Law
 Man and Ethics
 Man and Human Rights

 The Greek philosopher aptly said: “He who is unable to live in a
society, or who has no need of it because he is sufficient to himself,
must be either a beast or a God.”
Paradox is that man creates society but society also creates man; that
there can be no society without a man, just as there can be no man
without society.
Man and Society

Man and the State
 The human person is a citizen of the State. As a citizen,
he/she needs to be maka-tao, maka-bayan, maka-
kalikasan and maka-Diyos.
 He needs to exercise his sense of nationalism and
globalism which require that he lives moral values
and social virtues of pagsasarili, pagkakaisa,
pakikipagkapwa-tao and pagkabayani.

Man and the State
Does Man exist for the State or does the
State exist for Man? Is Man a creature of
the State or is the State, a creature of Man?
Various philosophical theories attempted to answer the
foregoing questions above. These are:
• The Pantheistic Theory
• The Divine Right Theory
• The Social Contract Theory
• The Christian Theory

The Pantheistic Theory
• Pantheism is the belief that God and the universe are the same.
That God is an expression of the physical forces of nature.
• According to Hegel, a German philosopher of Idealism, posited
that the State is the social substance, a terrestrial divinity that
exists prior to the citizens.
• State Absolutism, the State has absolute power, dominion and
control over its citizens. The state is not the creation of man.

The Divine Right Theory
• Asserts that the State is a divine institution. Its ruler holds his office
by divine right. His government is directly answerable to God alone
and not accountable to the governed.
• All power and authority come from God and do not emanate from
the people.
• Therefore, whoever resists authority resists what God has appointed
and those who resist will incur judgment (Romans 13: 1-2)

The Social Contract Theory
• The existence of a State originated from a contract freely entered
into by its citizens. This social contract is perceived and interpreted
differently by political philosophers like Thomas Hobbes and Jean-
Jacques Rousseau.
• Hobbes implies advocacy for absolute monarchy, contended that
humans are materialistic and pessimistic. That their actions are
motivated solely by self-interest, thus, a state’s ability can only be
guaranteed by authority, to which citizens relinquish their rights.
• Rosseau, on the other hand, theorizes that when human beings
formed a social contract to live in society, they delegated authority
to a government however, they retained sovereignty and the power
to withdraw that authority when necessary or infers the absolute
democracy and individualism.

The Christian Theory
• This theory resolves to offer a solution to the seemingly
contradicting theories anchored on the principle that man is a
social as well as personal being.
• He is born and grows into full self as a person only in relation
to others. He is involved in concrete relationships with his
family, neighborhood, friends, co-workers and God (Moga,
1995:85).
• Thus, man’s social nature is the root existence of a state.

Human Relationship and The
Necessity of Law
“No man is an island.”
- John Doone

Human Relationship and
The Necessity of Law
• Man as a participant in the realm of beings. He is
metaphysical paradox; an individual yet universal. He
possesses unique accidental individuating features and
qualities that make him physically and personally different
from others.
• Thus, to be human, he is not to isolate himself as individual
but to be in a society in harmonious relation or interaction
with others.

Human Relationship and
The Necessity of Law
• According to Martin Buber, a Jewish existentialist
philosopher, there are two ways of relating with others:
I-IT Mode and I-THOU Mode:
• I-IT Mode – man treats his fellowmen as objects, tools or
instruments. This treatment falls under the utilitarian mechanism.
He uses others like machine to achieve his purpose or interest. Only
what is useful is good.
• I-THOU Mode – man considers his fellowmen as subjects and
ends in themselves. There is an atmosphere of openness,
commitment, reciprocity, personal involvement, care and love. Each
protects and upholds his self-worth not because of individual
usefulness but because one or the other is valued.

Necessity of Law..
• Law protects the mechanism in the exercise of
human freedom. It regulates the relationship of free
individual.
• Its clips off excessive selfish drive that violates
other’s right. It is something that restricts a very
minimal part of human freedom for the preservation
of the integrity of that same freedom.

Introduction
• The ethical question of human action has been
raised to define the meaning, the end and purpose of
human living. Philosophical thoughts such as Hedonism,
Utilitarianism, Moral Positivism, Moral Evolutionism,
and Communism have attempted to present an answer.
Their perspective answer may be good or defective but
let us appreciate how each philosophy presents its
theory.

Hedonism
 As a philosophical doctrine, Hedonism regards pleasure
as the ultimate good. It holds that the supreme end of
man consists in the acquisition of pleasure.
 As an ethical theory, it asserts that human acts are good
if they give sensient pleasure of the moment, while they
are bad if they do not offer temporal happiness to man.
The basis of morality, then, is pleasure that momentarily
satisfies them.

 A strong reaction to Hedonism was posited by Epicurus,
a Greek philosopher and founder of Epicureanism. He
thought one’s aim should be a life of lasting pleasure best
attained by the guidance of reason.
He argued that happiness was goal of life, and saw it not
as the pure indulgence of pleasure but as attainment of
honesty and social justice.

Utilitarianism
 Utilitarianism theory of ethics that holds that the
rightness or wrongness of an action is determined by
the happiness, its consequences produce. It makes
usefulness or utility as the norm of morality. If an
action gives useful result, it is good, while if it does not,
then it is bad.

 This theory is classified into: egoism and altruism.
The former holds that an act is good if it produces
temporal happiness and satisfaction to the individual,
while it is bad if an act prevents this happiness to occur.
The latter holds that an act is good if it is useful to
society. This social utilitarianism seeks the greatest good
of the greatest number.

 The theory started in the 18th century with thinker,
Jeremy Bentham, who believed that actions are
motivated by pleasure and pain, and that happiness can
be assessed by the quantity of pleasure.
His follower, John Stuart Mill, later argued that some
pleasures should be sought for their intrinsic quality. He
interpreted the principles of utilitarianism as a basis for
the struggle for political and social reform.

Moral Evolutionism
 Moral evolutionism, as an ethical theory, holds that
morality is flexible, relative and continuously changing
and evolving towards its perfection. This postulates
applies the theory of biological evolution to morals.
The theory of biological evolution as laid down by
Charles Darwin and Alfred Russel Wallace, states that
life forms with certain characteristics tend to reproduce
in larger numbers and survive environmental changes
better than other life forms that lack these
characteristics.

 The concept of changing morality is akin to the
adjustment theory of Herbert Spencer who defines life as
the continuous adjustment to self to other selves.
Morality, according to Spencer, means, therefore, the
adjustment of the individual to his fellows, co-existing in
a society. The concept of good act of man is that which
makes man well adjusted, while a bad act, that which
makes him unhappy due to maladjustment.

Moral Positivism
 Moral positivism is the theory that holds that the laws
of the State are the source of all moral laws. An act is
good if it is in conformity with the laws of the State,
while it is bad if an act is forbidden.
This theory makes morality relative. It reverses the
natural order of things being that man with his voting
rights precedes the State. Moreover, rightness or
wrongness of an act does not depend on whether it is
forbidden or allowed. Morality is fixed or absolute,
notwithstanding the absence of laws.

Communism
 The moral philosophy of communism is anchored on its
logical consequence of its view of reality. This view of
reality as espoused by Karl Marx and Frederick Engel is
rooted in three basic concept:
• That productive labor is the fundamental attribute of
human nature;
• That the structure of any society is determine by its
economic means of production;
• That societies evolve by a series of crises caused by internal
contradictions analyzable and resolvable by dialectical
materialism.

 Dialectical materialism was substantially influences by
George Wilhelm Friedrich Hegel’s dialectical method by
which an idea (thesis) was challenged by its opposite
(antithesis), and the two ultimately reconciled in a third
idea (synthesis) that assumed both.
 Under this foregoing theory, matter is the only reality.
This reality is in constant motion and change so that all
phenomena are manifestations of the dialectic process.

• Everything is in flux towards the attainment of a perfect
state: classless society. Since everything changes,
morality, too, does change. An act is good if it brings
about the realization of this perfect society, while bad, if
it prevents the same. This becomes norm of morality: the
end justifies the means.

MODULE 4:
Man and Human Rights

Introduction
Man is a human person. As a person, he has the power to
think, judge and reason. He possesses worth and dignity.
This is human nature and therefore, he is the subject of
rights and possess human right.

Nature of Human Right
 Human right is a “moral and inviolable power to hold, to
do or to exact something from others. It is otherwise
called natural right which grows out of the nature of man
based and plainly assured by natural law.
 Such are the rights of life, liberty, property, privacy and
good reputation.

Philosophical Foundation of Human Rights
1. The doctrine of social contract
2. The doctrine of natural rights
3. The doctrine of popular sovereignty
4. The doctrine of revolution

Social Contract Doctrine
 Postulated by Thomas Hobbes (1588), John Locke
(1632) and Jean Jacques Rousseau (1712) in different
perspectives.
 Their common assumption is: there was in some
primeval past, a pre-political state of nature; that men,
under such state, lived without any government and
every man did that which he considered right.

 Hobbes, described it as a condition of anarchy and
depravity.
 Locke characterized it as a life of reason and simplicity
of life which did not necessarily require a government.
Rousseau compared the state of nature to the Garden of
Paradise, where innocence and ignorance abound.

Natural Rights Doctrine
 The natural rights doctrine is grounded on the
assumption that men who were born free and living in a
non-political state came into the world with certain
natural rights.
 Such rights preceded the existence of social and political
institutions. Leaders and/or officials of the government
who violate these rights must be removed, their
authority be ignored and laws enacted be repealed.

Popular Sovereignty Doctrine
 The popular sovereignty doctrine is an inferential
conclusion from the premises of social contract and
natural rights doctrines. It is anchored on the principle
that sovereignty resides in the people, and al authority
emanates from them. This doctrine is sovereignty resides
in the people, and all authority emanates from them.
 This doctrine is translated into the exercise of suffrage,
elections, referenda or people’s initiative and plebiscite.

Revolution Doctrine
 It advocated the belief that the people have the right to
change or abolish an existing government if and when
they see and experience it to be destructive and violative
of their rights and liberties.
 The doctrine authorizes revolution as a means to
institute a new government that can ensure people’s
safety and happiness.
“A revolution can
either be armed and
bloody or a peaceful
one.”

Philosophy of Man:
The Filipino
Perspective

Who is the person called Filipino?

Loob
Note: The philosophy of Loob, Katawan, Sarili, at Bait is
integrally related to the philosophy of soul and spirit.
 Loob means an “inner being’, the core self of a person.
 It is characterized as holistic and interior.
 The Filipino looks at his essence as non-dualistic. His life
is not perceived as compartmentalized. He does not
distinguish between the object and subject.
 This is illustrated in the statement “masama ang loob”
which pertains to the pain of one’s whole being (his
damdamin) from his holistic loob, “hiya”, (pride) or amore
propio or delicadeza (self-esteem) may derive.

Katawan
 The Filipino philosophy of the body is found to be non-
dualistic. It is holistic. The body is one. Any part of it can
also assume the whole .
 The body partakes in the “loob” and the loob. As well,
shows itself in the body as a whole or as symbolized or
manifested in a particular part (Arriola, 1993 as quoted
by Mercado, 1996:26).
 The meaning of the body or bodily expressions, in
tandem with the loob, are clustered according to
domains of intellectual, volitional, emotional and ethical.
They are shown in the following diagrams:

INTELLECTUAL THEME
LOOB BODILY EXPRESSION MEANING
Alapaap ang kalooban Gumugulo ang isip To doubt
Bugaw na loob Gulo ang isip Scatter-brained
Buhos ang loob Buong-buo ang atensyon Concentrated attention
Bumabagabag sa loob Gumugulo sa isip, lumilito sa
damdamin
Worried
Hindi maatim ng kalooban Hindi masikmura, hindi
matanggap ng budhi
Against the conscience
Ilagay sa loob Ipasok sa isip To notice
Isaloob Isapuso, dibdibin, itanim sa
isip
To take it seriously
Kalooban Isip, malay Thought, conciousness
Kappa ang kalooban Nahuli na ang panlasa, batid
and pulso
Totally known
Loob bata Bait bata, payak na mag-isip Child-like thought

VOLITIONAL THEME
Bukal na kalooban Matigas ang puso, pusong
bato
Stubborn
Buhay ang loob Puno ng gilas at lakas,
inspirado
Inspired, ready to continue
Bukal sa loob Taos-puso, mula sa puso Voluntary, freely
Buong-loob Taos-puso, buong puso Wholeheartedly
Gayak ng loob Hangad ng puso, balak,
tangka
Intent, calculation
Kusang loob Bukal sa puso Freely
Malamig and loob Malamig ang pagtingin Coolness of lack of
liking/interest
Maluwag sa loob Taos-puso, kusa, malaya In agreement, Voluntarily
Taimtim sa Loob/Kalooban Taos-puso Wholeheartedly
Wala sa loob Walang gana No desire

EMOTIONAL THEME
Adhika ng loob Gusto Desire
Bigat ng loob Bigat ng dugo Ill-feelings for an
intractable person
Hirap ng kalooban Pasakit Pain
Iniingatan sa loob Ikakulo ng dugo Anger
Kaba ng loob Takot, nerbiyos Fear, nervousness
Kahinaan ng loob Kahinaan ng tuhod Fear
Kalamayin ang loob Pahupain ang galit o
matinding lungkot
To reduce anger or
sadness
Kumukulo ang loob Kumukulo ang dugo Very angry
Matapang ang loob Walang takot Fearless
May sama ang loob May tinik sa puso Angry

ETHICAL THEME
Bukas ang loob Bukas-palad Charitable, caring
Gintong kalooban Malinis ang puso, pabubukas-
palad
Good
Kagandahang-loob Pagkabukas-palad Benevolence
Kaisang-loob Kapulso, kamata, kabagang Close friend
Loob na halaghag Halang ang bituka, may
pusong puno ng pag-iimbot,
maitim ang budhi
Greedy
Maamong loob Malambit ang puso Approachable
Mabuting loob Malinis and puso Good
Malinis ang kalooban Taos-puso Sinless, innocent
Pakikipagkapwa Ugnayanng puso sa puso In harmony with fellowmen
Tinig sa loob Budhi Conscience

Sarili
 The term sarili mean self. By extension, it
connotes freedom. It likewise extends itself to
property, or to the domain of privacy.
 In tagalog, sarili is used in expressions like
“sa sarili (to or for oneself), “sabi ko sa sarili
ko” (I said to myself), “aking sarili”, “iyong
sarili”, “kanyang sarili”, “makasarili” (selfish) or
“nawawala sa sarili”.

The underlying philosophy of sarili is as
follows:
 1. sarili is much wider than loob; the former is the
whole self which possess the latter which is only a
part of sarili.
 2. the selfhood exercises itself in its use of
personal freedom.
 3. Selfhood includes the things or properties as
extensions of oneself;
 4. being conscious of oneself implies
consiciousness of others, the world and the
environment in which one lives; the sarili affirms
the value of “kapwa”.

Bait
 Bait may be translated as kindness, sense of
prudence like the expressions: “walang bait
sa sarili” (no sense of his own) or “mawalan
ng bait” (to lose consciousness).
 It may also mean intrinsic goodness, a
practical goodness or an inner dynamic or the
practical judgment for the good at hand.

Reasoning
 Reasoning in the Western logic is one of the
trilogy of mental operations. The two other mental
acts are simple apprehension and judgment.
 Reason is otherwise called inferential thinking.
 It is a process of inference whereby a consequent
or conclusion is drawn from antecedents or
premises, or passing from the known to the
unknown.

Inference
 Is made either deductively or inductively.
 Deduction – is a reasoning whereby conclusion is
derived from general or universal principles or
truth or premise.
 Induction – is from the consideration of particular
or specific instances to general conclusion or truth
or law governing and covering all instances.

The Filipino way of reasoning
 The Filipino way of reasoning adapts
induction more than the deduction.
 This is evident in the Philippine poetry.
 As poetic, the basis of reasoning is on
metaphor.
 The use of metaphor is evident in Filipino
proverbs and Balagtasan.

Proverb and Balagtasan
 The proverb is a short one, while Balagtasan
is a longer metaphor.
 In Balagtasan, argumentation is based on
inference by comparison or analogy. Its
structure consist of four levels: 1) a thesis 2)
reasoning 3) metaphor 4) a conclusion.

Examples of Filipino Proverbs
 Bago mo sabihin at gawin, makapitong
iisipin.
 Nasa Diyos ang awa, nasa tao ang gawa.
 Kung walang tiyaga, walang nilaga.
 Kung may isinuksok, may madudukot.

Example of Balagtasan
Alin and Higit na Mahalaga, Wikang Filipino o Wikang
English?
Wikang Filipino:
Sa puso at diwa, ako’y Pilipino
Mgandang Pilipinas ito ang bayan ko
May sariling wika, wikang Filipino
Na s’yang nagbubuklod sa sambayanan ko.
Wikang Filipino ay wikang panlahat
Ang ilaw at lakas ng tuwid na landas
Sa pagkakaisa naipahahayag
Mabisang kalasag tungo sa pag-unlad.
Wikang English:
Alam nating itong English, isang wikang pandaigdig
Sa lahat ng pag-aaral pangunahing ginagamit
Ang mga asignaturang Science, English at Mathematics
Paano mo ililiwat, di malirip, di maisip.
Ang bagong alpabeto hindi mo ba napapansin
Ang dating A B K D ngayon ay A B C D na
May computer, may internet, Facebook at may Google plus p
Ito’y mga pagbabagong Wikang English ang simula.

Topic Outline
 The Two Explanations How Life Began on Earth
1. the religious story of creation
2. the scientific theory of evolution
 The Stages of Evolution
1. Hominid
2. Homo Habilis (handy man
3. Homo Erectus (Upright man)
4. Homo Sapien (Wise man)
 Brainstorming
 Guessing Game


Man’s Origin
 Creationism holds that man was created by God, who made
him unto His image and likeness. This theory was based on the
biblical account in the Book of Genesis. The process of man’s
creation is narrated simply as follows:
“__then the LORD God formed man from the dust of the
ground, and the breathed into his nostrils the
breath of life; and the man became a living being”(Genesis2:7)

Man’s Origin
 On the other hand, evolutionism asserts that man
descended from simpler ancestors whose lineage
can be traced back to an exceeding to an
exceedingly simpler form of life.
 Through evolution, a single-celled organism
develops by natural descent into various forms of life
which are structurally complex and have an
increased range of functions or powers.
 Man is the most complex product of such
development (Ardales: 37-38).

Man’s Origin
 As discussed beforehand, the doctrine of
creationism was based on the Genesis account on
how God created the world in six days.
 On the contrary, the theory of evolution stands on
solid scientific grounds. There is no apparent
conflict/clash between the two doctrines. The
problem of harmonizing the two systems would now
depend on how Christian thinkers would approach
the biblical story in Genesis.
 They may interpret the passages either literally or
liberally. If literally constructed, the Genesis story
would give us this interpretation: that there were six
days of creation; and that there was direct and
separate creation of each species.

Man’s Origin
 If liberally interpreted, the passage would mean: that
God is the Creator; and that the Genesis does not
tell us how God actually created the world.
 Moreover, the literal method could never give any
concession or compromise to the theory of evolution.
Creationism, as a closed system , would not make
any accommodation to evolutionism.
 However, the liberal method is open to any
possibility of accommodating the new theory.

Man’s Origin
 The accommodation began and was made as early
as 1885, when A.H. Strong, an American theologian,
accepted evolutionism. In his work, “Systematic
Theology”, he wrote: “we grant principle of evolution
but we regard it as only the method of divine
intelligence”.
 In 1950, Pope Pius XII issued the papal encyclical
“Human Genesis” declaring that evolutionism is
compatible with the Christian doctrine.

Comments
 The theories of creation and evolution are opposed
to the Theory of Idealism or Platonism.
 Plato views man in his earthly existence as a carbon
copy or a mere picture of his real, original self in the
realm of ideas or in the spiritual world.
 He is an ideal, perfect man. He was imprisoned in
the body as a punishment of his sin. Man therefore,
is neither evolved or created for he already exists in
the world of spirits.
 He is one with the Universal Reality. The man was
originally one with his Realty is, likewise, the
postulate of the oriental philosophies Buddhism,
Taoism and Confucianism.

Comments
 Aristotle, on the other hand, opposed Platonism. He
toned down idealism with his Philosophy of Realism.
 Man is real, a composite of body and soul, mind and
matter, senses and intellect, and reason and
emotion.
 Between idealism and realism, we find the latter as
sensible, understandable and acceptable to the
human mind.

Brainstorming
Group Dynamics
Main Problem: “Where do I come from?
Corollary Problem:
 1. If man evolved from ape, why are there still apes
around?
 2. If man was created unto the image and likeness of
God, why are there men acting like apes?

What Makes
Man Truly
Human?
A Critical Analysis of Man
By: Dr. Diosdado P. Estimada
Faculty, CAS Dept.

Diosdado P. Estimada, Ph. D.
Faculty, CAS Department

 Human beings are not necessarily human. Such a
statement may sound very puzzling but it is true for
two reasons.
 First of all, it takes much time and effort for a human
being to grow to the point where his own nature has
reached full realization.
 When born he acts like a little animal, not yet being
fully human. It will take many years of training and
education by his family and society, many years of
effort and struggle on his own part before the
fullness of humanity can be achieved.


(e.g. love, compassion, self-awareness,
appreciation of beauty, thinking analytically and
critically and etc. all require much time of efforts,
training, and education before finally gained
them)
Until that state of full humanness is attained we
cannot say that he is fully human.


 Secondly, it is very possible that an individual
human being will not reach full development at all
coz of failure to possess those basic qualities which
are required for full humanness
 Example, cruelty, insensitiveness to others, irrational
in their lives and dealings with others.
 Sometime we use the word “animal” to describe
persons who follow their lower instincts and ignore
their consciences, their human dignity and the
higher values of human life.
 We judge such inhuman people, such “animals,” to
be less than fully human.

 Human beings would live confidently as human
if their proper knowledge of what it is to be truly
human comes into light.
 Man has an appetite like that of an animal to
desire something for its satisfaction and survival.
 Science calls it as instinct, e.g., man desires
foods when he is hungry“
 When these basic needs have been satisfied-
will there still be something that everybody
needs? Man cannot live by bread alone.

 We do not remain here at this level because we
have another desire which is more important than
food. This is true for human because he is endowed
with reason peculiar to him as human (Maslow’s
Hierarchy of Needs). Body -Physiological Needs, Safety – Security Needs, Social – Love and
Belongingness, Ego – Self Esteem, and Actualization – Self-Fulfillment
 This power manifests in man in his capacity to ask
himself about himself. Questions such as who am I
and what am I living for are concrete examples.
 Dog and cat may play but only man asks. We may
ask: what is the significance of questioning in
relation to man?

 Both man and other animals are born in similar
condition of nature but both do not end in similar
way, that is, man is the only being who is capable of
changing the course of his life.
 Animals may die without accomplishing anything
aside from what we expect them to do naturally. But
in the case of man, he is able to have a difference
contrary to what we expected.
 Man discovers the reality that he is a “being-in-the-
world” because he dwells in the world but how he
looks at the world is different from what it really is. In
this given argument, man is free.

 To be free is to consider that each individual is the author
of himself through the choices he makes.
 It is manifested in the ability of man to control and
determine his own plan in the future because he is a
“being- ahead- of – itself.”
 Only man prepares what is for tomorrow. In this case
then, man is in charge of his own life and be responsible
for its consequences not only for himself but also to all
people.
 Freedom without a corresponding responsibility is
caprice.
 We cannot separate ourselves from the relationship of
other people. This is what Marcel means by saying “to
exist is to co- exist.”

 Thus, what makes man truly human is his
capacity of understanding himself as a free and
responsible being.
 Through responsibility, man is able to
understand that he lives with more concern
towards others who are also free.
 Then the realization of an authentic and truly
remarkable man is possible.

Topic Outline
 Fullness of Humanity
 Greek Ideal of Full Development
 Man as a Person
 Man as Cosmic Perfection
 Human Acts
 Acts of Man
 Essential Attributes or Characteristics of
Human Acts
 Moral Distinction
 Extrinsic and Intrinsic Evil
 The End Does not Justify the Means

Topic Discussion
Fullness of Humanity
 According to father Michael D. Moga, human beings are
not necessarily human. Such a statement may sound
very puzzling but it is true for two reasons.
 First of all, it takes much time and effort for a human
being to grow to the point where his own nature has
reached full realization.
 It will take many years of training and education by his
family and society, many years of effort and struggle on
his own part before the fullness of humanity can be
achieved.
 Until that state of full humanness is attained we cannot
say that he is fully human.

Topic Discussion
Fullness of Humanity
 Secondly, it is very possible that an individual human
being will not reach full development at all. It means there
are human beings which fail to possess those basic
qualities which are required for full humanness.
 Thus, we use the word “inhuman” to describe such
persons. They may be cruel, insensitive to others,
irrational, in their lives and dealings with others.
 Sometimes, we use the word “animal” to describe
persons who follow their lower instincts and ignore their
consciences, their human dignity and the higher values of
human life.
 We judge such inhuman people, such “animals,” to be
less than fully human.

Topic Discussion
 Thus, the fullness of humanity not only takes a great
deal of time to reach but often in a significant way it
is not reached at all.
 But a question arises. What is this fullness of human
life which we human beings can attain? What are
those characteristics that we should strive to
develop? What makes man truly human?

Topic Discussion
Again, what makes man truly a human?
 Likewise, there is no point in inventing artificial
differences between humans and lower animals, such as
love, compassion, appreciation of beauty, ability to think
abstractly, self-awareness or the ability to use tools.
 Besides, man has the ability to reason while animals act
mostly by instinct.
 Biologically, what most distinguish us from other animals
are the size of our brain compared to body size, our fully
opposable thumbs, our bipedal stance and our pharynx
which allows complex speech.
.

Topic Discussion
The Greek Ideal of Full Development
 The Greeks believe that the fully human person is one who
lives a life of a completely developed human being. They
believed the following:
 First of all, human beings have physical potentialities and it is
possible for them to develop their bodies and their bodily skills.
 Some of these skills are connected with sports and leisure as
they learn to run, to swim and to dance. Other skills are
practical: the ability to type, the ability to drive a car or to fly a
plane, the ability to master crafts such as carpentry or masonry.

Topic Discussion
 Secondly, human beings have many mental abilities that
can be developed. They can expand their capacities to
imagine and to dream of new possibilities.
 They can learn to think more logically and to bring
rationality more completely into their lives.
 They can become expert in one of the many human
sciences. They can become more aware of the presence
of beauty in nature and in the human arts.

Topic Discussion
 Thirdly, human beings can develop communication skills,
learning how to read and to write and to talk. It may take
years to develop these skills but, once they are mastered,
individuals are better able to function as full human
beings.
 They can express their ideas clearly and forcefully. They
can bring understanding, joy and beauty to those who
read what they write or who listen to what they say.

Topic Discussion
 Fourthly, human beings can develop their social skills in many
different ways. They can become loyal friends, good mothers
and fathers, active members of society.
 They can become generals in armies, religious leaders,
effective leaders of political communities. As individuals learn to
play their roles in society and make significant contributions to
society, they fullfill some of their social potentialities.
 Thus, from the Greeks we have a clear ideal for human life, the
development of all human potentialities to the level of
excellence. It is a humanism which has inspired and guided
many peoples over the ages.

Man as Person
 Man is born into this world as an individual. As an
individual, a person is existing separately and
independently from others, capable of knowing and
loving in an intellectual way, and of deciding for
himself the purpose or end of his actions. (Brennan:
280)
Man as Cosmic Perfection
 Man is a person. As such, he occupies the topmost
rung in the ladder of corporeal substances. He is the
most perfect being composed of body and soul.
 Man is perfect in comparison with other creatures
because he has the gift of intellect and will.

Man as Person
 Man is the microcosm of the whole universe. He
incorporates in him all those powers belonging to the
lower creatures. He exists the way that chemical do.
 He senses, feels, and moves the same way that
animals do. But above all, he thinks and wills and is in
control of himself. Here is how one writer describes
man’s awesome powers.

Human Act
Backgrounder: What is Human Act?
 Every human act presupposes a doer.(assume
something in advance: to believe that a particular thing is true before there is
any proof of it).
 Thus, the sentence “ Dr. Estimada teaches
Baliuag University ” presupposes that Dr.
Estimada has a student.

Human Acts
 The human acts are those actions which man
performs knowingly, freely, and voluntarily. These
actions are the result of conscious knowledge and are
subject to the control of the will.
 We refer to these actions as deliberate, intentional, or
voluntary). Example:
 Cheating
 Listening
 Reading
 Laughing
 Walking

Acts of Man
 Acts of Man = are those actions which happens in
man. They are instinctive and are not within the control
of the will.
 Such actions are the biological and physiological
movements in man such as:
 Metabolism (life-sustaining chemical activity: the series of processes by
which food is converted into the energy and products needed to sustain life)
 Respiration (the act of breathing air in and out)
 Fear
 Anger
 Love
 Jealousy and among others

Essential Attributes or
Characteristics of Human Acts
For an act to be considered a human act, it must possess the
following characteristics:
 It must be performed by a conscious agent who is aware of
what he is doing and of its consequences. Children below
the age of reason, the insane, the senile – are considered
incapable of acting knowingly.
 It must be voluntary action/willingness performed by man
who is acting freely, that is, by his own volition and powers.
An action done under duress and against one’s will is not
entirely a free action.
 It must be performed by a man who decides wilfully to
perform the act. This willfulness is the resolve to perform an
act here and now, or in some future time.

Moral Distinction
 Human acts may either be in conformity or not with the
dictates of reason.
 “Dictates of reason” refers to the shared
consciousness of prudent people about the propriety
of a certain action or manner of behaviour.
 It shows what is permissible in a given situation, the
best option as a matter of fact.

Moral Distinction
 “Dictates of Reason” stands for the norm of morality
which is the standard by which actions are judged as
to their merits or demerits. On the basis of their
relation to the norm of morality, actions are classified
into moral, immoral, or amoral.
 1. Moral actions are those actions which are in
conformity with the norm of morality. They are good
actions and are permissible. Working, studying, paying
a debt, telling the truth. Loving a friend-are moral
actions.

Moral Distinction
 2. Immoral actions are those actions which are not in
conformity with the norm of morality. They are bad or evil
and are not permissible. Refusing to help the needy,
committing murder, adultery, stealing, telling lies-are
immoral actions.
 3. Amoral actions are those actions which stand neutral in
relation to norm of morality. They are neither good or bad in
themselves. But certain amoral actions may become good
or bad because of the circumstances attendant to them.
 Playing basketball is an amoral act but playing basketball
when one is supposed to be attending a class is wrong.
Playing basketball out of sense of duty to the team is good.

Extrinsic and Intrinsic Evil
 The relation of actions to the norm of morality is either
intrinsic or extrinsic. Something is intrinsic to a thing when it
is integral to the nature of that thing. The sweetness of a
mango fruit is, for example, intrinsic to it.
 But the appeal of a mango to a particular person is extrinsic
to it, that is, such quality is not an integral element of it as
fruit.
 Some actions are intrinsically evil because their nature is
defective either by excess or by lack of certain attributes.
 For example, is the nature of stealing which , by nature,
manifests lack of respect for the property of another.

 Some other actions are extrinsically evil because certain
factors attached to them by way of circumstances render
them opposed to the norm of morality. Drinking liquor is
extrinsically evil when done in excess. (Too much of
anything is good for nothing)
 Actions that are intrinsically evil are prohibited at all times
under any circumstances. Actions that are extrinsically evil
may be tolerated provided the circumstance rendering it to
be wrong is first removed. Suicide is intrinsically evil and
remains immoral whatever is its justification.
 Therapeutic abortion is extrinsically evil when it is resorted
to as a necessary means to safeguard the life of the
mother.

 Moralists distinguish between an intrinsic evil and an
extrinsic evil. “Intrinsic’ implies a quality inherent in a thing.
 Thus, an intrinsic evil act is an act which is evil by its
nature. “Extrinsic” implies a quality which is superficially
added to a thing in a manner that a coat of paint covers the
surface of a wall without modifying the essentiality of the
wood constituting the wall.
 According to Fr. Panizo, an extrinsic evil act is that which,
although good or indifferent in itself, is however prohibited
by a human law (Ethics: 5)
 An example of extrinsic evil act is that of eating meat by
Catholics on the Fridays of Lent, or, the giving of alms to
beggars as prohibited by law in Manila.

The End Does not Justify the Means
 To the doer, an act is a means for achieving an aim or purpose.
We, for instance study in order to acquire knowledge, to pass the
course, to receive a degree, and to qualify for a job.
 It is, however, wrong to attempt at a good purpose by dubious or
evil means. A student may not cheat in an exam in order to
graduate; an employee may not fake his documents in order to
be promoted to a job; the public official may not accept briber in
order to finance a health center, and an impoverished father may
not steal in order to feed his family.
 The axiom – “the end (motive) does not justify the means
(action)”, means that the worthiness of purpose does not make an
evil act good.
 Nothing is more pernicious than for a hoodlum to believe that he
is justified in robbing the rich because he wants to share the loot
with the poor.

Paul Glenn gives us the following insights on the effects of the motive on
the action (ibid,: 111-113):
1. An evil act which is done on account of an evil motive is
grievously wrong.
Example: A youngster who steals from his parents in order to
buy “shabu” for himself is committing a grievous wrong to himself and
his parents.
2. A good action done on account of an evil motive becomes evil itself.
Example: The Executive who gives a job to a lady applicant in
order to seduce her later makes his kindness immoral because of his evil
intentions.

3. A good action done on account of a good purpose
acquires an additional merit.
Example: The father who sacrifices his expensive hobby in
order to send his children to school shows a deeper concern for the
welfare of his loved ones.
4. An indifferent act may either become good or bad depending on the
motive.
Example: Opening the door of a house is an indifferent act. But
the servant who, in connivance with the thieves, opens the door of the
house of his master, does a wrongful act.
 On the other hand, opening the door in order to give alms to a
beggar is a good act.

Utilitarianism
The End Justify the Means
The Greatest Happiness for the Greatest Number.
 The guiding principle in utilitarianism is that when you make a moral
decision you should do what brings the greatest happiness or good
to the greatest number of people.

Utilitarianism is a based on maximising
utility or happiness.
A good act increases
happiness or
reduces pain.
A bad act increases suffering or
reduces happiness.
Utilitarianism is a consequentialist ethical system,
which means it is concerned with consequences.

Act-utilitarianism:
Looks at the
consequences of a
particular ACT-if
greatest happiness for
greatest number that
act is RIGHT.

A good example of utilitarianism is:
 Say there is a train coming toward a group of 5
people tied to the tracks and you're standing by the
lever to make the train go onto a different path that is
heading towards yourself.
 A utilitarian would pull the lever to make the train
head in his/her direction.
 Killing one person creates a greater amount of good
than killing 5 people

How do you think a utilitarian
would respond in the following
situations and why?

 You run an orphanage and have suffered difficulties in
providing its needs particularly a service vehicle.
 A car dealership offers you a new van worth half a million
pesos for free if you will falsely report to the government
that the dealership donated a van worth one million
pesos.
 You really need the van and it will give you an
opportunity to make the children happy.
Would a utilitarian agree to take the van?

 You are on a boat and nearby are two large rocks filled
with people waiting to be rescued; there are five people
on one rock and four on the other.
 Assume that you cannot rescue both groups and that
you are the only one able to rescue either group.
Which group would a utilitarian rescue?

 30 people have been infected with a deadly disease which
is very contagious and has no known cure.
 The health board have locked them in a room to keep
them isolated from the rest of the community as they
believe the disease will spread very quickly and kill large
numbers of people if the infected people are released.
 The police have been called in to kill the 30 people and
eradicate the risk of danger.
Would a utilitarian agree with this action?

 You run an orphanage and have suffered difficulties in
providing its needs particularly a service vehicle.
 A car dealership offers you a new van worth half a million
pesos for free if you will falsely report to the government that
the dealership donated a van worth one million pesos.
 You really need the van and it will give you an opportunity to
make the children happy.
 A month after you agreed to take the van the authorities found
out the truth about what had happened.
 They removed the van from the orphanage and sacked you
because of the fraud.
 The orphanage was unable to find a replacement and has had
to be closed down as a result.

 You are on a boat and nearby are two large rocks filled
with people waiting to be rescued; there are five people
on one rock and four on the other.
 Assume that you cannot rescue both groups and that
you are the only one able to rescue either group.
 After you have rescued the group of five they begin to
fight with each other about whose fault it was that they
ended up stuck on a rock.
 As they argue it becomes clear that you have rescued a
group of criminals who had been trying to steal a yacht
from a family on holiday when it hit a rock and sunk.
 The group of four you didn’t save were that family.

 30 people have been infected with a deadly disease which
is very contagious and has no known cure.
 The health board have locked them in a room to keep
them isolated from the rest of the community as they
believe the disease will spread very quickly and kill large
numbers of people if the infected people are released.
 The police have been called in to kill the 30 people and
eradicate the risk of danger.
 The day after the 30 people had been wiped out to protect
others a cure is found for the disease.

The End Justify the Means
Machiavellian’s View
 It is only ethical when the majority gains from the
sacrifice of a few...... the end only justifies the means
when giving up of a few would save the many....
 Example: (like Mr. X when he gave up his life to save
the lives of the people). “Sacrifice of one for the sake
of the many....is the logical thing to do".
 It is not justified if it is for selfish reasons. (for
example, for revenge...for greed and personal
gain....it has to be a decision based on selflessness
and honesty.
Note: The next topic is “The Human Person and Values

UNDERSTANDING
MAN’S EXISTENCE
VALUING PROCESS

Topic Outline
Man: The Actor
 Action and Values
 Man as a Worker
 Man as a Sexual Being
 Man as a Lover
 Man as a Believer

MAN: THE ACTOR
Man and Action
 Action is proper only to man; animals do not act but only move.
Why?
Because action entails intellect, knowledge, freedom,
voluntariness, and responsibility
The nature of man makes man the only being of action. As
rational, man possesses intellect so that he can know the nature of
the act, whether it is good or bad.
As a being who is endowed with freedom, man knows that he
has the choice whether to perform or not to perform a particular
action.
Man acts according to his intellect and will (an expression of
freedom) and is responsible for the consequences of his actions.

Moral Assumptions
 As rational and free, man knows that there are
actions that are right or wrong, and good or bad;
 As rational and free, man knows that there are
actions that he is not obliged to do;
 As rational and free, man knows that he is
responsible for his actions; and
 As rational and free, man knows that wrong actions
are punishable and right actions are rewardable

Values and Action
Man cannot perform actions which are value-
free; actions presuppose values; actions are
expressions of values
Values are objects of human desires; values
are good; good implies satisfaction and
suitability
 Values are synonyms with good. If man’s
actions are expressions of values and since
values are good, man then, is singled out to
perform right and good actions.

According to Pope John Paul II,
on human work:
“Work is one of the characteristics
that distinguishes man from the rest of the
creatures whose activity for sustaining their
lives cannot be called work.
 Only man is capable of work, and only man
works, at the same time by work occupying
his existence on earth. Thus, work bears a
particular mark of a person operating within
a community of persons.”

Through work, man establishes his
dignity. Through work man produces his
own food and thereby makes himself
superior over other creatures which
cannot, on their own accord, produce
their own food.

For the Christian, the worker is more
important than work. Work is man’s
service to God; it is man’s grateful
response to God, his Creator and
Sustainer.
The Christian is not ashamed of the
nature of his work because he finds God
in his work. Work is man’s way of
glorifying God; it is his gesture of service
to both God and his fellowman.

 A human activity
 It is a form of pleasure
 Has divine implication to propagate life
 Should be done in the context of marriage

Sex Compared with Sexuality
 Sex: Biological maleness or femaleness. Males have XY chromosomes.
Females have XX chromosomes. Sex is determined the instant a
woman's egg is fertilized by a man's sperm. If an X sperm fertilizes an X
egg, the fetus will be female. If a Y sperm fertilizes the X egg, the fetus
will be male. (What you are?)
 Sex refers to coitus or intercourse, an act that can result in reproduction.
Thus, (“Sex is something you do”).
 Sexuality is our sexual orientation or, it is how we feel emotionally and
romantically towards others. In other words, (Sexuality is something
how you conduct yourself.)
 Both sex and sexuality can be contained in the word “sexual”. As a
sexual being, man has sexuality and is capable of expressing his
sexuality through sex.

 Sexuality is the foundation of man’s
personhood. It is the specific manifestation
of man’s being-in-the-world.
 Thus, sexuality presents the uniqueness of
a person in his emotions, feelings, actions,
attitudes, and thoughts, among others.”

Questions to Ponder
 Before we approach the depth of man’s being a sexual
animal, it is good to ask preliminary questions like-
 Is sex dirty?
 Do you approve of premarital sex or fornication?
 Is virginity, both to the ladies and to the gentlemen, still
of value today?
 Is the purpose of sex procreation?
 Is sex a value in itself?
 If one of the purposes of sex is procreation, why are
fornication, adultery, concubinage, and the like
deemed morally evil?

 If a spouse is sterile or impotent, would not the
purpose of sex be made futile?
 If there exists an issue of triennial cohabitation (the
wife remains a virgin after three years of marriage) or
relative impotency (the husband is impotent only when
he wants to have conjugal act with his wife, but not
with other women), can these not validate sexual
promiscuity to any of them?

Definition of Terms:
Procreation means to produce offspring by reproduction
Fornication means consenting sex involving somebody who are
unmarried: sexual intercourse between two consenting adults
who are not married to each other .
Extramarital Sex: voluntary sexual relations between a married
person and somebody other than his or her spouse. Adultery, for
wife; concubinage ,for husband.
Sterile means incapable of becoming pregnant or of inducing
pregnancy
Impotent means unable to perform sexual intercourse, usually
because erection of the penis cannot be achieved or sustained
Sexual Promiscuity means a behaviour characterized by casual
and indiscriminate sexual intercourse, often with many people

 Sex is basically a human activity. Only human beings
can engage in sex; animals do not, although they have
sexuality. Animals mate; they do not engage in sex.
Since sex is a human activity, it is, therefore,
fundamentally oriented towards procreation.
 In other words, the sense of responsibility is embedded
in this activity. Thus, it is not just a mere activity since it
has its divine implication which can be translated into a
responsible sexual engagement.
 In this light, sex can only be justified and should be
empirically exercised in the context of marriage
because, in itself, marriage guarantees the embedded
responsibility in sex.

Sex and Love
 Sex is a biological event. Sex is an act for getting sexual
pleasure and for reproduction purpose.
 On the other hand, love is an emotion of personal
attachment and strong affection. In philosophical context,
the term love is a virtue showing all of human affection,
compassion and kindness.
 Love and sex are involved with each other; however sex
could occur without love and love could exist without sex.
 Love could be a strong feel towards a person, object or to
his or her goal only if one values them greatly, deeply and
is committed to it. It is an emotional bond between two.
 Sex is a physical act; it could be between two or more than
two persons or by one’s self.

Sex and Society
 Our society today is saturated with sex. Sex exists
everywhere. It is projected in clothing designs; it is in
the magazines, music and movies; it is in the
advertisements of whatever sort; it is in the stickers,
shirts, etc.
 As a whole, the contemporary man needs a
reorientation towards the real meaning of sex and
even of sexuality since there are some who want to
change and even have changed their sex.

 One of the devastating blows which the authentic
meaning of sex suffers is its being disassociated
from love.
 Love, instead of being prior to sex, becomes
reversed; sex instead, is made prior to love. The
truth of the matter is that sex is just the effect of love,
not vice-versa.

 There are manifold misconceptions and malpractices
regarding sex. Although it is true that there can be love even
without sex, sex without love must not be accepted and
tolerated despite the fact that it is done.
 It is commonplace to hear of people in mainstream society to
have affairs. People who have affairs are those who prefer to
engage in love and sex in the absence of commitment to
marry. Many of these people are young.
 Hence, it is good for teachers in human sexuality to deal with
topics like teenage relationship, reproductive system,
childbirth, marriage, abortion, sexually transmitted diseases,
reproductive health problems, birth control and the like.


Sex and Love
 “Women give sex to get love. Men give love to get sex.” This
is equivalent to harassment and degradation of the sanctity
of feminine sexuality.
 This kind of behavior requires the serious concern
specifically of parents and sex education teachers. Sex
should not be divorced from love. Sex should be used only in
accordance with the plan and will of God.
 Within God’s plan, man’s sexual instinct is good since it is a
powerful source of life, and of unity between two human
beings. If contrary to God’s plan, sex becomes a means of
division, a source of perversion, cruelty and even death.
 Hence, sexual union is justified only when it is an expression
of love. And since true love demands permanence and
faithfulness, true love then seeks the happiness of one’s
partner, not of one’s self

Sex and Marriage
 In as much as sex should only be engaged upon
in the context of marriage, then it should, in the
context of modesty, be called marital act or
conjugal act that inevitably results in the
formation of a domestic society we call family.
 As a marital act, sex becomes the greatest
expression and consummation of love that binds
the spouse to partake in the sacredness of their
commitment to each other and to their off
springs.

Marriage is the only means towards the
exercise of sex. Outside marriage, sexual practices
are perversions, distortions and are, therefore,
against God’s plan. Through marriage each human
person’s uniqueness in the dimension of sex is being
complemented. Sexuality, which is always more than
genital sexuality, expresses the fundamental fact that
human beings live as male and female, relating to
each other as two incomplete beings that only
become complete when they unite, by
complementing each other.

 Sexual Revolution (Transformation of Man’s Consciousness and Conduct
Towards Sex)
One of the alarming revolutions in this century, particularly in the last several decades,
is called the sexual revolution. The Filipinos have learned to alter their conscious and
conduct relative to sex. This is evident both in high and low societies in the Philippines.
Today, swapping of marital partners is done by some members of the upper class. What
is unacceptable before is now tolerated, although this tolerance is not absolute. Concrete
examples are homosexuality, lesbianism, premarital sex, fornication, live-in or common-
law marriage, concubinage, adultery and prostitution.
Before, homosexuals and lesbians were considered deviants. Today, they are accepted
as normal members of the society. All these are evident manifestations of modern and
contemporary sexual trends; they are irrefutable proofs that sexual revolution is
continuing.

o A dynamic principle of action
o The fundamental characteristic of the
human person’s-being-with-others
o It could be subjective hence
irrational or objective hence rational

Man: The Lover
Love is a strong force within man that drives him to make
things that seem to be impossible. The concrete examples of
love’s power which drive man to break the walls that of what
is preconceived as extraordinary are- the Hanging Garden of
Babylon, the TajMahal in Agra, India, the San Juanico Bridge
(that connects Samar and Leyte symbolizing therein
Ferdinand Marcos’ love to the Leytena Imelda Romualdez).
 Nevertheless, madness in love does not always drive man
to do positive or constructive things. It also drives man to
destroy what he loves.
This contention is precisely affirmed by Oscar Wilde when
he said that “every man kills the thing he loves; the coward
does it with a kiss, the brave with a sword.
’’ Thus, love also means pain and even death.

Love is dynamic principle of action. It serves as the
fundamental characteristic of the human person’s being-with-
others.
 As a passion or as an emotion, it can be purely subjective,
hence irrational, or objective, hence rational.
 It is purely subjective and irrational when its beholder is
enjoying himself in his being with his beloved who is just a
tool in keeping him pleased with himself.
On the contrary, love is objective and rational when it is
really the other person that the lover loves and enjoys
specifically as a person whose being and uniqueness are
important in themselves.
“The capacity of love, objectively, is what makes us
persons…Love then is at… the core of our rational
consciousness.”

A human person is guided by love to
discover others as values. Through love, man
learns how to consider others as persons, as
other “Is” and not as means but ends in
themselves. Through love, man is guided to act
properly as a loving person.

Ludic
Love
Players
Quantity rather than
Quality
Storge
Love
Affection
Pragma Love
Wants Compatability
Eros
Romance
Filial love or
Philia
Friendship
Manic Love
Obsession
Agape
Unconditional love

He emphasizes that living beings need others like
themselves, that sexual love unites spiritual and
carnal love, that there is no normal man outside a
normal human relationship, and that man has the
duty to love.
Teilhard de Chard
1. Love is an Encounter
2. Love is Silent
5. Love is Growth
4. Love is Giving
3. Love Always Seeks for
Unification

6. Love is Action
7. Love is Creative
8. Love is Mutual
9. Love is the Supreme Value
10. Love is Mysterious
11. Love is a Decision

Man: The Lover
Love is a strong force within man that drives him to make things
that seem to be impossible. The concrete examples of love’s power
which drive man to break the walls that of what is preconceived as
extraordinary are- the Hanging Garden of Babylon, the TajMahal in
Agra, India, the San Juanico Bridge (that connects Samar and
Leyte symbolizing therein Ferdinand Marcos’ love to the Leytena
Imelda Romualdez).
 Nevertheless, madness in love does not always drive man to do
positive or constructive things. It also drives man to destroy what
he loves.
This contention is precisely affirmed by Oscar Wilde when he said
that “every man kills the thing he loves; the coward does it with a
kiss, the brave with a sword.
’’ Thus, love also means pain and even death.

Man: The Believer
“There is but one freedom. To put oneself right
with death. After that everything is possible. I
cannot force you to believe in God. Believing in
God amounts to coming to terms with death.
When you have accepted death, the problem of
God will be solved-and not the reverse.”-Albert
Camus

 Faith and Man
Bertrand Russell, a philosopher, argue that
religion or faith is a result of fear of the unknown or fear of
what is next to happen after death. True enough, it is
undeniably horrible to imagine what is going to happen
after we die. But in the epigraph, Albert Camus provides a
sound antithetical argument that as long as man accepts
God, death ceases to be problem. He gave emphasis of
freedom i.e., belief in God is a choice; and when one has
embraced the choice to believe in God, then the depth of
one’s fear of the unknown will vanish.

Man’s search for the meaning of his
existence will become superficial, inauthentic and
unwholesome, and the will eventually collapse when
it is disassociated from God. It is true that not all men
believe in God. However, man’s disbelief in God can
never affect the truth of God’s existence. God is
neither conditioned nor determined by man’s belief.
Whether man acknowledges God or not, God,
remains as He is.

The existence of evil, atheism, suffering, pain
and all sorts of human tribulations are not deterrents
for man from believing God. But belief in God is not
all that matters. Man’s love of God is also on the
same footing in terms of importance. However it is
true, there are many men who walk astray. Instead of
loving God, they hate God. But even if man hates
God, God remains a loving God to his creatures,
primarily man.

If man has to be taught to love God, how can
man do it if, first of all, he does not know WHO GOD
IS? If love has always its object, then, it is impossible
for a person to love somebody if he does not know
him. It is, therefore, clear that man should know God.
It is an indispensable criterion that man should
question why he believes in God so as to make his
faith not just a mere faith or a blind faith but a
reasoned faith. When faith is reasoned, it becomes
truer, firmer, and more substantial.

The most spectacular and comprehensive
question about God’s existence is the one which is
raised by Feodor Dostoevski when he said that if
God does not exist, it follows that everything is
permitted. The wisdom of this contention lies in the
fact that in the concrete human experience, not
everything is permitted. Therefore, there is God
because if there is no God, we certainly will live in a
world of utter confusion, chaos, and moral disorder.


There were no atheists in the medieval period.
The people who contradicted the Christian belief during
this time were only a handful of heretics and infidels.
Atheism rose only during the modern and contemporary
periods. With the advancements in science and
technology, the modern and contemporary man has
started denying that God is his Creator, Sustainer, and
Redeemer. He doesn’t want to accept God as the most
powerful or Omnipotent Being. Armed with his
sophisticated discoveries, man wants to compete with
God.

The present society has lost its faith in God. The
contemporary man claims he does not need God anymore.
Through his inventions, he believes that he is more powerful than
God. The present-day atheists are convinced that their robots
and computers are more powerful and mysterious than man
created by God. But we know they miss a very important point.
They forgot that they-who are the inventors of these highly
sophisticated machines-, come from God. Moreover, these
atheists should wrestle with the fact that they can never make
life, since life can never be made, but created. And only God can
do it. The inescapable fact is that these atheists can never create
a single blade of living grass or single strand of living hair.

Philosophy of Man - Dr Diosdado Estamada

Recommended

More Related Content

What's hot

What's hot (20)

Similar to Philosophy of Man - Dr Diosdado Estamada

Similar to Philosophy of Man - Dr Diosdado Estamada (20)

Philosophy of Man - Dr Diosdado Estamada