Moral and Ethics: Introduction

Dr. Ferdinand D. Dagmang

Culture, Personal Dispositions We have inherited the lifestyles and the dispositions of our ancestors. What have remained of these lifestyles have become part of the familiar customs, rituals, traditions, beliefs, etc., or, in one word, culture. Culture, one handed-down from generation to generation, survives in our routines and in our ways of apprehending, thinking, feeling, and acting. Our dispositions are marked by our culture as we are predisposed to walk through its paths, guided by its directions, to further reproduce and reinforce it. Sometimes we create new ways of living that somehow deviate from old habits and predispositions. But even in our creative inventions, the past as background, foreground, underground, and inner-worldly ground, would still act as the broader platform for the possible emergence of something new. Even as our new culture improves on the culture of our ancestors, it is still that already sedimented culture that makes possible for some of our creations. No matter how radical some inventions or new ways would appear to our old selves, those old grounds and old ways are there to support or accommodate or take hold of the new. Culture makes possible for humans to flow and integrate into society. Humans, in their effort to survive or to belong or to acquire distinction, become disposed to cultures codes and rules. We willingly snap into the symbols, representations, and dynamics that our culture provides. Thus we gain many things from culture-boundedness and social-belongingness. Culture and society do not, however, operate according to precise measures of humanitys expectations and need for happiness, health, or fulfillment. A great amount of unpredictable consequences, many of them negative, form part and parcel of what we call social and cultural patterns of life. Not only that, sewn into the fabric of life are the fragile threads that easily break, creating gaps that cause innumerable unintended miseries to many people or destruction and devastation to nature. Nevertheless, even in the glaring presence of rips and chasms, we still cling on to what we have inherited; culture thus survives even when it is imperfect and full of holes. The imperfection and fragility of culture also mark our ways and dispositions. Even the negative consequences that it brings about also rub into our ways. In other words, we carry 1

in ourselves and in our ways the limits of culture and our state of affairs. Our skills, abilities, and sense of freedom carry with them ample amount of cultures limits and societys flaws. All products of human minds and hands have been saddled by these limits and flaws; this characterizes a normal human predicamentthe human condition. Nothing produced by humans is free from the fragility of human dispositions, human ambivalence, and the ambiguities of nature and the social order. With the innumerable ways of living together in a decent or humane way, life becomes somewhat bearable and even meaningful even if it is a very disconcerting, if not burdensome, affair. Efforts to make life more bearable and meaningful have aimed to make the human condition more orderlyto lessen the effects not only of natural misfortunes but also of human-made conflicts and adversities. These efforts have come down to us as common approaches or ways of making life more manageable; these may be part of a wider popular culture or the more specific ways of managing the state of political and economic affairs of a modern/post-modern society. These also provide standards of behavior which every citizen considers as binding or obligatory. Moral Standards Many of us are cognizant of the prevailing moral standards of our society expressed in religious prescriptions/norms, common sense rooted in the pool of cultural traditions and everyday life as well as secular laws, contractual obligations, and institutionalized routines in commercial areas and workplaces. But we are also aware that we are not always faithful to the implicit standards or explicit norms of behavior. Many times, we are not our own masters; we want to become better persons but are unable to execute the right actions, whether prescribed or not. Even if we know what is right, somehow we do the opposite or produce something harmful to us and to others. Thus, even if our intentions are good, we sometimes do what is not good; and sometimes when we do what is accepted as good, we produce what could be injurious to persons. The unintended unpleasant by-products of our efforts to bring about good (like the production of CFC for air conditioners or refrigerators producing the large hole in the ozone layer; or earning bigger income through overtimes we lose time to be with our family and lose our loved ones eventually) are there staring at us openly. We become bewildered or confused and many times we just focus on what we 2

regard as good and ignore or be indifferent to what most of us cannot accept; and we go on multiplying our mistakes. Socio-cultural standards of behavior, as well as explicit norms imposed by corporate entities and other commercial systems, inform and guide people in their everyday affairs. These come handy when needed to judge choices or acts at home, in the neighborhood, at work, in school, and in marketplaces. What is deemed wholesome and agreeable must somehow fit the standards which are also translated into specific norms that categorically command or prohibit. The standards are somehow maintained firm and stable through the norms that are kept and observed. Thus the commands: Do not do Do These come mostly as common-sensical prescriptions, implicit pre-established norms, or explicit rules and obligations. Transform Behavior or Transform Society? When cancer and other system-dependent diseases like lupus, psoriasis, and arthritis are treated through chemotherapy, or radiation, or steroids, we are made to believe that these are diseases caused by mechanisms that could be isolated and thus inhibited or killed to produce healing to the body. A more helpful approach to such diseases is to see them being caused by the bodys weakened immune system that is itself ravaged by the myriad factors prevalent in modernity: stress and alienation; extended separations from loved ones; rationalized schedules and routines that produce prolonged anxiety as well as depression; diet full of sugar, starch, and meat saturated with synthetic growth enzymes and other chemicals, and lack of fruits and vegetables; fruits and vegetables cooked and devoid of lifegiving enzymes and vitamins (and loaded with fertilizers and pesticides); water deficient in minerals; environment full of pollutants or contaminants; activities that are deprived of much-needed shared laughter and fulfilling fun; information and attractions that goad people to believe that accumulation of goods (and feel-good experiences) is the way to fulfillment, etc. There are indeed socio-cultural conditions or environments which support humans but at the same time threaten bodies and cause diseases; producing so much suffering. No one, whether rich or poor, male or female, young or old, lay or cleric, may escape from such conditions that also bring about spiritual malaise or negative predispositions. In effect, a 3

common situation is brought about, a power-sphere, a larger-than-human corrupting environment. We may also name this situation as a common platform or a matrix of human sinfulness. People healed from system-dependent diseases have gained back their health when they realize that a more wholeness-promoting lifestyle and a robust immune system are the real desiderata. We also call this as a holistic approach; one that not only looks at individual biochemical profiles but also the socio-cultural profile that affects a persons health. A holistic approach to health should thus take into account the background, foreground, and all the other coordinated social entities that make up life. The story of Ennis del Mar and Jack Twist of Brokeback Mountain could illustrate this point. No matter how we judge their behavior as immoral (not following societys heterosexual standards and causing injury to their spouses), we may also say that they are victims of circumstance: they were forced by a homophobic society to live a lie. There was no possibility for them to stay together in a committed, faithful, and enduring partnership. Fearing for their lives, they had to assume identities that somehow forced them to hide their love for each other. Nevertheless, what they felt for each other could not be contained and so they had to become immoral to be truthful to themselves. Their tragic story need not have happened if only social standards of their social order were that democratic and tolerant. A broader and more complete look at their predicament should not isolate their so-called immoral acts from the social background. This way, to pass judgment on their acts will also be passing judgment on the wider society. Immoral acts cannot be treated like isolated tissues; disapproved sexual acts, for instance, should thus be seen against the background of systems and structures that produce or incite them mere units of life. Isolated acts do not constitute the meaning of immorality. To isolate the immoral agent through imprisonment or decapitation does not really provide a lasting solution. Any version of penology could inform us about this. The bigger problem is: the society and the culture that breed agents to be disposed to commit acts that would cause injury to themselves, to other persons or communities. If we are able to see this, we might be able to feel sympathy with the so-called immoral personto commiserate with him in his predicament because we too are possible candidates to immorality. Who would destroy a victim but someone who cannot seem to understand the predicament of being wounded, or

injured by a larger reality that threatens to reduce all other beings into an error-prone and suffering lot? We regard our social standards as leading us towards the good. When we adapt ourselves to these standards it is more likely that we are following tested paths; paths confirmed by our ancestors as sure ways for the flourishing of life. When we adopt a particular pattern of behavior pre-judged as good by society, we have freed ourselves from the more meticulous examination of determining whether this pattern of behavior is good or not. It is our tendency to follow and adopt ways that were already there before we were born. These enduring ways have survived and will survive even after we die. One of such ways, with its corresponding standards of thought and behavior, is the socio-economic system that we call liberal-capitalist. It has produced much good to societies; it has also produced much misery to people. It would seem that any choice linked to this system cannot avoid the doubleedged sword that hangs above the head of every citizen of a liberal-capitalist world. The subject in modernity may be a very strong subject in terms of assertion of rights, liberty, freedom, and autonomy. This does not mean that he is that strong because he is not objectively determined by any socio-cultural pattern or force. It is precisely because of a mold or a force springing from a very specific setting that he becomes formed to be disposed as assertive of rights, liberty, freedom, and autonomy. In other words, a kind of person is shaped by that society and culture where he was born, nurtured, educated, and learned to work. A liberal-capitalist society needs to flourish; it demands the existence of functional and effective agents rights-bearing, libertarian, free, and autonomous agents. Agents know this; that is why they prepare themselves to be fit for that kind of society. If society and culture shape and condition our character and identity, how are we able to fight against those contradictions that produce disvalues and sufferings? There is no such thing as a perfect society and culture; there is thus no perfect individual who is just surely shaped according to the image and likeness of ones society and culture. It is no secret, however, that there are some among us who are able to identify the limits or the vices of our society and the blindness of our culture. In those persons are found behavior and articulations that show some reason to get dissatisfied and be sad about what seems values, necessities, and unexchangeble goods. It is not usual to find people everyday who could point out the viciousness of standard practices or the perversity of traditional beliefs. Our minds, hearts, and legs are so used to the taken-for-granted, familiar and tested activities as 5

well as the enthroned conventional ideas and rituals. It would not be easy for these exceptionally insightful or prophetic persons to convince ordinary people about their warped practices and ideas. Such practices and ideas are still the only practices and ideas that offer them ways to fulfill their goals, to pursue resources, and to assert values. Criticisms and exposs of contradictions or conflicts are not yet alternatives. But, attempts to point out the contradictions of a social and cultural order also carry with them insights that may lead into alternative forms of life. It is normally the victims (of the former socio-cultural order) and their sympathizers who would be able to provide the counter-moves necessary for the more positive alternative moves towards transformation. Ethics Ethics is practical knowledgepropositions about a virtuous character and right living; product of a sustained discernment. As a discipline, it deals with the general principles for human decision-making, right action, and character formation. It is especially exemplified by the liberationist forms of ethics like people empowerment and community building. The clarification of what constitutes right and wrong action is not just attached to what is merely defined, customary, or approved behavior. It goes farther than prescribing a definite action by including an examination of determinants of prescriptions or decision-making. It does cover diverse elements which construct beliefs, attitude, and behavior in a given time and space like cultural traditions, work, race, gender, and fealties. In other words, the search for what is right must have to include clarification of either what fosters or what does not foster wholesome relationships. It is also a search for what contributes to personal growth and what promotes community building. The definition of norms and values for concrete behavior must be consistent with that view of what does constitute people promotion. Sometimes, as in the case of Christian ethics, it is necessary to cultivate a certain loyalty to a model of people-affirming attitudes and behavior. Jesus of Nazareth, through his life and ministry, gives himself up as the model. His example opens up doors leading to personal and communal growth. Thus, settings that foster social awareness, cooperation, and altruistic behavior should be the focus of an ethics that promotes the dignity of individuals and groups. We certainly are engulfed by the individualistic and competitive spirit of the liberal-capitalist setup. To be 6

critical against this spirit; to be emancipated from its ambit of influence, is to be more attuned to the sources of enlightened and altruistic orientation. The demand for the humanly possible could take its model of humanity in the person of Jesus of Nazareth. He taught that the divine qualities of forgiveness and compassion are humanly attainable. What is humanly possible is neither a demeaning of the human being adequately considered nor a disregard for humans capacity for self-transcendence. How often have human beings surpassed themselves as males, females, or gaysbecause of Jesuss inspiration and because those instances are not totally beyond grasp.