WEST VISAYAS STATE UNIVERSITY

Graduate School
Soc. Sci 612

Filipino Social Philosophy

Marlene S. Gloria
Reporter

Atty. Gerardo Erebaren, Ed.D

Professor

Foundations of Moral Values

The times are never so bad that a good man cannot live in them.
- St. Thomas More
Are there Moral Absolutes?

This is not an abstract theoretical question. It is the

most concrete, practical question for our civilization. For no
civilization has ever survived without moral absolutes,
( Kreeft, 1990).
Moral Laws or Moral Values?

We can see that we have abandoned belief in moral

absolutes by looking at one key change in our language
about morality: We no longer talk about moral laws, but
about moral values. Laws are objectively real; they come
from above us and command us. The formula for a moral law
is Thou shalt or Thou shalt not. But values have no such
absolute demand. They suggest something subjective not
objective. My values or your values or societys values.
Values come from us; laws come to us. We invent values, but
we are under laws. Values are nice ideals to aspire to if we
wish; laws tell us what we ought to do whether we like it or
not.
We no longer talk about moral laws, values and about
moral absolutes. But we do like to talk about morality, a
morality without absolutes. But a morality without absolutes
is not a morality at all. Do as you please is not morality,
do what you ought is morality. Do whatever you think will
have the best consequences is not morality. Do what
works is not morality. Morality means something different
from doing what we please, or what we calculate will turn
out right, or what works; Morality means doing what we
ought to do. Morality is not optional, like value, but

obligatory, like law. A morality without laws and obligations

is simply a confusion.
Why then do people say there are no moral absolutes?
Why do they say that making moral choices is so terribly
complex and uncertain and difficult? The answer is simple
as Chesterton said, making moral decisions is always a
terribly confusing thing-to someone without principles.
According to Moga, S.J (1993), Human consciousness is
a field of conflicting forces. Mans awareness reveals not a
static world of objects that stand at rest before him but
rather a complex field of stresses where he is pulled in
opposite directions. Man is drawn both inward toward
himself, toward needs and desires that call for satisfaction
and at the same time outward beyond himself toward
values, realities of importance that demand his attention
and response. There is tension and confusion in mans life as
these forces pull him in opposite directions .
THE HUMAN PERSON THE EXISTENTIALIST VIEW
Existentialism
is a philosophical movement which claims that
individual human beings create the meanings and
essence of their own lives.
its central proposition is that existence precedes
essence; that is, a human beings existence precedes
and is more fundamental than any meaning which may
be ascribed to human life. Therefore, humans define
their own reality.
In repetition, Kierkegaards literary character, Young
man laments: How did I get in into the world? Why
was I not asked about it and why was I not informed
of the rules and regulations but just thrust into the
ranks as if I had been bought by a peddling
shanghaier of human beings? How did I get involved in
this big enterprise called actuality?
Why should I be involved? Isnt it a matter of choice?
And if I am compelled to be involved, where is the
manager I have something to say about this. Is there
no manager? To whom shall I make my complaint?

sees individuals as striving to build up a self which

is not given, either by nature or by a culture, thus
human beings are viewed as self-created. They are
not initially endowed with characteristics but
choose their own characteristics.
believes that human beings have no given essence
or nature but muse forge on own values and
meanings in an inherently meaningfulness or
absurd world of existence.
emphasizes on lived human existence.
a philosophy that gives priority to human
existence, that is to say, subjective experience of
the world, rather than to abstract or objective
structures or essences.
views human existence as radically different in
nature from the existence of the physical world, in
so far as men and women are free to make of
themselves the kind of people they want to be and
to some extent; to make themselves the kind of
world they want to live in.
human beings are thus not rational decisionmakers but the subjects of their experiences
a movement emphasizing human condition above
other things in the world.
As Soren Kierkegaard said: In our world today,
there are no human beings because the individual
man has taken refuge in the collective idea which
are the crowd, the masses, the group and the
public, this compelled Kierkegaard to complain
that in the age of the crowd nothing becomes
personal.
Who are these crowd?. The crowd refers to
people who prevent the subject to be what he
wants to be. According to Kierkegaard, man in this
generation is superbly rational. Man must
understand that he must be conscious of his
choice instead of his reason. Man should stop to
become to be too rational in favor of his personal
choice. Man has forgotten to live life. He has
forgotten to exist. This is the battlecry of
existentialism.

Man must not only live; he must exist. He should

exist ( unlike lower animals) in order for him to
assert himself despite predicaments, problems and
frustrations in life. Man must learn to carry his life
freely with responsibility not only for himself but
considers others in every decision he makes. Man
must strive to exist by striving to make it
different according to his own personal conviction.
philosophical movement oriented toward two major
themes, the analysis of
human existence
( ontology ) and the centrality of human choice
( decision ).
a philosophy of human decision.
denies the existence of natural law, an unchanging
human nature, or indeed any objective rules. Each
individual is cursed with freedom and must make
his or her own way in the worlds, although many
people resort to devices to hide this from
themselves. Life is without ultimate meaning, but
we are forced to make choices at all time.
thus, a person may said to believe in God because
he or she has chosen to do so.
other existentialists see that the only certainty for
each one of us is death, and that the individual
must live in the knowledge of that certainty.
The Proponents and their Views
Important existentialists of varying and conflicting
thoughts are Soren Keirkegaard, Karl Jaspers, Martin
Heidegger, Gabriel Marcel and Jean Paul Sartre. All revolt
against the traditional metaphysical approaches to man and
his place in the universe. Thinkers such as St. Thomas
Aquinas, Blaise Pascal and Friedrich Nietzsche have been
called existentialists, but it is more accurate to place the
beginnings of the movement with Keirkegaard. In his
concern with the problem of the individuals relationship to
God, Keirkegaard bitterly attacked the abstract metaphysics
of the Hegelians and the worldly complacency of the Danish
church. Kierkegaards fundamental insight was the
recognition of the concrete ethical and religious demands
confronting the individual. He saw that these demands could

not be met by a merely intellectual decision but required the

subjective commitment of the individual.
The necessity and seriousness of these ethical
decisions facing man was for Keirkegaard the source of his
dread and despair. Keirkegaards analysis of the human
situation provides the central theme of contemporary
existentialism.
Following him, Heidegger and Sartre were the major
thinkers connected with this movement. Both were
influenced by the work of Edmund Husserl and developed a
phenomenological method that they used in developing their
own existential analysis. Heidegger rejected the label of
existentialist and described his own philosophy as an
investigation of the nature of being in which the analysis of
human existence is only the first step.
Sartre was the only self declared existentialist among
the major thinkers. For him the central idea of all existential
thought is that existence precedes essence. For Sartre,
there is no God and therefore no fixed human nature that
forces one to act. Man is totally free and entirely
responsible for what he makes of himself. It is this freedom
and responsibility that, as for Keirkegaard, is the source of
mans dread. Sartres thought, as expressed in his novels
and plays as well as in his more formal philosophical
writings, strongly influenced a current in French Literature,
best represented by Albert Camus and Simone de Beauvoir.
In France, the most prominent exponent of a Christian
existentialism was Gabriel Marcel, who developed his
philosophy within the framework of the Roman Catholic
church.
Among the leading German existentialist was Karl
Jaspers, who developed the central Keirkegaardian insight
along less theological lines.
Various other theologians and religious thinkers such as
Karl Barth, Martin Buber, Paul Tillich and Reinhold Niebuhr
are often included within the orbit of existentialism.

Sartrean Existentialism
Existence precedes essence
This is a reversal of the Aristotlean premise that
essence precedes existence, where man exists to fulfill
some purpose. Sartrean existentialism argues that man has
no predefines purpose or meaning; rather, human define
themselves in terms of who they become as their individual
lives are played out in response to the challenge posed by
existence in the world.
Values are subjective
Sartre accepts the premise that something in the
Facticity (properties of an object or person as traditionally
conceived and experienced) of an individual is valuable
because the individual consciousness chooses to value it.
Sartre denies that there are any objective standards on
which to base values. However, this should not be confused
with post modernism. Sartre clearly believed that systems
of consciousness followed clear and solid rules.
Bad Faith
Sartre believed that people lie to themselves and,
underneath these lies, people negate their own being
through patterns. The preceperi is similar to what today is
called insight. It is necessary to get rid of bad faith.
The Gaze
Sartre believed that beings possess the power to
look at themselves and at another or an object, which is to
use ones mind to look at the person in static. This concept
of looking and the power to look, is referred to as the
Gaze. This destroys an objects subjectivity. The things
becomes an in itself or an object. Sartre stated that this
form of consciousness was used quite often in interpersonal
relationships. People place meaning onto what other people
think of them rather than what they think of themselves.
This process of radically re-aligning this meaning from the

Gaze onto ones own being is what leads to periods of socalled existential angst.
Being for others
Sartre believed that people who cannot embrace
there freedom seek to be looked at that is, to be made an
object of anothers subjectivity. This creates a clash of
freedoms whereby person As being (or sense of identity) is
controlled by what person Bs thoughts about him are.
Responsibilities for Choices
The individual consciousness is responsible for all
the choices it makes, regardless of the consequence.
Condemned to be free because mans actions and choices
are his and his alone, he is condemned to be responsible for
his free choices.
There are several terms Sartre uses in his works
Being in-itself is an object that is not free and cannot
change its essence. Being for-itself is free; it does not need
to be what it is and can change into what it is
not.Consciousness unusually considered being for-itself.
Sartre distinguish between positional and non-positional
consciousness. Non-positional consciousness is being
merely conscious of
ones surroundings. Positional
consciousness puts consciousness into relation of ones
surroundings. This entails an explicit awareness of being
conscious of surroundings. Sartre argues identity is
constructed by this explicit awareness of consciousness.
Other Works with Existentialist themes and provided a
welcoming climate for existentialism:
Gautama Buddhas teachings
Bible (Book of Ecclesiastes, Book of Job)
Saint Augustine (Confessions)
Saint Thomas Aquinas
Mulla Sadras Writings
John Locke in his advocacy of individual autonomy and
self-determination

Human Freedom
The word freedom is taken from the Latin word
liber (Libertas) which means free. Literally, freedom is the
right of an individual to think, act, or live as he chooses
without being subjected to any restraints and restrictions by
necessity or force.
All men seem to be at least experientially aware of
freedom in choice. The experience is so primary, in fact, that
it is difficult to conceive oneself operating as if there were
no freedom at all. It has often been maintained that this
universal experience of freedom provides the greatest proof
for its own experience.
B.F. Skinner, an extremely influential behavioral
psychologist from Harvard seems to affirm that man is not
free because: a.) all present behavior is controlled by
previous behavior, including the entire network of
environmental, psychological, and educational stimuli which
have shaped our present characters and personalities, and
b) all behavior (even the dropping of a book of matches) has
motivational causes which are necessitating causes. We
might summarize this basically by saying: man is determined
by his historicity.
Quite to the contrary of skinner, Jean-Paul Sartres
position seems to be one of absolute indeterminism or total
freedom. In Sartres view man actually has no history. The
individual has only his future project which he makes
entirely of himself and or which he alone is responsible. Man
is so free, so indeterminate, that he cannot even be defined.
Abraham
Maslow
offers
something
of
a
compromise position. Man cannot be reduced
to his
historicity , to his environment, to determinism nor can man
be totally divorced from them. To be a human person means:
a) to have potentialities which liberate him from blind
necessity-to be able to know, question, and mold himself,
and b) to be inserted into an environment and history which
help him actualize these potentialities.

The Case for Absolute freedom

For Jean Paul Sartre, man is actually free and
indeterminate because thee is no God to conceive man as a
definable essence. Rather than being an essence, man is a
structure- less phenomenon of consciousness in the world.
Man as consciousness, as for itself is purely a transparent,
volatile self projection continually negating the staticity
structure and heaviness of the In-self. And since man is his
very identity is an act of negating the In-self and an act of
self protection, his very meaning and existence is freedom,
and his nature is posterior following
from his own free defining of himself.
Mans freedom is overwhelmingly evident to Sartre
because man is able to detach himself from the world by his
acts of questioning and doubt. This is so evident in fact that
the problem of determinism, with its arguments about
motivation and causality is at best tedious.
Although Sartre seems to maintain that there is
always a situation from which we
choose, Its influence upon our freedom is inconsequential.
The

position of Sartre, consequently, is diametrically

opposed to that of skinner.
a. Since mans very identity as a For-itself involves
consciousness and freedom as immediate givens, and
since both involve negation to the structure of the Inself, man is not tied down by his facticity and the world
in which he finds himself. Rather his existence is
resistance to and transcendence from them,
because he can negate them. Freedoms meaning is a
struggle with and negation of what is given.
b. Since freedom is involved with the future and freedom
is mans identity, man is not tied down by his past or by
the choices of the past. Thus ones history, ones
environment, and ones past motivation in no way
hinder his freedom.
As opposed to Skinners total emphasis upon the past, upon
ones historicity, and upon ones environment, Sartre places
total emphasis on the future, the ability to question and
revolt, the phenomenon of distance and transcendence.

Structured Freedom
Sartre and Skinner, concentrate on levels of human
reality to the exclusion of other levels. One realm covers
mans historicity and given structure; the other realm covers
man transcendence in free questioning. Skinner focuses of
the first. Consequently he stresses mans physical, genetic,
biological
facticity,
the
external
structures
of
environmental, psychological, and historical givens, and
the way in which mans presence has been conditioned by
the history of his past. Sartre on the other hand
concentrates on the second. Thus he emphasizes mans
release from immediate, blind demands and his ability to
shape and confront his facticity. In addition, he dwells on
mans ability to question, to negate or validate external
givens, and on his openness to knowledge and love. But
the point is that integral human existence includes both of
these realms or levels. Consequently, if man is free, his
freedoms will involve both realms of his experience and any
interpretation of man must be able to integrate both realms.
Absolute
determinism
either
omits
the
data
of
transcendence and questioning or tries to reduce it to
external forces. Absolute determinism ignores mans
history and structure or tries to wish it out of existence.
Structure then is not only compatible with
freedom; it is fundamental to all human growth, evolution,
and process. Freedom is exercised only within the structure
of ones humanity and ones historicity; and it is the vehicle
by which one can remain faithful to ones humanity and
history. In Conclusion we might say:
a. Structures are the offerings of the human world.
Structures embrace historicity, environment, the
community of thought, cultural and moral heritage.
b. Structure is also the internal constitution of being a
man with human potentialities. It is the reason why
values and demands merge from his own identity as a
questioning self, a knower, a lover.
c. The structure of being a man is the basis of internally
self-constituted values.

10

Human Love
What is love? The question has been asked since the
time of Plato, not only by professional philosophers but by
the people from all walks of life. The very fact that this
question of what love is still being asked seems to show
that love is part and parcel of mans life, and a philosophy of
man is incomplete without a philosophy of love, of man as
loving.
On the other hand, love is pictured many times as an
act of possessing or being possessed by another person.
People fight and struggle in the name of love. I love you
has come to mean you are mine and I want you to do the
things I want, I want you to be what I want to be. Or else, it
has come to mean I am yours, and you can do whatever
you want me to.
Erich Fromm in his famous book, The Art of Loving
mentions the fact that the popular notion of love at present
is falling in love. People have the misconception that there
is nothing to be learned about love, that love hits a man like
lightning. He attributes this popular notion of love to three
reasons:
1. the emphasis on being loved rather than on
loving
2. the emphasis on the object loved rather than on
the faculty of loving
3. the confusion between the initial state of falling
in love and the permanent standing in love.
Loneliness and Love
The experience of love begins from the experience and
loneliness. The experience of loneliness is basically a
human experience. Because man as man is gifted with selfconsciousness, there comes a point in the stage of mans
life that he comes to an awareness of his unique self and
possibilities open to him. He becomes aware that he is

11

different from others, that he is not what others think him to

be.
The answer to the problem of loneliness is the reaching
out to the other person as another. Love is the answer to the
problem of loneliness.
Love is the union under the condition of preserving
ones integrity, ones individuality. Love is an active power in
man, a power which breaks through the walls which
separate man from his fellowmen, which unites him with
others, love makes him overcome the sense of isolation and
separateness, yet it permits him to be himself, to retain
integrity. in love the paradox occurs that two beings become
one and yet remain two.
The Loving Encounter
Loneliness ends when one finds or is found by another
in what we will call a loving encounter.
The loving encounter is a meeting of persons. The
meeting of persons is not simply being bumping to each
other, nor simply an exchange of pleasant remarks, though
these could be embodiments of a deeper meeting. The
deeper meeting here in love happens when two persons or
more who are free to be themselves choose to share
themselves. It presupposes an I-thou communication, a
communication of selves.
Love however, is not only saying, it is doing it. Love is
effective, it takes actions. Love is inseparable from care,
from labor. To love the other is to labor for that love, to care
for his body, his world, his total well being.
Accepting the other as other, as he is, is not to be taken
in a static sense. The other is also himself in his
potentialities, in his becoming. But his becoming may have a
different rhythm. His pace of growing may be faster or
slower. In such a case, respect also means being patient.
Patience is harmonizing with rhythm with his. Patience
requires a lot of waiting and catching-up, a waiting that is

12

active, ever-ready to answer to the needs of the other and a

catching up that is spontaneous and natural.
Reciprocity of Love
The appeal of the lover to the beloved is not the will
drawn from the affection for the other. It is not compelling,
dominating or possessing the other. Love wants the others
freedom.
There is indeed an element of sacrifice in loving the
other which is often understood by many as a loss of self.
In loving the other, a person has to be concerned with
himself if his love is to be authentic. Since in the loving
encounter, he is offering himself to the other, the gift of
himself must first of all be valuable to himself.
Consequently, there exists in loving the other the desire
to be loved in return. A person cannot love the other if he is
one hundred percent sure his offer will not be accepted.
The primary motive for loving the other is thus the other
himself, the You. The You is not just another self but the
you-for whom I care. It is not that the lover is blind to the
objective qualities of the other but that he is clear that the
other is over and above his qualities. The motive of the love
is you that is seen not only by the eyes or the mind but
more by the heart.
One cannot of course erase the possibility that the
rejection of the beloved could be a test of the authenticity
of love. If the other rejects my offer and I persist in loving
the other inspite of the pain, then perhaps my love is truly
selfless, unmotivated by the desire to be loved in return. But
granted that the rejection is final, the experience is painful
and it will take time for the love to recover himself from the
experience.
Equality in Love
If love is essential between persons, then it follows that
love can only thrive and grow in freedom.

13

There exists therefore an equality of persons in love,

the quality in what they are, as subjects, as freedom and not
in what they have. Cicero says, the great things in
friendship is being equal to an inferior. The bridges of love
can be built between persons of different age, race, sex,
status, nature.
The union of unique persons results in a community.
Unlike in a society where the bond comes from the common
purpose to be achieved and thus necessitates an
organization, the bond in a community springs from the
persons themselves and an organization is not necessary.
Nevertheless, the friends in a community can have a
common project to express and substantiate their unity. And
likewise the members of a society in the course of doing
their individual functions can get to know each other as
persons and not just as functions.

All true love comes from God. That tender emotion,

that ability to desire, that capacity to caress was implanted
in our being by the Creator, God. But Christ is not the
inventor of love; He is the tenderest demonstrator of love.
Not only does He create lovers; He is the worlds greatest
lover.
-Gordon O. Martinborough
References:
Sahaikan, William and Mabel. Realms of Philosophy, 1965
Dy-Jr, Manuel, Philosophy of Man, JMC press, 1994
Villanueva, Dennis, Philosophy of Man, Existential
Phenomenological Approach
Recto, Angel S., Foundations of Education (Anthropological,
Psychological, Sociological and Moral) rex Printing
Company, Inc., 2005
Martinborough, Gordon O. I Love You. Philippine Publishing
House, 2000
Kreft, Peter, Making Choices, Servant Books Publications,
1990.

14

Barnes, Hazel E. An Existentialist Ethics. New York: Knoft:

1967
Barret, William. Irrational Man: A Study in Existential
Philosophy. Garden City, N.Y.: Doubleday/ Anchor, 1958
Cotkin, George. Existential America. Baltimore: Johns
Hopkins University Press, 2002
Fulton, Ann. Apostles of Sartre: Existentialism in America ,
1945 1963. Evanston, III: Northwestern University Press,
1999.
Kaufmann, Walter, ed. Existentialism from Dostoevsky to
Sartre. New York: Meridian, 1956.

15