MA-TSS 1. How can the concept of good be defined from rationality and experience?
Good = Rationality Based on Well-being + Experience
Good, according to Merriam-Webster Dictionary, is defined as something
conforming to the moral order of the universe. When you ask a person to explain what can be considered as good, most people will assume the same definition. The term good is always equated on what is morally right. One is good if one follows the teachings of a particular belief system. Our belief system tends to be the guiding on what, why, and how can a person be considered good. However, following Aristotle’s belief, the idea of what is good (or the highest good) can be more than the act of having friends, following the Ten Commandments or abiding the law, because being good or attaining the good must come from the context of human flourishing or eudaimonia. Man, to attain the good, must attain a state human flourishing. We are to believe that we are doing specific social actions (e.g. buy and eat food, buy a house, get a car) not because of personal interests but in Aristotelian belief, those actions will lead to the state of human flourishing or well-being. This is where Bentham’s principle of utility shall take the spotlight. The said principle states that our (rational) actions are right as they promote happiness and pleasure. Humans will always choose a social action based on how he/she will benefit from it. When it comes to our own welfare or well-being, our reasoning will always point to that beneficial option. Yet, as we are well-aware off, humans are not molded to believe something as beneficial if they only have experienced it once. Hume’s context on the importance of sufficient experiences will serve as a requisite in supporting the relevance of decisions based on one’s well-being. Thus, to explain what is good, is to explain the rationality on decisions based off an individual’s well-being proven through sufficient (and repetitive) experience.
2. How is utilitarianism evident in the Lakas-ng-Loób/Bahala na Filipino trait?
Utilitarianism is the doctrine that man’s worldly happiness is the only good. It prioritizes the well-being of the majority of the people regardless of the consequence, and follows the mantra that “The end justifies the means”. The greatest happiness for the greatest number, so to speak, as it considers the weight of the majority and their happiness as opposed to one or few individual. The philosophy of utilitarianism was the guiding principle amongst welfare states in Europe and most developed nations by focusing on creating and implementing laws and policies that will benefit the majority. For a developing country like ours in which personal interests of the privileged few is being favored by the government, the greatest happiness of all Filipinos for all the Filipinos can be a wishful thinking. The idea of us becoming a welfare state by employing social and political reforms for all Filipinos feels like a dream that is still out of grasp. While the idea of achieving a welfare state through utilitarian principle was nowhere in sight, the core value of what utilitarianism is already present in one of our Filipino traits which is the lakas-ng-loob/bahala na mentality. According to Reyes’ article entitled “Loób and Kapwa: An Introduction to a Filipino Virtue Ethics”, Lakas-ng- Loób/Bahala na (positively translated as courage to face uncertainty) is not blind fatalism or just any act of courage but rather, a courage of self-sacrifice for kinship group. Rooted on the value of kapwa (together with other person), Lakas-ng-Loób/Bahala na presents the idea that Filipinos are willing to sacrifice not just for himself but for the greater good. Much like how Rizal and Aquino displayed their Lakas-ng-Loób/Bahala na mentality despite their possible (inevitable) deaths looming at the corner, they took the risk and died but for the welfare of the nation. His paper also used OFWs as modern examples of Filipinos displaying their Lakas-ng-Loób/Bahala na mentality. This mentality was display in a way that regardless of the uncertainties upon entering a foreign land for the first time, what’s important is the welfare of their families who were left in the country. For the sake of a better future for his/her family, an OFW is willing to take a risk. One can be ready to sacrifice the comforts of his/her home to provide happiness in terms of financial stability and a possibility of a better standards of living, something this country alone cannot provide. More than 10% of the total Filipino population, all left and will still leave the country with this type of attitude. In essence, we Filipinos possess the trait needed to create a nation that will benefit most, if not all, Filipinos. While Lakas-ng-Loób/Bahala na mentality is aptly presented in a more personal depiction, if placed into a larger context, we can be willing to do things for the common good. If we can be willing to transcend the Lakas-ng-Loób/Bahala na mentality from the confines of one’s household to the realms of this under-developed nation, there is still hope in seeing a country bounded by the genuine will of the majority.