Life versus Righteousness: A Philosophical Reflection on Mencius text 6A:10 by Roland Aparece, MA PM; MAT PH (A sample reflection paper

for my students)
Reflection Paper on the book of Mencius text: 6A:10 . Mencius said, I like fish and I like the bears paw. If I cannot have both of them, I shall give up the fish and choose the bears paw. I like life and also righteousness. If I cannot have them both, I shall give up life and choose righteousness. In this text, Mencius gives us a good example about a taste and preference, and a closely examined ethical principle based of the hierarchy of values. For this reason, this reflection paper is divided into two major points, first, on matters dealing with taste and preference and, second on the ethical principles based on the hierarchy of values. Which do you want fish or bears paw? In the first part of the text, Mencius attests that he likes both fish and bears paw. In matters of taste and preference, fish is delicious but maybe bears paw is far more tasty and expensive than fish thats why Mencius opted to choose the bears paw. In matters of supply, obviously fish is more abundant and easier to catch, while, bear is rare and much dangerous to hunt. Thus, its not ordinary to eat bear in a daily meal compared to the availability of fish. Now from this simple example on hierarchy in matters of taste and preference, Mencius proceeds to evaluate the objective values of life and righteousness. Which will you choose life or righteousness? In the same line of thought, Mencius attests the he likes both life and righteousness. All these are valuable in themselves. But if he cannot have both of them, he will choose to give up life and choose righteousness instead. On the level of first impressions, choosing righteousness above life sounds good and holy. However, this good conviction demands philosophical analysis both in theory and above all in practice. May be one will ask, why not favor life? How could one pursue righteousness if one is already dead? The immediate response is, righteousness is worth dying for! But upon analyzing closely, what then are the dangers of glorifying life above righteousness? First, this simply means that human life is the measure of all things. The value of everything would be relative to the human person who gives it value and meaning. This is just like the Sophist who claimed that human being is the measure of all things. In other words, everything is relative to man. So, it follows that there is no universal norm of morality. Now assuming without conceding that human life is the measure of all things, then whats there in human life that makes it as the highest value? Externally, human beings have body. For us to survive, we need to eat nutritious food like fish and bears paw, and a refreshing drink; we need also to clean ourselves, do regular exercise, and sexually reproduce ourselves in order to perpetuate human existence in this world. But is it valid to claim that the development of the human body is highest value of all? No, I think it is false. That claim is very shallow. If our goals in life are to simply eat, drink, clean, exercise and have sex, then there is no difference between human beings and animals. All animals do the same. If this is the case then, the external dimension of being human is not valid reason. Thus, a closer examination on the subjective dimension is needed. What is it that moves human being from within? What are the passions that impel us to move? Internally, human beings are moved by pleasure, wealth, power, and honor in his pursuit of happiness in life. But what are the norms to follow? It is evident that this is merely dependent on the human being concerned. Thus, ethics in this regard is relative to the human being because he is the measure of all things. But if we will continue to glorify human life as the highest value then the question is whose life Im going to preserve? What about the life of my enemies? Ultimately, this will lead to extreme anthropomorphism whose bottom line is self-preservation. It will lead to the survival of the fittest. All actions in this paradigm would be justified, even to the extent of doing evil, as long as the end goal is the preservation of life. Thus, the 1

end, justifies the means. Moreover, from this perspective, it will be okay to destroy the environment. After all, the earth is just a means for us to live. But basing from history, we also suffered environmental calamities precisely because we dont protect the environment. It follows then that we belonged to the web of life, the circle of life that affects us all. Therefore, glorifying life above righteousness does not have a moral ground. On the other hand, what are the consequences of following righteousness above life? There are three important implications of righteousness that I have in mind, first, the effects of righteousness to my life as an educator, second, the effects of righteousness to the community and third, to the Nation. First, this is concerned about my vocation as a missionary teacher. I have been teaching in the University of Bohol for the past four years and it has been clear to me that my vocation is to be a missionary teacher in my own little way. I may not be a missionary priest, but I will be a missionary teacher. Indeed, if my academic life as educator is simply about survival, then teaching will remain career in my life. I may become an expert soon in the fields of my specialization but my goal is to simply serve my personal needs and the needs of my family. I may be able to satisfy the thirst for knowledge of my students, but it will be only about knowledge and some technical skills. Teaching will always be an eager anticipation of the pay day. On the other hand, if I see my academic life as a pursuit for righteousness, then teaching will be a vocation for me. In this perspective, the teacher transcends beyond personal survival. The teachers who choose righteousness teach both knowledge and values. Personally, as philosophy teacher I will be an agent of cultural transformation. Instead of glorifying the pre-philosophic period wherein they explained and predicted phenomena on the basis of witchcraft, magic and mythology, or simply asked practical questions for survival, my task will be to teach my students how to philosophize, how to explained and predict phenomena on the basis of reason. By choosing righteousness, the horizon of the teachers vision extends beyond my life. Just like the heroic story of Dr. Jose Rizal. He died long time ago, but his vision about love of country and education remains valid forever. So, in following righteousness, one is building a country. Second, this concerns the impact of righteousness to the community. If righteousness is the choice of everyone then there is always hope for solidarity among community members. Each individual will do his job. One needs not to belittle nor exaggerate oneself. Everybody will really participate for the good of the community. This is similar to the Body of Christ in the Pauline tradition. It is impossible to have a body composed of all heads, or eyes. It will not be a complete body. The community is a diversity of talents. I just imagine what will happen if all drivers will die? What will happen if all garbage collectors will die? Or what will happen if all the tailors and dress makers will die? Thus we really need each other. More so, the community is in a constant state of becoming since all members are alive and mistakes and failures of the members are inevitable. But its good to have a target which is righteousness. We may fail on several occasions but that struggle to follow righteousness must go on. The ultimate test here is on limit situations. We are living in a morally complex world. A simplistic approach is not viable. There are cases when one is forced either to choose life or righteousness. We have the classic case of Galileo; to avoid death, he chose to detest his scientific discoveries. He may be acting practically because he was already very old at that time. But we have many cases also when men choose to be radical in choosing righteousness even if their lives are at stake. We have the examples of Dr. Jose Rizal, Fr. Rhoel Gallardo, CMF, Bro. Richie Fernando, SJ and many others. In these cases, the path of righteousness is worth dying for. The life of Jose Rizal is very familiar to all Filipinos. It was possible for him to choose a good career as a doctor. He could have chosen a beautiful life. More so, it was possible for him to escape when he was captured but for the love of the Philippines he chose to face death. This is true also in the case of Fr. Rhoel Gallardo. His martyrdom is not so familiar to all except maybe for the Claretian Missionaries in the Philippines. Indeed, when he was kidnapped by the Muslim terrorists together with some teachers and many students, he could have 2

opted to escape by embracing the faith of the kidnapers. In fact, he was even offered to have a Muslim wife to allure him of embracing their faith. But he chose to be firm and therefore died on the process. The case of Bro Richie Fernando is familiar among the Jesuits. He was an alumnus of Claret School thats why I know also his case. He chose to grab the grenade from the man so that the man could not throw it to the children inside the school. Thus, the grenade exploded and he died together with the man. The call of righteousness is very radical at times especially when the situations call us to give our life. It demands absolute immediacy. Otherwise, our conscience will condemn us for not doing what is good and righteous here and now. The third implication deals with the impact of righteousness to our country. The Philippines right now is troubled by corruptions, political maneuvers aimed for power, economic instability and many more. I think, part of the solution here is to choose righteousness over life. I always feel this strong emotion whenever I read the analysis of the Philippine Revolution by Apolinario Mabini (The Philippine Revolution by Apolinario Mabini, http://www.univie.ac.at/voelkerkunde/apsis/aufi/history/mabini2.htm): To sum it up, the Revolution failed because it was badly led; because its leader won his post by reprehensible rather than meritorious acts; because instead of supporting the men most useful to the people, he made them useless out of jealousy. Identifying the aggrandizement of the people with his own, he judged the worth of men not by their ability, character and patriotism but rather by their degree of friendship and kinship with him; and anxious to secure the readiness of his favorites to sacrifice themselves for him, he was tolerant even of their transgressions. Because he thus neglected the people forsook him; and forsaken by the people, he was bound to fall like a waxen idol melting in the heat of adversity. God grant we do not forget such a terrible lesson, learnt at the cost of untold suffering. I choose to quote the whole summary because this will be the extreme implications if one makes the preservation of life as the highest value. The issue here is about self-interest versus national interest. Its good that one of our national heroes reflected on this issue because we experienced a similar case right now. We could hardly move forward because our identity as a nation is not absolutely in lined with righteousness. Thus, we really need to go back and reflect again the lessons learnt from the very foundation of our Nation. We really need to follow righteousness, least we will continue to do the same mistakes again. Lastly, I would register here the boundless disgust of Mabini every time he heard that Filipinas were raped by Filipino soldiers during the Revolution yet the criminals remained unpunished by their commanders. This case is similar to what happened recently in this country. Former Presidents Marcos and Estrada rape the money of the people. Sad to say the multibillion dollar money of the Marcos family were never returned to this country. Last year, President Estrada was convicted of plunder but he was released immediately by presidential pardon of Pres. Macapagal-Arroyo. So, we are simply repeating the past. What a shamebut the challenge to choose and live a righteous life must go on. It will be a very long engagement as I envision the future of this country. The challenge seems insurmountable. But Ill always find hope for a better Philippines. Our national heroes encountered these problems before and they made a difference. Now this is our time and I think this is the reason why we need to read again the literatures during the very foundation of our Nation. In this way we are in communion with them. There is always hope. A journey of thousand miles always begins where you stand. Hopefully, this will be the mission that Im going to share with my students when Ill go back to Bohol. I hope and pray I will make a difference in my own little way. Lets choose righteousness over life. May God Bless the Philippines!