Objectives:

1. To understand the human person’s freedom

2. To realize the consequences of one’s actions and choices
3. To evaluate and exercise prudence in one’s choices

Chapter 5: Freedom of the human person

1. Discuss your concepts about freedom. Symbolize your concepts and explain.

______________________________________________________________________________
______________________________________________________________________________
______________________________________________________________________________
______________________________________________________________________________
______________________________________________________________________________
______________________________________________________________________________
______________________________________________________________________________
____________________________________________________________________________

2. Identify these persons. How did they symbolize freedom?

 This chapter highlights freedom from the intellectual, political, spiritual, and economic
aspects. To be free is a part of humanity’s authenticity. In one way, understanding freedom is
part of our transcendence. Freedom consists of going beyond situations such as physical or
economic. For instance, students can be young and poor, but they can still pursue their dreams
of becoming a doctor, teacher or a stage actor. Critical thinking is an important tool towards
freedom and truth.

5.1 Realize that “all actions have consequences”

Aristotle

THE POWER OF VOLITION

The imperative quality of a judgment of practical intellect is meaningless, apart from will.
Reason can legislate, but only through will can its legislation be translated into action. The task
of practical intellect is to guide will by enlightening it. Will, in fact, is to be understood wholly in
terms of intellect. If there were no intellect, there would be no will. This is obvious from the
way in which will is rationally denominated.

The will of humanity is an instrument of free choice. It is within the power of everyone
to be good or bad, worthy or worthless. This is borne out:

(1), By our inner awareness of an aptitude to do right or wrong;

(2) By the common testimony of all human beings;

(3) By the rewards and punishment of rulers;

(4) By the general employment of praise and blame.

Moral acts, which are always particular acts, are in our power and we are responsible for
them. Character or habit is no excuse for immoral conduct. Attending class is a student’s
responsibility. Should the student cut class, then he/she is responsible for the consequences of
his actions. As a result, he/she must be held responsible for any accident or failure in grades
that will befall on him/her. The student may regret what he/she had done, but all the regrets in
the world will not call it back. The point is, the student should not have cut class in the first
instance. When the matter is sifted down, the happiness of every human being’s soul is in his
own hands, to preserve and develop, or to cast away.
 Aristotle: Intellectual Freedom

Action

Will
Reason

St. Thomas Aquinas

Love is freedom
Of all creatures of God, human beings have the unique power to change themselves and the
things around them for the better. St. Thomas Aquinas considers the human being as a moral
agent. As discussed in Chapter Three, we are both the spiritual and body elements; the spiritual
and material. The unity between both elements indeed helps us to understand our complexity
as human beings. Our spirituality separates us from animals; it delineates moral dimension of
our fulfillment in an action. Through our spirituality, we have a conscience. Whether we choose
to be “good” or “evil” becomes our responsibility.

A human being, therefore, has a supernatural, transcendental destiny. This means that he
can rise above his ordinary being or self to a highest being or self. This is in line with the idea of
St. Thomas that in the plan of God, a human being has to develop and perfect himself by doing
his daily tasks. Hence, if a human being perseveringly lives a righteous and virtuous life, he
transcends his mortal state of life and soars, to an immortal state of life.
 The power of change, however, cannot be done by human beings alone, but is achieved
with cooperation with God. Between humanity and God, there is an infinite gap, which God
alone can bridge through His power. Perfection by participation here means that it is a union of
humanity with God. Change should promote not just any purely private advantage, but the
good of the community.

Aquinas gives a fourfold classification of law: the eternal law, natural law, human law,
and divine law. Human beings, as being rational, have laws that should not only be obeyed but
also obeyed voluntarily and with understanding (for instance, in following the traffic rules). The
natural law, then, in its ethical sense, applies only to human beings. The first principle and
precept of the natural law is that good is to be sought after and evil avoided (This is the instruct
of self-preservation.) There is inherent in every human being an inclination that he shares with
all other beings, namely the desire to conserve human life and forbids the contrary. For
instance, if there is fire, and its burning heat is felt, then, it is but a human tendency to avoid it.

Since the law looks to the common good as its end, it is then conceived primarily with
external acts and not with interior disposition. For example, if someone does not lie to his
parents so they will increase his allowance, then the reason of his goodness stems not because
he does not want to lie because it will hurt them but because he knows that there is a reward
for being so. Same goes with government officials, who use full media coverage when they help
their constituents, so that people would vote for them. A person thus should not be judged
through his actions alone but also through his sincerity behind his acts.

For Aquinas, both natural and human laws are concerned with ends determined simply
by humanity’s nature. However, since a human being is in fact ordained to an end transcending
his nature, it is necessary that he has a law ordering him to that end, and this is the divine law,
or revelation.

It also gives human beings the certitude where human reason unaided could arrive only
at possibilities. It deals with interior disposition as well as external acts and it ensures the final
punishment of all evildoings. Neither of which is possible for human law. This divine law is
divided into old (Mosaic) and the new (Christian) that are related as the immature and
imperfect to the perfect and complete. We have, however, now passed beyond philosophy,
since this rests on reason and experience alone; the analysis of the divine law is the function of
theology.

For Aristotle, the purpose of a human being is to be happy. To be one, one has to live a
virtuous life. In other words, human beings have to develop to the full their powers – rational,
moral, social, emotional, and physical here on earth. For St. Thomas, he follows the same line of
thinking, but points to a higher form of happiness possible to humanity beyond this life, and
that is perfect happiness that everyone seeks but could be found only in God alone.

St. Thomas wisely and aptly chose and proposed Love rather than Law to bring about
the transformation of humanity. For Love is in consonance with humanity’s free nature, for Law
commands and complete: Love only calls and invites. Thomas emphasizes the freedom of
humanity but chooses love in governing humanity’s life. Since God is Love, then Love is the
guiding principle of humanity toward his self-perception and happiness – his ultimate destiny.

St. Thomas Aquinas: Spiritual Freedom

Actions
(Good or
evil)

Conscience

God’s
Love
Jean Paul Sartre: Individual Freedom

Sartre’s philosophy is considered to be a representative of existentialism (Falikowski, 2004).

For Sartre, the human person is the desire to be God: the desire to exist as a being which has
its sufficient ground in itself (en sui causa). There are no guideposts along the road of life. The
human person builds the road to the destiny of his/her choosing; he/she is the creator
(Srathern, 1998).

Sartre’s existentialism stems from this principle: existence precedes essence

• The person, first of all exists, encounters himself, surges up in the world and defines
himself afterwards. The person is nothing else but that what he makes of himself.
• The person is provided with a supreme opportunity to give meaning to one’s life. In
the course of giving meaning to one’s life, one fills the world with meaning.
• Freedom is therefore the very core and the door to authentic existence. Authentic
existence is realized only in deeds that are committed alone, in absolute freedom and
responsibility and which therefore the character of true creation.
• The person is what one has done and is doing, not what he/she dreams, hopes and
expects.
• On the other hand, the human person who tries to escape obligations and strives to
be en-soi, (i.e., excuses such as “I was born this way” or “I grew up in a bad
environment”) is acting on bad faith (mauvais foi).

Thomas Hobbes

Theory of Social Contract

A Law of Nature (lex naturalis) is a precept, or general rule, found out by reason, by which a
person is forbidden to do that which is destructive of his life, or takes away the means of
preserving the same; and to omit that by which he thinks it may be best preserved.

Given our desire to get out of the state of nature, and thereby preserve our lives, Hobbes
concludes that we should seek peace. This becomes his first law of nature. The reasonableness
of seeking peace, indicated by the first law, immediately suggests a second law of nature, which
is that we mutually divest ourselves of certain rights (such as the right to take another person’s
life) so as to achieve peace. That a person be willing, when others so too (this is necessary for
peace-building), to lay down this right to all things; and be contented with so much liberty
against other people, as he would allow other people against himself.
 The mutual transferring of these rights is called a contract and is the basis of the notion of
moral obligation and duty. For example, one agrees to give up his right to slap you, if you give
up your right to slap him. You have then transferred these rights to each other and thereby
become obligated not to hurt each other. From these selfish reasons alone, you are both
motivated to mutually transfer these and other rights, since this will end the dreaded state of
war. Hobbes continues by discussing the validity of certain contracts. However, one cannot
contract to give up his right to self-defense or self-preservation since it is his sole motive for
entering any contract.

The rational pursuit of self-preservation is what leads humanity to form commonwealths or

states; the laws of nature give the conditions for the establishment of society and government.
They are the rules a reasonable being would observe in pursuing his own advantage, if he were
conscious of humanity’s predicament in a condition in which impulse and passion alone rule
and if he himself were not governed simply by momentary impulse and by prejudice arising
from passion. The State itself is the resultant of the interplay of forces; and the human reason,
displayed in the conduct expressed by these rules, is one of the determining forces.

The laws of nature can be said to represent axioms and postulates that render this deduction
possible. They answer the question: What are the conditions under which the transition from
the natural state of war to the state of human beings living in organized societies becomes
intelligible? These systems are rooted from human nature and are not God-given laws. Nor do
they state absolute values for, according to Hobbes, there are no absolute values (Sorell, 1996).

In Leviathan, Hobbes asserts:

“ the fundamental law of nature seeks peace and follows it, while at the
same time, by the sum of natural right, we should defend ourselves by all
means that we can.

It follows from this that there are “some rights that no human being can
be understood by words, or other signs, to have abandoned or
transferred.” Contracts made in the state of nature are not generally
binding, for, if one fears that you will violate your part of the bargain, then
no true agreement can be reached. No contracts can be made with
animals since animals cannot understand an agreement.”

The third law of nature is that human beings perform their covenant made. Without this law
of nature, covenants are in vain and but empty words; and the right of all human beings to all
things remaining, we are still in the condition of war. Further, this law is the fountain of justice.
When there has been no covenant, no action can be unjust.

However, when a covenant has been made, to break it is unjust. Hobbes adds:
 “that covenants of mutual trust are invalid when there is fear of non-
performance on either part, and that in the natural condition of war this
fear is always present. It follows therefore that, there are no valid
covenants, and hence no justice and injustice until the commonwealth is
established; that is, until a coercive power has been established which will
compel human beings to perform their covenants.”

Hobbes maintains that human beings seek self-preservation and security; however, they are
unable to attain this end in the natural condition of war. The laws of nature are unable to
achieve the desired end by themselves alone; that is, unless there is coercive power able to
enforce their observance by sanctions. For these laws, though dictates of reason, are contrary
to humanity’s natural passions. Therefore, it is necessary that there should be a common power
or government backed by force and able to punish. This means that the plurality of individuals
should confer all their power and strength upon one human being or upon one assembly of
human beings, which may reduce all their wills, by plurality of voices, unto one will.

That is to say, they must appoint one man (or woman), or assembly of human beings, to bear
their person, a person being defined as “he whose words or actions of another human being, or
of any other thing, to whom they are attributed, whether truly or by fiction.” Hobbes makes a
distinction between a commonwealth by institution and by acquisition.

(A) A commonwealth is said to exist by institution when it has been established through
the covenant of every member of a multitude with every other member. The multitude
of human beings subjects themselves to a chosen sovereign from fear of one another.

(B) A commonwealth is said to exist by acquisition when the sovereign power has been
acquired by force. Here, human beings fear for death or bonds of that human being
who holds power over their lives and liberty.

Neither of these commonwealths affects the sovereignty. The subjects of a sovereign cannot
either change the form of government or repudiate the authority of the sovereign: sovereignty
is inalienable (Sorell, 1996). No sovereign can be unjustly put to death or in any way punished
by his subjects. For, inasmuch as every subject is author of all the sovereign’s actions, to punish
the sovereign would be to punish another for one’s own actions.

One of the prerogatives of the sovereign enumerated by Hobbes is judging what doctrines
are fit to be taught. Thus, the power of the sovereign being, to all intents and purposes
unlimited, brings forth the question of freedom (if any) to be possessed by the subjects or
ought to be possessed by them. A point of greater importance is that subjects are absolved
from their duty of obedience to the sovereign, not only if the latter has relinquished his
sovereignty, but also if he has, indeed the will to retain his power but cannot in fact protect his
subjects any longer.

If the sovereign is conquered in war and surrenders to the victor, his subjects become the
subjects of the latter. If the commonwealth is torn asunder by internal discord and the
sovereign no longer possesses effective power, the subjects return to the state of nature, and a
new sovereign can be set up.

Jean-Jacques Rousseau
Rousseau is one of the most famous and influential philosophers of the French
Enlightenment in the 18th century. In his book The Social Contract, he elaborated his theory of
human nature. In Rousseau, a new era of sentimental piety found its beginning.

The “Edsa Revolution” is an example, though an imperfect one, of what the theory of Social
Contract is all about. According to Hobbes and Rousseau, the state owes its origin to a social
contract freely entered into by its members. The two philosophers differed in their
interpretations. Hobbes developed his idea in favor of absolute monarchy, while Rousseau
interpreted the idea in terms of absolute democracy and individualism.

Both have one thing in common, that is, human beings have to form a community or
civil community to protect themselves from one another, because the nature of human beings
is to wage war against one another, and since by nature, humanity tends toward self-
preservation, then it follows that they have to come to a free mutual agreement to protect
themselves.

Hobbes thinks that to end the continuous and self-destructive condition of warfare,
humanity founded the state with its sovereign power of control by means of a mutual consent.
On the other hand, Rousseau believes that a human being is born free and good. Now he is in
chains and has become bad due to the evil influence of society, civilization, learning, and
progress. Hence, from these come dissension, conflict, fraud, and deceit. Therefore, a human
being lost his original goodness, his primitive tranquility of spirit.

In order to restore peace, bring back to him his freedom, and return to his true self, he
saw the necessity and came to form the state through the social contract whereby everyone
grants his individual rights to the general will. The term of Social Contract is not an actual
historical event. It is a philosophical fiction, a metaphor, and a certain way of looking at a
society of voluntary collection of agreeable individuals. The Constitution and the Bill of Rights
constituted, as an instance of a social contract, however, is not a metaphor, but an actual
agreement and actually “signed” by the people or their representatives (Solomon and Higgins,
1996). The “1986 Edsa Revolution” was not a bloody one. People gathered in Edsa to voice their
disenchantment peacefully and through mutual effort, successfully ousted Marcos. This had
inspired changes not only in our own country but also in Eastern Europe’s Perestroika.

Hobbes and Rousseau: Political Freedom

Sovereign/Ruler
(State)

Freedom
(General will or mutual
transferring of rights)

Citizens
(Individual rights)
Images

Jean Jacques Rousseau Jean Paul Sartre

St. Thomas Aquinas Ayn Rand

5. 2. Evaluate and exercise prudence in choices
For B.F. Skinner, the environment selects which is similar with natural selection. We must
take in to account what the environment does to an organism not only before, but also after it
responds. Skinner maintains that behavior is shaped and maintained by its consequences.
Behavior that operates upon the environment to produce consequences (operant conditioning)
can be studied by arranging environments in which specific consequences are contingent upon
it. The second result is practical, the environment can be manipulated.

Yelon (1996) accepted that behavioral psychology is at fault for having overanalyzed the
words “reward” and “punishment”. We might have miscalculated the effect of the
environment in the individual. There should be a balance in our relationship with others and
environment. In our dealing with our fellow human beings, there is the strong and obvious
temptation to blame the environment if they do not conform to our expectations.

The question of freedom arises. Can an individual be free? According to Skinner, our
struggle for freedom is not due to a will to be free as for Aristotle or Sartre, but to certain
behavioral processes characteristic of the human organism, the chief effect of which is the
avoidance of or escape from “aversive” features of the environment.

The feeling of freedom, according to Skinner becomes an unreliable guide as soon as would-
be controllers turn to non-aversive measures, as they are likely to do to avoid the problems
raised when the controller escapes or attacks. For example, a skillful parent learns to reward a
child for good behavior rather than punish him for bad. Control becomes necessary in the issue
of freedom.

Following the adage of John Stuart Mill, “Liberty consists in doing what one desires,” Skinner
states that when a person wants something he acts to get it when the occasion arises. Skinner
argues that even though behavior is completely determined it is better that a person “feels
free” or “believes that he is free.”

The issue is controllability. We cannot change genetic defects by punishment; we can work
only through genetic measures that operate on a much longer time scale. What must be
changed is not the responsibility of autonomous individual but the conditions, environment or
genetic, of which a person’s behavior is a function (Gines, 1998). Example, a student was
praised by a teacher who said to him “Very good!” for a solution to a problem or for giving the
correct answer to a question.

Skinner thinks that the problem is to free human beings not from control but from certain
kinds of control, and it can be solved only if we accept the fact that we depend upon the world
around us and we simply change the nature of dependency. Skinner proposed that to make the
social environment as free as possible of aversive stimuli, we do not need to destroy the
environment or escape from it. What is needed, according to Skinner, is to redesign it.

Life is full of paradoxes; nobody could nor should control it. We have to be open to life,
learn to accept and live with paradoxes. Learning with contradiction is not the same as living in
contradiction (Guevarra, 1997). The paradoxes account for the reasons why life cannot be held
still. Defining or conceptualizing insists on regarding one aspect of life at the same time
disregarding the other.

In the spirituality of imperfection, we learn to accept that life, our environment, is both
“evil” and “good”. In recognizing life’s open-endedness, we learn to be flexible and adaptable.
B.F. Skinner believes that morality is a conditioned response impressed on the child by society.
Despite this view, however, creating a static environment e.g. controlled environment is not
applicable in the realities of everyday world.

Skinner is right, however, in pointing out the influence of environment especially in the
socialization of children. Unfortunately, there is an emphasis today in the acquisition of money,
property and prestige, regardless of values – or lack of those children learns.

There should not just be a re-engineering of the environment, but a total transformation of
how we view our environment, beginning with our own orientation. How do we view life? Is it
merely a life concerned with power that, according to Buddha, is the cause of despair? Or
should it be a life of cooperation, vision and concern with other living beings?

Indeed the theory of freedom has negative and positive tasks. Our lives should not be
merely controlled by rewards and punishments. As human beings, we are capable of reaching
different level of heights and ideals. According to Yelon (1996) punishment is an educative
measure, and as such is a means to the formation of motives, which are in part to prevent the
wrongdoer from repeating the act and in part to prevent others from committing a similar act.
Analogously, in the case of reward we are concerned with incentive.

However, much more important than the question of when a person is said to be responsible
is that of when he himself feels responsible. Evidently, not merely that it was he who took the
steps required for its performance; but there must be added awareness that he did it
“independently”, “of his own initiative” or whatever the term is. This feeling is simply the
consciousness of freedom, which is merely the knowledge of having acted of one’s own desires.
And of “one’s own desires” are those which have their origin in the regularity of one’s character
in the giving situation, and are not imposed by an external power e.g. stimulus. The absence of
external power expresses itself in the well-known feeling that one could also have acted
otherwise.
 Indeed the environment plays a significant part in our lives. However, since the Stone Age
we had proven that we are not completely under its mercy. We have and shall continue to
tame and adapt to the changes in the conditions of the environment. As Plato believes, the
soul of every individual possesses the power of learning the truth and living in a society that is
in accordance to its nature.

We are responsible, whether we admit it or not, for what is in our power to do; and most of
the time we cannot be sure what it is in our power to do until we attempt. In spite of the
alleged inevitabilities in personal life and history, human effort can redetermine the direction of
events, even though it cannot determine the conditions that make human effort possible.

It is true that we did not choose to be born. It is also true that we choose, most of us, to
keep on living. It is not true that everything that happens to us is like “being struck down by a
dreadful disease.” The treatment and cure of disease – to use as an illustration – would never
serve as a moral paradigm for the whole human situation – would never have begun unless we
believed that some things that were did not have to be, that they could be different, and that
we could make them different. And what we can make different we are responsible for.

5.3 Choices have consequences and some things are given up while others are
obtained in making choices
Twentieth century gave rise to the importance of the individual, the opposite of medieval
thought that was God centered. For Ayn Rand, individual mind is the tool for economic
progress vis-à-vis laissez faire capitalism. Since the mind is important, the sector that molds it
should not be controlled by the government. Similar with Aristotle, Rand believes that thinking
is volitional. A person has the freedom to think or not. Though, for Rand, the majority belongs
to the passive supporters of the status quo who choose not to think.

Individual rights, as espoused by Hobbes and Rousseau, are not merely numbers. Rand
rejects collectivism because of its brute force. Though human beings have rights, there should
also be responsibility. Individual rights were upheld in capitalism that is the only system that
can uphold and protect them. The principle of individual rights represented the extension of
morality into the social system.

Rand cited the right to gain, to keep, to use and to dispose of material values. Most
developed countries have disposed their toxic wastes to developing countries. Disposing
material values, thus, is not just a matter of throwing waste but projecting where to dump
wastes that would not impinge on the rights of others.
 Individualism, as espoused by Rand, is lined in family dependency because Easterners believe
that the individual needs the community and vice versa. The Filipino and Chinese, for instance,
stress the human relationships that emphasize that the person is not necessarily an
independent entity. In Filipino’s loob, for instance, the individual is the captain of his own ship
on a sea that is not entirely devoid of uncertainties. Loob touches the daily human aspect of
the Filipinos.

Loob sought to avoid fragmentation. It embraced family and political parties. Loob does not
only fulfill reasons of the mind but of the heart and personal involvement as well. Whereas
Rand upheld the individual, Filipinos’ loob is essentially an interpersonal and social concept
before it is a privately, personal concept.

Further, Filipinos look at themselves as holistic from interior dimension under the principle
of harmony. Loob encompasses Filipinos’ humanity, personality and theological perspective
and daily experiences. It aspires harmony with others and nature to be in union with God.
Loob stresses a being-with-others and sensitivity to the needs of others that inhibits one’s on
personal and individual fulfillment.

There is the apprehension on the group oriented approach of the Filipino that might hamper
the individual’s initiative and responsibility. It is contended that the individual should be
disciplined from within rather than fear from authority figure. Discipline and responsibility
should be inculcated especially through education.

Filipinos’ loob is the basis of Christian value of sensitivity to the needs of others and
gratitude. It encompassed “give and take” relationship among Filipinos. As such, repaying
those who have helped us is a manifestation of utang na loob or debt of gratitude. Loob is
similar with other Eastern views that aspire for harmony (sakop) with others, God and nature.
Loob prioritized family, relatives, and even non kinsmen. It bridges individual differences and is
the common factor among human beings.

The concept of Rand’s free individual and Filipino’s view of the free human being may have
differences but can be overcome. The potential of the Filipino should be able to grow so that
he will be aware of his uniqueness. Children should be brought up to the identity of the
members of the family and simultaneously with that of the nation. Self-sufficiency (kasarinlan)
should recognize human worth and dignity.

Individualism thus, should not be seen as selfishness but an affirmation of a truly human self
that is the supreme value of human living. To be a free individual is to be responsible not only
for one’s self but also for all. Thus, the individual becomes a free and creative person who
asserts one’s uniqueness.
 Kagandahang loob, kabutihang loob, kalooban are terms that show sharing of one’s self to
others. This is the freedom within loob. Loob puts one in touch with his fellow beings. Great
Philippine values in fact are essentially interpersonal. The use of intermediaries or go
betweens, the values of loyalty, hospitality, pakikisama (camaraderie) and respect to authority
are such values that relate to persons. In short, the Filipino generally believes in the innate
goodness of the human being.

Filipino ethics has an internal code and sanction than other legalistic moral philosophies that
are rather negative. The Filipino, who stresses duties over rights, has plenty in common, once
again with Chinese or Indians. The Filipino looks at himself as one who feels, wills, thins, acts,
as a total whole – as a “person”, conscious of his freedom, proud of his human dignity and
sensitive to the violation of these two.

5.4 Show situations that demonstrate freedom of choice and the consequences
of their choices
In lieu of the Philippine situation, I suggest Rand’s individualism be adopted by Filipinos.
Individualism based on freedom, should not be attained at the expense of others but for the
advancement of a person. As Filipinos, we should unlock the change of Philippine
backwardness.

According to Rand, individual freedom should be aligned with economic freedom. The
Filipino “sakop” or harmony can be a helping value to the full development of the Filipino if it
opens up to embrace the whole Philippine society. However, there are cases where the Filipino
“sakop” may adversely affect the social and financial status of the one moving upward the
social ladder. For instance, the more well off members of a family share their gains with their
relatives or friends in need.

However, sometimes, the beneficiaries of the monetary assistance ( utang or loan) just use
the money for non-essentials (i.e. drinking sprees) when there are more important concerns
which should be prioritized (i.e. tuition fee). Hence, Filipino “sakop” must begin to raise its
members in a more responsible way and the members should likewise take this attempt to
raise them financially and socially seriously so as not to squander the help bestowed on them.
Moreover, they must come to realize that their personal worth and dignity is not exterior to
themselves; it is found not in the body of the “sakop” but in one’s “kalooban”. If these are
fulfilled, the Filipinos shall not only be better persons but a better nation with a sound economy
(Andres, 1989)

A leader or a manager with “magandang kalooban” is not passive but plays active role in
economic development. Leaders should not just focus on the impact of job performance but
treats every individual worker as persons and not as objects. Filipinos can attain a sound
economy through an integrative system as such there is support and help among unit of
organizations within a company. To make up for the inferiority complex of Filipinos, a good
Filipino leader/manager must encourage fellow Filipinos to believe in themselves so that they
can bounce back as an economic power.

Rand presupposed that greater creativity will be achieved if the government will minimize
influence on individuals. Filipinos should take the initiative by following Rand’s suggestion and
adopting individualism in their value system. The author thinks that individualism will provide
Filipinos an opportunity to be more aware of their capacity, to harness fully their strengths and
to commit themselves to life. Individualism reinforces kasarilihan (self-sufficiency) as such it
discourages subservience from external control higher than itself.

“Kasarilihan” promotes entrepreneurship which minimized foreign control of Filipinos (i.e.

from the control of monopolies and multinational companies). Other than entrepreneurship,
individualism also prioritizes countryside development, a self-help concept among the country
dwellers which discourage dependence on government loans which would leave the locals to
follow whatever conditions the government sets in favor of the loan. Furthermore, for Andres
(1986), the spirit of self-help is the root of all authentic growth in rural development which is a
source of national productivity and efficiency.

As a result, entrepreneurship and countryside development economically and politically

emancipate Filipinos from local and foreign intervention. Moreover, Filipinos learn to be self-
sufficient which leads to self-respect and consequently, enhances Filipinos’ amor propio (pride
and respectability).

Education has its own part to fulfill in giving importance to individual students and in
promulgation of the concept of individualism. Mounting a continuing education among
Filipinos, education should not shape the students’ mind to be subservient. Educators should
be aware of the individual talents of students, the differences in their family background, gifts
and capabilities. Rand proposed that the main task of education is to teach students how to be
trained in theories i.e. concepts. The students have to be taught the eventual of knowledge
discovered in the past so that they will be equipped to acquire further knowledge of their own
effort (Binswanger, 1986).

However, individualism should be tied with social responsibility and should not be just “tayo-
tayo” or “kami-kami”. Our own individuality should interact with the individuality of others. In
this light, every Filipino should be given equal chance to cultivate their talents that inevitably
contribute in the development of the society. Further, as individuals who are free, Filipinos
should recognize their own brand of uniqueness, instead of copying foreign cultures. “Loob”
does not only develop the self of an individual but the welfare of others.

For Aristotle and Rand, reason and will or volition is part of our being human. In relation to
this, Filipinos had proven matured thinking, pertaining to Edsa Revolution. Filipinos become
sovereign people who stood up for what they believe is right even before physical threat.
Miranda (1987) viewed Edsa Revolution a salvific event, Filipinos did not become fatalistic.
Instead, Filipinos took matters in their own hands. During Edsa Revolution, Filipino actuations
were based on reason; Filipinos exemplified a conscious decision of ousting a dictator.

The decision is based on the Filipinos’ belief in freedom. They also voluntarily risked their
lives as they face danger. Again, the Edsa Revolution is one example of social contract as
discussed in early sections of this chapter.

Filipinos’ self is rooted in “loob” (Alejo, 1990). Individualism should thus spring from our
“loob” which is the basis of a person’s authenticity. Individualism could only progress to real
change if it springs from the innermost depth of “loob” and not just for “pakitang tao”
(outward appearance’s sake). Through a person’s “loob”, individualism manifests changes
within (loob) and outside (labas) the person.

Further, “loob” is the only identical factor among people’s diversity in creed, color and status
in the society. Through “loob”, there is no way that Filipinos will have no equal chance to
become worthy individuals. The author also took note of the interplay of Western philosophy
that emphasizes modern science and technology; the East, however, is more concerned on the
inner and personal nature of the self. The Eastern thinker is acquainted through one’s
personal experience and intuitive grasp of reality which is of higher value than the analytical
speculation.

Summary

This chapter discussed the concept of freedom from various perspectives: intellectual,
spiritual, political, economic in relation to Filipino’s thoughts. For the Filipinos, freedom is
rooted not just in the intellect but is also to commune with God, neighbor and the universe.
Freedom is a gift that should not be squandered but taken as a wonderful gift that must be
nurtured and protected without impinging the rights or freedom of others. Therefore, it is not
enough that the human being is free but that one is conscious of one’s responsibility for the
consequences of one’s choice.
Conclusion

There is a quote from Rabindranath Tagore that goes: Let me not crave in conscious fear to
be saved; But hope for the patience to win my freedom. Darkness and bondage could symbolize
the opposite of freedom or liberation. Freedom is earned and protected. One could not just
easily take freedom for granted. More than just attaining economic freedom, freedom is also
spiritual. As human beings we should not be enslaved by our self-interests but to be truly free,
we should also be at one with others and the environment.

http://www.demotix.com/photo/1826735/philippines-marks-edsa-revolution-anniversary

Remembering Edsa
Check your knowledge:

1.
A. Write a short dialogue based on based a morality play. Show the value of freedom
and responsibility in this play.

Characters:

E- Everyman (on a journey),

G- Good Deeds (accompanies E to the judgment seat of God and pleads for him),

D – Death (hovers and sent by God to summon every creature and give account of their
lives in the world).

B. As a student, how can you be responsible to your a.) family? B) in your use of
technology (i.e. cellular phone)?

2. Understanding

A. Based on the wisdom of Dalai Lama, what would be helpful in improving your own
lifestyle? In your opinion, what would be the consequences of your choice?

a. That great love and great achievements involve great risk.

b. Respect for self, respect for others, and responsibility for your actions

c. Spending some time alone every day.

d. That silence is sometimes the best answer.

e. A loving ambiance in your home is the foundation of your life.

f. Gentleness with the earth.

 g. Sometimes, not getting what you want is s a wonderful blessing.

B. Write a short essay based on this topic:

So long as they do not harm others, individuals should be free to pursue their own ends.
Agree or Disagree?

3. Process
T-shirt making project

Create slogans regarding freedom. Choose the best slogan and use this to print on t-shirts.
Proceeds of the sales may be donated to women’s correctional for Christmas donations.