Ezequiel Gonzalez 2020-00198

ETHICS 1-Z

Introduction

In this paper I will argue that Republic Act 10931 or “The Universal Access to

Quality Tertiary Education Act” should be continued to be implemented by using the

framework of Kantian Deontology. Kantian Deontology will prove that this action is

good and should continue because it promotes freedom and prevents harm. I will

begin by explaining the core concepts of Kantian Deontology. I will also discuss how

it is used as tool to determine whether actions are acceptable or not. Lastly, I will

apply Kantian Deontology as a decision-making tool to determine if free public

tertiary education is a viable action and provide evidence to why it is.

Kantian Deontology and Justice

Kantian Deontology is an ethical theory which is introduced by the German

philosopher, Immanuel Kant. His ideology simply states that a good will is

unconditionally good. It is not the action which makes it good but the intention or

reason behind it. Immanuel Kant also states in this theory that the only thing that can

be considered good beyond limitation is good will. Actions which involve

understanding, courage, wit, and perseverance are usually perceived as good, but

the intention of a person can twist these and use them for perverse. A certain person

could build up enough courage to harm or kill another. Powerful people can

understand the situation of inferior people and take advantage of them.

Kantian Deontology values autonomy the most. Kantians believe that we have

the freedom to act morally. An individual along with his actions and reasons are his

own and not controlled or manipulated by external sources. This freedom is highly

valued among Kantians, whenever an individual abuses this freedom or uses it in a

Ezequiel Gonzalez 2020-00198
ETHICS 1-Z

wrong way, they commit self-sabotage. In our society, we are prone to make choices

which sabotage our freedom in exchange for quick pleasure. This is frowned upon

because in the long-term freedom will be lost.

Kantian Deontology instructs us to follow the categorical imperatives. These

imperatives apply to every human because it is a necessity. It applies to all people

by virtue of their humanity, so they cannot choose to opt out. It is because we are

human, that we are obliged to be moral. This requires us to only act the way we want

to be treated by other people. The first imperative is the idea that an act is right if it

follows a maxim that is accepted by universal law or the Formula of Universal Law. A

maxim is rule of conduct or principle for an action. It is a motive or a reason behind

an action. To follow this imperative, Kantian Deontology does not tell us exactly

which actions are right. It encourages us to reason out whether it is good or not. The

first step is to conduct a thought experiment and imagine a world in which everyone

did a particular action or where the action is normalized. Ask yourself, is this an ideal

world in which I can live in?

Kantian Deontology forbids any action which adheres to practical

contradiction. A practical contradiction is where an individual’s goal and means are

contradicting. An immoral maxim is a practical contradiction because the goal of an

individual and the means are opposites. It is a must to avoid practical contradiction to

preserve autonomy because adhering to it to pursue a goal undermines one’s

freedom. When we choose to avoid practical contradictions, we respect our freedom

as well as the freedom of others. We must take note that the limit of our freedom is

the autonomy of others. Avoiding practical contradiction promotes collective

freedom. The second imperative of Kantian deontology is the Humanity formula. It

instructs use our humanity and the humanity of others always as an end and never
Ezequiel Gonzalez 2020-00198
ETHICS 1-Z

as mere means. Our actions with others must be transparent and consistent. Kantian

Deontology also follows a priority rule where we choose an action which is more

necessary for autonomy. There are cases where two actions will result in losing

autonomy. It is necessary to pick the option which will preserve more autonomy. In

cases where an action has evil intent, we will follow the universal law. This is

because there are some situations in which the humanity formula cannot be

satisfied.

Kantian Deontology greatly promotes beneficence and welfare if it promotes

autonomy. It encourages us to help especially those who are vulnerable. It is a form

of preventive justice, helping others will prevent or remove possible damage to

autonomy. It however discourages paternalism or excessive help for others. It is

because such actions violate autonomy or prevent an individual from being free and

independent.

The last imperative is the Kingdom of Ends. This states that our actions must

be fully accepted by a community of rational people who have decided equally on

which action are rational and morally acceptable. It must produce a community which

follows the humanity formula. It states that humans who are both rational and

autonomous must communally flourish. In this ideal society, no person is treated as

a means. Everyone who is rational and autonomous are the ones who create and

follow their laws.

Let us infuse Kantian Deontology with the virtue of justice. Justice pertains to

having fairness and equality. It is designed to give everyone a fair chance. It also

encourages citizenship, social responsibility, loyalty. It also encourages maintaining

good relationship and accomplishing things efficiently.

Ezequiel Gonzalez 2020-00198
ETHICS 1-Z

Discussion of the Case

Republic Act No. 10931 was implemented in March 2018. This act is to promote

universal access to quality tertiary education. The law simply states that education

will be provided through free tuition in state universities and colleges, local

universities and colleges and state-run technical vocational institutions. It also

provides tertiary education subsidies and student loan programs. This act is known

as “The Universal Access to Quality Tertiary Education Act.” Through this act

Filipinos are given rights to quality education as it pushes the state to provide

adequate funding and resources to all socio-economic classes under tertiary

education. As ideal as this law is, there are people who support and oppose it.

Education in the Philippines is difficult to attain because it is expensive. De Vera and

Tan (2010) states that the average yearly cost of a public high school student in

Metro Manila is around 4,650 in 2015. 5 years has passed and for sure this yearly

cost has increased significantly. Ateneo de Manila University Associate Dean for

Graduate Programs, Anne Land K. Candelaria also stated that the inaccessibility of

education is caused by inequity. There is a gap between the rich and the poor which

continuously extends if education is not accessed. RA 10931 is supported to

promote accessibility to tertiary education. Its goal is to abolish the inequity and the

gap between the rich and the poor.

Major oppositions arise because of certain mishaps in the implementation and

complexities the act provides. In short as a policy, the law is ideal. However, it fails to

target realistic problems. State universities requires to pass entrance exams which is

difficult to attain due to problems which already arise in secondary education.

Ezequiel Gonzalez 2020-00198
ETHICS 1-Z

Senator Salceda also discussed the concerns such as universities not being

provided funding, lack of policies with subsidies, and student loans not being

implemented. These problems can be solved through proper policy making.

However, I would like to tackle a specific opposition which pertains towards the

sustainability of the program. Ramos (2020) states that state universities should not

be defunded instead they should increase the budget. Making education free has

consequences in a third-world country. The lack of funding has caused universities

to be lackluster in facilities and staff which will affect the quality of education. This

now leads us to the question, is the act worth keeping if it is unsustainable and

affects quality of education?

Let us create two maxims and test it for universalizability. First, we imagine a

world in which people must pay for tertiary education to maintain sustainability and

resources. Socioeconomic problems probably still exist which therefore makes

education inaccessible to the poor people. Poverty will increase because more

people will be less progressive. There is no sense to making education inaccessible

to the poor in exchange for sustainability and resources, since the goal of education

is to create a progressive world, not hinder it. There are enough resources which are

just being hoarded due to capitalism. This action sabotages the autonomy of the less

fortunate because it leads them to a harmful life. The maxim does not pass the test

for universalizability; therefore, it is immoral to make payment for education

compulsory. Next, we imagine a world in which the state will pay for the tertiary

education of students in state and local universities to improve the status of their

country. In this world everyone has access to education. The action of the states

makes sense since it will improve the progress of the country by producing educated

and skilled individuals. In the long term it promotes autonomy since individuals are
Ezequiel Gonzalez 2020-00198
ETHICS 1-Z

free to act on their own and are free from harm. It passes the test which makes it

moral.

The latter maxim has no practical contradiction, the state’s goal which is to

improve the country does not morally contradict its means of making tertiary

education free in state universities and local colleges. The action will not sabotage

the goal of progressiveness, it promotes it. The student’s autonomy is promoted

instead of sabotaged therefore the action is viable. The action also adheres to the

humanity formula. No person is used as mere means. If the state maintains true to

their policies and implementations, they are not exploiting or manipulating students.

There is transparency and consent for their action.

Kantians will promote this action because it is a form of beneficence and

welfare. It helps vulnerable individuals get back up on their feet and become

autonomous in the long run. One could argue that this kind of help maybe

paternalistic and deprives them of autonomy since they are dependent. However,

Kantians will still allow this action because it allows them to gain more freedom and

be free from harm in the future. They will prioritize to choose this action since it

values autonomy more. It also will produce a Kingdom of Ends since a community of

people will be rational and autonomous and continue to live by their laws.

Justice must also be applied to considering the implementation of free

education. It promotes fairness and equality. Therefore, we deserve fair and equal

education. In the long term our society will prosper.

Lacuesta (n.d) states that Norway provides free education in public

universities. It should also be noted that Norway is ranked as the happiest country in

the world (Chokshi, 2017). It is also ranked 2nd in prosperity index. They are also
Ezequiel Gonzalez 2020-00198
ETHICS 1-Z

ranked 1st in personal freedom, 9th in economic quality and 8th in education. This

proves that they are a progressive country due to its free education. We have proven

through Kantian deontology that free public tertiary education is moral. This now

proves that there is truth to that ideology. It also clarifies that we have no problem in

sustainability. Free education can be achieved without sacrificing quality and

resources. We have those things, unfortunately they are being hoarded because of

corruption and capitalism. Nevertheless, it is no doubt the free education is a morally

and socioeconomic acceptable action.

Conclusion

In summary, the ethical theory of Kantian Deontology was used as a

framework to determine if R.A 10931 or “The Universal Access to Quality Tertiary

Education Act” should be continued to be implemented. Kantians will approve of this

action since it meets all imperatives under the theory. It is therefore a good action to

make education universally accessible since it promotes autonomy. It is not just a

good action, but it is determined that it makes a place progressive and prosperous

which is a good place to preserve autonomy. Therefore, it is concluded that “The

Universal Access to Quality Tertiary Education Act” should be continued.

Ezequiel Gonzalez 2020-00198
ETHICS 1-Z

References

Cepeda, M. (2018). 7 problems with free tuition law implementation, according to

Salceda. Retrieved from

https://www.rappler.com/nation/free-tuition-law-implementation-problems-

says-salceda

Fernandez, C. & Gonzalez, Z. (2019). Paying a way to higher education. Retrieved

from

https://theguidon.com/1112/main/2019/10/paying-a-way-to-higher-education/

Lacuesta, A.R (n.d.). Norway offers tuition-free quality education. Retrieved from

https://www.uib.no/en/education/109728/norway-offers-tuition-free-quality-

education

Ramos, C.M. (2020). Defund UP? Recto says ‘no-cut zones’ SUCs should get

increased funding. Retrieved from

https://newsinfo.inquirer.net/1362198/defund-up-recto-says-no-cut-zones-

sucs-should-get-increased-funding

The LAWPHIL Project Arellano Law and Foundation Philippine Laws and

Jurisprudence Databank. (2021). REPUBLIC ACT No. 10931. Retrieved from

https://www.lawphil.net/statutes/repacts/ra2017/ra_10931_2017.html

The Legatum Prosperity Index. (2020). Norway. Retrieved from

https://www.prosperity.com/globe/norway
Ezequiel Gonzalez 2020-00198
ETHICS 1-Z