Module II

Lesson 3. THE PROXIMATE STANDARD AND OTHER STANDARDS

Lesson Objectives:
After studying this lesson on the proximate standard and other standards,
you shall be able to:
1. illustrate that the Ten Commandments are the practical application
of the positive law; and
2. explain the wisdom from the Eastern philosophers; Buddha
and Aristotle and the Chinese and Indian ideals.

Terms as Defined in the Given Selections

1. The Ten Commandments — the practical application of the natural
Moral Law.
2. Golden Rule — Do unto others as you would have them do unto you.
3. Dharma — Indian term for duty.
4. Shudra — Indian term for the untouchable
5. Buddha — literal meaning "awakened" or "illuminated"

Thoughts to Ponder on, Gleaned from the Given Selections

1. The Commandments are divided into two: the first three constitute our
duties to God; the last seven constitute the laws for ourselves and
neighbors.
2. God in His divine wisdom, saw to it that persons have a ready rule to
guide their lives.
3. To the Indians, a person's mode of action must conform to his dharma
or duty.
4. The Chinese standard of morality is nature: one must follow nature if
one wants to be happy in this world, for then he experiences ease and
tranquility.
5. Each individual has his own mean.

11
 6. Gautama Siddharta, the Indian Prince, Buddha, formulated the Four
Noble Truths.
a. Life is suffering
b. Suffering is caused by selfish craving.
c. Suffering can be eliminated.
d. Suffering can be eliminated by the Eightfold Path-discovering
the right or midway.
7. The Stoics believed that in apathy and indifference lies one's happiness
because he is sheltered from the ups and downs of life.
8. The Ascetics believe that in self-abnegation and deprivation lies man's
happiness.
9. Utilitarianism maintains that utility is the standard of morality.
10. There is a saturation point to pleasure; on the other hand, happiness
has no limit.

The Ten Commandments

The Ten Commandments constitute the Positive Law which renders concrete
and clear what the Natural Law expressed in general terms. The Ten
Commandments are helpful in understanding the Natural Moral Law. A careful
study of the Commandments reveals that they are after all particular application
of the general law of "Do good and avoid evil."
The Commandments are divided into two: the first three constitute our duties
to God, and the last seven constitute laws for ourselves and neighbors. (The
duties will be discussed in the chapter on rights and duties). The third to the
tenth commandments are the laws to be observed if we are to be good and upright
persons. All of the ten commandments are mandatory on everyone at all times
and at all places.
It is significant that the fourth commandment or the first of the seven
commandments regarding ourselves and neighbors concern parents. "Honor thy
father and mother." Due respect is to be manifested to one's parents. Would this
commandment have been known without God giving the two slabs of stone to
Moses? The Chinese always revere "honorable father" more than the mother all
because they know that the son today will be the father tomorrow. "Whatever

12
one does to the one ahead will be done to him by the one behind." It is a paraphrase of
the Confucian Golden Rule: "Do unto others as you would have them do unto you."
(Anaclets, Books XII, 2) Or. negatively expressed, "Do not do unto others as you would
not have them do unto you." (Anaclets, Book XV, 23)
In our present society, respect for parents has slid down, with children calling
their parents by their first names, and not giving them due honor and respect.
This may be due to our changing values, but the commandment stays. Anyone
therefore who shows disrespect for parents and elders or who harm them
physically is violating the fourth commandment or "Do good and avoid evil."
The fifth, sixth and seventh commandments proscribe against injury towards
others, adultery and theft respectively. Even without instruction, any one who
uses reason would know that injuring other people, having sexual relations with
a person other than one's spouse, and stealing other people's property is evil. If
nothing else, the law of reciprocity is always applicable. If one injures others,
others can injure them in return. The same goes for adultery and stealing; other
people can pay us back with the same bad coin.
The eighth commandment forbids lying or bearing false witness against a
neighbor. As mentioned above, lying is contrary to truth.
The ninth and tenth commandments forbid avarice and greed. Coveting or
eyeing another person's property with malice is against the moral law. Hence, it
is not necessary that one steals. It is enough to covet or lust after another person's
wife and/or property to commit a violation of these last two laws.
The Ten Commandments are the practical application of the Natural Moral Law.
God in His divine wisdom saw to it that persons have a ready rule to guide their lives.
The drawback of the Commandments is, of course, if a person were atheist and did not
accept God's existence. In this case, he has to fall back upon the Natural Moral Law.
The French philosopher, Jean-Paul Sartre, for instance, having been an atheist,
considered only four precepts to follow in order to insure peace in a society: 1) Be
honest. 2) Do not tell a lie. 3) Do not beat your wife. 4) Bring up your children properly
(From Existentialism is a Pumanism) Sartre was not speaking of a moral law but rather
of social laws that will insure the smooth functioning of society. Even in his list of
atheist precepts, the items on honesty
and truthfulness figure. In Sartre's estimation, no society can survive, let alone
function properly without the element of honesty or truthfulness. Without Sartre
knowing it, he was coming from a Natural Moral Law he was imprinted with
from birth. "Do good and avoid evil" and what is more, refined concept thereof
embodied in the Ten Commandments, "Thou shalt not bear false witness against
thy neighbor."
Another philosopher, Immanuel Kant, had a different perspective. Since he
did not accept the Ten Commandments as a standard or rule of morality, he tried
to devise a concept which could apply to anyone who dedicates time and effort to
discover what is good and evil. Thus his famous categorical imperative, "Act
only according to that maxim by which you can at the same time will that it
should become a universal law." The trouble with this maxim is that very few
human acts will pass it. If one acts only on the premise that one's action could
become a universal moral law, how many of human acts would qualify? Eating,
sleeping, praying, walking, cooking, thinking, helping people—even these
seemingly innocuous acts can become evil if the circumstances surrounding them
render them askew. Kant's version of morality is for superior men, those who
are steeped in virtue and excellence. It is not for unlearned or ordinary men who
may have neither the time nor the capacity to mull over the categorical imperative.
Cultures other than the Christian have their own way of determining their
standards of morality.

The Eastern Philosophers

Indian
The Indians do not have a concrete standard for determining the goodness
or badness of human acts. A person's mode of action must conform to his dharma
or duty. The Indians believe that there are four classes or castes of human beings:
namely, the brahmin, ksatriya, vaishya, and shudra. One who belongs to the
brahmin or the nobility has a mode of conduct he should observe. The ksatriya and
vaishya have a certain calling or station in life that calls for a specific behavior.
Farmers, soldiers, businessmen, traders who belong to these social
castes have to observe a specific code. The shudra or untouchables too have to
live life according to what shudra ought to be. The code of conduct of each
caste is found in the sacred books of the Vedas.

Chinese
The Chinese, like the Indians, do not have a concrete standard of morality.
For them, one must follow nature if one wants to be happy in this world. Nature
is tao which is also the way, the truth, the law. When one conforms to nature,
one experiences ease and tranquility The Chinese compare man's life with water
that flows in a brook. When water encounters rocks, it sidetracks them or goes
over them but never hurtles against them. Likewise, man should live and let live.
If the other person wants to behave in a peculiar way, one must be like the water
that passes over a rock, unmindful of the obstacle that the rock poses.
In a characteristic fashion, Chuang Chu cites the example of the heron and the
duck. The heron has naturally long neck. To shorten it will give pain to the heron.
Shortening the neck of the heron is therefore evil. On the other hand, a duck's neck is
short. To lengthen it will give pain to the duck. Hence, lengthening the neck of the duck
is evil.
The Chinese standard of morality is nature. If one is tired, one must rest;
if sleepy, one must sleep; if hungry, one must eat; if thirsty, one must drink.
This is all very good because these actions involve man's natural tendencies. But
could this "standard" be applied to more complicated situations like to wage or
not to wage war, to pull or not to pull the trigger, to lie or not to lie, to smuggle
or not to smuggle?
The Indian and Chinese concepts must be looked upon with benevolence
and understanding. These ancient civilizations predate Biblical times, and the
very fact that they were able to come up with a workable ethical standard was
feat in itself. Refinements of these standards must be done to make them answer
to the needs of modern man.

The essence of the Indian and Chinese working ideal is tenable. For instance,
is one not expected to live as he ought to, depending on his station in life? As
Confucius said, "A father should live or act like a father; a minister, like a
minister." (Analects, Book XII, 23). If he does not, he must either mend his
ways or change his name. His doctrine of rectification of names has influenced
Chinese life and values. Likewise, the vedic dictum that a brahmin should act
like a brahmin, and a shudra, like a shudra. Is conformity to nature, in a way,
inadvisable? It might be too simplistic for this century, but it works. If man had
lived according to nature, he would have been saved from natural plagues like
pollution, the red tide menace, abnormal atmospheric layers that cause extremes
of temperature and rainfall. The Chinese and Indian philosophies could be looked
up to for their ageless wisdom.

Buddhism
Buddhism's Middlewayness or Middle Path deserves special treatment. The
originator of Buddhism was Gautama Siddharta who was born in Nepal, north of
India, in the sixth century B.C. The Buddha (literary meaning "awakened" or
"illuminated) was a prince who was shielded from all forms of pain and suffering.
He was not allowed to see the sick and infirm. Once, however, he strayed by the
gates of his palace grounds and saw for himself sickness and pain, he left his
princely home and sought the answer to life's puzzles. Why should men suffer?
Why should they experience pain? He led a mendicant's life and indulged in long
meditations. After 49 days, he was illuminated or awakened and he formulated
the now famous Four Noble Truths: 1) Life is suffering; 2) Suffering is caused
by selfish craving; 3) Suffering can be eliminated; 4) Suffering can be eliminated
by the Eightfold Path.
In Buddha's doctrine, life is suffering; nothing can be done about that. But
suffering can be eliminated by the Eightfold Path which is a Middle Path or a
Middle Way. Everything that man does must find the right middle ground between
two extremes; otherwise, frustration occurs. For example, desire is indifferent,
but when one desires inordinately or when one desires insufficiently, the right
path has not been found, and it could lead to frustration. Food is an enjoyable
entity, but too much of it or too little of it could lead to suffering. To eliminate
suffering, one has to discover the right or middle way. This is also the law of
morality.
It is important to stress that the Buddha lived in the sixth century, B.C.
because a Greek philosopher, Aristotle (384-322 B.C.), expounded almost the
same doctrine, namely the Doctrine of the Golden Mean. The Buddha preceded
Aristotle by about three centuries.

The Greek Philosophers

Aristotle
During the Greek era, philosophers tried to discover a way or standard whereby
one could live well. For Aristotle, virtue holds the key to one's happiness. Virtue lies in
a Golden mean between two extremes. Aristotle advises against extremes of behavior.
The whole idea of the Golden Mean is moderation.
One should not be wasteful or a spendthrift but must not be a miser either.
One ought to be frugal or economical. One should neither be cowardly nor
foolhardy but ought to be brave. One should neither be abstemious nor gluttonous
but ought to be moderate. In all the above cases, there is a golden mean between
two extremes. Between wastefulness and miserliness lies frugality. Between
cowardice and foolhardiness lies bravery. Between abstemiousness and gluttony
lies moderation. Frugality, bravery and moderation are virtues.
Each individual has his own mean, however. There is no standard golden
mean. What is too much for one may be too little for another or vice versa. For
a scholar, six hours of study may be normal, but too long for a student. One
cannot prescribe a certain amount of meat for everyone, because the amount
may be too much for a small person, just enough for a regular person or too little
for a giant.
Aristotle claims that it is very difficult to aim at the mean between two
extremes. It is like trying to hit a bullseye for there is only one way of hitting
and a thousand ways of missing it. Finding the golden mean is no guarantee that
one would follow it. Herein lies the difficulty of virtue. It is like climbing a
mountain: one exerts all effort. So much easier it is to indulge in vice, which is
just letting go or sliding down a mountain; it is effortless. This is the reason the
ways of virtue are difficult; those of vice, easy.
Does the Golden Mean doctrine of Aristotle serve as the standard of moral

17
goodness or badness? Aristotle's doctrine is about positive virtues, it does not
tackle evil. His theory of the golden mean is a guide of living a life of
moderation, but it is not a standard of morality.
After Aristotle came various Greek thinkers, each one trying to discover the secret
of happiness and at the same time the standard of human goodness.
The Epicureans, named after Epicurus (341-270 B.C.) considered the pursuit
of pleasure to be the essence of happiness. "Be merry, for tomorrow you die."
The English word "epicurean" to describe delightful food or other goods came
from Epicurus, and yet Epicurus lived practically on brown bread and water. He
taught that pleasure is the ultimate good, and pain is the only evil. It is normal for
man to pursue his own pleasure and to shun pain. If pain must be suffered at all, it
must only be as a means to greater pleasure. Other lesser known thinkers thought
along the same line. Democritus (460-370 B.C.) conceived of delight as the
supreme good. However, he also maintained that a balanced or tempered mind
(symmetria) must be obtained by limiting desire. On the other hand, Aristippus
(435-354 B.C.) also taught that pleasure is the supreme good. Hence, one must
seek the pleasure of the moment.
The Stoics believed that in apathy and indifference lies one's happiness
because one is sheltered from the vagaries or the ups and downs of life. Should
life become joyful or should it turn sour, one should not be affected. Stoicism is
one's weapon against the vicissitudes of life. One asks whether this negative
approach to happiness is indeed the answer, or it is merely a shield against sorrow
and misery.
Like their predecessors, the Stoics have not really arrived at the standard of moral
goodness but only at the safest manner of staying off life's unexpected turns.
The Ascetics are much stricter than the Stoics. They believe that in self-
abnegation and deprivation lies man's happiness. The Ascetics would therefore
live according to the minimum of life's needs. They would even seek the drab,
the wearisome and the difficult.

18
 Modern Ethical Standards

Utilitarianism as expounded by John Stuart Mill, maintains that utility or

usefulness is the standard of morality. Anything that is useful is good; the opposite
is evil. "Utility or the greatest happiness principle, holds that actions are right
in proportion as they tend to promote happiness, are wrong as they tend to promote
the reverse of happiness. By happiness is intended pleasure and the absence of
pain and the privation of pleasure" (from Utilitarianism). Mill is also known
for his Greatest Happiness principle: "This being, according to the utilitarian
opinion, the end of human action, is necessarily also the standard of morality;
which may be accordingly defined, the rules and precepts of human conduct, by
the observance of which an existence such as has been described might be, to
the greatest extent possible, secured to all mankind; and not only to them, but so
far as the nature of things admits, to the whole sentient creation" (from
Utilitarianism) John Stuart Mill drives at the heart of modern man to whom
uselessness ought to be avoided because it does not promote happiness.
Jeremy Bentham thinks along the same line. "Pleasure is in itself a
good...pain is in itself an evil; and indeed without exception, the only evil, or
else the words good and evil have no meaning" (from an Introduction to the
Principles of the Morals and Legislation).
The above theories of pleasure connote a wrong notion of happiness.
Pleasure is fleeting but happiness is lasting. Food, drink, sex, as mentioned above,
bring about pleasure but man tires of them. There is a saturation point to pleasure:
there is a point beyond which pleasure becomes pain. Too much of a good thing
becomes unpleasant and therefore, painful.
Happiness, on the other hand, has no limit. No man can ever say that he has
enough of it. Happines has no saturation point. And because man does not live forever
on earth, no man has truly experienced real happiness. This is perhaps what the Lord
meant by His words in the Bible, "No eye has ever seen, no ear has ever heard what the
Father has prepared for those who love Him."
Module II
Lesson 3

SELF-PROGRESS CHECK TEST

Match the items in Column B which describe the types of

morality in Column A. On the blank before each number, write the
letter representing your answer.

Column A Column B
E 1. To Aristotle a. A person's action must conform to his duty.
___H___2. To the Stoics b. Nature is the standard of morality.
___I___3. To the Buddhists c. The pursuit of pleasure is the essence
___B___4. To the Chinese of happiness.
___A__5. To the Indians d. No society can survive or function
___C___6. To the Epicureans properly without the element of
___F___7. To the Ascetics honesty or truthfulness.
___D___8. To Sartre e. Virtue lies in a Golden Mean.
___J___9. To Kant f. In self-abnegation and deprivation lies
__G__10. To the Utilitarians man's happiness.
g. Usefulness is the standard of morality.
h. In apathy and indifference lies one's
happiness.
i. To eliminate suffering one has to
discover the right or middle way.
j. act only according to that maxim by
which you can at the same time will
that it should become a universal law.