PHILOSOPHY OF MAN

By: Dr. DIOSDADO P. ESTIMADA CAS Faculty

What is Philosophy?

Etymological Definition. It comes from two Greek words, “Philo” and “Sophia”,
which mean love of wisdom. Thus, a philosopher is a lover of wisdom. Real
Definition. It is a search for meaning. The word “search” means to look, to find, to
seek. This connotes something more serious and intense. It is a quest.
Philosophy as a Concept Philosophy is a system of beliefs about reality. It is one's
integrated view of the world. It includes an understanding of the nature of existence,
man, and his role in the world. It is a necessary product of man’s rational mind.
According to (Zulueta, 2010) philosophy makes man think about the basic
foundations of his outlook in life, his knowledge and his beliefs.
The Difference between Philosophy and Theory Philosophy vs. Theory Philosophy
is an individual’s beliefs and has a great deal with the way the individual chooses to
live his/her life and the way he/she views others. Theory on the other hand can be
a scientific view, or an idea that has not been proven to be tangible and or factual.
In short, Philosophy – set of belief about reality. This is about man’s world view while
theory is an assumption of the existence of truth about reality.
The Difference between Theory and Law Theory Vs. Law According to science, a
law is a generalized statement set after a number of observations. A law has no
explanations or exceptions when it is framed. It is an obvious fact recorded after
observations. A good example of this may be the force of gravity. It is observed that
an apple falls down on the surface of the Earth. It is an undeniable fact. This
observation has no exceptions also. No one has ever observed a reverse or
alternative phenomenon. Hence it is considered to be a law.
The Difference between Theory and Law
A theory is the explanation of the observational data set forward in the form of a law.
In simple words, a theory is the reasoning behind a law. A theory can be a strong
one if it has a lot of evidence to back it. It may also be regarded as a weak theory if
the amount of accuracy in its prediction is low. A theory may become obsolete with
time and be replaced by a better one. A law, however, is a universally observable
fact. It is undeniable and never fades away with the stretch of time.
The Difference between Philosophy and Principle
Principles are "ought" statements. They refer to an ideal...the way something ought
to be. A philosophy is made up of principles, it is a broader view regarding how things
should be, along with some support for why they should be that way based on claims
about the way things are. Thus, philosophy is considered to be a larger and more
inclusive abstraction, of which principle is a part. Example: Philosophy: all men are
created equal, and entitled to certain basic inalienable rights, including life, liberty
and the pursuit of happiness, because the alternative views always lead to some kind
of evil in which one man exploits another. Principle: all men are entitled to liberty.
Division of Philosophy General - Ontology Metaphysics Cosmology Special Theodicy
Psychology Philosophy Epistemology Logic Ethics
1. Metaphysics- is the study about reality. (what is the ultimate reality? Is reality
one or many different things?
a. General - Ontology- this the philosophical exploration for what reality is in the final
analysis.
b. Special: 1.Cosmology – metaphysical science which studies the nature of the
world.(how is the world related to human beings? Is the world created or has it been
existing from all eternity.
2.. Theodicy – a philosophical study of God. (does God exist? what are the
proof of God’s existence? What is the problem of evil?
3. Psychology –studies of man’s nature as being endowed with reason
and intellect.
2. Epistemology- is the study of validity of human knowledge. (what is knowledge? Is
knowledge acquired exclusively through the senses or by some other means? How do
we know that what we perceive through our senses is correct? Four Disciplines of
Philosophy
3. Logic- the study of correct thinking and reasoning. (This the basic tool that
philosophers use to investigate reality. (What makes an argument valid or invalid? 4.
Ethics- the study on the morality of human actions or moral philosophy. (What is
morally right? Are moral values absolute or relative? Thus, Philosophy of Man- is the
philosophical study of man. It is an endless inquiry in his attempt to understand himself
and the world he lives in, his dignity, truth, freedom, justice, love, death, and his
relations with others and with God. It is a course that delves into the origin of human
life, the nature of human life, and the reality of human existence.
Purpose of Philosophy
One may find satisfaction and delight in philosophical thinking or reasoning when
he/she is able to:
Understand himself/herself (sarili); Discover his/her inner self (loob); Recognize
his/her otherness (social being); Accept self as part of nature, of the world
(microcosm); Understand the eschatology of human life; and With the help of
reasons, believe in the existence of Infinite Wisdom who is God.
The Purpose of Philosophy Philosophy enables us to understand ourselves better;
Philosophy helps us understand others; our fellowmen; Philosophy helps us
understand others’ ways of thinking Philosophy helps us understand the world and
our place and role in it; Philosophy helps us understand the significance, meaning,
value and finality of human life; and Philosophy helps us know and understand God
in his nature, essence, activities, and attributes. Thus, philosophy enables us to
understand all things in their ultimate causes, reasons, and principles through our
reasoning faculty.
MAN IN THE CONTEXT OF HIS NATURE
Man is a living paradox. He is simple yet complex. He is a flesh-spirit and a divide
union. Man possesses a body. This categorical statement creates no problem and
meets no objection. The judgment is immediate. However, to be able to state that
man has a soul and spirit requires an explanation. So, who really am I? Is the soul
the heart and mind of the human being? What must I do to be happy and perfect? Is
my life now worth living for others?
MAN IN THE CONTEXT OF HIS NATURE
These are critical questions which requires self reflection. Thus, the application
of the methods of philosophy marks the beginning of the philosophy of man. These
methods try to find answers to questions on the complexities of man’s existence.
Man’s Composition
There are three philosophical thoughts with regard to elements constituting man. These
systems are: 1. Dualism – advocates specifically that man is a composite of two
elements: Body and Spirit. The dualist thought is sub-divided into two views; the radical
and the moderate
The radical dualism
Stresses that there is a radical difference between the body and the spirit. the spirit
is placed in a privileged position, or regarded as the better component between the
two. The implication is that the spirit is seen as the important principle of human
goodness. the body, on the other hand, is placed under unprivileged position and is
considered as the wellspring of human evil and the prison cell of the spirit. Plato with
his theory of idealism posited the view that man is just a carbon copy of his self,
originating from the world of the spirit or realm of ideas. He was exiled into this world
of matter and imprisoned in the body.
The moderate dualism,
On the other hand, emphasizes the unity of the two elements. Aristotle disagreed
with his former mentor, Plato. With his theory of realism, Aristotle propounded that
man’s existence realistically is a constitution of the body and soul, mind and matter,
sense and intellect, passion and reason. He categorically affirmed that the spirit is
the principle that gives form, shape and human powers to the otherwise lifeless and
formless mass of matter, the body, for without the spirit, the body will fall back to dust.
However, the Christians led by St. Augustine and St. Thomas would disagree with any
of the two-mentioned dualistic views on the composition of man. Using the Scripture
as basis, they believe that man is a tripartite being: body, soul and spirit. (Trinity)
The body is the outer part of man, which one can sensibly perceive. Through it, he can
have contact with the world around him. The soul is the inner part of man, which
cannot be seen. It consists of three parts: the mind, the emotions and the will.
The spirit is the innermost part of man by which he can commune with God. This core
self is believed to be the temple of God. Moreover, ‘the spirit is the essential part of
man’s nature, the heart of all human life. God is spirit, man is spirit, and therefore
greater that the material universe. The spirit is an immortal being, eluding the test of
biologist or chemist” (Lockyer, 1964 as quoted by Ardales).
Monism As a doctrine, monism holds that man is only of one simple element. This
monistic view is split into two camps: a. The idealistic monism, and b. The materialist
monism The former upholds the idea that man is purely spiritual. Advocates of this
idea were the ancient Hindus. This is outlined in Hinduism’s Upanishads. George
Berkeley, a British philosopher in the 18th century claimed that matter has no real
existence independent from the mind, there is no matter.
On the other hand, materialist monism argues that only the body is real. Man in his
body. The idea of the spirit is only an illusion. The staunch advocate of this idea is
Karl Marx who claimed that man is a purely material entity. However, it fails to
explain man’s self-consciousness as a being with interiority and subjectivity, with
freedom, a capacity to love and interrelate, transcending the material self.
The New Monism
The new monism started with the idea that man is a unitary being with a material
existence that has a mysterious dimension that belongs to the realm of the spiritual.
The humanistic thinkers see man as a total otherness. This otherness of man
suggests that he is not merely a body that there is something special in man that
goes beyond the physical.
This is the mysterious man as body-spirit, or man as incarnate spirit. The privileged
positioning of the spirit or of the body would not happen under this philosophy. What
is privileged in the new monism is neither the spirit nor the body, but the totality of
man.
MAN AS A PERSON
A. BASIC ANTHROPOLOGY MAN IS A PERSON MAN IS A SUBSTANTIAL UNITY MAN IS
A SOCIAL BEING MAN POSSESSES DIGNITY AND RIGHTS
A. BASIC ANTHROPOLOGY MAJOR THEMES A CONCRETE INDIVIDUAL SUBSTANCE
ENDOWED WITH REASON 1. MAN IS A PERSON
MAN IS A SUBSTANTIAL UNITY:
A UNION OF BODY AND SOUL Man possesses a complete specific nature. Man is not
merely an individual substance with a unique existence, a self-subsistent substance
MAN IS AN AUTONOMOUS BEING BECAUSE OF HIS RATIONAL NATURE MAN IS
ENDOWED WITH: INTELLIGENCE TO UNDERSTAND THE WORLD FREEDOM TO SELF-
GOVERN IN THE WORLD
THE HUMAN PERSON IS THE MOST PERFECT IN THE WHOLE NATURE (SAINT THOMAS
AQUINAS) WITH REASON TO UNDERSTAND THE WORLD & WILL TO DIRECT HIMSELF
TO TRUE GOOD
MAN IS A SOCIAL BEING Man is a relational being. He is open to himself and to others.
Hence, man is inter-subjectivity, a community of LOVE
MAN POSSESSES DIGNITY AND RIGHTS DIGNITY IS RELATED TO GOODNESS,
EXCELLENCE, AND PERFECTION THE CHARACTERISTICS OF MAN THAT POINT TO HIS
DIGNITY ARE INTELLIGENCE, FREEDOM, & LOVE
IN HIS ENCYCLICAL ENTITLED HUMANAE VITAE, POPE JOHN PAUL II HIGHLIGHTED
THE INCOMPARABLE WORTH OF THE HUMAN PERSON HE HUMAN PERSON POSSESSES
DIGNITY THAT HAS NO PRICE BUT VALUE (IMMANUEL KANT)
TO BE A HUMAN BEING IS TO BE A FELLOW HUMAN MARTIN BUBER I EXIST IN THE
MEASURE THAT I EXIST FOR OTHERS FOR AFTER ALL, TO BE IS TO LOVE E. MOUNIER
THE FACE OF THE OTHER TELLS ME THAT IT IS IMP TO KILL THE PERSON WITH THAT
FACE E. LEVINAS
KEY CONCEPTS OF MAN AS PERSON 1.) AUTONOMY MAN MUST BE VIEWED IN THE
LIGHT OF THE UNIQUE VOCATION OF EACH PERSONS 2.) SELF-REALIZATION
THROUGH HIS FREE ACTIVITY, MAN CANNOT BE JUDGED IN ABSTRACTION FROM THE
CONCRETE STATE OF THE ACTING PERSON 3.) RESPONSIBILITY MAN DEVELOPS HIS
PERSONALITY THROUGH INTER-SUBJECTIVITY
B. CHRISTIAN ANTHROPOLOGY MAN IS A CREATURE MAN IS THE IMAGE OF GOD MAN
IS FALLEN BUT REDEEMED NATURE AND GRACE
MAN IS A CREATURE GOD IS IMMANENT TO HIS CREATURES JUST AS HE IS
TRANSCENDENT TO BELIEVE IN GOD AS CREATOR IS TO LOOK UPON COSMIC
EVOLUTION AS GOD’S CONTINUING ACTION THIS VISION SHOULD MAKE MAN
RESPONSIBLE, LOVING, AND CARING
TO AFFIRM GOD AS CREATOR IS TO HIGHLIGHT MAN’S RELATIONSHIP WITH GOD ALL
HUMAN ACTIVITIES ARE SEEN AS EXPRESSIONS OF THE CREATIVE, IMMANENT AND
PERSONAL ACTION OF GOD
Man’s likeness to God is not only in his reason but also in his responsible conduct. He
has the capacity to respond freely to the call of God. 2. MAN IS THE IMAGE OF GOD
MAN APPEARS AS THE FIRST CREATURE THAT IS CONSCIOUS OF WHERE HE HAS COME
FROM AND OF THE POTENTIALITIES OPEN TO HIM
BECAUSE OF THIS REALITY OF MAN CARE MUST BE TAKEN THAT THERE BE NO
MANIPULATION THAT MAKES MAN LESS HUMAN THAT VIOLATES THE DIGNITY OF HIS
PERSONALITY MADE TO THE IMAGE OF GOD.
MAN IS FALLEN AND REDEEMED FROM THE DAWN OF HISTORY, MAN ABUSED HIS
FREEDOM SET HIMSELF AGAINST GOD AND SOUGHT TO FIND FULFILLMENT APART
FROM GOD.
AS A CONSEQUENCE, MAN BECAME AWARE OF HIS LIMITATIONS AND HIS ABILITY TO
BECOME WHAT HE OUGHT AND DESIRES TO BECOME. MAN’S REASON HAS BEEN
CLOUDED AND HIS WILL WEAKENED BY SIN AND THUS THE IMAGE OF GOD HAS BEEN
DISTORTED
THROUGH THE INCARNATION GOD HAS ENTERED HUMAN HISTORY AND RESTORED
THE IMAGE OF GOD IN MAN. “ON ACCOUNT OF HIS GREAT LOVE, HE BACAME WHAT
WE ARE THAT HE MIGHT MAKE US WHAT HE IS.” (ST. IRINAEUS)
THE CHRISTIAN RESPONSE TO GOD’S CALL MUST INVOLVE ENTRUSTING ONESELF
COMPLETELY TO THE LORD. EACH MORAL CHOICE IS A STEP OF FAITH INTO THE
FUTURE WHICH PREPARES FOR THE NEXT STEP INTO THE UNKNOWN DESTINY WHICH
GOD HAS PREPARED FOR THOSE WHO LOVE HIM.
NATURE AND GRACE GRACE IS A GRATUITUOUS GIFT OF GOD TO ALL PERSONS
PERSONS IT IS A SHARE IN THE VERY NATURE OF GOD IT IMPLIES THE INDWELLING
OF THE BLESSED TRINITY IN THE SOUL OF MAN IS A DESTINY GOING BEYOND THE
CAPACITY OF MA HENCE IT IS CALLED SUPERNATURAL. CHRISTIAN LIFE CONSISTS IN
CONFORMING TO THE WORKINGS OF THE HOLY SPIRIT IN THE DEPTHS OF MAN’S
HEART.
Man and Society Man and the State Human Relationship and The Necessity of Law
Man and Ethics Man and Human Rights
The Greek philosopher aptly said: “He who is unable to live in a society, or who has
no need of it because he is sufficient to himself, must be either a beast or a God.”
Paradox is that man creates society but society also creates man; that there can be no
society without a man, just as there can be no man without society. Man and Society
Man and the State
The human person is a citizen of the State. As a citizen, he/she needs to be maka-
tao, maka-bayan, maka- kalikasan and maka-Diyos. He needs to exercise his sense
of nationalism and globalism which require that he lives moral values and social virtues
of pagsasarili, pagkakaisa, pakikipagkapwa-tao and pagkabayani.
Man and the State Does Man exist for the State or does the State exist for Man? Is Man
a creature of the State or is the State, a creature of Man? Various philosophical theories
attempted to answer the foregoing questions above. These are: • The Pantheistic
Theory • The Divine Right Theory • The Social Contract Theory • The Christian Theory
The Pantheistic Theory
• Pantheism is the belief that God and the universe are the same. That God is an
expression of the physical forces of nature. • According to Hegel, a German philosopher
of Idealism, posited that the State is the social substance, a terrestrial divinity that
exists prior to the citizens. • State Absolutism, the State has absolute power, dominion
and control over its citizens. The state is not the creation of man.
The Divine Right Theory
• Asserts that the State is a divine institution. Its ruler holds his office by divine right.
His government is directly answerable to God alone and not accountable to the
governed. • All power and authority come from God and do not emanate from the
people. • Therefore, whoever resists authority resists what God has appointed and
those who resist will incur judgment (Romans 13: 1-2)
The Social Contract Theory
• The existence of a State originated from a contract freely entered into by its citizens.
This social contract is perceived and interpreted differently by political philosophers like
Thomas Hobbes and Jean- Jacques Rousseau. • Hobbes implies advocacy for absolute
monarchy, contended that humans are materialistic and pessimistic. That their actions
are motivated solely by self-interest, thus, a state’s ability can only be guaranteed by
authority, to which citizens relinquish their rights. • Rosseau, on the other hand,
theorizes that when human beings formed a social contract to live in society, they
delegated authority to a government however, they retained sovereignty and the power
to withdraw that authority when necessary or infers the absolute democracy and
individualism.

The Christian Theory

• This theory resolves to offer a solution to the seemingly contradicting theories
anchored on the principle that man is a social as well as personal being. • He is born
and grows into full self as a person only in relation to others. He is involved in concrete
relationships with his family, neighborhood, friends, co-workers and God (Moga,
1995:85). • Thus, man’s social nature is the root existence of a state.
Human Relationship and the Necessity of Law
“No man is an island.”
- John Doone
Human Relationship and The Necessity of Law • Man as a participant in the realm of
beings. He is metaphysical paradox; an individual yet universal. He possesses unique
accidental individuating features and qualities that make him physically and
personally different from others. • Thus, to be human, he is not to isolate himself as
individual but to be in a society in harmonious relation or interaction with others.
Human Relationship and The Necessity of Law • According to Martin Buber, a Jewish
existentialist philosopher, there are two ways of relating with others: I-IT Mode and I-
THOU Mode: • I-IT Mode – man treats his fellowmen as objects, tools or instruments.
This treatment falls under the utilitarian mechanism. He uses others like machine to
achieve his purpose or interest. Only what is useful is good. • I-THOU Mode – man
considers his fellowmen as subjects and ends in themselves. There is an atmosphere
of openness, commitment, reciprocity, personal involvement, care and love. Each
protects and upholds his self-worth not because of individual usefulness but because
one or the other is valued.
Necessity of Law.
• Law protects the mechanism in the exercise of human freedom. It regulates the
relationship of free individual. • Its clips off excessive selfish drive that violates
other’s right. It is something that restricts a very minimal part of human freedom for
the preservation of the integrity of that same freedom.
Man and Ethics
The ethical question of human action has been raised to define the meaning, the end
and purpose of human living. Philosophical thoughts such as Hedonism, Utilitarianism,
Moral Positivism, Moral Evolutionism, and Communism have attempted to present an
answer. Their perspective answer may be good or defective but let us appreciate how
each philosophy presents its theory.
Hedonism
As a philosophical doctrine, Hedonism regards pleasure as the ultimate good. It holds
that the supreme end of man consists in the acquisition of pleasure. As an ethical
theory, it asserts that human acts are good if they give sensient pleasure of the
moment, while they are bad if they do not offer temporal happiness to man. The basis
of morality, then, is pleasure that momentarily satisfies them.
 A strong reaction to Hedonism was posited by Epicurus, a Greek philosopher and
founder of Epicureanism. He thought one’s aim should be a life of lasting pleasure best
attained by the guidance of reason. He argued that happiness was goal of life, and
saw it not as the pure indulgence of pleasure but as attainment of honesty and social
justice.

Utilitarianism
Utilitarianism theory of ethics that holds that the rightness or wrongness of an action
is determined by the happiness, its consequences produce. It makes usefulness or
utility as the norm of morality. If an action gives useful result, it is good, while if it does
not, then it is bad.
This theory is classified into: egoism and altruism. The former holds that an act is good
if it produces temporal happiness and satisfaction to the individual, while it is bad if an
act prevents this happiness to occur. The latter holds that an act is good if it is useful
to society. This social utilitarianism seeks the greatest good of the greatest number.
The theory started in the 18th century with thinker, Jeremy Bentham, who believed
that actions are motivated by pleasure and pain, and that happiness can be assessed
by the quantity of pleasure. His follower, John Stuart Mill, later argued that some
pleasures should be sought for their intrinsic quality. He interpreted the principles of
utilitarianism as a basis for the struggle for political and social reform.
Moral Evolutionism Moral evolutionism, as an ethical theory, holds that morality is
flexible, relative and continuously changing and evolving towards its perfection. This
postulates applies the theory of biological evolution to morals. The theory of biological
evolution as laid down by Charles Darwin and Alfred Russel Wallace, states that life
forms with certain characteristics tend to reproduce in larger numbers and survive
environmental changes better than other life forms that lack these characteristics.
The concept of changing morality is a kin to the adjustment theory of Herbert Spencer
who defines life as the continuous adjustment to self to other selves. Morality,
according to Spencer, means, therefore, the adjustment of the individual to his fellows,
co-existing in a society. The concept of good act of man is that which makes man well
adjusted, while a bad act, that which makes him unhappy due to maladjustment.
Moral Positivism Moral positivism is the theory that holds that the laws of the State
are the source of all moral laws. An act is good if it is in conformity with the laws of the
State, while it is bad if an act is forbidden. This theory makes morality relative. It
reverses the natural order of things being that man with his voting rights precedes the
State. Moreover, rightness or wrongness of an act does not depend on whether it is
forbidden or allowed. Morality is fixed or absolute, notwithstanding the absence of laws.
Communism The moral philosophy of communism is anchored on its logical
consequence of its view of reality. This view of reality as espoused by Karl Marx and
Frederick Engel is rooted in three basic concept: • That productive labor is the
fundamental attribute of human nature; • That the structure of any society is determine
by its economic means of production; • That societies evolve by a series of crises caused
by internal contradictions analyzable and resolvable by dialectical materialism.
Dialectical materialism was substantially influences by George Wilhelm Friedrich
Hegel’s dialectical method by which an idea (thesis) was challenged by its opposite
(antithesis), and the two ultimately reconciled in a third idea (synthesis) that assumed
both. Under this foregoing theory, matter is the only reality. This reality is in constant
motion and change so that all phenomena are manifestations of the dialectic process.
Everything is in flux towards the attainment of a perfect state: classless society. Since
everything changes, morality, too, does change. An act is good if it brings about the
realization of this perfect society, while bad, if it prevents the same. This becomes norm
of morality: the end justifies the means.
Man and Human Rights
Introduction Man is a human person. As a person, he has the power to think, judge
and reason. He possesses worth and dignity. This is human nature and therefore, he is
the subject of rights and possess human right.
Nature of Human Right Human right is a “moral and inviolable power to hold, to do
or to exact something from others. It is otherwise called natural right which grows out
of the nature of man based and plainly assured by natural law. Such are the rights
of life, liberty, property, privacy and good reputation.
Philosophical Foundation of Human Rights 1. The doctrine of social contract 2. The
doctrine of natural rights 3. The doctrine of popular sovereignty 4. The doctrine of
revolution
Social Contract Doctrine Postulated by Thomas Hobbes (1588), John Locke (1632)
and Jean Jacques Rousseau (1712) in different perspectives. Their common
assumption is: there was in some primeval past, a pre-political state of nature; that
men, under such state, lived without any government and every man did that which he
Hobbes, described it as a condition of anarchy and depravity. Locke characterized
it as a life of reason and simplicity of life which did not necessarily require a
government. Rousseau compared the state of nature to the Garden of Paradise,
where innocence and ignorance abound.
Natural Rights Doctrine The natural rights doctrine is grounded on the assumption
that men who were born free and living in a non-political state came into the world with
certain natural rights. Such rights preceded the existence of social and political
institutions. Leaders and/or officials of the government who violate these rights must
be removed, their authority be ignored and laws enacted be repealed.
Revolution Doctrine It advocated the belief that the people have the right to change
or abolish an existing government if and when they see and experience it to be
destructive and violative of their rights and liberties. The doctrine authorizes
revolution as a means to institute a new government that can ensure people’s safety
and happiness. “A revolution can either be armed and bloody or a peaceful one.”
Man’s Origin
Man’s Origin Creationism holds that man was created by God, who made him unto
His image and likeness. This theory was based on the biblical account in the Book of
Genesis. The process of man’s creation is narrated simply as follows: “__then the LORD
God formed man from the dust of the ground, and the breathed into his nostrils the
breath of life; and the man became a living being”(Genesis2:7)
On the other hand, evolutionism asserts that man descended from simpler ancestors
whose lineage can be traced back to an exceeding to an exceedingly simpler form of
life. Through evolution, a single-celled organism develops by natural descent into
various forms of life which are structurally complex and have an increased range of
functions or powers. Man is the most complex product of such development.
As discussed beforehand, the doctrine of creationism was based on the Genesis account
on how God created the world in six days. On the contrary, the theory of evolution
stands on solid scientific grounds. There is no apparent conflict/clash between the two
doctrines. The problem of harmonizing the two systems would now depend on how
Christian thinkers would approach the biblical story in Genesis. They may interpret
the passages either literally or liberally. If literally constructed, the Genesis story would
give us this interpretation: that there were six days of creation; and that there was
direct and separate creation of each species.
If liberally interpreted, the passage would mean: that God is the Creator; and that the
Genesis does not tell us how God actually created the world. Moreover, the literal
method could never give any concession or compromise to the theory of evolution.
Creationism, as a closed system , would not make any accommodation to evolutionism.
However, the liberal method is open to any possibility of accommodating the new
theory.
.
Fullness of Humanity
According to father Michael D. Moga, human beings are not necessarily human. Such a
statement may sound very puzzling but it is true for two reasons. First of all, it takes
much time and effort for a human being to grow to the point where his own nature has
reached full realization. It will take many years of training and education by his
family and society, many years of effort and struggle on his own part before the fullness
of humanity can be achieved. Until that state of full humanness is attained we cannot
say that he is fully human.
Secondly, it is very possible that an individual human being will not reach full
development at all. It means there are human beings which fail to possess those basic
qualities which are required for full humanness. Thus, we use the word “inhuman”
to describe such persons. They may be cruel, insensitive to others, irrational, in their
lives and dealings with others. Sometimes, we use the word “animal” to describe
persons who follow their lower instincts and ignore their consciences, their human
dignity and the higher values of human life. We judge such inhuman people, such
“animals,” to be less than fully human.
Thus, the fullness of humanity not only takes a great deal of time to reach but often in
a significant way it is not reached at all. But a question arises. What is this fullness
of human life which we human beings can attain? What are those characteristics that
we should strive to develop? What makes man truly human?
Again, what makes man truly a human? Likewise, there is no point in inventing
artificial differences between humans and lower animals, such as love, compassion,
appreciation of beauty, ability to think abstractly, self-awareness or the ability to use
tools. Besides, man has the ability to reason while animals act mostly by instinct.
Biologically, what most distinguish us from other animals are the size of our brain
compared to body size, our fully opposable thumbs, our bipedal stance and our pharynx
which allows complex speech. .
The Greek Ideal of Full Development
The Greeks believe that the fully human person is one who lives a life of a completely
developed human being. They believed the following: First of all, human beings have
physical potentialities and it is possible for them to develop their bodies and their bodily
skills. Some of these skills are connected with sports and leisure as they learn to
run, to swim and to dance. Other skills are practical: the ability to type, the ability to
drive a car or to fly a plane, the ability to master crafts such as carpentry or masonry.
Secondly, human beings have many mental abilities that can be developed. They can
expand their capacities to imagine and to dream of new possibilities. They can learn
to think more logically and to bring rationality more completely into their lives. They
can become expert in one of the many human sciences. They can become more aware
of the presence of beauty in nature and in the human arts.
Thirdly, human beings can develop communication skills, learning how to read and to
write and to talk. It may take years to develop these skills but, once they are mastered,
individuals are better able to function as full human beings. They can express their
ideas clearly and forcefully. They can bring understanding, joy and beauty to those who
read what they write or who listen to what they say.
Fourthly, human beings can develop their social skills in many different ways. They can
become loyal friends, good mothers and fathers, active members of society. They
can become generals in armies, religious leaders, effective leaders of political
communities. As individuals learn to play their roles in society and make significant
contributions to society, they fullfill some of their social potentialities. Thus, from the
Greeks we have a clear ideal for human life, the development of all human potentialities
to the level of excellence. It is a humanism which has inspired and guided many peoples
over the ages.
Again, what makes man truly a human? Likewise, there is no point in inventing
artificial differences between humans and lower animals, such as love, compassion,
appreciation of beauty, ability to think abstractly, self-awareness or the ability to use
tools. Besides, man has the ability to reason while animals act mostly by instinct.
Biologically, what most distinguish us from other animals are the size of our brain
compared to body size, our fully opposable thumbs, our bipedal stance and our pharynx
which allows complex speech. .
Man as Person
Man is born into this world as an individual. As an individual, a person is existing
separately and independently from others, capable of knowing and loving in an
intellectual way, and of deciding for himself the purpose or end of his actions. (Brennan:
Man as Cosmic Perfection
Man is a person. As such, he occupies the topmost rung in the ladder of corporeal
substances. He is the most perfect being composed of body and soul. Man is perfect
in comparison with other creatures because he has the gift of intellect and will.
Man is the microcosm of the whole universe. He incorporates in him all those powers
belonging to the lower creatures. He exists the way that chemical do. He senses,
feels, and moves the same way that animals do. But above all, he thinks and wills and
is in control of himself. Here is how one writer describes man’s awesome powers.
Human Act Backgrounder: What is Human Act? Every human act presupposes a
doer.(assume something in advance: to believe that a particular thing is true before
there is any proof of it). Thus, the sentence “ Dr. Estimada teaches Baliuag University
” presupposes that Dr. Estimada has a student.
Essential Attributes or Characteristics of Human Acts For an act to be considered a
human act, it must possess the following characteristics: It must be performed by a
conscious agent who is aware of what he is doing and of its consequences. Children
below the age of reason, the insane, the senile – are considered incapable of acting
knowingly. It must be voluntary action/willingness performed by man who is acting
freely, that is, by his own volition and powers. An action done under duress and against
one’s will is not entirely a free action. It must be performed by a man who decides
wilfully to perform the act. This wilfulness is the resolve to perform an act here and
now, or in some future time.
Moral Distinction
Human acts may either be in conformity or not with the dictates of reason. “Dictates
of reason” refers to the shared consciousness of prudent people about the propriety of
a certain action or manner of behaviour. It shows what is permissible in a given
situation, the best option as a matter of fact.
“Dictates of Reason” stands for the norm of morality which is the standard by which
actions are judged as to their merits or demerits. On the basis of their relation to the
norm of morality, actions are classified into moral, immoral, or amoral. 1. Moral
actions are those actions which are in conformity with the norm of morality. They are
good actions and are permissible. Working, studying, paying a debt, telling the truth.
Loving a friend-are moral actions.
2. Immoral actions are those actions which are not in conformity with the norm of
morality. They are bad or evil and are not permissible. Refusing to help the needy,
committing murder, adultery, stealing, telling lies-are immoral actions. 3. Amoral
actions are those actions which stand neutral in relation to norm of morality. They are
neither good nor bad in themselves. But certain amoral actions may become good or
bad because of the circumstances attendant to them. Playing basketball is an amoral
act but playing basketball when one is supposed to be attending a class is wrong.
Playing basketball out of sense of duty to the team is good.
Extrinsic and Intrinsic Evil the relation of actions to the norm of morality is either
intrinsic or extrinsic. Something is intrinsic to a thing when it is integral to the nature
of that thing. The sweetness of a mango fruit is, for example, intrinsic to it. But the
appeal of a mango to a particular person is extrinsic to it, that is, such quality is not an
integral element of it as fruit. Some actions are intrinsically evil because their nature
is defective either by excess or by lack of certain attributes. For example, is the
nature of stealing which, by nature, manifests lack of respect for the property of
another.
Some other actions are extrinsically evil because certain factors attached to them by
way of circumstances render them opposed to the norm of morality. Drinking liquor is
extrinsically evil when done in excess. (Too much of anything is good for nothing)
Actions that are intrinsically evil are prohibited at all times under any circumstances.
Actions that are extrinsically evil may be tolerated provided the circumstance rendering
it to be wrong is first removed. Suicide is intrinsically evil and remains immoral
whatever is its justification. Therapeutic abortion is extrinsically evil when it is
resorted to as a necessary means to safeguard the life of the mother.
Moralists distinguish between an intrinsic evil and an extrinsic evil. “Intrinsic’ implies a
quality inherent in a thing. Thus, an intrinsic evil act is an act which is evil by its
nature. “Extrinsic” implies a quality which is superficially added to a thing in a manner
that a coat of paint covers the surface of a wall without modifying the essentiality of
the wood constituting the wall. According to Fr. Panizo, an extrinsic evil act is that
which, although good or indifferent in itself, is however prohibited by a human law
(Ethics: 5) An example of extrinsic evil act is that of eating meat by Catholics on the
Fridays of Lent, or, the giving of alms to beggars as prohibited by law in Manila.
The End Does not Justify the Means To the doer, an act is a means for achieving an
aim or purpose. We, for instance study in order to acquire knowledge, to pass the
course, to receive a degree, and to qualify for a job. It is, however, wrong to attempt
at a good purpose by dubious or evil means. A student may not cheat in an exam in
order to graduate; an employee may not fake his documents in order to be promoted
to a job; the public official may not accept briber in order to finance a health center,
and an impoverished father may not steal in order to feed his family. The axiom –
“the end (motive) does not justify the means (action)”, means that the worthiness of
purpose does not make an evil act good. Nothing is more pernicious than for a
hoodlum to believe that he is justified in robbing the rich because he wants to share
the loot with the poor.
3. A good action done on account of a good purpose acquires an additional merit.
Example: The father who sacrifices his expensive hobby in order to send his children to
school shows a deeper concern for the welfare of his loved ones. 4. An indifferent act
may either become good or bad depending on the motive. Example: Opening the door
of a house is an indifferent act. But the servant who, in connivance with the thieves,
opens the door of the house of his master, does a wrongful act. On the other hand,
opening the door in order to give alms to a beggar is a good act.
The Greatest Happiness for the Greatest Number. The guiding principle in
utilitarianism is that when you make a moral decision you should do what brings the
greatest happiness or good to the greatest number of people.
Utilitarianism is a based on maximising utility or happiness. A good act increases
happiness or reduces pain. A bad act increases suffering or reduces happiness.
Utilitarianism is a consequentialist ethical system, which means it is concerned with
consequences.
Act-utilitarianism: Looks at the consequences of a particular ACT-if greatest happiness
for greatest number that act is RIGHT.
A good example of utilitarianism is: Say there is a train coming toward a group of 5
people tied to the tracks and you're standing by the lever to make the train go onto a
different path that is heading towards yourself. A utilitarian would pull the lever to
make the train head in his/her direction. Killing one person creates a greater amount
of good than killing 5 people
How do you think a utilitarian would respond in the following situations and why?
You run an orphanage and have suffered difficulties in providing its needs particularly
a service vehicle. A car dealership offers you a new van worth half a million pesos
for free if you will falsely report to the government that the dealership donated a van
worth one million pesos. You really need the van and it will give you an opportunity
to make the children happy. Would a utilitarian agree to take the van?
You are on a boat and nearby are two large rocks filled with people waiting to be
rescued; there are five people on one rock and four on the other. Assume that you
cannot rescue both groups and that you are the only one able to rescue either group.
Which group would a utilitarian rescue?
30 people have been infected with a deadly disease which is very contagious and has
no known cure. The health board have locked them in a room to keep them isolated
from the rest of the community as they believe the disease will spread very quickly and
kill large numbers of people if the infected people are released. The police have been
called in to kill the 30 people and eradicate the risk of danger. Would a utilitarian agree
with this action?
Now think again…
You run an orphanage and have suffered difficulties in providing its needs particularly
a service vehicle. A car dealership offers you a new van worth half a million pesos
for free if you will falsely report to the government that the dealership donated a van
worth one million pesos. You really need the van and it will give you an opportunity
to make the children happy. A month after you agreed to take the van the authorities
found out the truth about what had happened. They removed the van from the
orphanage and sacked you because of the fraud. The orphanage was unable to find
a replacement and has had to be closed down as a result.

References
Philosophy of man
Diosdado P. Estimada,
Ph. D. Faculty, CAS Department
https://www.slideshare.net/GeneralTobias/philosophy-of-man-dr-diosdado-
estamada?from_action=save