XAVIER UNIVERSITY – ATENEO DE CAGAYAN

“SOCIAL JUSTICE: THE HUMAN PERSON’S QUEST FOR MORALITY: A

SYNTHESIS PAPER FOR GENERAL ETHICS”

SUBMITTED TO:

THE PHILOSOPHY DEPARTMENT

SUBMITTED BY:

JAMES PATRICK B. PABONITA

CAGAYAN DE ORO CITY

FEBRUARY 2022
 Abstract

This synthesis paper for general ethics will explore the idea of the human person
as a moral agent that has the capacity for self-determination. And the capacity for self-
determination, anchored in the innate goodness of the human person, answers the call
of morality through social justice. This is to formulate a prescriptive account of ethics
that answers the question why the pursuit for the human person’s development of
morality to address the dignity of every human being leads into the conception and
practice of the theory of justice.
 Introduction

As moral agents, men must have a shared and universal understanding of

morality. To live in harmony within a society by which man belongs, one must settle
and establish an order directed by certain principles on which everyone agrees wherein
the human person’s inherent goodness allows for the formulation of such principles.
Hence, to explore these said principles, this synthesis paper for General Ethics will
only discuss the moral nature of the human person, the moral action of the human
person as guided by self-determination and freedom, and how the principle of social
justice plays out on the human person’s call for morality.

Before going into the moral nature of the human person, it is necessary to
consider what makes the human person truly human. As a basis for establishing the
understanding the human person’s moral nature, St. Thomas Aquinas would say that,
the human person is composed of a body and a spirit and both are necessarily
inseparable. This is what makes the existence of the human person in a corporeal
world possible. With the existence of the human person established, this follows that
the human person is able to develop laws or moral standards by which the human
person follows. Otherwise, it would be difficult for laws or moral standards to make
sense if the human person is a spirit alone or that a body alone without spirit and would
render our inquiry into ethics more specifically into the moral nature of the human
person negligible as it would bear no weight.

For brevity, we add the insight of Marcel on his account for the incarnate subject,
wherein the human person has a subjective self that observes and give meaning of
existence from the experience enabled by a material body. It follows that the human
person is endowed with a mind that allows for the thinking and organizing a life project
by which morality is involved. This means that the human person is born with freedom
and reason. That the human person, through the use of reason is capable of conceiving
the good in the process of building the self through a life project.

It is freedom that allows the human person to freely formulate a choice. This
builds the cornerstone of Ethics whereby the human person’s potential for the good is
enable by freedom. Ethics compels the human person via reason that he must
comprehend the implications of his acts and, as a result, choose the action that best
fit with the human person’s notion of goodness. Hence, this paper will only explore the
ideas related to the theory of social justice and how the human person plays its role in
conceiving and practicing such.
The Human Person in his Moral Nature

The human person lives in a certain condition of nature, according to John

Locke. This is the state of being that existed prior to the establishment of governments
and laws. This conceives the natural law that controlled humans, as conceived by the
human person via reason. This universally applicable natural law creates the basis for
social interaction and cooperation. In this state of nature, the human person is
completely free to organize his actions and dispose of his property and himself as he
pleases, subject only to the constraints imposed by natural law. This natural condition
shows something about the human person's nature. Even in the absence of political
systems that regulate and authorize activities, the human person conceived certain
standards that govern them: natural law.

The human person in his natural condition is entirely free to dispose of himself
or his property, but he is not free to destroy himself or any created object in his
possession unless it is absolutely necessary for some greater purpose. 1 Even in its
most natural condition, freedom, which is critical to the study of ethics, has boundaries.
Even in the absence of human laws and a hierarchy of authority to enforce them, the
human person retains an intuitive grasp of ethical principles and a limit to his freedom.
Natural law occurs in all human beings even before a physical manifestation of the
rules has been documented and agreed upon by a society, since natural law exists
independently of any laws devised by the human person.

The human person is bound by the aforementioned natural law, which is

inherent in every being that lives within the physical universe. And natural law is
essentially discovered by the human person through reason. John Locke would say
that “...reason, which is that [natural] law, teaches anyone … that because we are all
equal and independent, no-one ought to harm anyone else in his life, health, liberty, or
possessions.”2 This tells us that reason is a natural rule. All human beings possess
inherent reason, as indicated by the concept of the human person as intelligent. This

1
Locke, John, Second Treatise of Government, 107
2
Ibid., 107.

1
is because the human person is born rational, and natural law is inherently discovered
by the use of reason. Thus, as reason dictates, natural law must likewise be inherent
in the human person.

The natural law being discovered via reason itself, is that which allows for the
human person to conceive goodness. Through the use of reason, all human beings
are capable of grasping the notion of what is good and what is ethical. The human
person's moral nature, therefore, is the duty and commitment to act in a way that is
compatible with the goodness that the human person innately has and may arrive at
via reason.

The Human Person’s Freedom for Self-determination

The human person is distinguished from other creatures by their ability to

exercise self-determination or freedom. The ability to self-determine via reason is not
restricted to a single person. Rather, one must acknowledge that his or her freedom is
shared with others. The human person's power to self-determine serves as a
cornerstone for responding to the call of morality. We have the capacity to commit
certain actions and choose what is good and what is bad because we have freedom.
In the sense that it clarifies why evil should be avoided. This would suggest a life
dedicated to the growth of one's morals and the nurturing of values. Our capacity to
think helps us to grasp why the human person should be moral in the first place, which
leads us to the moral life. That is, the human person's inherent predisposition toward
the ability to reason, as well as his potential for self-determination, or freedom, is what
satisfies his moral urge.

The human person's essence involves freedom and free choice, as an

embodied spirit with a body and mind equipped with cognition. The concept of freedom
is a key philosophical subject in the human person's philosophy. Since the way the
human person would choose to exist in the world is a decision among the countless
options accessible, the issue of the human person’s freedom is crucial. The human
person’s personality as an embodied spirit is revealed via action. Nature and its rules
are part of the human person's makeup, but personhood is shown via activity. Because

2
the human person’s potential for self-determination and choice of either route
overshadows the subtleties of the investigation into whether the human person is
fundamentally good or wicked, there is a grey area in the nuances of the inquiry. The
position of the human person’s inherent goodness may be jeopardized if he abuses
his freedom in ways that are incompatible with his goodness, but the position of the
human person as fundamentally wicked can be redeemed if he chooses to engage in
the habitual performance of good actions. The decision to do good or evil comes first,
and it is one that is made freely. Whatever option is chosen, it comes before the human
person's capacity to make his own decisions. As a result, in order to be true human
beings, one must be free, and then one's actions might become a representation of
one's ability to select one's own destiny. Otherwise, it is impossible to be fully human,
whether good or bad. This perspective, however, has yet to be addressed in the
portions of the article that follow the question, "Is the human person really free?"

B.F. Skinner

The human person as argued by B.F. Skinner, is absolutely determined. Skinner

proposes three conditions that are incompatible with the human person's freedom: first,
that all action of the human person is determined by a previously determined action;
second, that there are necessary causes that develop into motivational causes that
determine an action; and third, that the human person’s historicity determines his
actions.3 This position of B.F. Skinner is a study of the human person’s behavior
observed from a scientific perspective. Manuel Dy claims that “[the] hypothesis of that
the human person is not free is essential to the application of the scientific method to
the study of human behavior.”4 Skinner's research on the seeming inevitability of the
human person's activities, as well as the impact of habitual and determined behaviors
on the human person's freedom, led him to the conclusion that the human person's
acts are not totally free, but rather are influenced by his conditioned response to the
environment.

3
Dy, Manuel B, Philosophy of Man Selected Readings, 174.
4
Ibid., 174.

3
 However, this paper does not agree with Skinner's view on absolute
determinism. The life project of the human person is enabled by his reason and
freedom hence, the human person would be no different from an animal if he did not
have freedom. The human person’s ability to think is intrinsic by natural law, as stated
in the preceding section. This indicates that, even if the human person had the capacity
for reason, his ability to understand and grasp facts is rendered useless in the absence
of freedom. As a result, total determinism is irreconcilable with the human person’s
inherent ability for reasoning. If everything is determined, the goal of learning via
reason is worthless, and the understanding of new information is useless to the human
person. As a result, absolute determinism implies that everything stated and studied is
also determined, meaning that such a viewpoint is contradictory and therefore making
absolute determinism obsolete. As a result, freedom is inherent in the human person
and cannot be separated from it; otherwise, the human person would cease to be truly
human. The human person's independence permits him to completely grow as a
person. The human person's freedom enables him to make decisions and take actions
based on the realities he has discovered as part of his life's work. This is an
intellectually planned and voluntarily willed life endeavor.

Sartre

Sartre claims that "man is condemned to be free" 5 because he is accountable

for his actions in this life project, and the consequences of his actions are the product
of his own choice rather than anyone else's, and this condition of freedom causes him
agony and existential discomfort. The human person is anxious about his selections
when he discovers that he has the option to choose and that his choices effect his
whole life. He who knows and defines who he is confronted with existential dread, as
he is compelled to be very careful in his actions since he is free and that he is doomed
to be free, and that his current condition of existence is completely a product of his
choice.

However, freedom cannot be absolute as contrary to what Sartre suggests. This

is because is still bound to certain laws, natural and legal, by which he is compelled to

5
Sartre, Jean-Paul, Being and Nothingness,

4
follow. The former would suggest that the human person cannot entirely escape the
bounds of natural laws such as physics and mathematics – that is, the human person
cannot simply render 1 + 1 = 3 or whatever number comes into his mind just because
he is endowed with freedom. On the latter, the human person cannot simply kill
someone under the pretense that he is free because there are laws that impedes him
and would face him with consequences as suggested by legal laws. Hence, the
discussion continues to look into the nuances of the human person’s freedom on the
facts established by Sartre and Skinner.

Maslow

Abraham Maslow proposes a middle ground between absolute determinism and

absolute freedom. Maslow asserts, in opposition to absolute determinism, that: “man
cannot be reduced to his historicity, to his environment, to determinism; nor can man
be totally divorced from them.” 6 While the human person is inextricably linked to his
history and environment, these variables do not totally define him. Maslow argues that
one's environment is necessary for freedom since it establishes the frameworks
necessary for the human person to learn to utilize his freedom. However, this structure
does not mean that freedom is fully determined. These structures guide freedom
toward a shape that is most compatible with his intrinsic goodness. Maslow describes
these structures and their connection to freedom as follows: "the fact of being human
will give rise to structures, values, and demands which will not militate against my
freedom, but will actually make freedom possible and enhance it"7 These frameworks
allow a person to extend his independence in a manner compatible with the concepts
and values that drive humankind's harmonious connection with the rest of creation.
This organized liberty is a critical idea for grasping human liberty. The human person's
freedom must be defined in terms of how it is constructed around the fulfillment of a
person's goodness and the values that create the most basic principles of human
cohabitation, rather than as the ability to do anything one wants.

6
Dy, Manuel B, Philosophy of Man Selected Readings, 174.
7
Ibid, 179.

5
The Human Person’s Innate Goodness

According to Thomas Hobbes, the human person's nature is harsh and callous.
According to Hobbes, the human person lives in his natural state, which is a state of
conflict. The human person struggles for survival and to defend himself from all other
people while he is in a situation of conflict. Hobbes asserts that the human person is
an opponent to all men... and that the human person's existence is lonely,
impoverished, horrific, brutish, and brief. Each guy is considered as a competition for
the resources deemed desirable by each person. When each individual has a self-
interest, social cooperation becomes challenging. In a conflict scenario, the human
person must exercise caution in his interactions with other members of society.

Conflict emerges as a consequence of this fundamental self-centered drive.

According to Hobbes, there are three primary points of conflict in the human person's
character. There is first rivalry; then there is uncertainty; and lastly, there is glory. The
first motivates men to invade in search of wealth; the second in search of protection;
and the third in search of reputation. When faced with those who want just to satiate
their needs, the human person must be vigilant and circumspect about the means by
which he obtains what he wishes.

Despite Hobbes' vivid and disturbing portrayal of human nature, this is not a
widely held view of human nature. John Locke, Confucius, and Aquinas all give positive
explanations for human nature. Their view of human nature is that it is basically good
but is corruptible. Humans being innately good presupposes a positive perspective of
the human condition. The notion that the human person is fundamentally good instills
hope that he will continue to spread the goodness of his nature throughout his life.

According to John Locke's Second Treatise of Government, humanity

conceives of its goodness via reason in its natural condition. According to Locke,
reason, which is that law, tells everyone... that since we are all equal and self-sufficient,
no one should injure another's life, health, liberty, or property. Natural law, which is
reason, governs the human person's condition of nature and enables him to behave
ethically even in the absence of human rules or authority. Without the need for
authority, reason allows the human person to conceive of moral standards governing
human relationships. These basic rights form the bedrock of human interaction.

6
 St Thomas Aquinas defined God as the ultimate truth and kindness, as well as
perfection itself. In conformity with His omnibenevolence, God, as the ultimate
goodness, created all things from an essential essence. His creation participates in His
goodness via what Aquinas refers to as natural law. Natural law is about the rational
creature's participation in the eternal law. Due to God's omnibenevolence and the
rational creature's participation in God's eternal law, the human person must be an
essentially good being that shares in God's ultimate goodness.

The Call to Morality Answered by Social Justice

The human person exists as a social entity inside a human community. The
human person’s presence in society necessitates a system of human social interaction,
emphasizing the need of a philosophical investigation into ethics. A need exists for an
ethics that establishes the morality of interpersonal moral conduct. Social justice is the
reaction to this moral imperative, or giving individuals what they are owed based on
their dignity as created creatures of goodness. 8

The study of ethics entails delving into the subject of what ideals and principles
should underpin all human interaction. The validity of a course of action is then
determined in relation to these essential ideals. When a group of human beings joins
together, there must be some degree of agreement or consent over how the group's
business should be managed.

It is vital that the community's operations be regulated by a set of values that

guide all people's relationships. Humans acquire these values via reason. Reason is
capable of elucidating which precise laws should exist in order for a person to be able
to pursue his own self-interests while simultaneously preserving the rights of others.9

Rawls

8
Rawl, John, A Theory of Justice, 4.
9
Ibid, 50.

7
 The inquiry of justice is central to Rawls' moral theory. Justice must be regarded
in this situation in terms of fairness. As a consequence, he separated justice into three
categories. That is, the functions of distribution, retribution, and compensation. He did,
however, detect a discrepancy in favor of the least advantaged. This is what he refers
to as the fair inequality. This is Rawls' difference principle, which holds that disparities
in social and economic terms must benefit the least advantaged in order for them to
be acceptable.

Rawls' explanation started with the first premise. That is, the basic premise is
that everyone has the right to equal and fundamental liberty. This is where the political
constitution comes into play, since it addresses those fundamental needs and assures
equitable access to them for everyone. He next discussed the second principle, which
tackles economic inequities as a matter of justice and fairness and meets two criteria.
The first is when individuals have equal access to opportunities. The second is met by
the principle of difference, which holds that the greatest benefit must go to the least
advantaged.

With this, he suggests a thought experiment that enables us to think in our

natural state. This is an allusion to the pre-fall paradise. Which is concerned about the
welfare of others. According to Rawls, one is clouded from this vantage point by the
veil of ignorance. Being blinded by ignorance, one is unaware of one's own worth and
the worth of possessions. Until then, this will enable the realization of the notion of a
fair society, since the society will ultimately have equal liberty and opportunity.

The second principle allows for uneven distribution of social and economic
goods as long as it serves society's most vulnerable members. This distinction principle
promotes advantages for the most vulnerable, the least advantaged. This concept
states that society should prioritize the needs of its poorest citizens and provide a
system that enables them to escape poverty via access to education and work.

Social Justice as the Answer to the Call to Morality

Following the veil of ignorance is the construction of social justice which serves
as a response to the call to morality for the human person. We established that the
human person is a free being, distinguished from other animals through reason and
8
self-determination, and is able to conceive the good hence have the potential for
morality. Social justice then, guided by Rawls’ theory of justice, is the answer to the
call to morality because it serves moral justice not only on the individual but also to the
overall society built by the free and rational human person as beings created with
innate goodness.

Conclusion and Insight

The study of ethics is the examination of human interaction within a community.

This ethical investigation must look at the human person's inherent freedom and how
that freedom must be used in line with his being as a created good. This liberty must
be complemented with the capacity of the human person to think and grasp concepts
of right and wrong. The study of ethics incorporates the idea of good, determining
which choices are ethically acceptable.

Humanity is inextricably linked to his liberty. Using Manny Dy's expertise as a

guide, "Human freedom precedes and makes possible essence in man; the essence
of the human being is suspended in his freedom." 10 Without this ability to act, man's
reason becomes meaningless - as his whole life goal is consigned to a predetermined
condition. A decided existence demands absolutely no freedom. Without reflection and
planning for the future, the human person's intrinsic capacity to reflect and prepare for
the future would be useless.

The role of reason on Ethics and Morality is crucial because without it, there
would be no set of norms governing each individuals’ relationship. There would be no
duty on the human person to behave morally; rather, he would act in a manner that
enables him to achieve what he wants in the most brutal and inhumane manner
possible. Other individuals who want comparable things would be considered
expendable, and a society devoid of ethics would empower humanity to annihilate itself
as a means to a goal.

10
Dy, Manuel B, Philosophy of Man Selected Readings, 179.

9
 Ethics is an enthralling and vital topic to learn. The more knowledge a person
has about an ethical environment, the more his or her desire to live in accordance with
goodness grows. Humanity may grow and progress into a higher state of being as a
result of ethics. A moral style of life pulls one closer to the God in whom one freely
worships and believes. A life with a purpose is one that is lived freely and ethically.

The ethical inquiry is vital to the harmonious arrangement of the human person's
system of cooperation. The quest for ethical philosophy starts with an understanding
of human nature at its most fundamental level. Extensive discussion of the
philosophical concept of the human person and how he distinguishes from animals and
all other creatures in possessing a soul, reason, and rationality. Ethics is the study of
the human person's moral character and offers the framework for the human person's
existence on Earth. The view of the human person as either morally good or wicked
serves as a jumping-off place for the study of ethics. The human person's search for
morality entails delving into his intrinsic human nature in order to ascertain the natural
basis for the practice of right behavior. This pursuit for the human person's morality
finally results in the theory and practice of social justice, which recognizes and respects
each of the human person's dignity.

10
References

 Dy, Manuel B. Philosophy of Man Selected Readings. 3rd ed. Makati: Katha
Publishing, 2012.

 Locke, John. The Second Treatise of Government. Indianapolis: Bobbs-Merrill,

1952.

 Rawls, John. A Theory of Justice. Cambridge, Massachusetts: The Belknap

Press of Harvard University Press, 1971.

 Sartre, Jean-Paul. Being and Nothingness; An Essay on Phenomenological

Ontology. New York: Washington Square Press, 1966.

 Thomas. The Summa Theologica of St. Thomas Aquinas. London: Burns Oates
& Washbourne, 1912.

11