AGUILA, JOHN DAVID C.

ARC-4205
STS

The Human Person Flourishing in terms of Science and Technology

A. Technology as a Way of Revealing
• A German philosopher Martin Heidegger wrote an essay entitled “The
Question Concerning Technology” which addresses modern technology
and its essence as an instrumental way of revealing the world. He goes
beyond the traditional view of technology as machines and technical
procedures.
• Heidegger’s understanding of technology was based on its essence. First,
the essence of technology is not something we make; it is a mode of
being, or of revealing.
• The second point is that technology even holds sway over beings that we
do not normally think of as technological, such as gods and history.
• Third, the essence of technology as Heidegger discusses it is primarily a
matter of modern and industrial technology.
• And fourth, for Heidegger, technology is not simply the practical
application of natural science. Instead, modern natural science can
understand nature in the characteristically scientific manner only because
nature has already, in advance, come to light as a set of calculable,
orderable forces — that is to say, technologically.
• According to him there are two characteristics of modern technology as a
revealing process. First, the mode of revealing of modern technology is a
challenging. The second characteristic of modern technology as a
revealing process is that the challenging that brings forth the energy of
nature is an “expediting”.
• Heidegger uses a technical word to name the things that are revealed in
modern technology as “standing in reserve”. Things as standing in reserve
are not “objects”. Objects on the other hand, are things that “stand against
us” as things with autonomy.
• For Heidegger enframing is the “essence” of modern technology.
Enframing simply means putting into the frame of modern technology
everything in nature. This “frame” of modern technology is the network or
interlocking things standing in reserve.
B. Human Flourishing
• Human flourishing is said to be the best translation for the Greek word
Eudaimonia, which for both Plato and Aristotle, means not only good
fortune and material prosperity but a situation achieved through virtue,
knowledge and excellence.
• Plato in the Republic, contends that the soul, or mind, has three motivating
parts: rational, spirited or emotional and appetitive. Each of these have
their own desired ends, and Eudomenia or human flourishing requires an
ordering of this tripartite structure of the soul: the rational and spirited
parts.
• Aristotle, in the Nicomachean Ethics, states that Eudaimonia is constituted
not by honor, or wealth power, but by rational activity in accordance with
excellence in the virtues of character including courage, honesty, pride,
friendliness and wittiness, the intellectual virtues notably rationality and
judgment, as well as mutually beneficial friendships and scientific
knowledge, particularly of things that are fundamental and unchanging.
• According to Aristotle, all humans seek to flourish.
• In Aristotle’s schema, there are four aspects of human nature: physical,
emotional, social and rational. As physical beings, we require
nourishment, exercise, rest and all the other things that it takes to keep
our bodies functioning properly. As emotional beings, we have wants,
desires, urges and reactions. As social beings, we must live and function
in particular societies. As rational beings, we are creative, expressive,
knowledge-seeking and able to obey reason.
• Human flourishing also known as personal flourishing involves the rational
use of one’s individual potentialities, including talents, abilities and virtues
• Human flourishing is, at the same time, a moral accomplishment and a
fulfillment of human capacities, and it is one through being the other.
• Not an abstraction, human flourishing is real and highly personal by
nature, consists in the fulfillment of both a man’s human nature and
unique potentialities, and is concerned with choices and actions that
necessarily deal with the particular and the contingent.

The Good Life

A. What is a Good Life?

• One basic way we use the word “good” is to express moral approval. This
moral conception of the good life has had plenty of champions. Socrates
and Plato both gave absolute priority to being a virtuous person over all
other supposedly good things such as pleasure, wealth, or power.
• Many religions also conceive of the good life in moral terms as a life lived
according to God’s laws.
• The ancient Greek philosopher Epicurus was one of the first to declare,
bluntly, that what makes life worth living is that we can experience
pleasure.
• Today, this hedonistic conception of the good life is arguably dominant in
Western culture. What is key to this hedonistic conception of the good life
is that it emphasizes subjective experiences.
• For Aristotle, the good life is a happy life. A person is happy if they are
enjoying a positive state of mind, and their life is happy if this is true for
them most of the time.
• Michael Soupios and Panos Mourdoukoutas wrote a book entitled The
Ten Golden Rules on Living a Good Life where they extracted “ancient
wisdom from the Greek philosophers on living the good life” and mapped it
into modern times.
1. Examine life, engage life with a vengeance; always search for new
pleasures and new destinies to reach with your mind.
2. Worry only about the things that are in your control, the things that can
be influenced and changed by your actions, not about the things that are
beyond your capacity to direct or alter.
3. Treasure Friendship, the reciprocal attachment that fills the need for
affiliation. Friendship cannot be acquired in the market place, but must be
nurtured and treasured in relations imbued with trust and amity.
4. Experience True Pleasure. Avoid shallow and transient pleasures. Keep
your life simple. Seek calming pleasures that contribute to peace of mind.
True pleasure is disciplined and restrained.
5. Master Yourself. Resist any external force that might delimit thought
and action; stop deceiving yourself, believing only what is personally
useful and convenient; complete liberty necessitates a struggle within, a
battle to subdue negative psychological and spiritual forces that preclude
a healthy existence; self-mastery requires ruthless candor. 6. Avoid
Excess. Live life in harmony and balance. Avoid excesses. Even good
things, pursued or attained without moderation, can become a source of
misery and suffering. 7. Be a Responsible Human Being. Approach
yourself with honesty and thoroughness; maintain a kind of spiritual
hygiene; stop the blame-shifting for your errors and shortcomings.
8. Don’t Be a Prosperous Fool. Prosperity by itself is not a cure-all against
an illed life and may be a source of dangerous foolishness. Money is a
necessary but not a sufficient condition for the good life, for happiness and
wisdom.
9. Don’t Do Evil to Others. Evildoing is a dangerous habit, a kind of reflex
too quickly resorted to and too easily justified that has a lasting and
damaging effect upon the quest for the good life. Harming others claims
two victims—the receiver of the harm, and the victimizer, the one who
does harm.
 10. Kindness towards others tends to be rewarded. Kindness to others is a
good habit that supports and reinforces the quest for the good life. Helping
others bestows a sense of satisfaction that has two beneficiaries—the
beneficiary, the receiver of the help, and the benefactor, the one who
provides the help.

B. What is Human Existence?

• The meaning of existence is derived from philosophical and religious
contemplation and scientific inquiries about, social ties, consciousness,
and happiness.
• Aristotle teaches that each man's life has a purpose and that the function
of one's life is to attain that purpose. Aristotle states that each human
being should use his abilities to their fullest potential and should obtain
happiness and enjoyment through the exercise of their realized capacities.
• In Platonism, the meaning of life is in attaining the highest form of
knowledge, which is the Idea of the Good, from which all good and just
things derive utility and value.

C. What is a Public Good?

• Rolando Gripaldo, a Filipino philosopher, argues that the concept of the
public good carries largely the politico-ethical sense, which subsumes the
politico ethical senses. The public good is public in the sense that the
beneficiaries are the general public.
• He also cites mixed public goods which are pursued by private
organizations with a service motivation.
• A public good is that which benefits by its use, the communal or national
public. This can be perceived in two levels. The first level comes from the
people themselves. In this regard, then elements of unity (bonding
together for individual interests) and subsidiarity (working together for the
common good) are significant aspects of a national public good from the
communal or national people’s point of view. The second level comes
from the local or national government, which believes or assumes with the
utilitarian perspective that a particular project or service is desired by the
populace as necessary for their common welfare.
 When Technology and Humanity Cross

A. The Ethical Dilemmas of Robotics

• A complete consensus on the definition of the word “robot” has yet to be
reached. However, it is commonly accepted that robots contain some
combination of the following attributes such as mobility, intelligent
behavior, sense and manipulation of environment. The term “robot” truly
extends to more than just androids. The commonly accepted first use of
the word was in 1920 in the form of a play written by Karel Capek. The
play was entitled R.U.R. (Rossum's Universal Robots) and involves the
development of artificial people. These people are referred to as robots
and while they are given the ability to think, they are designed to be happy
as servants. The use of the word “robot” in Capek's play comes from the
Slavic languages‟ word for “work,” which is robota.
• While the word “robot” was not used until 1920, the idea of mechanical
humans has been around as far back as Greek mythology. It is recorded
that Hephaestus had built robots out of gold which were “his helpers,
including a complete set of life-size golden handmaidens who helped
around the house”. Another example of robots in Greek mythology comes
from the stories of Pygmalion, who is said to have crafted a statue of
Galatea that would come to life.
• Beyond the ancient myths which speak of humanoid robots, one of the
milestones in the design and development of such robots came with the
discovery of Leonardo Da Vinci's journals which contained detailed plans
for the construction of a humanoid robot. Inspired by the ancient myths,
the robot was designed in the form of an armored knight and was to
possess the ability to sit up, wave its arms, move its head, and open its
mouth.
• In a comprehensive article in the New York Times, Robin Marantz Henig
discusses her experiences with what are often labeled “social robots.”
These robots are by no means what the servant robots of Greek
mythology have led many people to hope for; rather they are infant
versions, at best, of the long-hoped-for androids.
• Rodney Brooks is an expert in robotics and artificial intelligence. In an
article written in 2008, Brooks explains that it is no longer a question of
whether human-level artificial intelligence will be developed, but rather
how and when.
• The decision of what level of life robots are to be considered is an
essential one. In 1942 Isaac 7 Asimov introduced to the world of science
fiction what are known as the Three Laws of Robotics, which were
published in his short story “Runaround.” The laws Asimov formulated are:
First, a robot may not injure a human being or, through inaction, allow a
human being to come to harm. Second, a robot must obey any orders
 given to it by human beings, except where such orders would conflict with
the First Law. Third, a robot must protect its own existence as long as
such protection does not conflict with the First or Second Law.
• South Korea is considered one of the most high-tech countries in the
world and they are leading the way in the development of such a code.
Known officially as the Robot Ethics Charter, it is being drawn up “to
prevent human abuse of robots—and vice versa”. The main focus of the
charter is said to be on the social problems the mass integration of robots
into society is bound to create.

B. Human, Morals and Machines

• Scientists are already beginning to think seriously about the new ethical
problems posed by current developments in robotics. Experts in South
Korea were drawing up an ethical code to prevent humans abusing robots,
and vice versa. A group of leading roboticists called the Chapter 2 81
European Robotics Network (Euron) has even started lobbying
governments for legislation.
• The ethical or moral sense for machines can be built on a utilitarian base.
• Their moral reasoning will be subject to the same explanatory
requirements that we would demand of explaining any action they take.
• The advanced capabilities of today’s emerging technologies are driving
many academics, entrepreneurs, and enterprises to envision futures in
which their impacts on society will be nothing short of transformative.
• The article “Is Google Making Us Stupid?” by Nicholas Carrs discusses
the effects that the Internet may be having on our ability to focus, the
difference in knowledge that we now have, and our reliance on the
Internet.
• In summary, the article is split into two pieces. The first is Nicholas Carr’s
longing for his brain to be one with the Internet, a man-made machine.
The second part of the article is Google’s standpoint on how our brains
should be replaced by artificial intelligence.

C. Why the Future Does Not Need Us?

• With the accelerating improvements of technology, computer scientists
succeed in developing intelligent machines that can do all things better
than human beings. In that case presumably all work will be done by vast,
highly organized systems of machines, and no human effort will be
necessary. Either of two cases might occur. The machines might be
permitted to make all of their own decisions without human oversight, or
else human control over the machines might be retained.
• We only point out that the fate of the human race would be at the mercy of
the machines. It might be argued that the human race would never be
foolish enough to hand over all the power to the machines.
• Theodore Kaczynskian American domestic terrorist,also known as the
Unabomber, killed three people during a nationwide bombing campaign
targeting those involved with modern technology and wounded many
others.
• The cause of many such surprises seems clear: The systems involved are
complex, involving interaction among and feedback between many parts.
• A textbook on dystopia and Moravec discuss how our main job in the 21st
century will be “ensuring continued cooperation from the robot industries”
by passing laws decreeing that they be “nice,” and describing how
seriously dangerous a human can be once transformed into an
unbounded superintelligent robot. Moravec’s view is that the robots will
eventually succeed us that humans clearly face extinction.
• Uncontrolled self-replication in these newer technologies runs a much
greater risk: a risk of substantial damage in the physical world.
• The 21st-century technologies–genetics, nanotechnology, and robotics
(GNR)–are so powerful that they can spawn whole new classes of
accidents and abuses. Most dangerously, for the first time, these
accidents and abuses are widely within the reach of individuals or small
groups.
• By 2030, we are likely to be able to build machines, in quantity, a million
times as powerful as the personal computers of today
• The effort to build the first atomic bomb was led by the brilliant physicist J.
Robert Oppenheimer. Oppenheimer was not naturally interested in politics
but became painfully aware of what he perceived as the grave threat to
Western civilization from the Third Reich, a threat surely grave because of
the possibility that Hitler might obtain nuclear weapons.