CHAPTER V

HUMAN FLOURISHING AS
REFLECTED IN
PROGRESS AND DEVELOPMENT

Learning Outcome

At the end of this chapter, the students must have

1) Critique human flourishing vis-à-vis the progress
of science and technology.

2) Explain Hickel’s paradigm of de-development.

3) Differentiate it from the traditional notions of

growth and consumption.

4) Analyze the film entitled “The Magician’s Twin”.

Forget 'developing' poor countries, it's time to

'de-develop' rich countries
Jason Hickel
 Heads of state are gathering in New York to sign
the UN’s new sustainable development goals
(SDGs). The main objective is to eradicate poverty
by 2030. Beyoncé, One Direction and Malala are on
board. It’s set to be a monumental international
celebration.

Given all the fanfare, one might think the SDGs

are about to offer a fresh plan for how to save the
world, but beneath all the hype, it’s business as
usual. The main strategy for eradicating poverty is
the same: growth.

Growth has been the main object of

development for the past 70 years, despite the fact
that it’s not working. Since 1980, the global
economy has grown by 380%, but the number of
people living in poverty on less than $5 (£3.20) a
day has increased by more than 1.1 billion. That’s
17 times the population of Britain. So much for the
trickle-down effect.

Orthodox economists insist that all we need is

yet more growth. More progressive types tell us that
we need to shift some of the yields of growth from
the richer segments of the population to the poorer
ones, evening things out a bit. Neither approach is
adequate. Why? Because even at current levels of
average global consumption, we’re overshooting
our planet’s bio-capacity by more than 50% each
year.

In other words, growth isn’t an option any more

– we’ve already grown too much. Scientists are now
telling us that we’re blowing past planetary
boundaries at breakneck speed. And the hard truth
is that this global crisis is due almost entirely to
overconsumption in rich countries.

Right now, our planet only has enough

resources for each of us to consume 1.8 “global
hectares” annually – a standardized unit that
measures resource use and waste. This figure is
roughly what the average person in Ghana or
Guatemala consumes. By contrast, people in the
US and Canada consume about 8 hectares per
person, while Europeans consume 4.7 hectares –
many times their fair share.

What does this mean for our theory of

development? Economist Peter Edward argues that
instead of pushing poorer countries to “catch up”
with rich ones, we should be thinking of ways to get
rich countries to “catch down” to more appropriate
levels of development. We should look at societies
where people live long and happy lives at relatively
low levels of income and consumption not as basket
cases that need to be developed towards western
models, but as exemplars of efficient living.

How much do we really need to live long and

happy lives? In the US, life expectancy is 79 years
and GDP per capita is $53,000. But many countries
have achieved similar life expectancy with a mere
fraction of this income. Cuba has a comparable life
expectancy to the US and one of the highest
literacy rates in the world with GDP per capita of
only $6,000 and consumption of only 1.9 hectares –
right at the threshold of ecological sustainability.
Similar claims can be made of Peru, Ecuador,
Honduras, Nicaragua and Tunisia.

Yes, some of the excess income and

consumption we see in the rich world yields
improvements in quality of life that are not captured
by life expectancy, or even literacy rates. But even if
we look at measures of overall happiness and
wellbeing in addition to life expectancy, a number of
low- and middle-income countries rank highly.
Costa Rica manages to sustain one of the highest
happiness indicators and life expectancies in the
world with a per capita income one-fourth that of the
US.
 In light of this, perhaps we should regard such
countries not as underdeveloped, but rather as
appropriately developed. And maybe we need to
start calling on rich countries to justify their
excesses.
The idea of “de-developing” rich countries might
prove to be a strong rallying cry in the global south,
but it will be tricky to sell to westerners. Tricky, but
not impossible. According to recent consumer
research, 70% of people in middle- and high-
income countries believe overconsumption is
putting our planet and society at risk. A similar
majority also believe we should strive to buy and
own less, and that doing so would not compromise
our happiness. People sense there is something
wrong with the dominant model of economic
progress and they are hungry for an alternative
narrative.

The problem is that the pundits promoting this

kind of transition are using the wrong language.
They use terms such as de-growth, zero growth or
– worst of all – de-development, which are
technically accurate but off-putting for anyone who’s
not already on board. Such terms are repulsive
because they run against the deepest frames we
use to think about human progress, and, indeed,
the purpose of life itself. It’s like asking people to
stop moving positively thorough life, to stop
learning, improving, growing.

Negative formulations won’t get us anywhere.

The idea of “steady-state” economics is a step in
the right direction and is growing in popularity, but it
still doesn’t get the framing right. We need to
reorient ourselves toward a positive future, a truer
form of progress. One that is geared toward quality
instead of quantity. One that is more sophisticated
than just accumulating ever increasing amounts of
stuff, which doesn’t make anyone happier anyway.
What is certain is that GDP as a measure is not
going to get us there and we need to get rid of it.

Perhaps we might take a cue from Latin

Americans, who are organizing alternative visions
around the indigenous concept of buen vivir, or
good living. The west has its own tradition of
reflection on the good life and it’s time we revive it.
Robert and Edward Skidelsky take us down this
road in his book How Much is Enough? where they
lay out the possibility of interventions such as
banning advertising, a shorter working week and a
basic income, all of which would improve our lives
while reducing consumption.
 Either we slow down voluntarily or climate
change will do it for us. We can’t go on ignoring the
laws of nature. But rethinking our theory of progress
is not only an ecological imperative, it is also a
development one. If we do not act soon, all our
hard-won gains against poverty will evaporate, as
food systems collapse and mass famine re-
emerges to an extent not seen since the 19th
century.

This is not about giving anything up. And it’s

certainly not about living a life of voluntary misery or
imposing harsh limits on human potential. On the
contrary, it’s about reaching a higher level of
understanding and consciousness about what we’re
doing here and why.

QUESTION FOR REFLECTION

After reading the article, answer the following

questions on the spaces provided.

1. What is the main objective of the Sustainable

Development Goals of the United Nations?
2. What is the standardized unit that measures
resource use and waste?

3. What is the standard response to eradicating

poverty?
 4.) What is the threshold of the Earth for
adequately sustaining life?

5.) According to the majority of people in middle

and high income countries, what puts the planet
and society at risk?
6.) How many hectares should each of us consume
annually based on the resources available in the
planet?

7.) What are the two indicators of the quality life

given in the article?

8.) What crisis in the planet would force us to slow

down if we do not do so voluntarily?
9.) According to Hickel, what must be done instead
of urging poor countries to “catch up” with rich
ones?

10.) How do we improve our lives and yet reduce

consumption?

Watch the video clip titled “The Magician’s

Twin: CS Lewis and the Case against Scientism.

Guide Questions:
1.) What is scientism?
2.) How science comparable to magic?

3.)Why is science more dangerous than magic?

4.)What do we need for the science to be good?

REFERENCE
Hickel, J. (2015). Forget 'developing' poor countries,
it's time to 'de-develop' rich countries. The Guardian
retrieved from https://www.theguardian.com/global-
development-professionals-network/2015/sep/23/
developing-poor-countries-de-develop-rich-
countries-sdgs

CHAPTER VI
HUMAN FLOURISHING IN SCIENCE
AND TECHNOLOGY

Learning Outcome

At the end of this chapter, the students must have

1) Discuss what technology reveals.

2) Examine modern technology and its role in

human flourishing.

3) Explain the role of art in a technological world.

4) Identify the achievements of each Philippine

President in the field of science and technology.

The progress of human civilizations throughout

history mirrors the development of science and
technology. The human person, as both the bearer
and beneficiary of science and technology,
flourishes and finds meaning in the world that
he/she builds. In the person’s pursuit of the good
life, he/she may unconsciously acquire, consume,
or destroy what the world has to offer. It is thus
necessary to reflect on the things that truly matter.
Science and Technology must have be taken as
part of human life that merits reflective and – as the
German philosopher Martin Heidegger says –
meditative thinking. Science and Technology,
despite its methodical and technical nature, gives
meaning to the life of a person making his/her way

in the world.

To be able to appreciate the fruits of science

and technology, they must be examined not only for
their function and instrumentality but also for their
greater impact of humanity as a whole. The various
gadgets, machines, appliances, and vehicles are all
tools that make human lives easier because they
serve as a means to an end. Their utility lies on
providing people with a certain good, convenience,
or knowledge. Meanwhile, medical research
employs the best scientific and technological
principles to come up with cures for diseases and
ways to prevent illness to ensure a good quality of
life.

TECHNOLOGY AS A MODE OF REVEALING

In his seminal work, The Question of

Technology, Martin Heidegger urges us to question
technology and see beyond people’s common
understanding of it.
 According to ancient doctrine, the
essence of a thing is considered to be what
the thing is. We ask the question concerning
technology when we ask what it is.
Everyone knows the two statements that
answer our question. One says: Technology
is a means to an end. The other says:
Technology is a human activity. The two
definitions of technology belong together.
For to posit ends and procure and utilize the
means to them is a human activity. The
manufacture and utilization of equipment,
tools, and machines, the manufactured and
used things themselves, and the needs and
ends that they serve, all belong to what
technology is. The whole complex of these
contrivances is technology. Technology
itself is a contrivance – in Latin, an
instrumentum. The current conception of
technology, according to which it is a means
and a human activity, can therefore be
called the instrumental and anthropological
definition of technology (Heidegger, 1997,
p.5).

This definition is correct but not necessarily true.

The “true” entails so much more meaning and
significance. Heidegger, however, asserted that the
true can be pursued through the correct. In other
words, the experience and understanding of what is
correct lead us to what is true. Heidegger urged
people to envision technology as a mode of
revealing as it shows so much more about the
human person and the world. Technology is a way
of bringing forth, a making something. By
considering technology as a mode of revealing,
then truth is brought forth. For instance, the truth
that the Earth is weeping could be revealed by the
information and data taken by modern devices.
Whatever truth is uncovered, it will be something
more meaningful and significant than the superficial
or practical use of technology.

Heidegger also put forward the ancient Greek

concepts of aletheia, poiesis, and techne. Alethia
means hiddenness or disclosure. Poeisis is defined
as bringing forth. For Aristotle, it means making or
producing something for a purpose. It is sometimes
used to refer to poetry and composition. Finally,
techne (the root word for technology) means skill,
art, or craft. It is a means of bringing forth
something. Thus, in Heidegger’s work, technology
is a poeisis that discloses or reveals the truth.

On the other hand, to think of technology as

poetry takes a different mindset, a more reflective
and sensitive way of looking at the world. This
perspective is not easy to take especially in this era
when instant knowledge is demanded and split-
second updates are the norm, and when the pursuit
of fame and fortune is unceasingly bannered on
social media. There is so much noise in the world
that it would take a disciplined stepping back to see
what Heidegger meant and to appreciate how
technology could actually be poetry that brings forth
truth.

TECHNOLOGY AS POEISIS: APPLICABLE TO

MODERN TECHNOLOGY?

Does the idea that technology is poeisis apply to

modern technology? Heidegger characterizes
modern technology as a challenging forth since it is
very aggressive in its activity. Modern technology
may also be a mode of revealing but not as the
harmonious bringing forth that is described in his
thesis of technology as poeisis. Modern technology
challenges nature and demands of its resources
that are, most of the time, forcibly extracted for
human consumption and storage. It brings about a
“setting upon” of the land. Mining is an example of
modern technology that challenges the forth and
brings about the setting upon of land. It extracts
minerals from the earth and forcefully assigns the
land as a means to fulfill the never-ending demands
of people.

With modern technology, revealing never comes

to an end. Thee revealing always happens on our
own terms as everything is on demand. Information
at our fingertips, food harvested even out of season,
gravity defied to fly off to space – such is the
capacity of the human person. We no longer need
to work with the rhythms of nature because we have
learned to control it. We order nature, and extract,
process, make ready for consumption, and store
what we have forced it to reveal. Heidegger
described modern technology as the age of
switches, standing reserve, and stockpiling for its
own sake. This observation is manifest in the
mechanization and digitization of many aspects of
our life – from agriculture to communications and
transportation, among many others.

What kind of unconcealment is it, then,

that is peculiarto that which results from this
setting upon that challenges? Everywhere
everything is ordered to stand by, to be
immediately on hand, indeed to stand there
just so that it may be on call for a further
ordering. Whatever is ordered about in this
way has its own standing. We call it the
standing-reserve (Heidegger, 1977,p.5).

QUESTIONING AS THE PIETY OF THOUGHT

In this stepping back and taking stock of things,

we begin to wonder and question. One may admire
the intricacy of mechanisms and the sophistication
of mobile applications. Another may marvel at the
people and circumstances that allowed for such
technology. There is so much wealth of insights that
can be gathered when people stop, think, and
question. “Questioning is the piety of thought,”
stated Heidegger in The Question Concerning
Technology.

Normally, piety is associated with being

religious. For Heidegger, however, piety means
obedience and submission. In addressing what
technology has brought forth, one cannot help but
be submissive to what his/her thoughts and
reflections elicit. Sometimes, thinking brings forth
insights that the mind has not yet fully understood
or developed. There are times when one’s thinking
brings forth eureka moments. Whatever
understanding is found becomes significant
because it is evoked by questioning who or what we
essentially are in the world. For example, it is a
known truth that we, human beings and everything
around us, are made of the same substances that
constitute the stars. Therefore, we actually are
stardust. Do we just take this matter-of-factly or do
we wonder at its significance? It is when we start
questioning that we submit ourselves to our
thoughts. This kind of questioning leads one to
search for his/her place in the universe and in the
grand scale of things. It is through this process that
one builds a way towards knowing the truth of who
he/she is as a being in this world.

ENFRAMING: WAY OF REVEALING IN MODERN

TECHNOLOGY

The way of revealing in modern technology is

an enframing. This enframing that challenges forth
and sets upon nature is a way of looking at reality.
In simpler terms, it is as if nature is put in a box or in
a frame so that it can be better understood and
controlled according to people’s desires. Poeisis is
concealed in enframig as nature is viewed as an
orderable and calculable system of information.

In looking at the world, Heidegger distinguished

between calculative thinking and meditative
thinking. In calculative thinking and meditative
thinking. In calculative thinking, as mentioned
earlier, one orders and puts a system to nature so it
can be understood better and controlled. In
meditative thinking, one lets nature reveal itself to
him/her without forcing it. One kind of thinking is not
in itself better than the other. The human person
has the faculty for both and would do well to use
them in synergy. However, people also want control
and are afraid of unpredictability, so calculative
thinking is more often used. Enframing is done
because people want security, even if the ordering
that happens in enframing is violent and even if the
Earth is made as a big gasoline station from which
we extract, stockpile, and put in standing-reserve,
ready to be used as we see fit.

HUMAN PERSON SWALLOWED BY

TECHNOLOGY

Though it is true that the individual takes part in

the revealing of nature, limits must still be
recognized. Humans do not really call the shots on
this Earth. If we allow ourselves to get swallowed by
modern technology, we lose the essence of who we
are as beings in this world. If we are constantly
plugged online and no longer have the capacity for
authentic personal encounters, then we are truly
swallowed by technology. If we cannot let go of the
conveniences and profits brought about by
processes and industries that pollute the
environment and cause climate change, then
technology has consumed our humanity.

Nevertheless, as expressed by the poet

Holderlin, “But where danger is, grows the saving

power also. “The saving power lies in the essence

of technology as technology. Essence is the way in
which things are, as that which endures. Heidegger
further asserted that the “essence of technology is
nothing technological” (1977). The essence of
technology is not found in the instrumentality and
function of machines constructed, but in the
significance such technology unfolds.

He also expressed that the various problems

brought about by human’s dependence on
technology cannot be simply resolved by refusing
technology altogether. He stated:

Thus we shall never experience our

relationship to the essence of technology so
long as we merely represent and pursue the
technological, put up with it, or evade it.
Everywhere we remain unfree and chained
to technology, whether we passionately
affirm or deny it. But we are delivered over to
it in the worst possible way when we regard it
 as something neutral; for this conception of
it, to which today we particularly like to pay
homage, makes us utterly blind to the
essence of technology (1977, p.1)

ART AS A WAY OUT OF ENFRAMING

Enframing, as the mode of revealing on modern

technology, tends to block poeisis. The poetry that
is found in nature can no longer be easily
appreciated when nature is enframed. If the Earth
has just become a gas station for us, then we have
become enframed as well. In modern technology,
the way of revealing is no longer poetic; it is
challenging. When instruments are observed
linearly, its poetry can no longer be found. For
example, the watermill is a primitive structure
compared to the hydropower plant; or the first
iPhone model is just an obsolete piece of machine.
People no longer realize how much genius went
into the building of the first iPhone.

Heidegger proposes art as a way out of this

enframing. With art, we are better able to see the
poetic in nature in reality. It leads us away from the
calculative thinking and towards meditative thinking.
Through meditative thinking, we will recognize that
nature is art par excellence. Hence, nature is the
most poetic.

There was a time when it was not technology

alone that bore the name techne. Once the
revealing that brings forth truth into the
splendor of radiant appearance was also
called techne.

Once there was a time when the bringing-

forth of the true into the beautiful was called
techne. The poeisis of the fine arts was also
called techne.

At the outset of the destining of the West,

in Greece, the arts soared to the supreme
height of the revealing granted them. They
illuminate the presence [Gegenwart] of the
gods and the dialogue of divine and human
destinings. And art was called simply techne.
It was a single, manifold revealing. It was
pious, promos, i.e., yielding to the holding
sway and the safekeeping of truth.

The arts were not derived from the

artistic. Artworks were not enjoyed
aesthetically. Art was not a sector of cultural
activity.

What was art – perhaps only for that brief

but magnificent age? Why did art bear the
modest name techne? Because it was a
revealing that brought forth and made
present, and therefore belonged within
poeisis. It was finally that revealing which
holds complete sway in all the fine arts, in
poetry, and in every poetical that obtained
 poeisis as its proper name (Heidegger, 1977,
p. 13).

When meditatively looking at technology, one

will begin to question its significance in his/her life
more than in its instrumental use. Technology is
normally thought of as that which solves problems,
but Heidegger asserted that it is something that
must be questioned. Again, it is questioning that we
build a way to understand. In the nuclear age, we
view nature as a problem to be solved. The
calculative thinking in which we perceive nature in a
technical and scientific manner is becoming more
important in the modern world. On the other hand, it
is meditative thinking that provides a way for us so
as not to let our technological devices affect our real
core and warp our nature.

Aristotole’s conception of the four causes was

mechanical. As explained by Heidegger:

For centuries philosophy has taught that

there are four causes: (1) the causa
materialis, the material, the matter out of
which, for example, a silver chalice is made;
(2) the causa formalis, the form, the shape
into which the material enters; (3) the causa
finalis, the end, for example, the sacrificial
rite in relation to which the chalice required
is determined as to its form and matter; (4)
tha causa efficiens, which bring about the
 effect that is the finished, actual chalice, in
this instance, the silversmith. What
technology is, when represented as a
means, discloses itself when we trace
instrumentality back to fourfold causality
(1977, p.2).

Though correct in the four causes, Aristotle

remained in the mechanical sense and did not allow
for a larger truth to disclose itself. The poetic
character may be hidden but it is there. For
example, the ancient Greek experience of cause is
aition or indebtedness, not cause and effect. Thus,
the Greeks revere the sun because they are
indebted to it, and not because the sun is the cause
of energy of Earth. Aition is responsible for bringing
forth.
Though enframing happens, it cannot
completely snuff out the poetic character of
technology. We ponder technology and question it.
In doing so, we also become aware of the crisis we
have plunged the Earth into. The danger is made
present and more palpable through our art and
poetry. Amid this realization, we remain hopeful
because, as the poet Holderlin put it, “…poetically
man dwells upon this Earth’ (Heidegger, 1977,
p.13).
QUESTION FOR REFLECTION
Instructions: Answer the questions briefly. Write
your answers on the space provided below the
question.

1. How is technology a mode of revealing?

2. In your everyday experience of technology, what

else is revealed to you aside from its function?

3. Why should technology be questioned?

 4.How is questioning the piety of thought?

5. How does art provide a way out of enframing?

REFERENCES

The Question Concerning Technology by Martin

Heidegger
A Return to the Beginning by Daniel J. McNamara, SJ,
in Stellar Origins, Human Ways (2011)
CHAPTER VII

THE GOOD LIFE

Learning Outcome

At the end of this chapter, the students must have:

1) Expound the concept of the good life as

postulated by Aristotle.

2) Explain the good life in their own words.

3) Examine shared concerns that make up the

good life to come up with innovative and
creative solutions to contemporary issues
guided by ethical standards.

Everyone is in pursuit of the good life. We do

certain things because we want to achieve a life
which will make us happy and content. By studying
and working hard, we try to attain this goal not only
for ourselves but also for our loved ones and the
rest of humanity. People's definition of the good life
may vary and differ in the particulars. In general,
however, we recognize universal truth’s that cut
across our differences.
NICOMACHEAN ETHICS AND MODERN
CONCEPTS
Aristotle, an important ancient Greek philosopher
whose work spans from natural philosophy to logic
and political theory, attempted to explain what the
good is. His definition may be useful i n our pursuit
of the truth. In Nicomachean Ethics, Aristotle stated:

All human activities aim at some good.

Every art and human inquiry, and similarly
every action and pursuit, is thought to aim at
some good; and for this reason, the good
has been rightly declared as that at which all
things aim (Nicomachean Ethics 2:2).

Everyone is moving towards the good. Thus,

completing one's studies, training for a sport, or
taking a rest is a good. The good is expressed and
manifested in many various ways for different
persons and circumstances. The good life,
however, is more than these countless expressions
of what is good. It is characterized by happiness
that springs from living and doing well.

... both the many and the cultivated call it

happiness, and suppose that living well and
doing well are the same as being happy
(Nicomachean Ethics 1:4).
 The ancient Greeks called this concept of "living
well and doing well" as cudaimonia. The word came
from the Creek word eu meaning "good" and
daimon meaning "spirit." Taken together, it generally
refers to the good life, which is marked by
happiness and excellence. It is a flourishing life filled
with meaningful endeavors that empower the
human person to be the best version of
himself/herself. If one is a student, then he/ she acts
to be the best version of a student by studying well
and fulfilling the demands of school. If one is an
athlete, then he/ she strives to be the best version of
an athlete by training hard as well as joining and
winning in sports competitions.

Furthermore, according to Aristotle, happiness is

the ultimate end of human action. It is that which
people pursue for its own sake. Financial stability for
one's family, the power achieved from winning the
elections, or the harmony and peace as a reward for
taking care of the environment-all these and more
are pursued for the sake of happiness.

Now such a thing as happiness above all

else, is held to be; for this we choose
always for itself and never for the sake of
something else, hut honor, pleasure,
reason, and every virtue we choose indeed
for themselves, but we choose them also
for the sake of happiness, judging that by
 means of them we shall be happy.
Happiness, on the other hand, no one
chooses for anything other than itself
(Nicomachean Ethics 2:7).

Happiness defines a good life. This happiness,

however, is not the kind that comes from sensate
pleasures. It is that which comes from living a life of
virtue, a life of excellence, manifested from the
personal to the global scale.

It is the activities that express virtue that

control happiness, and the contrary
activities that control its contrary
(Nicomachean Ethics 1:10).

For example, making sure that one avoids

sugary and processed foods to keep healthy is an
activity that expresses virtue. The resulting health
adds to one's well-being and happiness. Another
example is taking care of the environment through
proper waste management which results in a clean
environment and adds to people's well-being and
happiness. These virtuous actions require discipline
and practice. On the other hand, activities contrary
to virtue are those which do not result in happiness.
The lack of discipline in eating healthful food
eventually makes one sick. The lack of concern for
the environment destroys the Earth we live in. Thus,
disregard for virtuous actions, especially for the
sake of convenience and gratification, does not
contribute to happiness. The good life is marked by
happiness brought about by virtuous human actions
and decisions that affect the individual self and the
greater community. It is characterized by a life of
flourishing of oneself and of others. The good life
does not happen in a bubble where only one person
is flourishing; others have to be in it, too.

Virtue plays a significant role in the living and

attainment of the good life. It is the constant
practice of the good no matter how difficult the
circumstances may be. Virtue is the excellence of
character that empowers one to do and be good.
Such virtue is cultivated with habit and discipline as
it is not a one-time deed, but a constant and
consistent series of actions. Everyone has the
capacity within himself/ herself to be good, but
he/she also has to be disciplined to make a habit of
exercising the good.

Virtue, then, being of two kinds,

intellectual and moral, intellectual virtue in
the main owes its birth and growth to
teaching (for which reason it requires
experience and time}, while moral virtue
comes about as a result of habit
(Nicomachean Ethics 2:1).

The onward progress of science and technology is

 also the movement towards the good life. Science and
technology are one of the highest expressions of human
faculties. They allow us to thrive and nourish in life if we
so desire it. Science and technology may also corrupt a
person, but grounding oneself in virtue will help him/her
steer clear of danger.

Reading Exercise
Answer the following items. Write your answer on the space provided
before each item.

1. It is that which all things aim.

2. It is an ancient Greek word which means

living and doing well.

3. It is said to be the ultimate end of human

action. It is pursued for its own sake.

4. He is the ancient Greek philosopher known

for Nicomachean Ethics.

5. The good life means that I make sure I

improve without necessarily taking the others into
consideration. (True or False)

6. One does not need to eat healthfully to live

the good life. (True or False)

7. Excellence of character is innate. It does

not have to be practiced. (True or False)

8. It is the constant practice of the good.

9. For item 9 & 10, give Aristotle’s two kind of

virtue.

10.
QUESTION FOR REFLECTION

Reflection
1. In your opinion, what constitutes a good life?

2. What does Aristotle say about the good life?

Does it still stand in the contemporary world?

3. How is the progress of science and technology a

movement towards the good life?
 REFERENCES

Book VI and Book X Nichomachean Ethics of Aristotle

The Good Life: Aristotole. Retrieved from

https://www.khanacademy.org/partner-content/wi-phi/wip
hi-value-theory/wiphi-good-life/v/the-good-life-aristotle

The Concepts of the Public Good: A view from the

Filipino Philosopher. By Rolando Gripaldo in the Making
of a Filipino Philosopher and other Essays, 2009,
National Bookstore pp. 82 – 101
CHAPTER VIII

WHEN TECHNOLOGY AND HUMANITY

CROSS

Learning Outcome

At the end of this chapter, the students must have

1) Evaluate contemporary human experience to
strengthen the human person functioning in
society.

2) Discuss the importance of human rights in

the face of changing social conditions and
technological development.

3) Analyze laws or policies in the country that

protect the well-being of the person in
technological advancement and ethical
dilemmas.

The good life entails living in a just and

progressive society whose citizens have the
freedom to flourish. The human person has the
autonomy to make choices which my enable the
flourishing of his/her self and society. The United
Nations General Assembly proclaimed the
Universal Declaration of Human Rights (UDHR) on
December 10, 1948 as the global standard of
fundamental human rights for universal recognition
and protection. The UDHR begins, "Whereas
recognition of the inherent dignity and of the equal
and inalienable rights of all members of the human
family is the foundation of freedom, justice and
peace in the world" (UDHR Preamble). As implied,
everyone has absolute moral worth by virtue of
being human. Human dignity is an ultimate core
value of our existence. When we fully recognize and
appreciate this truth in ourselves and in all the
persons around us, regardless of their status in life,
then we pave the way for a just and progressive
society. It is in this kind of society that we are able
to become fully human more free, more rational,
and more loving. Human beings become freer when
we are empowered to make choices for our
flourishing. We become more rational when we are
able to value and apply the principles of logic and
science in our lives. We become more loving when
we ensure that human dignity lies at the foundation
of our endeavors, whether scientific or not. It entails
knowing one's fundamental human rights that must
always be protected in the face of changing
conditions.
Universal Declaration of Human Rights

Preamble

Whereas recognition of the inherent dignity

and of the equal and inalienable rights of all
members of the human family is the foundation of
freedom, justice and peace in the world,
Whereas disregard and contempt for human
rights have resulted in barbarous acts which have
outraged the conscience of mankind, and the
advent of a world in which human beings shall enjoy
freedom of speech and belief and freedom from fear
and want has been proclaimed as the highest
aspiration of the common people,
Whereas it is essential, if man is not to be
compelled to have recourse, as a last resort, to
rebellion against tyranny and oppression, that
human rights should be protected by the rule of law,
Whereas it is essential to promote the
development of friendly relations between nations,
Whereas the peoples of the United Nations
have in the Charter reaffirmed their faith in
fundamental human rights, in the dignity and worth
of the human person and in the equal rights of men
and women and have determined to promote social
progress and better standards of life in larger
freedom,
 Whereas Member States have pledged
themselves to achieve, in cooperation with the
United Nations, the promotion of universal respect
for and observance of human rights and
fundamental freedoms,
Whereas a common understanding of these
rights and freedoms is of the greatest importance
for the full realization of this pledge,
Now, therefore,
The General Assembly,
Proclaims this Universal Declaration of
Human Rights as a common standard of
achievement for all peoples and all nations, to the
end that every individual and every organ of society,
keeping this Declaration constantly in mind, shall
strive by teaching and education to promote respect
for these rights and freedoms and by progressive
measures, national and international, to secure their
universal and effective recognition and observance,
both among the peoples of Member States
themselves and among the peoples of territories
under their jurisdiction.

Article I
All human beings are born free and equal in dignity
and rights. They are endowed with reason and
conscience and should act towards one another
in a spirit of brotherhood.
Article 2
Everyone is entitled to all the rights and freedoms
set forth in this Declaration, without distinction of
any kind, such as race, color, sex, language,
religion, political or other opinion, national or
social origin, property, birth or other status.
Furthermore, no distinction shall be made on the
basis of the political, jurisdictional or
international status of the country or territory to
which a person belongs, whether it be
independent, trust, non-self-governing or under
any other limitation of sovereignty.

Article 3
Everyone has the right to life, liberty and security of
person.

Article 4
No one shall be held in slavery or servitude; slavery
and the slave trade shall be prohibited in all their
forms.

Article 5
No one shall be subjected to torture or to cruel,
inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment.
Article 6
Everyone has the right to recognition everywhere as
a person before the law.
Article 7
All are equal before the law and are entitled without
any discrimination to equal protection of the law.
All are entitled to equal protection against any
discrimination in violation of this Declaration and
against any incitement to such discrimination.

Article 8
Everyone has the right to an effective remedy by
the competent national tribunals for acts violating
the fundamental rights granted him by the
constitution or by law.

Article 9
No one shall be subjected to arbitrary arrest,
detention or exile.

Article 10
Everyone is entitled in full equality to a fair and
public hearing by an independent and impartial
tribunal, in the determination of his rights and
obligations and of any criminal charge against him.

Article 11
1. Everyone charged with a penal offence has the
right to be presumed innocent until proved guilty
according to law in a public trial at which he has
 had all the guarantees necessary for his
defense.
2. No one shall be held guilty of any penal offence
on account of any act or omission which did not
constitute a penal offence, under national or
international law, at the time when it was
committed. Nor shall a heavier penalty be
imposed than the one that was applicable at the
time the penal
offence was committed.

Article 12
No one shall be subjected to arbitrary interference
with his privacy, family, home or
correspondence, nor to attacks upon his honour
and reputation. Everyone has the right to the
protection of the law against such interference or
attacks.
Article 13
1. Everyone has the right to freedom of movement
and residence within the borders of each State.
2. Everyone has the right to leave any country,
including his own, and to return to his country.

Article 14
1. Everyone has the right to seek and to enjoy in
other countries asylum from persecution.
2. This right may not be invoked in the case of
 prosecutions genuinely arising from non-political
crimes or from acts contrary to the purposes and
principles of the United Nations.
Article 15
1. Everyone has the right to a nationality.
2. No one shall be arbitrarily deprived of his
nationality nor denied the right to change his
nationality.
Article 16
1. Men and women of full age, without any
limitation due to race, nationality or religion,
have the right to marry and to found a family.
They are entitled to equal rights as to marriage,
during marriage and at its dissolution.
2. Marriage shall be entered into only with the free
and full consent of the intending spouses.
3. The family is the natural and fundamental group
unit of society and is entitled to protection by
society and the State.

Article 17
1. Everyone has the right to own property alone as
well as in association with others.
2. No one shall be arbitrarily deprived of his
property.

Article 18
Everyone has the right to freedom of thought,
conscience and religion; this right includes freedom
to change his religion or belief, and freedom, either
alone or in community with others and in public or
private, to manifest his religion or belief in teaching,
practice, worship and observance.
Article 19

Everyone has the right to freedom of opinion and

expression; this right includes freedom to hold
opinions without interference and to seek,
receive and impart information and ideas
through any media and regardless of frontiers.

Article 20

1. Everyone has the right to freedom of peaceful

assembly and association.
2. No one may be compelled to belong to an
association.

Article 21

1. Everyone has the right to take part in the

government of his country, directly or through
freely chosen representatives.
2. Everyone has the right to equal access to public
service in his country.
3. The will of the people shall be the basis of the
 authority of government; this will shall be
expressed in periodic and genuine elections
which shall be by universal and equal suffrage
and shall be held by secret vote or by equivalent
free voting procedures.

Article 22

Everyone, as a member of society, has the right to

social security and is entitled to realization,
through national effort and international co-
operation and in accordance with the
organization and resources of each State, of the
economic, social and cultural rights
indispensable for his dignity and the free
development of his personality.

Article 23

1. Everyone has the right to work, to free choice of

employment, to just and favourable conditions of
work and to protection against unemployment.
2. Everyone, without any discrimination, has the
right to equal pay for equal work.
3. Everyone who works has the right to just and
favourable remuneration ensuring for himself
and his family an existence worthy of human
dignity, and supplemented, if necessary, by
 other means of social protection.
4. Everyone has the right to form and to join trade
unions for the protection of his interests.

Article 24
Everyone has the right to rest and leisure, including
reasonable limitation of working hours and
periodic holidays with pay.

Article 25
1. Everyone has the right to a standard of living
adequate for the health and well-being of himself
and of his family, including food, clothing,
housing and medical care and necessary social
services, and the right to security in the event of
unemployment, sickness, disability, widowhood,
old age or other lack of livelihood in
circumstances beyond his control.
2. Motherhood and childhood are entitled to special
care and assistance. All children, whether born
in or out of wedlock, shall enjoy the same social
protection.

Article 26
1. Everyone has the right to education. Education
shall be free, at least in the elementary and
fundamental stages. Elementary education shall
be compulsory. Technical and professional
 education shall be made generally available and
higher education shall be equally accessible to
all on the basis of merit.
2. Education shall be directed to the full
development of the human personality and to
the strengthening of respect for human rights
and fundamental freedoms. It shall promote
understanding, tolerance and friendship among
all nations, racial or religious groups, and shall
further the activities of the United Nations for the
maintenance of peace.
3. Parents have a prior right to choose the kind of
education that shall be given to their children.

Article 27
1. Everyone has the right freely to participate in the
cultural life of the community, to enjoy the arts
and to share in scientific advancement and its
benefits.
2. Everyone has the right to the protection of the
moral and material interests resulting from any
scientific, literary or artistic production of which
he is the author.

Article 28
Everyone is entitled to a social and international
order in which the rights and freedoms set forth
in this Declaration can be fully realized.
Article 29
1. Everyone has duties to the community in which
alone the free and full development of his
personality is possible.
2. In the exercise of his rights and freedoms,
everyone shall be subject only to such
limitations as are determined by law solely for
the purpose of securing due recognition and
respect for the rights and freedoms of others
and of meeting the just requirements of morality,
public order and the general welfare in a
democratic society.
3. These rights and freedoms may in no case be
exercised contrary to the purposes and
principles of the United Nations.

Article 30
Nothing in this Declaration may be interpreted as
implying for any State, group or person any right
to engage in any activity or to perform any act
aimed at the destruction of any of the rights and
freedoms set forth herein.

The Universal Declaration of Human Rights

has a long, bloody history. Crafted in 1948, after
World War II, the UDHR now serves as a common
understanding of what each person's fundamental
rights are. These rights apply to everyone,
everywhere. It is imperative that we all know and
live these rights to prevent injustice and oppression.
HUMANS VS. ROBOTS

The rise of the machines accompanying the

progress in science and technology may render
humans useless. Manual labor is gradually being
replaced by machinery. Computers become more
and more sophisticated. Robots, usually
designed like human beings, are created to perform
complex, repetitive, or dangerous tasks. With the
development of artificial intelligence (AI), robots
may also eventually act and decide like humans.

In the possibility that machines adopt the

nature of humans, there is a need to reflect on the
ethical problem s posed by such development.

Though the Philippines has not yet reached

the point of producing robots on a commercial scale
for household use, it still behooves us to ponder the
ramifications of replacing persons with machinery.
Much as the BBC News has reported that experts
in South Korea are crafting ethical guidelines to
prevent humans from exploiting robots and vice
versa (Evans, 2007), and that roboticists in Europe
are lobbying for government legislation, such reality
is generally unheard of in the Philippines. To
Filipinos, artificial intelligence seems like the stuff of
science and fiction movies. Be that as it may, its
use in the country is surely gaining ground,
especially in the business process outsourcing
(BPO) industry. Technology enables the growth of
the BPO industry but it seems that it is also
technology that will kill the industry as we know it.
Investors and business people find as a sure return
of investment the use of business analytics
provided by artificial intelligence. Business analytics
is a means by which consumer and industry data
are used to come up with better decision-making.
With the help of AI, decisions now arise from
sophisticated statistical analyses made from
massive data. As of August 2017, it is estimated
that a million Filipino BPO workers may be affected
and lose their jobs with the adoption of artificial
intelligence (Santos, 2017).

Unemployment is only one of the many

ethical considerations in the widespread use of AI.
What does this mean for human beings who can be
replaced by machines? Is the value of the person
inversely proportional to that of a machine exhibiting
artificial intelligence? How do we guard against
mistakes committed by machines? These points are
but a sample of the questions that should be
resolved when faced with technology that may
become a threat to human dignity and security. In
the future, when machines and robots become
more human-like, with all the attendant feelings and
thoughts, people may also have to consider the
ethical treatment for AI.

It is also interesting to note that as machines

and robots approach having a human-like nature,
humans may also have the tendency to become
machine-like. Since many of the things people
need, from conveniences to information, are
available with just the touch and swipe of the
fingertips, humans begin to function more like
automatons. The internet has become an instant
go-to tool for answers to questions. More often than
not, people accept what the search engine, like
Google, spews out in byte sizes and forget how to
process, read, think further, or put things in context.
As the internet gets more intelligent, we are in
danger of becoming less so. In the article, "Is
Google making us stupid?" Nicolas Carr (2008)
asserted that "as we come to rely on computers to
mediate our understanding of the world, it is our
own intelligence that flattens into artificial
intelligence."
 The development of society along with
science and technology gives rise to more and
more complex issues. What is vital is that, at the
very least, we are able to protect and exercise
human rights for everyone in our pursuit of the good
life. It is important that amid these developments,
human beings become more free, more rational,
and more loving in our practice of science and
technology.

As we examine contemporary issues in

science and technology-information, genetically
modified organisms, nanotechnology, and climate
change-we keep in mind that the building of a just
and progressive society entails the constant
practice of the good. It may be exhibited in
exceptional scientific methodologies, personal
virtue, social responsibility, and global concern.

WHY THE FUTURE DOES NOT NEED US?

Chief scientist and corporate executive

officer of Sun Microsystems, Bill Joy, wrote in 2000
a controversial essay, "Why the future does not
need us." In his work, he contended that our most
powerful 21st-century technologies-genetics,
nanotech, and robotics (GNR)-are threatening to
make humans an endangered species. This
possible extinction of the species may largely come
about due to the unreflective and unquestioning
acceptance of new technologies by humans. Joy
also asserted that:

Accustomed to living with almost routine

scientific breakthroughs, we have yet to
come to terms with the fact that the most
compelling 21st-century technologies-
robotics, genetic engineering, and
nanotechnology-pose a different threat than
the technologies that have come before.
Specifically, robots, engineered organisms,
and nanobots share a dangerous
amplifying/actor: They can self-replicate. A
bomb is blown up only once-but one bot
can become many, and quickly get out of
control.

Each of these technologies also offers

untold promise: The vision of near
immortality drives us forward; genetic
engineering may soon provide treatments, if
not outright cures, far most diseases; and
nanotechnology and nanomedicine can
address yet more ills. Together they could
significantly extend our average life span
and improve the quality of our lives. Yet,
 with each of these technologies, a
sequence of small, individually sensible
advances leads to an accumulation of great
power and, concomitantly, great danger
(Joy, 2000).

Humans should have learned the lesson in

the atomic bombings of the Japanese cities of
Hiroshima and Nagasaki in 1945 that killed over a
hundred thousand people. Brilliant physicists, led by
J. Robert Oppenheimer, brought into existence a
deadly nuclear weapon. A definite testament to the
success of science and technology, the atomic
bomb was also a fatal reminder of its destructive
power. Now with GNR, we are called to be
circumspect and questioning of technology. Again,
as Heidegger (1977) propounded, it is in
questioning that we build a way. GNR today is
accessible to small groups and individuals and does
not require funding and facilities as huge as those
needed by the nuclear weapons of mass
destruction. This makes GNR more prone to
accidents and abuses. It is 11cary to imagine that
such accidents and abuses may self-replicate and
spin out of control, especially when placed in the
hands of extremist groups and individuals.
 Science and technology may be the highest
expression of human rationality. People are able to
shape or destroy the world with it. Theoretical
physicist and mathematician Freeman Dyson, in the
documentary The Day After Trinity (1981), shared
his thoughts and sentiments as a scientist taking
part in the development of nuclear power:

I have felt it myself. The glitter of nuclear

weapons. It is irresistible if you come to
them as a scientist. To feel it's there in your
hands, to release this energy that fuels the
stars, to let it do your bidding. To perform
these miracles, to lift a million tons of rock
into the sky. It is something that gives
people an illusion of illimitable power, and it
is, in some ways, responsible for all our
troubles-this, what you might call technical
arrogance that overcomes people when they
see what they can do with their minds.

Human nature may be corrupted when the

powers of our mind, our rationality, and our science
and technology become manifest. If we are not able
to rein in the vanity and arrogance that such powers
unleash, then we are on the way to destroying the
world.
The wasteland grows; woe unto him who harbors
the wasteland within. -Friedrich Nietzsche

QUESTION FOR REFLECTION

1. How does science and technology affect

contemporary life?
2. How do we protect our human rights in the face
of technological advancements and ethical
dilemmas?

3. Do you believe that Google/Yahoo makes people

stupid? Cite at least three examples to support your
assertion.
II. Search for national policies that address the
ethical and moral concerns in the technological era.

REFERENCES

United Nations. Universal Declaration of Human

Rights. Retrieved from
https://www.un.org/en/universal-declaration-human-
rights/