THINKER

 Background

Describe the major historical developments that defined the thinker’s context. What are the
major ideas or points of conflict surrounding the thinker’s immediate political, social, or
economic environment?

 The State and its Responsibilities

What does the thinker say about the nature of the State i.e. how did it come about? In
addition, specify the major function or responsibilities of the State, as well as its ‘rights’ or
the powers it specifically enjoys as stated or implied by the thinker.

 State-Society Relations

What does the relationship between people/citizens and state/government look like? Who do
you think is accorded more power? Or at the very least, what was the emphasis of the thinker
in terms of how the state and how its citizens should behave?

 The Good Life

What does the ‘ideal society’ look like for this thinker? What were the main ideas of the
thinkers when it comes to their analysis of what social relations in general ought to be?

 The Philippines and COVID-19

If the thinker is alive right now, perhaps as a prolific social scientist in the University, or an
active political commentator with a huge online following, how would he assess or explain
the country’s efforts and progress in combating the pandemic and its related social problems?
Basically, what do you think would the thinker say about our current situation if he was alive
right now?

 Now it’s your turn

What are your main thoughts and feelings toward the thinker’s ideas? Do you think his main
thesis matches your understanding of human nature, how state-society relations should work,
or social reality as it is overall? Or what caught your attention the most when it comes to the
thinker’s ideas? Do you have any strong opinions toward the thinker and his ideas? This is
your space to voice out your main reflections.

PH Latest response: https://theaseanpost.com/article/philippines-latest-response-pandemic

SAP Distribution
https://www.aljazeera.com/news/2020/4/13/poverty-punished-as-philippines-gets-tough-in-
virus-pandemic
Origin of covid-19: https://www.who.int/docs/default-source/coronaviruse/situation-reports/
20200423-sitrep-94-covid-19.pdf
 PLATO

 Background

Plato (428 B.C. – 348 B.C.) was born in Athens which had democracy as its
form of government. Athens, led by Pericles, was the most influential city-state in
Ancient Greece during this time. However, it was weakened after the Peloponnesian
War ended in 404 B.C. This loss against Sparta resulted to Athens temporarily
replacing democracy by oligarchy. When the city-state recovered democracy,
Socrates was executed under the charges of impiety and corrupting the mind of the
youth which made Plato disturbed by the current condition of the government. This,
also for the reason that his roots being closely related to politics, led him to criticizing
democracy. Since Plato was Socrates’ greatest follower, he committed himself to his
mentor’s teachings and mission as he grew up. The Sparta’s totalitarian state has
resulted to Plato seeing an ideal political form of society for the Athenians. He started
to think about how people will reach “eudaimonia” or fulfillment through Philosophy.
He also wanted to remove democracy because only a few of the Athenians were
rational about voting for the right rulers. Therefore, the need for philosophers as kings
to achieve a perfect state.

 The State and its Responsibilities

According to Plato, the state is constituted and that the characteristics of all its
citizens determine the nature of the state (by the virtues of wisdom, courage,
temperament, and justice). The state follows the aristocratic theory and is regarded to
have the highest morality dedicated to knowledge and virtue. It come about because
of the myth of the metal. It stresses that everyone is designed to have mixture of
metals in their souls which determine their nature or specific roles in the society;
hence, the community is an avenue to achieve self-sufficiency. The goal of the state is
to secure harmony and happiness for the development of the whole. Its major function
and responsibilities include conviction to promote the good and interest of the society,
declaring the appropriate size of the community in order to uphold unity, and
educating and nurturing citizens. Moreover, the state has the power to make and
secure laws and to present the constitution accordingly. Guardians, who govern the
decision of the rulers, receive their wages in a unique form – supply of food from the
citizens. They also have the right to receive respect and honor until their death.

 State-Society Relations

The threefold division of society presented by Plato comprises the Rulers or

the Philosopher-kings, Guardians or the Auxiliaries, and the working class. This class
system suggests aristocracy as the state’s form of government ruled by the
Philosopher-Kings who attain the highest level of intellect grounded by knowledge
and truths. Thus, making them acquire more power in Plato’s ideal state. The
relationship of the state and its citizens will be most reflected as to how Plato
emphasized applying reason to social relations, justice in one’s individual self, and
justice in the state. That is, in individual level, the elements of a man’s threefold
division of the soul preserve his honorable conduct and that these elements must stay
 in control. It highlights the way element rationality or reason should never be
outstripped by the spirit and appetite. Justice in the state, consequently, accentuates
social consciousness where everyone should perform their respective duties in the
community as their nature allows them, without interfering with others’ work. In this
way, community strength and harmony will be recognized. The citizens are expected
to behave according to their own roles which generates to the common good.

 The Good Life

The ruled must follow the rulers without any hesitations. Plato’s ultimate goal
is to realize a society free from violence in which the philosophers will rule.
According to him, philosophers being the individuals who have the endless passion
for knowledge and love for truth, should hold the power as they have the ability to
shape the upright virtues of man. This reformed society will have a harmonious
community where reason, strengthen knowledge, and beauty prevail instead of
falsities. The Good Life is achieved through man’s intellect powered by philosophical
inquiry; the three cardinal virtues are present. The rulers must have wisdom and
courage, the auxiliaries must have courage, and the citizens must have temperance.
Social relations in general, was described in how the society corresponds to state
justice as a whole; the state is just if the three cardinal virtues are present.

 The Philippines and COVID-19

While the political corruption amidst the COVID-19 pandemic is obviously

rampant, Plato would probably point out the weaknesses of democracy especially our
freedom to vote because this freedom resulted to electing corrupt officials who take
advantage of the crisis. He will explicitly say that democracy is truly the second-worst
type of government. With this, he might encourage us to educate ourselves (especially
the DDS) first before devoting into a democratic form of government. In this way,
when we have finally acquired the capacity to think rationally, we will elect the right
and deserving officials who will serve the people and not their own interests. Perhaps
Plato would also emphasize that this pandemic should be a realization of the
importance of good governance and how his qualifications for the ruling class should
be best implemented.

Since it is observed today that some officials are not suited for their jobs as
rulers, Plato will consider this as an inhumane act and there is a need to call for
action. I think that Plato would highlight that we will definitely have a hard time
surviving the pandemic because the three cardinal virtues are not applied. The love for
money remains dominant, the abuse of power is present, and the wisdom of the
leaders are not reflected in their “efforts” to combat the pandemic. No matter his high
regard for the ruling class, Plato will consider the unjust behavior of the officials and
their incompetence as the consequences of our neglect for education, reason, and
logic. He would also possibly maintain that the philosophers are the ones who can
play a larger role in our fight against the pandemic than the medical practitioners.
This is because in the first place, the spread of the disease will not occur if only the
philosophers or guardians were regarded as the proper authorities who will enforce
the safety rules and not the negligent officials of today.
 Now it’s your turn

Plato asserts that the perfect state will only be achieved if the philosophers
will rule and holds power, and I honestly have mixed feelings about that. While I
deeply appreciate our philosophers’ intellect and their high regard to search for ideas
beyond the reality, I think that this world is chaotic and diverse enough; thus,
achieving a perfect state is actually impossible. I strongly believe that the public
should also remain to have a power to vote and appoint officials, provided that
everyone must be properly educated just as what Plato affirms. Moreover, Plato’s
ideal community of three classes with state justice only suggest inequality and does
not empower the people to achieve greater status. On the other hand, Plato claims that
justice is a human virtue and that the functions of the state should never go against the
public interest, and I honestly agree with these. Meanwhile, what caught my attention
in Plato’s Republic is this line, “Women are expected to take their full share, except
that we treat them as not quite so strong…” I was moved with this idea of equality for
women; women having the same nature as men in terms of rationality and
competence. Although I agree with men being stronger in physical attributes, women
of today should be given occupational opportunities that are stereotyped to be for men
only.
 ARISTOTLE

 Background

Aristotle (384 – 322 B.C.) came from an upper-middle class family in Stagira,
Greece. His father served as a court physician to a king of Macedonia which influenced
him into applying natural sciences in his study of politics. When he was 17, he studied at
Plato’s Academy and was trained by Plato respectively; hence, the similarities of their
views against democracy as well as Aristotle’s opposing ideas regarding Plato’s Republic.
His father’s occupational background and him being a tutor of Alexander the Great
resulted to his close relation with the Macedonian empire. With this, his constructive
ideas toward monarchy (monarchy being the most ideal form of government) were
evident in his book entitled Politics. The Macedonian empire also attempted to conquer
Greece; however, in Athens, the democratic movement considered monarchy as “un-
Ahenian”. Aristotle also sees the middle class as the suitable rulers in Polity, which is
probably influenced by his being born to an upper-middle class family.

 The State and its Responsibilities

The State, according to Aristotle, is organic and that it is the highest form of
community and association where man can realize his self-sufficiency using his reason.
The state does not just exist for a mere life, it is intact for companionship and for “the
sake of a good life.” It is natural in historical sense; that is, the state is the final stage of
the development of human relations. Aristotle also considers the state as natural in logical
or philosophical sense; that is, man cannot be regarded as superior or excluded in a state
because only in the state he can be virtuous and reach his full potential to the extent that
he can be perfected. The individual, household, village, and the city-state are organically
connected with each other and are driven by natural impulses; men cannot exist alone
(although they exist by nature) without forming human relations and associations that
naturally exist as well. The state’s major function is to achieve the highest good which is
for all. It should be devoted to promote the common interest for the whole body of
citizens, not just for the poor or the rich. It has the power to form rightly constituted laws
which are just.

 State-Society Relations

The state is organized by social associations that offer companionship within the
citizens to achieve self-sufficient existence. Aristotle asserts that all associations are
political because men have clear perceptions of what is just and unjust; and justice means
having organized political associations. Although there is no defined structure of the
classes, Plato maintains that it is natural and just for the superior to rule over the inferior.
To further clarify the state-society relations, the description and importance of citizenship
in Aristotle’s Politics are implied. According to him, the state has its “parts” and
“necessary conditions”. A man as part of the state is intended to develop virtue, to be
educated and to actively participate in the state’s legislative and executive functions;
simply, perform his civic duties. Consequently, the “necessary conditions” are the rest of
the people or slaves who only perform primary duties in a household; they are just the
necessary conditions to lessen the tasks of the active citizens. This leads to his idea about
the relationship of property and virtue in which the ruling class should have properties,
the citizens must develop virtue, but the lower class have no share in the state. In this
case, those who are economically independent accord more power in the state.
Additionally, good citizens must be mindful of being ruled and how to rule; rulers
meanwhile must be both good citizens and virtuous men. In sum, the relationship of the
state and its active citizens is a two-way relationship in which both groups share a
common interest and work together to attain the good life.

 The Good Life

The ideal society for Aristotle is a society in which a king or a superior man with
preeminent virtue rules, provided that his monarchy works for all, against unjust
treatment and oppression. Although this is the ideal society Aristotle pointed out, this is
not the best or the practical. The best society for him is the Polity wherein the middle-
class is the most appropriate one to rule for the reason that they provide balance in social
and economic order that is significant for political stability. Moreover, a mixed
constitution is not blinded by extreme oligarchy or extreme democracy. The constitution
or the polity aims to serve the common interest of the state and not self-interest; the civic
body is the sovereign. The Good Life is achieved through the citizens’ political
association formed by the union of men and women and other social relations within the
village and the polis. The end purpose of the state is the good quality of life or self-
sufficiency and this is achieved through social institutions, companionship, and
encouragement of goodness.

 The Philippines and COVID-19

If Aristotle is alive during this fight against COVID-19, he would probably call our
attention about the danger, unkindness, and harm that our government is imposing to its
citizens. He will unquestionably speak about the state injustices that are happening which
hinders the country to positively respond to the pandemic. With the complexity of the
discourse in the social media, perhaps Aristotle will be our light as he will remind us to
always be critical about the news and current issues. He will remind us to always be
mindful of our surroundings. Most importantly, he will remind us about our roles in the
society. With the special treatment for the rich and continuous oppression of the poor, he
will point out that there is no balance in the state. While it is not wrong to follow the rules
enforced by the government, I think that Aristotle would negatively react to the flaws of
such rules, especially because it is anti-poor and he thinks of balance and moderation as
important elements of a state. Though Aristotle has his own view against democracy, I
think that he will push us to not be afraid to have the courage to fight for the oppressed
and demand justice or accountability, for one of our roles in the society is to participate in
the government processes or perform our civic duties. Additionally, he would join us in
our call for increasing the benefits for our medical frontliners since he also has high
regard for science and medical field. I think that Aristotle would consider our health
workers as key players in combating the pandemic. Hence, the need for the government to
respond to our medical frontliners’ pleas.
  Now it’s your turn

Aristotle’s famous saying, “Man is by nature a political animal,” is an expression of how

the citizens of a state should actively engage in government functions and in other social
institutions. I agree with this view that we can reach our full potential (though it does not
necessary for us to be perfect human beings) by associating ourselves outside our
comfortable households. The sense of belonginess is an actual need and through social
relations, we can develop our way of thinking, expand our horizons, and share with others our
own knowledge and experiences. I agree with Aristotle’s emphasis on the state being an
avenue to value and attain self-actualization as well as its end goal of promoting the common
good. I also believe in his view that we are called citizens because unlike animals, we know
what is right and just; and so, we have to take part in government decision-making processes.
On the other hand, I have mixed sentiments about his view on democracy being a system
ruled by the poor and for the poor only. I strongly believe about the main goal of democracy,
and that is to grasp equality for all and the exercise their rights, not just for either or the two
extremes. Yet, democracy in today’s time continues to be a platform for the abuse of power
and corruption. Nonetheless, I still maintain that a state cannot function properly without
hearing the cries of the poor, underscoring pro-people policies, and providing progressive
solutions for the plights the marginalized.

Moreover, Aristotle’s practical society is governed by the middle-class. While I

acknowledge the idea of them providing balance and equilibrium to both the social and
economic order, I think that everyone must be given the opportunity to run for office and
work for the interest of the state provided that they have the appropriate qualities. In this case,
compromise and passion to serve must be the at heart of executing government functions and
responsibilities. Meanwhile, there is these two ideas of Aristotle which caught my attention
the most – paternal rule and superiority coming off naturally. In the present time, the idea of
men being superior than women accentuates toxic masculinity and male dominance. I
strongly believe that men and women are created equal and that slavery will never be
justified, regardless of it being a natural or unnatural slavery. Everyone has the capacity to
realize themselves and must not be taken away from opportunities in public relations and
administration.
 ST. AUGUSTINE

 Background

Saint Augustine (A.D. 354 – 430) was a Christian philosopher born in a North African
Town of Hippo to parents of different views on religion. His father was a pagan but he was
raised by his mother who was devoted to Christianity. St. Augustine lived in the early
Medieval Period, 4th and 5th A.D., during the fast declining of the Roman empire and its
embracing of Christianity as its true religion. In the year 410, the Vandal warriors have
caused catastrophe and horrors when they conquered Rome. The attack has resulted to a
devastated Roman empire where its people had anxieties and trauma. The pagans claim that
this catastrophic event has occurred because of the empire’s deviation from the old Roman
deities which has guided the leading world power of Rome. The Christians also had second
thoughts about Christianity, making a major conflict between the Church and heresy. This led
to St. Augustine refuting the pagans’ main view of the correlation of the Roman downfall and
its embracing of Christianity. Moreover, he reminded the Christians that their true city was
not Rome, but the heavenly city which is the ideal of the future. Hence, he wrote his book
entitled The City of God.

 The State and its Responsibilities

St. Augustine, following the Christian Doctrine, regarded the society and the state as
divine institutions created by God for the remedial of sins. Basically, the state must not be
separated with the authority of the church. Of the two cities he identified, the earthly city was
reflected in the state, though this city is not completely identical with it. This earthly city is a
social life formed to bring order and deviate the citizens from ungodliness and sins, in the
same way that the state should be ordered and harmonious. The state has brought into
existence because of humans’ original sin, and it drives their libido dominandi (desire to
dominate). Humans are equal in the eyes of God and slavery is unnatural. Therefore, the state
is also unnatural and necessary to be evil. However, it is the responsibility of the state to
maintain social peace among its citizens as means of attaining service to God; the authority
must be based on divine sanctions to remedy the sins of the people. The Christian emperors
are destined to have the power of ruling, in accordance with the love of God and civil laws
that are sanctioned by the true God. Men should rule not because to show power, but to
express a sense of duty they owe to others. The emperors must also guard the church;
however, they do not have the authority to disregard the spiritual orders of the church. The
state, because it has moral purpose, must work with the Church to keep citizens united by the
love of God.

 State-Society Relations

The rulers or the Christian emperors must follow the Christian Doctrine in enforcing
orders within the state. In return, the citizens are expected to obey the authority (no matter the
form) and civil laws that are not against with the spiritual authority. Both the state and its
citizens should make earthly peace within themselves and eventually, Eternal Peace with the
immortal God in order to “exhibit the well-ordered obedience of faith to eternal law”. The
state is under the authority of the church, and the citizens are under the authority of the state.
The power is vested on the eternal rule of the one true God. Man should love God, himself,
and his neighbor. The state-society relations are reflected in St. Augustine’s view on justice
and how he affirms that the state is part of the higher society, which is simply, the Kingdom
of God. Justice as foundation of the state refers to the tranquility of order and the right
relation between men and God. Men’s relations with God eventually permit them to have the
right relations with their fellow citizens, loving one another and achieving both earthly peace
and Eternal Peace.

 The Good Life

Although St. Augustine did not focus on describing the ideal organizations of society,
he clearly defined the one important way of life a man should embrace: living in the heavenly
city as opposed to the earthly city. The allegorical heavenly city is formed by the love of
God, an eternal paradise where true justice will be aligned with power and the good virtues
will reign. The rulers and the citizens in this city serve and obey one another. The city has a
part which lives on Earth, and this is symbolically the church which “sojourns on Earth and
lives by faith”. The church is a place where all the citizens of different nations are united and
live a way of life dedicated to service of God, which provides genuine/Eternal Peace different
from the more commonly known earthly peace. The citizens are naturally sinful, but through
living this kind of life, they will come a time when they will finally live eternally with God.
Moreover, God, the wisest Creator and the most just Ordainer, provided men some good
things necessarily for the preservation of lives but they must make good use of these things to
receive blessings accompanied by the glory and honor of the eternal life. In sum, the Good
Life is serving the law of nature and the society by doing good to every one we can reach and
not inflicting harm to others.

 The Philippines and COVID-19

If St. Augustine is alive right now, he would probably stress out the importance of our
faith in God amidst the on-going spread of negative effects brought by the COVID-19
pandemic. Despite the separation of the church and the state with regards to implementing
laws and orders, he will probably think of the importance of the correlation of spiritual orders
and the state’s to see the problem in our ways of life in the first place. Now that we are not
just combatting the impact of the virus in our physical well-being but also its effects in our
mental health, he will continue to remind us to love one another, to always be kind, and have
compassion to those who struggle, especially if we have the means of helping them. In these
tying times, what we need is constant empathy to others. Although he will acknowledge the
efforts of our medical practitioners, I think that in response to our mental well-being, he will
introduce the word of God to those who are experiencing depression and anxiety.

However, while there are effective measures that are country is imposing, it is always
important to remain skeptical about the abuse of power. He would regard the chaos and its
root cause of problems as part of our pervasively flawed society where love of wealth
prevails because there is no doubt that many of our officials are taking advantage of the
pandemic just to increase their wealth and serve their own interests. With this, St. Augustine
will explicitly express how many of us continue to be irrational, controlled by our bodily
peace and pleasures. Moreover, he will speak about his disappointment to our authority’s use
of excessive force when it comes to handling the quarantine rules and violations. The issue of
political rivalry also remains as a topic of discourse in media, and I think that St. Augustine
will react to this by engaging in such discourses and elucidate how blinded we are by our
desire to dominate and ego (especially our officials) which deviate us from surviving the
pandemic. Instead of focusing on the real problem, pride still reigns to the extent that we are
already neglecting our duty and service for God.

 Now it’s your turn

In the words of St. Augustine, “The basic conflict between Good and Evil rages not
only in mankind as a whole but in every individual’, he describes that the order in the society
should start within ourselves and I could not agree more. We humans, using our full potential,
must not only consider our growth based on wealth, pride, and power. We should not forget
that we are humans – expected to always cultivate kindness and as much as possible, be
understanding with everyone’s own context and dilemmas. The world does not only revolve
around us. I believe that regardless of our religious practices, our aim should always be
centered on how we can contribute to the society in order to live a harmonious life free from
violence and respecting the virtues that we have. From a Christian perspective, I concede
with St. Augustine’s idea of humans being natural sinners and our life here on Earth is our
chance to redeem ourselves. There is always an opportunity for us to ignore temptations,
make use of the blessings from Above to do good, and live in the Eternal Kingdom of God in
the afterlife.

Consequently, St. Augustine’s ideas are primarily based on the Christian Doctrine.
Although I also have faith in Christianity and I do not question its principles, I think that the
state and our society should develop a compromise and respect between the diversity of our
religious practices. Our society has already evolved and still is evolving; we are now a
product of different cultures and influences. With this, I believe that we all have the right to
choose our religion and it is wrong to force someone to believe in Christianity as the only
progressive religion one can have. St. Augustine affirms that the state should work under the
spiritual orders. I oppose to this view for the reason that the citizens which constitute our
state have different practices, beliefs, and traditions. In general, there are no standards of
morality. For instance, in our Ten Commandments and constitution, we shall not commit
adultery; but the concept of polygamy in Muslims is considered legal as long as men still can
provide for his families. However, the Church-State separation in the Philippines should not
strictly prevent the Church from engaging with the State, and vice-versa. I strongly believe
that both the state and the church have the common goal of promoting the good, balance, and
order in the society but how they influence in each other should have limitations subject to
legal constraints. We cannot judge someone’s faith but we cannot also blame the state for
doing its job.
 ST. THOMAS AQUINAS

 Background

St. Thomas Aquinas (c.1225 – 1274) was a Christian philosopher born in Roccasecca,
Italy to a noble family. He lived during the last years of the Medieval period, studied and
worked in Paris with philosophy and theology as his fields of expertise. During this time, the
major conflict that defined his context was between the two fields mentioned as Plato and
Aristotle’s ideas were rediscovered. Moreover, the known medieval intelligence
Scholasticism and the papal power also have emerged in the 13 th century. Since the Church
tried to rise in power, the need for an organized knowledge based on both Christianity and
philosophy was perceived. This has resulted to Thomism (the fusion of Aristotelianism and
Christian thought) winning over Augustinianism (the fusion of Plato and Christianity). It was
because of the philosopher and saint, St. Thomas Aquinas, who attempted to create a
compromise between faith and reason. The adoption of Thomism committed the Church to a
flexible and systematic collaboration of institutional, rational and legal viewpoints.

 The State and its Responsibilities

Generally, the state is the product of man’s reason and social impulse. St. Thomas
Aquinas emphasized that man in nature is both a social being and a political animal. The state
is necessary to include a social organization as an avenue to reach man’s full potential; hence,
it is existing even without original sin. St. Thomas Aquinas regarded the state to be a divine
institution for redemption because men are natural sinners. In the political perspective, a form
of government is also necessary for the stability of the state. A ruler guides the citizens to
reach their full developments. The three main functions of the state as an empowered
institution include securing unity of peace and defense where the military and police take
over to prevent the state from harm, promote the common good by enforcing laws and
sanctions based on the divine order, and providing welfare or basic material necessities for
the citizens. The rulers must also not be too powerful to avoid abuse. St. Thomas Aquinas
affirms that the state must regulate under the supervision of the Church because kings alone
cannot guide the citizens toward the kingdom of God.

 State-Society Relations

St. Thomas Aquinas firmly believes that since the government is under the divine
order and is expected to follow it, the citizens which are under the rule of the government
should also obey its commands. Noncompliance to the state’s orders is considered a mortal
sin. Hence, making the Church accord the highest power than the secular government and the
state. Consequently, the citizens have both the right to elect their king and resist his excessive
tyranny, the perverted version of the ideal government, only by public authority.
Additionally, when the elimination of an extreme tyranny cannot be fully grasped by human
potentials, this means that God has punished citizens with a wicked ruler for their sins. In
order for God to help them get rid of the tyrants, they must remedy their sins. Therefore, the
citizens and the state must behave according to the spiritual teachings and orders.

 The Good Life

St. Thomas Aquinas undoubtedly expressed that an ideal society has just Monarchy as
its most ideal form of government provided with the following conditions: the king must be
elected or the duty is passed on to him by blood and his powers are important to be
moderated. He preferred having one preeminent ruler as he relates it to how God is the only
divine ruler of all. Thus, one ruler is enough for the state to achieve its common good. The
Good Life is achieved through virtuous living in the state subjected to the Church, with a
further goal of reaching the ultimate end which is the salvation of souls. This can only be
achieved through “attaining to the possession of God.” The ultimate end of the citizens’
virtuous character consists in the enjoyment of God; however, attaining the fullest
development of citizens by the mans of social life is a prerequisite to the virtuous life.

 The Philippines and COVID-19

The Philippines, having democracy as a form of government, is considered to be ruled

by many. Since St. Thomas Aquinas was a firm believer of having kingship as an ideal
government, he would probably argue that the government’s poor response to the pandemic is
a proof of the weaknesses of having a government ruled by many – the imbalance and
instability are thus highly evident. Provided that we are a “democratic” country, the abuse of
power by our authority is also perceived. There are a huge number of people who wants to
oust our president in the present time; however, there are also people who still supports him.
Hence, it might be considered that a revolutionary resistance may just lead to a worse-case
scenario especially in our fight against pandemic. With this, I think that St. Thomas Aquinas
will stress that this pandemic and we having an incompetent government are punishments for
our us being naturally sinners. Therefore, we must take this time to strengthen our faith to the
Lord, and make up for our sins. Since the State is no longer under the guidance of the
Church, St. Thomas Aquinas may also claim that the main functions of the government are
not strictly implemented. This is manifested by how we are expected to obey the authority
with regards to lockdowns, but the authority seems to neglect what the society needs: basic
necessities, support for the medical practitioners, compassion from the military, etc.

 Now it’s your turn

Learning about how St. Thomas described the state functions is what I have enjoyed
in the readings. The state should always be directed towards the common good and guide
its subordinates’ journey towards self-sufficiency. The state is the important institution to
secure peace and harmony in a country. I also believe that humans are both social and
political beings. We should live a meaningful life here on Earth not just by our own, but
by the various social relations we would have to form to increase our potential and/or
strengthen our faith. We should always adhere to the right human laws. I also concede to
his idea that both faith and intellect should go hand in hand and thus there is no need to
declare which is superior. Similarly, the Church or any other religious haven is an
important institution for us to realize the good that resides within us and eventually fight
the evil; thus, obeying the divine laws. As a Christian, I also believe that what we did, is
doing, and will be doing in the future will be reflected to the afterlife after death. I accept
that we are distinguished by our different religious beliefs, there is nothing wrong with it
but what truly matters is how we behave with others. Regardless of our religion, it is
appropriate to associate ourselves with the society and uphold the right virtues it may
teach us. Though I also do not agree with monarchy being the ideal form of government, I
was relieved with St. Thomas Aquinas’s new idea of about resisting tyranny. I am also a
firm believer of citizens holding power to oust oppressive tyrants. On the other hand, just
what I have presented about St. Augustine, I do not think that the State should be
rigorously subjected to Christian Doctrine because as a community, we should also
acknowledge our differences in religious practices.
 NICCOLO MACHIAVELLI

 Background

Niccolo Machiavelli (1469 – 1527), born in Florence, Italy, was a known Republican
public servant and a Renaissance man under a period of emphasizing humanism; “Man as the
center of all things”. Italy was the leading European country in terms of the discovery of
Renaissance, a period of rebirth or rediscovery of both antiquity and the Middle Ages. This
has resulted to the fusion of elements in the past periodization; thus, gave rise to the idea of
individualism alongside the relations of man in his society and the world. Florence, as one of
the city-states of Italy, upheld the individualistic republicanism. It was in 1512 when he was
forced to leave his job due to an absolutist regime of the Medici family, replacing the
republic.
In Machiavelli’s fourteen years of service to the city-state, he gained knowledge on politics
which he, despite the change in government rule, practiced in his Modern Political Thought
reflected most in his two relevant books, The Prince (1513) and The Discourses on the First
Ten Books of Titus Livius (1521).

 The State and its Responsibilities

The state come about because of the relevance of power. It was explicitly stated that
Machiavelli’s moral code for the state is the Raison d’ etat (RDE) or the reason of the state;
that is, to maintain the state’s order and survival. Hence, it is natural and necessary for the
state to acquire, retain, and expand power by any efficient means of achieving it. The state is
the highest form of institution and must embrace RDE as its value code and amorality; it
should always regard the means as the most important for it justifies the end results in any
circumstance. A worthy ruler is one who is able to defend the state in internal and external
threats. Thus, the ruler must have the right and technical kind of virtue which is the military
valor to survive political crises and aim for the acquisition, retention, and expansion of power
by posing effective policies and realistic actions. It can be concluded that the state
specifically enjoys absolute rights and power over all its citizens and other institutions
including the Church. Moreover, the state and the Church, as opposed to the Christian
Political Thought, is morally and politically independent from each other. However, both
have the same goal of uniting the citizens for the state’s stability. The state in general is an
independent institution with own system of values.

 State-Society Relations

The Prince of the state should prioritize its alliance with its people rather than those
with the same social status and privilege. He is expected to be prudent; master the use of both
laws and force, to be both wise and fierce, and instill fear for Machiavelli regards the
pessimistic view on human nature. Since humans are regarded as evil and selfish, they are
expected to obey the Prince in the presence of fear. The citizens should realize that the most
effective ruler is the one who maximizes the use of power in order to hold onto the survival
of the state, no matter how dark the taken measures are (e.g. murder, deceptions, betrayal).
They should also exhibit trust for the rulers and commitment to love the state. While the state
remains superior than religion, Machiavelli sees the purpose of the Church in positively
impacting the citizens’ conduct and discipline. On the other hand, the state should respect the
citizen’s rights in their relationships with others and property ownership. In sum, the state
who accords more power should always be followed by the citizens and in return, the ruler
should never take possessions of their properties. The relationship of both the state and its
citizens is reflected on how Machiavelli asserted that they should unite and be disciplined for
the sake of defending the state’s survival.

 The Good Life

Niccolo Machiavelli is firm in stating that the political power itself is the higher end of
the state and that the state is not a subordinate of the Church. The ideal society is one who
holds amorality and efficiency, which means that the moral conduct of the Church should not
interfere with the activities of the state. The state has the right to impose efficient policies,
even if such policies may be considered evil in the eyes of the Christian doctrine, which are
the product of careful analyzation and planning of the ruler. Furthermore, the state must not
deviate from the good as much as possible but evil is definitely justified whenever necessary.
Briefly, The Good Life is achieved through justifying ends by the means. The state utilizes
and expands power to its full potential, and it is imperative for the citizens to believe in the
knowledge of the ruler and never judge his methods. The only basis for judging is the Raison
d’ etat or the reason of the state.

 The Philippines and COVID-19

When we talk about Machiavelli, it is understood that his main idea or contribution to
the modern political thought is the famous quote, “The end justifies the means”. Applying to
our situation in the present time, he would probably assess that the efforts of the government,
particularly the president, are parts of the process of combatting the pandemic. For instance,
the implementation of lockdowns and the police’ use of force whenever rules are violated are
then justified. Since Machiavelli claims that the acquisition, consolidation, and expansion of
power is more important than any other pursuits of the state, it is then justified if the president
commands, “Shoot them dead” if the main goal is the strict adherence to the rules; thus, to
maintain order. The citizens do not have the right to question laws and regulations because
they are produced by the most precious asset of the state: power. In his ideal society, the
citizens are highly looked down and the government has the absolute right and authority to
lead the state. Moreover, his idea of possessing the virtue of military valor for the state is
already reflected in how our government gives more benefits to the military than our medical
practitioners. Hence, Machiavelli would perhaps defend that the need for military to lead our
fight against the pandemic is second to none. I also think that he will be one of those people
who insist that we should never judge the efforts of the government officials because in the
first place, we are not in their shoes. Additionally, I think that Machiavelli will also validate
the relevance of having allies or strong diplomatic relations with other countries, say China or
the United States, in order for our country to be guided with regards to the pandemic, no
matter what the social sacrifices and consequences are.

 Now it’s your turn

From what I inferred from Machiavelli’s views; a leader of the state should appear
strict yet reasonable. I think that the idea of a leader who is both loved and feared sits in
idealism, but in my own view, a good politician must not dwell on making himself
lovable nor fearful in the eyes of his subordinates. A good politician works his way to do
his job for the betterment of BOTH the country and the citizens. Although politics is a
social activity concerning power, I do not think that it is all about power alone. Politics is
also compromise between opposing views and working through a collective action. I still
have faith in humanity per se, so in analyzing the state-society relations, a pessimistic
approach will not value the fortitude and capabilities of humans as effective agents in
progressive societies. I believe that we value laws and rules, if they are for the benefit of
all. First things first, a country that prioritizes its citizens more than anything, is what I
consider a developed country. If citizens are also entitled to contribute for the
development of the state, then economic and global power follow. The fate of a country
stands not only on the supremacy of power but also on how we are shaped by our social
values. While it is good that leaders should always be wise and strong in dealing with
practical decisions, I do not think that this consequentialism “the end justifies the means”
is normally a worthy belief to hold on to. For some extreme circumstances, for instance
wars we cannot avoid, I think that it is applicable but in reality, the sense of this adage
just poses more harmful effects than what is already expected. My own view is that there
should be transparent and emphatic “means” if we want to attain peace and order. What is
the point of using lethal force if the citizens are not empowered? Can we achieve state
stability if this idea of utilitarianism does not uphold basic human rights? I personally do
not think so. With this, Machiavelli’s ideas are somehow flawed in the sense, because he
did not specify the factors that contribute to the relationship of the means and ends.
 THOMAS HOBBES

 Background

Thomas Hobbes (1588 – 1679) was a 17th century English Philosopher who lived
throughout the early modern period where England has reached its global power and
influence – in sciences, navigation, philosophy, and economics. The English Civil War
(1642–1651) in the first half of the 17 th century highlighted by the Puritan Revolution is one
major event which has resulted to developments that influenced his thinking. First, it
questioned the principle of the Divine Right of Kings. Second, it questioned the issues of
religious liberty, sovereignty, and inclusion of the middle class to the governing classes of
England. The center of Europe underwent shifts in the governing authorities: from absolute
monarchy, it shifted into an instituted republic, then went back to a monarchy which was
made possible through the revolution of the middle class. However, this monarchy has
evolved into a constitutional one; thus, abolishing the Divine Right of Kings which highlights
the mentioned issues. Moreover, his political career exposed him to the intellectual pursuits
of Europe, thereby incorporating Natural Sciences into his general theory of politics
discussed in his greatest work, the Leviathan (1651).

 The State and its Responsibilities

Thomas Hobbes was explicit in describing that equality, unsociability, seek of power,
and rationality constitute the human nature. This, on the other hand, form the State of Nature
in which life was regarded by Hobbes to be “solitary, poor, nasty, brutish, and short” because
of men’s relative gains – they tend to be in constant competition with one another in
achieving the greatest security for themselves. The state come about because they are not
peaceful enough; therefore, there is a need for a strong restraining force on their own liberties
and for them to keep their promises of prudence. The state is set up by a social contract due to
the two driving forces of defensive war and danger of internal disorder as men equally attain
self-preservation. In the absence of a government, there is an end for all order, for a civilized
society, and continued vile living in the state of nature. The sovereign rule is the result of this
social contract which acknowledges the state to be in control – in assuring that the citizens
live by the contract, in maintaining peace and order, and providing security. Basically, the
state is responsible for creating an environment for men’s self-preservation. It was bestowed
sovereign power (the commonwealth) that is “incommunicable and inseparable”.

 State-Society Relations
 The commonwealth (group of people) and the powerful sovereign ruler (the
Leviathan) are unified by the social contract, a consent from the people, where only the
citizens voluntarily be subjects. They mutually give up their natural rights and transfer them
to a legitimate authority, the Leviathan. As a result, the absolute power and authority belong
to this sovereign ruler, which is not a party of the contract. His decisions must always
consider what is best for the people and guarantee the fulfillment of the state’s objectives.
There is no reason for implementing a democracy, no reason for the citizens to defy the
sovereign because of the contract’s common authorship. The only instance that a revolution is
accepted is when the Leviathan directly threatens their lives. Moreover, Hobbes was clear in
his idea that there should be no other groups or institutions, particularly the Church, that may
intrude the stable relationship of the state and its citizens.

 The Good Life

The Hobbesian ideal society is one in which citizens escape the State of Nature and
go to a flourishing one through the virtue of social contract. The society should intensify the
purpose of the absolute state with regards to the pessimistic assumption of human nature. By
man’s reason, he needs to appreciate that he can deviate himself from the brutal competition
for power, desires, and survival by giving up his rights of nature. Then, he must subject these
rights to the authoritarian state or the monarchy which is the best form of government. The
presence of a Leviathan and the citizens’ total submission to the state are effective and
practical means of avoiding chaos and violence which Thomas Hobbes completely abhor.
What is most important for the civil society is the compromise for and the realization of
social peace through a social contract. This social contract is the result of man’s
characteristics of hope, reciprocity, and honor underscored by reason.

 The Philippines and COVID-19

Thomas Hobbes directly asserts his pessimistic assumption of human nature. His
assertion is somewhat true. During this time of crisis, I think that Thomas Hobbes will
express how brutish our lives really are. I guess he will point out that what we are
experiencing right now is a product of our perpetual competition against each other; hence,
we are still living in the State of Nature. Our government officials, while ‘handling’ the
pandemic, remain to be power-seekers. The issue of speakership form the House of
Representatives is one perfect example. Perhaps he would also stress out that our division of
powers only lead to conflicts because there is no doubt that the government branches and
other departments pose different instructions with regards to the quarantine protocols. It
seems that there is no careful planning and definite dissemination of information from the
Executive branch to the local government units, resulting to public confusion. On the other
hand, since he firmly believes that democracy is a ‘poisonous doctrine’ that should be
abolished, Thomas Hobbes will articulate that we do have limited rights to complain with the
government’s efforts in handling the pandemic in the general sense; this is because in the first
place, majority of us surrender the consent of being led by these officials. However, we do
have this only right to revolt because the president himself ordered our troops to kill
lockdown violators. This is the society Thomas Hobbes did not imagine for the protection of
our peace and security.
  Now it’s your turn

Thomas Hobbes’ preliminary principle is relevant in our understanding of modern

societies. He actually studied how humans behave in the social perspective before
formulating his political theories instead of relying on philosophical suppositions. He has
introduced the idea of humans’ rationalization of government authority contrary to the
religious justification of the ‘Divine Right of Kings’. Although his ideal social contract is not
wholly applied in our contemporary context, I believe that it still stipulates a simple
framework of how societies should live in harmony, taking into account the evil virtues of
human nature. We still strive to conform to our laws and designate rightful officials.
However, agreements in the contract are implicit. It did not clearly contemplate about what
will happen to those who are not part of the subjects. If the state is responsible for the
preservation of lives, what about those who did not comply to the contract? If they continue
to live inside the State of Nature, then does it mean that the society per se also did not escape
from this so-called evil life, since basically everyone is involved in the same physical
environment? Hobbes did not distinctly set the parameters for this contract and explained the
citizens’ sudden need for a powerful sovereign authority. How can he be so sure that
competitions will be fully eradicated? I see this as a conflicting assertion. If human nature is
naturally evil, why still humans need to conform to a contract and achieve peace? If we are
achieving for peace, then there is ‘good’ that lies within out human nature. Really, why the
need for a social contract?

Conversely, while in reality there really exists competition that makes people do
everything he could do for the sake of their reputation, I do not think that this is what solely
defines our society. The problematic side of Thomas Hobbes’ pessimistic assumption is that
it did not consider the other side of our moral virtues; he only saw the society in its pure evil
form. In my own view, both good and evil reside in human beings’ characteristics. These two
come off naturally regardless of religious and scientific beliefs, but there should be balance. I
agree with Hobbes’ stance about having a sovereign authority, provided that this authority
share power with its citizens. In the absence of both natural and civil laws, I think that the
state and its citizens will abuse the freedom conferred upon them. Despite this, I also believe
that we have the capacity to unite with the right system of government institutions and
constitution. Additionally, I do not concur to his classification of the forms of government
based on numbers only. I firmly believe that each form constitutes different moral positions
and pervasions that are not subjective. One’s practicality and convenience do not mean lack
of abuse. Lastly, is there really a perfect, infallible ruler? If this ruler is a human being like
everyone else, doesn’t he also possess the amoral values Hobbes has described? Thomas
Hobbes did not provide specifics about the qualities appropriate for a sovereign ruler and how
the citizens should select the right one. The social contract also nurses too much power for
the government which in turn causes abuses and corruption.
 JOHN LOCKE

 Background

John Locke (1632 – 1704) was a 17 th century English philosopher who also lived
throughout the pinnacle of England’s worldwide influence. It was quite similar with Hobbes
that Locke’s historical background can be described by the primacy of consent challenging
the long ruling Divine Right of Kings. More specifically, what was happening in England
pertaining to the Glorious or the Bloodless Revolution of 1688 defines Locke’s context. The
restoration of the monarchy (1660-1688) which revealed the despotic government of Charles
II and the tyrannical obscurantism of James II intensified this revolution. It was because of
this revolution that the parliament supremacy in England was able to replace a new set of
monarchs remarked by King William and Mary of Orange, a momentary event in English
history. The Glorious revolution has strengthened its political ideology by instituting the
sovereign Constitutional Monarchy with the consent of the parliament which gives limited
power to the government; hence, the presence of people representation. Locke’s
philosophical ideas, particularly the Lockean rational liberalism reflected in his work (Two
Treatises of Government (1690)) justified this spirit of liberty in England and its progressive
political system.

 The State and its Responsibilities

Contrary to Hobbes’ pessimistic appreciation of Human Nature, Locke considers an

optimistic one. For Locke, in the State of Nature men are equal, rational, and free or
independent. These qualities of the Human Nature accomplish letting others equally enjoy
their rights to property – lives, liberties, and pursuits of happiness (LLP) without having
brutal competition with one another as they achieve these possessions; basically, they strive
for absolute gains, they are able to control their desires because they are free from others’
control. On the other hand, despite men’s equality, perfect freedom, and reason as Law of
Nature, the State of Nature clearly has deficiencies. The result is the two-fold process of the
social contract. First, men form civil societies to establish organized and certain laws for
order. Then, the state come about as a form of a higher level of consent, the Fiduciary Trust,
or an institution for the establishment of these goals. The people are both the trustor and the
beneficiary and the state is the trustee. This means that the society sets up the purpose of the
state, and the state remain to be obliged to work on it. Locke’s conception of the nature of the
state, as a trust, expresses the state does not have rights but only obligations. This is because
Locke wanted the power of the people to be protected against the power of the state. The
legitimate government exists for the welfare of the people.
 The primary purpose of the state is essentially the reason why men abandon the State
of Nature: “for the mutual preservation of their property (the protection of their powers)”.
The liberal constitutionalism is the most ideal form of government with obvious
characteristics. First, in simpler terms, the government’s responsibility is only limited – to
institutionalize laws for peace, safety, and public good of the people instead of actually
making them. Second, it should only build the foundations of societal order through the Rule
of Law. Lastly, the state enjoys its separation of powers for one absolute power will only be
vulnerable to abuse. The Lockean state’s certain powers include the legislative (governing
branch for the determination of laws), the executive (presence of policemen for effective
administration), and the federative (for external alliances).

 State-Society Relations

It is important to take note that in the Lockean social contract, there must be a
unanimous consent from the people to form the civil society. Because Locke did not want the
government to have the rights to act against the people, it is not considered a party to the
contract. Consequently, only the consent of the majority is required to from the government.
While the government enjoys certain powers, it must always represent the will of the people.
The legislature, acting relatively above all the other branches of the government, is the
“supreme power” but conclusively not absolute. The power of the people remains the highest
power, above all.

Locke’s emphasis on the state-society relations will be most reflected to how the
Fiduciary Trust stresses out that only the people have the rights and the government only has
its obligations. Both the society and the state are parties to the trust, but the crucial part of this
is that the government’s principal obligation must always be centered to the interest of the
society – the preservation of their property. Moreover, to deviate from despotism, Locke has
identified four specific limitations of the legislature. First, the promulgated laws must be
equally applied to the citizens no matter what their social statuses are. Second, the laws must
not be oppressive and must only cater to the good of the people. Third, the government must
not impose taxes without the consent of the people. Lastly, the legislative body must not
transfer its power to any other institution without the people’s agreement to do so. At the
same time, the people have the right and the power to resist and replace the government if
there is a neglect of duty without falling back to the State of Nature, only to the civil society.
The government’s unjust and unlawful force and the collective decision of the majority are
the necessary conditions for a rebellion against the government.

 The Good Life

The deficiencies in the State of Nature include men being biased judges to their own
interests and violation cases; moreover, the injured party may not always be strong enough to
provide sanctions for their violators. Therefore, to provide a remedy for these
inconveniences, men should advance their way through a civil government founded on liberal
constitutionalism which has this end purpose of establishing solutions to the SON
deficiencies. Particularly, laws and property precede the government. Locke’s ideal society is
the political or civil society, composed of a unified group of people with equal natural rights,
who gives consent and trust to its government to execute the purpose of laws; that is, to
preserve properties and liberties, not abolish or retrain them. It is highly significant for social
relations to uphold liberty free from any violence and control from others with regards to
their property; the people must not do anything whatever they please. This Good Life is only
achieved through the social contract. There exists a preservation of property (life, liberty, and
pursuits of happiness) through implementation of laws and order bounded by the social
contract in this ideal society. For Locke, this is an elevated condition of the State of Nature or
a more dignified one.

 The Philippines and COVID-19

Out of all John Locke’s political theories and philosophical ideas, the concept of
rational liberalism is the most influential. In this time of pandemic, we remember Locke in
resisting this fascist Philippine government that takes advantage of the crisis just to earn
power and more money. Locke will assert that our online protests are effective platforms to
call the attention of the government for a bloody revolution is not needed. I suppose he will
also insist that we have the right to revolt because our needs, especially the marginalized are
not met. The preservation of our lives (LLP) is at stake. We have to continue demanding for
mass testing. I believe that just like me, Locke will have the same assumption that the
government can allocate funds for mass testing yet we can see how different the officials’
priorities are. For instance, the pursuance of featuring dolomite in Manila Bay is a clear proof
of how the government still push through with projects that might only turn into waste in the
future. Instead of focusing on the pandemic and our welfare as citizens, our government
persist on acting against what is good for the Filipino people. With this, I think that Locke
will emphasize how we currently live in uncertainties, underscored by the government’s lack
of response. Thus, referring to the Two Treatises and our modern liberal-democratic state, we
have our rights to “save the nation on the very brink of slavery and ruin”. This pandemic
opened our eyes to greed that transcends in the different branches of the government despite
their efforts in implementing the Bayanihan to Heal as One Act or Republic Act. No. 11494
to best combat the pandemic.

 Now it’s your turn

While going through the readings, I find Locke’s theory of property broad and
confusing in a sense despite my understanding of its purpose and its simple implications.
First, it did not provide a clear depiction of the grounds for limiting a person’s right to
property. It only introduced a general view on a man’s limited capacity to consume. Second,
this idea was created during a time when the population is small and the standard of currency
was probably barely used or low. Though I really appreciate its ability to contradict
capitalism, I think that it would be difficult to apply it in today’s context where wealth seems
to make the world go round. Lastly, with the advent use of money, he did not try to
compromise the “equality” of men as part of human nature and the “inequality” that can
prevail through the use of money and its impact on social relations.

On the other hand, Locke is the first thinker so far in this course to ever introduce the
power of the people, that sovereignty is at the hands of the people, that we need a government
that should always adhere to the Rule of Law and Consensus in preservation of its citizens’
lives. I specifically agree to his optimistic view of human nature while at the same time
considering the conflicts in between, particularly the emphasis on the deficiencies of the State
of Nature. In reality, if we are given too much freedom, without a governing authority there
will be no societal order. We definitely need fair and just laws to govern the direction of our
social, economic, and political progress. In contrast to the Hobbesian idea, Locke considered
our ability to permit others get the necessary resources for our survival. Indeed, there is no
point for a competition at all. I suddenly thought of this what-if, if life is not complex as to
what it has become today, maybe we can really live up to Locke’s idea of social contract.
Humanity is becoming more and more complicated as our societies evolve. However,
Locke’s political philosophy cannot be disregarded today for the reason that it laid
foundations on our concept of modern-day rational liberalism. Most of the democratic
societies, especially the Philippines, practice some of its elements in the form of voter
registrations, elections, and the specific rights the citizens exercise.

I understand that no government is perfect but what is refreshing to Locke’s idea is

the emphasis on our right to rebel against an ongoing term of oppression, abuses, deception,
and corruption and the government’s separation of powers. As democratic citizens we must
always exercise the blessings of our liberties. Relying on the Fiduciary Trust is also
dangerous; it is not enough that we only trust our government until the end. We must remain
vigilant and as much as possible, avoid the repercussions of a bloody revolution. I also
personally believe that the presence of the three branches of the government will be effective
in the implementation and conformity to laws provided that we are represented by the right
kind of politicians who will genuinely speak on our behalf. Though this is not the case in the
Philippine context, ideally, I think this is a liberal way of governing societies. Moreover,
Locke mentioned that the monarchy is much worse than the State of Nature; I can say that I
can somehow agree to this because it is evident today, for instance, in 2020 Thai
prodemocracy protests how monarchies, even the constitutional ones, can hold too much
power to the point that they become anti-people and normalize corruption. We can see how
powerful the ongoing protests which show our capacities to from collective action as a
society demanding for reforms, rights, and liberty.

https://www.dw.com/en/thailand-anti-government-protests-against-king/a-55337063
 JEAN-JACQUES ROUSSEAU

 Background

Jean-Jacques Rousseau (1712 – 1778) was an 18th century Swiss-born philosopher.

Unlike the previous thinkers, he was not a privileged one and has no mastery of any skill.
Rousseau spent most of his life in France, having a glimpse of Europe through an
impoverished perspective. Despite the unpredictability of his life, Rousseau was exposed to
the company of the elites in Parisian salons which are the breeding grounds for intellectual
discourses which have tackled different socio-political issues and their philosophy. France
during this time accentuates the Age of Reason or the Period of Enlightenment, the aftermath
of scientific revolution and the start of French revolution. It was the foundation of scientific
revolution that enables the use of natural sciences to solve questions of social sciences, more
specifically, the use of intellect to progressively reform the society and to challenge the
French absolute monarchy of the Enlightenment Period. Alongside empiricism, this period
also emphasized romanticism of the late 18 th century, a revolt against the socio-political
norms driven by the elites, which was explicated in Rousseau’s works. A pronounced
appreciation for strong emotions, imagination, freedom, and human virtues (romanticism) is
discerned in Jean-Jacques Rousseau’s philosophical thinking.

 The State and its Responsibilities

Rousseau recognizes a benign appreciation for human nature. According to him, men
are noble; they do not bother others in the State of Nature as they are self-sufficient and
compassion. However, because the only goal in the State of Nature is self-preservation, men
are also savage; they are self-interested which makes them irrational and amoral beings. Men
are naturally unequal and are noble savages. This forms the characteristics of State of Nature
as the State of Primitiveness and State of Happiness with self-interest and pity as two
sentiments. The civil society was established because of the increasing population and
institution of private property. As a result, egocentrism and contempt become the sentiments
of the civil society, making it a State of War.
 The formation of the government exists to resolve the conflicts brought about by the
state of war. The need for a system of law and government was realized by the conspiracy
among the rich which utilizes the poor for the creation of such system. In this case, the state
appears to be only a formalization; it is a necessary institution established for the advantage
or the arbitrary power of the ruling class (the rich). Hence, the continuity of inequality in the
civil society. The legitimized government in its sense is only the temporary agent of the
sovereign people. Its main function is to secure the protection of its citizens, considering their
natural, civil, and moral liberties not being given up to anyone else, especially to the state.
Rousseau vaguely concedes that special branches of the government should exercise both the
executive and judicial functions. However, there were no clarifications regarding the
separation of powers.

 State-Society Relations

For Rousseau, the extreme inequality among the three estates’ wealth worsens the
disorders in both the civil society and the government. In order to remedy this, the social
contract as a form of political community must be organized to unite everyone. This social
order has the goal of combining security and natural liberty of men, taking into account our
freedom and being noble savages in the State of Nature. A man should give up his liberty
(ultimate right of self-government) to all and not to anyone in particular. The most ideal
government can be of any form, as long as there is a proper consent from everyone; basically,
a government formed via the General Will or direct democracy. The sovereignty is the
General Will of the people bonded by the social contract; this cannot be represented by any
entity (e.g. Parliament) due to self-interests. The sovereignty must wholly reside on the
people; thus, the power of the people is inalienable and indivisible. The legislative, executive,
and judicial functions of the government must all be subjected to this sovereign. Rousseau’s
romanticism can be most reflected in his idea that the General Will, the unanimous desire for
everyone’s preservation and welfare, lies in the collective moral attitude that maintains the
state. What is important in Rousseau’s state-society relations is that the “General Will of the
state is the most comprehensive of all, embracing all members of the community.”

 The Good Life

The body politic which underscores the unmitigated popular sovereignty (General
Will) is the ideal society for Jean-Jacques Rousseau. This improved society puts an end to the
moral political inequality if men primarily recognize their characteristics of being noble
savages, set up the civil society, create a government, and finally form the social contract.
Social relations are ascertained in this society, through man losing his natural liberty (natural
freedom to anything in the State of Nature) and obtaining civil liberty in the civil liberty
(freedom to do something that conforms to the law) and most importantly, attaining the moral
liberty which is the highest form of liberty – creation of self-imposed laws. By the virtue of
social contract, the General Will accentuates moral liberty which creates laws that highlights
the elements of General Will itself – laws that “come from all, apply to all, and aim at the
general good”. If this is the case, citizens obey the laws that they themselves have created and
obey the General Will to the extent. The Good Life is obeying the General Will, the
expression of moral liberty.

 The Philippines and COVID-19

Jean-Jacques Rousseau is firm in pointing out the that the General Will should drive
the society and the government (direct democracy). The sovereign is the people; the functions
of the government should be subjugated to the common public interest. However, the current
Philippine government has its division of powers, even more so representatives that serve
their self-interests. I think that Rousseau, if he is alive right now, will make this as a basis of
his assumption that there is a slow progress in combatting the pandemic. We cannot deny the
fact that anomalies arise with regards to how the laws are implemented in today’s narrative.
Following his ideas, perhaps Rousseau will argue that there is no expression of moral liberty
and General Will in the country’s efforts in combatting the pandemic because protocols for
the common good (that apply to all) are not created by the Filipino people themselves.
Indeed, this leads to the difficulty in obedience and adherence to quarantine protocols that are
created by another institution – because they favor the ruling class. With this, Rousseau will
most likely express that the state fails as an institution that will secure the protection of its
citizens. Again, my regarded General Will of the people to demand for mass testing is
neglected when the government should have realized its contingency plans instead of
misplacing priorities during the first onset of the pandemic threat. Moreover, our needs
especially those of the marginalized are not met.

On the other hand, Rousseau claims that science has corrupted our human nature. In
my own view, since we are mainly dealing with a scientific issue today, he will maintain that
how we deal with it reflects our very own corrupted selves. What is happening today reveals
the global inequality within and across different countries. In times of crisis, those who
acquire wealth are probably have the most advantages to secure their lives and be safe once
hospitalized. It definitely hinders our progress in flattening the curve because of the anti-poor
policies and VIP treatment for the ruling class and the wealthiest ones. The masses, which
should be the sovereign, are obviously oppressed and are struggling to provide security for
themselves. I think Rousseau will fight for the needed consensus from everyone and amplify
our pleas in any available platform as possible.

 Now it’s your turn

Provided Jean-Jacques Rousseau’s context, his ideas remained as sensitive influences

to the modern political thought. He provided new perspectives concerning democracy,
political liberty, social inequality, and global economic inequality that we apparently deal
with in today’s time. First, Rousseau offered somewhat different sentiment on the
understanding of human nature. Personally, I agree with some of its details. We may be
naturally “noble” but even with compassion, when obsessed with preservation of selves
(especially security of property or other personal interests), we can also become “savage”.
However, I maintain that in reality, we are not amoral. The concepts of good and bad are
inherent in our characteristics as rational beings. If it were not for the condition and
circumstances (e.g. social class systems, poverty, concept of wealth) in different societies,
there will be no dominion of virtues. Second, this dominion causes inequality in all aspects of
lives that eventually influence how the state operates in general. Rousseau’s idea about how
government is formed mirrors today’s rule of the upper-class. Sadly, in reality it can be
concluded that these elites control the direction of Philippine society and government.

Third, though provocative, how Rousseau views on science does not completely
coincide with my appreciation of it. While I also concede that it has its disadvantages, I
believe that scientific knowledge should not be overlooked and undermined for it contributes
in understanding the complexity of human society. It was the evolution of science that
unfolds the fields of formal science, natural science, and social science; their
interconnectedness help solve the world’s issues. Rousseau broadly concludes that it
corrupted our minds and virtues; however, I would like to contest this view. We can say
instead that our abuse and extreme fascination of science can be causes of its “corrupting
human minds and virtues”. For instance, the neglect of nature for the sake of keeping up with
infrastructure and economic developments in the present. What is importantly implied by
Rousseau is that we should know the limitations of modern science.

Lastly, Rousseau introduced a new idea of direct democracy. Direct democracy

entails consensus, aiming for public good, perceived transparency, etc. It is efficient in the
legislative functions of the government through referendum and in the constitutional
amendments. Most importantly, it is functional in ousting incompetent officials. While it can
be easily apprehended its advantages, it also has its disadvantages. Direct democracy as how I
envisioned in Rousseau’s ideas, will not always get the one hundred percent response from
everyone, considering the growing and diverse populations. It might only ensue diverse
opinions to the extent that it will be difficult to come up with one final decision. It will be
arduous to vote for every decision of the state; it can literally end up in voting for even the
smallest decisions which occur every day. My main concern is the immediate lack of interest
in participation if citizens get tired of the setup and as a result, it will eventually be subjected
under the rule of the rich or the people the society “look up to” because of economic power.
In sum, direct democracy, though emphasizing the sovereign people, may not be practical. In
addition, I came to this conclusion that no government can be effective enough if people,
particularly those who hold positions, are continuously blinded by power and wealth. A
carefully planned democratic system might be of help.