PART I The Academic Ethical Traditions— OM | [HB Introduction Gowi and Gawa and Habituation In Filipino, the words gowi and gata can give # sense of what philosophers mean by ethical ection. Filipinos distinguish between thoughtless, instinetive mannerisms fand reflexes from gawe faction) and gawi (inclination) In reflecting on how Filipinos use these words, one can ‘understand that human actions ae diferent from mere bodily ovement Freedom figures closely into action and inclination. Freedom here means not only the ability to act free from foulsie influences or the independenee from the impediments to one's wishes. It is the willful act and decision that give form and shape to the actions and inclinations of people. This freedom is oriented toward the wherefore, the what for, and the whom for of the doinys of people ‘These ace the common aspects of human action that Filipinos understand as action and inclination: that free Jaman acts are governed by reflection and are freely decided sich that they are not determined by internal or external forces However, wi and yews are not identical. Gawa refers to the free action that is oriented toward a particular end. Por ‘example, a wopker uses his/her free imagination and will vo bring about services and products that contribute to the well- being of soe. ‘As one governed by free decision making, the creative worker embraces all the information he/she can gather to tfectvely realize his/her purpose. A process of discernment fccompanies the exeative work. The carpenter, for instance, must learn many details about wood: its foe, its hardness and pliablity, as well as its strength, He/She should know 6 bout the qualities that will help him/her accomplish the task ft hand very well. Part of this knowledge is the knowledge fout the body's movement in accomplishing this work. The farpenter should study how heavy of light the hand should move over certain kinds of wood, what tools to apply so that te wood yields the best piece: stool, table, or the wheel of scart ‘The word gow also rofers to a free kind of work. However, instead of focusing on a particular end like a product or fulfillment, gawi refers to the kind of acts that people are ‘wed to accomplishing, Gai dees not only refer to particular sets of a person. A person's Lagawian or habitual action reveals truth nhout himself/herself. While the beautial table fand the intricately designed chair are products of a carpenter that has gotten used to being one, in his kagowian, he reveals himself/hersalf as a good or a bad person. A worker ‘who produces for the society is judgod skilled or unskilled. But a person is judged good or evil, right or wrong, based on ogawian or habituation. Kagawian is the Filipino equivalent of ethos in Greek and mos or moris in Latin, Ethics and Ethos ‘The term ethics comes from the Greek word ethos, which means custom, a characteristic, or habitual way of doing things, or aetion that is propeiy derived from one's character. "The Latin word mos or moris (and its plural mores) from hich theaadjetive moral is derived is equivalent to ethos. From a purely etymological point of view, ethical and ‘oral ate, therefore, synonymous. Also, restricted to suck rootword considerations ethies and morality may only be a “simple description ofthe mores or ways of behaving, whether ‘of the human person in general or ofa partcalar population. It seems then that as a field of study, ethics need not be ”PART I: THE ACADEMIC ETHICAL TRADITIONS. “normative” in guiding human action and itis even seemingly imperative to preserve an attitude of neutrality that exehades| all judgments of value, Etymologially ethics is but a survey of patterns of behavior that is done by the human being in seneral ora society in particular. Looking closely, however, human action ought to be ‘understood clearly ina very strict sense, As considered above, Jbuman action has to do with human movements that are ruled by one’s freedom. Given that freedom is not only the independence from what could hinder but also a consideration of the goal of the action, ethics cannot be limited to pure eseripton. Since goals are inherently directional, they imply sormatvity In the same manner that gow forthe Filipino is different from gawa, Aristotle differentiates between human actions that are “praxis” and “to poiein” What is important for the Jnuman agent who engages in “to poicin,” gawa for Aristotle, Js to successfully complete a particular work be it artistic or technical: that the tabletop is smooth, the carvings are precise, and the chairs legs are balanced. The human person ‘himself/herself is significant only in considering the result i iatfers of “to poiein” or gewa. Ethics, on the other hand, not only has such “normative” considerations as to the end product of the actions Ethles, as concerned with “praxis” for Aristotle, properly focusee on the human agent that ,is revealed ‘rough his/her actions. Bthies is normative with regard to its being a practical science, It does not only limit itselr to the description of human actions but also aims to guide them. Students who study ethies are not to stop at the pure description of human mores but are ushered into a disciplined science that guides them in judging and rectifying Jhuman patterns of behavior. Ethics proposes guidelines, considerations, and norms to provide advice and rules 60 that the way of right living and its practice are dlaied. e If Lagawian is the Filipino equivalent of the Greek ethos and the Letin mor/moris, gawa is *to polein” and gawi is ‘praxis. Ethies for Filipino students is philosophy of human ction that allows them to learn the art of living. Tt is an ‘Thus, ethies isa way for them to find happiness. Bthies also considers that which is worthy of a human being. This means that living rightly is not only about searching for happiness but living as one ought to live as a human being. Ta living rightly, one receives contentment ‘nd approval both from others and himself/herself, and in living wrongly, he/she deserves blame (from others and from himself/herself). Such an ethics not only serves as a path to happiness but also reaches out in fullness of reflection for that action which is an obligation for a human being. The gravity ‘of such an ethical consideration is given voice in the Filipino saying, madating maging tao, manirap magpakatao. ‘The effort in living rightly, though a task, need not ‘exclude the promise of the gift of happiness, There is no reason to presuppose why a life that is consistent with what the human person ought to do should not bring tim / her happiness. ‘The Filipino student is, therefore, invited to ‘outgrow kung saan ka masaya suportahan kita and get to sa dapat mong gawin talaga kang sasayo. Plato's Insight Into the Good ‘An academic introduction to the discipline of ethics is incomplete without reference to Plato [427-847 BCE]. Even the word “academic” itself harks back to academia, the institution of learning established by Plato forthe training of his followers who later willbe called philosophers, lovers of ‘wisdom, Bthics, being a discipline of study in universities thatPART |; THE ACADEMIC ETHICAL TRADITIONS. {all under the utmbrella of philosophy, can also trace its roots ‘back to Plato as the systematic thinker who grappled with the ‘question of that which is good. ‘The context of the life of Plato is not totally unfamiliar with students of tody. Athens and Grecco went through fan expansion of trade around 600 BCE. This “global” ‘awakening on the part of Grooks like Plato plunged him to ‘an experience of social, political, and intellectual challenge. Given the exchange of different experiences between Greoee and its nejghboring countries around the Mediterranean Sea, Plato was interrogated by different points of view. Plato and the students of today share this “global” challenge; it leads ‘to questions of truth and inquiry into what is good. Given ‘this pluralism of perspectives, sit valid to ask “what is truly good AA serious claim faced by Plato was given voice by a thinker named Protagoras (4817-411? BOE] who said that “man is the measure ofall things.” The implications of such ‘claim sit well with those who easly lt go of the validity of traditional mores and ethos to arrive at conelusion that is relaiviste. This easy relativism holds that man, being the réasure ofall things, can only hold on to beliefs and truths that are for himself/herself or his/her society only. It denies the possibility of ever arriving at truth that ean be shared by all Man, as the measure of all things, eame to be understood simplisteally hgsed on the concept that “to each his own.” Socrates [470-399 BCE], on the other hand, taught Plato about the difficulty of coming to a knowledge of the ‘ruth. This difficulty, however, did not mean impossibility for Socrates. He instilled this rigorous questioning to his students land did not shy away from interogating even the traditional leaders of Athens. This resulted in his death in 399 BCE on charges of impiety and of misleading the youth with his ideas Socrates, however, is immortalized in the writings of Plato as the intelligent and courageous teacher who lends his hearers eager to tho truth in the same way that midwives help in the irthing process of «chi, ‘This confrontation between Socratic inquiry and easy luck of thought is portrayed in the allegory of the eave thats final in Plato's The Republic Glaueon's story in the dialogue best introduces the allegory that is fold by Socrates. These two stories are ‘eeasioned by the question about the good and the task of the human person to inquire about it. Glaucon proposes the story cof Gyges' ring (The Republic, Book Il, 359-360) According to Glaucon, a terrible earthquale later resulted in a break in the land and the finding of metalic horse that contained a skeleton, A ring was said to be worn by that skeleton. The man who found the skeleton thea took the ring ‘nd found out that it had the power to render hit invisible. ‘A simple inward turn would male the wearer imperceptible to others and another turn outwards would allow others to see him again. Free from the fear of shame and eaplure, Glacon concludes his story by saying that the man who found the ing would eventually become evil Glaucon's point about the good may not be as crude as the simple claim that each one is left to determine the good for himatelf/ersel. It is nonetheless sinister in ite simplistic presentation of the relationship between the human person ‘and that which is claimed as good. Glaucon dismisses the topic of the good altogether and proposes to explain the ‘human perSons’ ethical actions as the result of fear. It simply is the evasion of shame, incarceration, or retaliation that spells itself out in “good behavice” of man in society. Responding to Glaucon's story; Plato, through. the character of Socrates, later proposed the “Allegory of the - Cave" (The Republic, Book VII, 5143-5208). A group ofPART I THE ACADEMIC ETHICAL TRADITIONS people are said to have lived chained facing a wall where shadows are projected from the objects passing before a fire behind them. The shadows are thought of by these people fs the most real things, Once, a man is dragged out of the cave and made to see reality as itis enlightened by the sun. ‘The freed man has to accustom his eyes first to things as ihuninated st night, then sees what i illuminated during the day as reflected on small pockets of water. He later on sees the sun itself as the source of light that gives definition to reality, Having perceived true reality itself as enlightened by the stn, the man then ventures to go back to the cave to free the other prisoners. They, however resist him, choosing to recognize the reality they are accustomed to. The man who knows the truth ends up crucified with burnt eyes. Plato then has Socrates explain to Glaucon that the sun represents the good. Once it is sen and recognized by any ‘man who has gone beyond the shadows, that: good is followed ‘nd lived even at the cost of one’s life. This, of course, Is a direct negation of Glaucon’s aforementioned claim that the actions of humans aro only directed by the avoidance of shame or retribution. Plato directs humanity to the nobility that is reachable through the knowledge of the good. His confidence in knowing the good as acting upon it reaches out to every age that grapples with the question of what is proper Thurman action. ‘This confidence in the human person's ability to know the good and act in accordance with it started the academic history of ethics. Plato's claim is, however, aot only made in the past as they are recorded in dated documents that survived history, Plato continues to address us today and his voice builds confidence in our own ability to know the good and act ethically. 2 Bach age, however, has a particular way of interrogating Plato's assertions aud further give nusnco to what is known and how to act. Thinkers who come after him, for ‘example, will challenge a necessity that seems to have been so confidently lodged between knowledge and action. Does knowing the good automatically lead to acting on it? The ‘wonderful thing about a course in ethics is that the voices of hinkers who spent time researching such questions are til hncard and understood up to our presen time and to challenge what we know about the good and how we act pursuant to it.