GEC107 ETHICS

2ND SEMESTER, 2023-2024

This is for your assignment.
I Assignment
INSTRUCTIONS:
1. This assignment is composition writing. You are encouraged to use Tagalog, Taglish, or
English.
2. Title: MATURED MORAL AGENT AND I. This is just a general title. You are allowed to
come up with your own title that will reflect your thoughts, but the words MATURED
MORAL AGENT and I must be kept or used in your title.
3. The assignment has 3 general parts:
PART ONE
A. PART ONE of the assignment should be AN AI-generated article. This part of the
assignment is expected to be printed.
B. The challenge here is what question you will ask the CHATGBT. That is your
challenge.
Even if you ask the AI the same question, the AI will have different articles, so, each
one of you is expected to have your own AI-generated article. Nagtanong na ako
tungkol dito. So no duplication. A duplication means no assignment, so, come up wih your
own.
(max of 10points)
PART TWO
C. Part TWO of the assignment must be hand-written on a yellow pad. If it is not
hand
written, no assignment.
D. PART TWO of the assignment is your analysis and criticism of the AI-generated
article.
PART TWO of the assignment is made up of the following sections:
Section 1: Ideas from AI article that not found in the 2 articles of MORAL
DEVELOPMENT and WHO ONE IS. You can do Section 1 by bullet-type of presentation.
(max of 10 points)
Section 2: Ideas from AI article that is similar or can be considered related to
MORAL DEVELOPMENT and WHO ONE IS.
 (max of 10points)
Section 3: Come up with synthetic paragraph where you point out the
connection with the three: 1) AI article, 2) MORAL DEVELOPMENT, and 3) WHO ONE
IS if this is the direction of your analysis. Or, if your analysis goes to the opposite
direction, then in a paragraph, show the contrast of the three: 1) AI article, 2)
MORAL DEVELOPMENT, and 3) WHO ONE IS . (max of 10points)

PART THREE
E. MATURED MORAL AGENT and I, you may re-state your title here. This is to remind
you that you must now integrate yourself, your thoughts, your analysis, your views, your
ideas to the whole discussion. Your integrated or synthetic paragraphs must target 1)
AI article, 2) MORAL DEVELOPMENT, 3) WHO ONE IS, and 4) your own world views.
(max of 15points)
4. Deadline of submission will be APRIL 30. This should be submitted inside the room during
our scheduled class. For late submission, 2 points daily. The 2 points deducted will start the
seconds after our schedule class on APRIL 30. This assignment has 55points.

II. THE TWO MATERIALS:

I. FIRST MATERIAL to be read for the assignment.
Keep in mind: After reading this article, you must be able to answer the question - “Based
on Moral Development of Lawrence Kolhberg and Jean Piaget, what is a matured moral
agent or person?”
LAWRENCE KOHLBERG AND JEAN PIAGET: MORAL DEVELOPMENT
Jean Piaget introduced the idea of how moral development occurs in stages, each
level built on life experiences and active reasoning. Lawrence Kohlberg furthered this idea
by examining how moral reasoning changes as we grow. How did people determine what
was right or wrong? Following specific patterns of human behaviour, Kohlberg organized
the 6 stages into 3 levels of moral reasoning. Participants in his studies, including adults,
teenagers, and children, were asked to offer reasoning to a dilemma. An example that
Kohlberg used as a moral dilemma is presented at the end of every level and stage.
STAGES OF MORAL DEVELOPMENT
There were 3 levels of moral reasoning that encompassed the 6 stages. Like Piaget,
subjects were unlikely to regress in their moral development, but instead, moved forward
through the stages: pre-conventional, conventional, and finally post-conventional. Each
stage offers a new perspective, but not everyone functions at the highest level all the time.
People gain a more thorough understanding as they build on their experiences, which
makes it impossible to jump stages of moral development.

Let us start discussing the details of this lesson step by step:

There is a big difference between a young child’s reasoning on the right thing to do
and the manner a morally mature individual arrives at an ethical decision. This necessary
growth, which is a maturation in social reasoning, has been the focus of study of many
theorists. One of them is the American moral psychologist Lawrence Kohlberg who
theorized that moral development happens in six stages, which he divided into three levels.
FIRST LEVEL: PRE-CONVENTIONAL LEVEL.
This level has two stages, first Stage and Second Stage.
The first level is what he called pre-conventional and it corresponds to how infants and
young children think. This pre-conventional level, whose reasoning is centered on the
consequences of one’s actions, is divided into two stages. The first stage of reasoning
centers around obedience and the avoidance of punishment: to a young child’s mind, an
action is “good” if it enables one to escape from punishment; “bad” if it leads to punishment.
Later, a child enters the second stage of reasoning and learns to act according to what she
thinks will serve her self-interest; thus, what is “good” at this age is what the child thinks can
bring her pleasure.
Kohlberg used the term pre-conventional to refer to these two stages since at this age,
a young child basically thinks only in terms of the pain (punishment) or pleasure (reward)
brought about as a consequence of her actions. Thus, her concentration is on herself and
what she feels, instead of her society’s conventions on what is right or wrong.
(I hope this table helps.)
FIRST LEVEL: Pre-Conventional First Stage
1. Reasoning centers around Reasoning centers on obedience and
consequences of one’s action. avoidance of punishment
2. A child thinks only about Second Stage
himself/herself, thinks on pain and Reasoning centers on his/her self-
pleasure. interest, on what will bring him/her
3. Focuses only on herself/himself and pleasure.
what she/he feels.
APPLICATION IN AN EXPERIMENT:
What follows below is an example of a problem that presents a dilemma. This is the
experiment conducted by Kolhberg. Here, Kolhberg showed how a person in the First Level
and Stage 1 will act and decide.
This is problem used in the experiment: “A man named Heinz, who lived in Europe, had a
wife whom he loved very much. His wife was diagnosed with a rare type of cancer and did
not have long to live. Luckily, there was a pharmacist who invented a drug called radium
that could cure her. The pharmacist owned all rights to this medication and decided to sell it
at a high markup in order to make a profit. While it cost only $200 to make, he sold it for 10
times that amount $2000. Heinz did not have enough money to pay the exorbitant price, so
he tried fundraising to cover the costs. With time running out, he had only managed to
gather $1000, which was not enough to buy the medication. Heinz begged the pharmacist
to sell it to him at a reduced price but the man refused. Desperate and running out of time,
Heinz broke into the pharmacy after hours and stole the drug. Was this the right or wrong
thing to do? Why?”
To answer the question - Was Heinz action (to steal the drug) right or wrong from the point
of view or from the point of moral reasoning of a person on Level 1 and Stage 1?
To review:
1. The Person is on FIRST LEVEL: Pre-Conventional Morality, and usually, this is a young child
or children under the age of 9. And if the person is on Stage 1, his concern is to be Obedient
and avoid Punishment.
Stage 1 (Pre-Conventional): Obedience and Avoid Punishment Orientation
- Obedience and punishment orientation (How can I avoid punishment?)
- Self-interest orientation (What’s in it for me? Aiming at a reward)
APPLICATION
To answer the question - Was Heinz action (to steal the drug) right or wrong?
The first stage highlights the self-interest of children to our example above, the
man should not steal the medication from the pharmacy as he may go to jail if he is
caught.
Similar to the first stage in Piaget’s theory, Kohlberg reflects on the moral
thought of children. At a young age, they believe that rules are meant to be followed
and those in charge will undoubtedly follow through with punishment. A child’s
reasoning to the above example may include “it’s bad to steal,” or “it’s against the
law,” without assessing the perspective of the man whose wife is sick.
This stage is labeled preconventional due to the limited association that
children have with the outlined principles. They view the ethics taught as something
 that society implements, not as something they internalized themselves.
Let us proceed to the First Level Stage 2.
Let us use the same problem and to answer the question - Was Heinz action (to steal the
drug) right or wrong from the point of view or from the point of moral reasoning of a
person on Level 1 and Stage 2?
To review:
Stage 2 (Pre-Conventional): Individualism and Exchange
- Interpersonal accord and conformity (Social norms: good boy - good girl attitude)
- Authority and social order maintaining orientation (Law and order morality)
APPLICATION
To answer the question - Was Heinz action (to steal the drug) right or wrong?
This stage (Stage 2) observes how children begin to adopt the views taught,
but also recognize that there is more than one point of view for each matter. Each
person is different and will, therefore, have a unique outlook according to their
interests. In terms of our example above, they may reason that “he may think that it
is right to take the drug, but the pharmacist would not.”
The second stage relies heavily on the exchange of favors and can be
summarized with the common marketing saying “what’s it in for me?” Children at
this stage are not motivated by friendship or respect but by the personal advantage
involved. For example, if a parent asks their child to complete a chore around the
house, the child may ask what the benefit would be to them. Parents often recognize
the “you scratch my back and I’ll scratch yours”, mindset at this stage and offer a
reward, such as an allowance.
SECOND LEVEL: CONVENTIONAL LEVEL.
This level also has two stages, Third Stage and Fourth Stage.
The second level of moral development is conventional level since this is the age in
which older children, adolescents, and young adults learn to conform to the expectations of
society. This is the time when one learns to follow the conventions of her group. This second
level is divided into two stages: the third and the fourth stages of moral development. The
third stage is when one begins to act according to what the larger group she belongs to
expects of her. The individual here assumes that what will benefit her best is when the other
members of her group approve of her actions. The general tendency at this age is to
conform first to the values of one’s immediate group, such as the family, playmates, or later
on, barkada. Older children and adolescents eventually begin to value the expectations of the
larger group they belong to, whether it be their school, religion, or state. The fourth stage is
achieved when a person realizes that following the dictates of her society is not just good for
herself but more importantly, it is necessary for the existence of society itself. The individual
at this stage values most the laws, rules, and regulations of her society, and thus her moral
reasoning is shaped by dutifulness to the external standards set by society.
In Kohlberg’s reasoning, people who merely follow the rules and regulations of their
institution, the laws of their community or state, the doctrine of their religion - even if they
seem to be the truly right thing to do - are trapped in this second or conventional level,
which is still not yet the highest. The point of Kohlberg’s theory is not to ascertain what
defines the goodness or rightness of the act. Thus, in this sense, Kohlberg’s idea is not an
ethical theory. Instead, it is a psychological theory that attempts to describe the stages of a
person’s growth in moral thinking. The morally mature individual, for Kohlberg, must
outgrow both (1) the pre-conventional level, whose pleasure-and-pain logic locks one into
self-centered kind of thinking, an egoism, as well as (2) the conventional level, which at first
glance looks like the sensible approach to morality. The second level might, de facto, be the
way that many (if not most) adults think about morality, that it is simply a question of
following the right rules. The great insight of Kohlberg, however, is that a truly morally mature
individual must outgrow even the simple following of supposedly right rules. This is where
the third level comes in.
(Again, I hope this table helps.)
SECOND LEVEL: Conventional Third Stage
1. Reasoning centers on conforming 1. Reasoning centers on acting to the
with the expectations of society expectations of a bigger group.
2. Reasoning centers on following the 2. Reasoning centers on the belief that
convention of her/his group what is best for her/him is what is
approved by the group.
3. What is valuable to the person is to
conform first with the values of the
group, like family, friends.
4. Reasoning for older children centers
on conforming to the values of
schools, religion or state.
Fourth Stage
1. Person realizes that following the
dictates of her society is not just good
for herself but more importantly, it is
necessary for the
existence of society itself.
2. The individual at this stage values
most the laws, rules, and regulations
of her society, and thus her moral
 reasoning is shaped by dutifulness to
the external standards set by society.

Let us proceed to the Second Level Stage 3.

Let us use the same problem and to answer the question - Was Heinz action (to steal the
drug) right or wrong from the point of view or from the point of moral reasoning of a
person on Level 2 and Stage 3?

To review:
Second Level: Conventional Morality
- older children, adolescents, and most adults
Stage 3: Good Interpersonal relationships
APPLICATION
To answer the question - Was Heinz action (to steal the drug) right or wrong?
The stage recognizes the desire to be accepted into societal groups as well as
how each person is affected by the outcome. In terms of our example above, the
man should take the medicine from the pharmacy in order to be a good partner to
his wife.
Children in the third stage are typically pre-teens or early teenagers and have
now adopted the societal norms as their own. While they believe that people should
behave appropriately in their communities; they recognize that there is no simple
solution to moral dilemmas. In Kohlberg’s study per the example above: they
accepted that he should steal the medicine and “he was a good man for wanting to
save her.” They also reasoned that “his intentions were good; that of saving the life
of someone he loves.”
Let us proceed to the Second Level Stage 4.
Let us use the same problem and to answer the question - Was Heinz action (to steal the
drug) right or wrong from the point of view or from the point of moral reasoning of a
person on Level 2 and Stage 4?
To review:
Stage 4: Maintaining the Social Order
 In this stage, laws and social order reign supreme. Rules and regulations are to
be followed and obeyed. In the above example, the man should not steal the
medicine because it is against the law.
APPLICATION
To answer the question - Was Heinz action (to steal the drug) right or wrong?
Stage 4 shows the moral development of a person as a part of a whole society.
Each person becomes more aware of the impact of everyone’s actions on others and
focuses now on their own role, following the rules, and obeying authorities. While
stage 3 highlights the close relationships with family and friends, stage 4 attempts to
maintain social order in the community. Pertaining to the example above,
participants in stage four would argue that while they understood why he wanted to
steal the medication, they could not support the idea of theft. Society cannot
maintain order if its members decided to break the laws when they thought they had
a good enough reason to do so.
THIRD LEVEL: POST-CONVENTIONAL LEVEL.
This is the last level and again, it has two stages, fifth Stage and Sixth Stage.
The third and highest level of moral development for Kohlberg is what he calls post-
conventional since the morally responsible agent recognizes that what is good or right is not
reducible to following the rules of one’s group. Instead, it is a question of understanding
personally what one ought to do and deciding, using one’s free will, to act accordingly. This
level, which is also divided into two stages (the fifth and the sixth), represents the individual’s
realization that the ethical principles she has rationally arrived at take precedence over even
the rules or conventions that her society dictates. Moral maturity therefore is seen in an
agent who acts on what she has understood, using her full rationality, to be what is right,
regardless of whether the act will bring the agent pleasure or pain and even regardless of
whether the act is in accordance with one’s community’s laws or not. An agent has attained
full moral development if she acts according to her well-thought-out rational principles.
In the earlier stage of this level of moral development in the fifth stage, the moral
agent sees the value of social contract, namely, agreement that rational agents have arrived
at whether explicitly or implicitly in order to serve what can be considered the common good
are what one ought to honor and follow. This notion of common good is post-conventional
in the sense that the moral agent binds herself to what this theoretical community of
rational agents has identified as morally desirable, whether the agent herself will benefit
from doing so or not. Additionally, this notion of the common good is not reducible to pre-
existing communal rules, traditions, or laws since even these must be weighed using rational
discourse. Thus, what is good or right is what honors the social contract; what contradicts it is
bad.
 The sixth and the highest stage of moral development that exists even beyond the
fifth stage of the social contract is choosing to perform actions based on universal ethical
principles that one has determined by herself. One realizes that all the conventions (laws,
rules, ans regulations) of society are only correct if they are based on these universal ethical
principles; they must be followed only if they reflect universal ethical principles. This is, for
Kohlberg, the full maturity of post-conventional thinking since this stage recognizes that in
the end, the question of what one ought to do goes back to the individual moral agent and
her own rationality. Kohlberg’s insight is that, ultimately, one must think for herself what she
ought to do. This stand recognizes the supposed fact that there might be instances when the
agent must choose to go against what the community of rational thinkers deems as good if
she really thinks she must, assuming that she has committed her full rationality in arriving at
that decision.
One does not have to agree completely with Kohlberg’s theory of moral development
to see its overall value. This theory helps, at the very least, point out the differences in moral
reasoning: the more mature kind is seen in people who are not anymore dictated by the
logic of reward and punishment, or pain and pleasure. Simply following rules even if,
theoretically, they are the correct ones, does not necessarily qualify as morally mature
behavior. One must make free use of her own power of reasoning in cases of moral choice
and not remain a creature of blind obedience to either pain or pleasure or to the demands
of the group, if one aspires to moral maturity.
The significance of studying the different ethical theories and frameworks becomes
clear to individual who has achieved, or is in the process of achieving, moral maturity. For
someone who is still in Kohlberg’s pre-conventional or conventional stages, moral valuations /
judgment / decisions remain a matter of seeking reward or avoiding punishment, or at best, a
question of following the dictates of other people.
For one who is well on the way to moral maturity, the task of using one’s reason to
understand moral issues becomes a real possibility and an authentic responsibility. Part of
this maturity is also the realization that ethical thinking is not a completely intellectual task,
but one that also involves the feelings.
THIRD LEVEL: Post-Conventional Fifth Stage
1. The morally responsible agent 1. The moral agent sees the value of
recognizes that what is good or right social contract, namely, agreement
is not reducible to following the rules that rational agents have arrived at
of one’s group. whether explicitly or implicitly in order
2. Instead, it is a question of to serve what can be considered the
understanding personally what one common good are what one ought to
ought to do and deciding, using one’s honor and follow.
free will, to act accordingly. 3. This 2. This notion of common good is
level represents the individual’s post-conventional in the sense that
realization that the ethical principles
she has rationally arrived at take
precedence over even the rules or
conventions that her society dictates.
4.Moral maturity therefore is seen in
an agent who acts on what she has
understood, using her full rationality,
to be what is right, regardless of
whether the act will bring the agent
pleasure or pain and even regardless
of whether the act is in accordance
with one’s community’s laws or not.
5.An agent has attained full moral
development if she acts according to
her well-thought-out rational
principles.
the moral agent binds herself to what
this theoretical community of rational
agents has identified as morally
desirable, whether the agent herself
will benefit from doing so or not.
3.Additionally, this notion of the
common good is not reducible to pre-
existing communal rules, traditions, or
laws since even these must be
weighed using rational discourse.
4.Thus, what is good or right is what
honors the social contract; what
contradicts it is bad.
Sixth Stage
1.The sixth and the highest stage of
moral development that exists even
beyond the fifth stage of the social
contract is choosing to perform
actions based on universal ethical
principles that one has determined by
herself.
2.One realizes that all the conventions
(laws, rules, and regulations) of
society are only correct if they are
based on these universal ethical
principles; they must be followed only
if they reflect universal ethical
principles.
3.This is, for Kohlberg, the full maturity
of post-conventional thinking since
this stage recognizes that in the end,
the question of what one ought to do
goes back to the individual moral
agent and her own rationality.
4.Kohlberg’s insight is that, ultimately,
one must think for herself what she
ought to do. This stand recognizes the
supposed fact that there might be
instances when the agent must
choose to go against what the
community of rational thinkers deems
as good if she really thinks she must,
assuming that she has committed her
 full rationality in arriving at that
decision.

Let us proceed to the Third Level Stage 5.

Post-conventional morality
- rare with adolescents and few adults
To review:
Level 3: (Post-Conventional)
- Social contract orientation (Justice and the spirit of the law)
- Universal ethical principles (Principle conscience)
APPLICATION
Let us use the same problem and to answer the question - Was Heinz action (to steal the
drug) right or wrong from the point of view or from the point of moral reasoning of a
person on Level 3 and Stage 5?

Stage 5: Social Contract and Individual Rights

This stage acknowledges the introduction of abstract reasoning as people
attempt to explain specific behaviors. In our example above, the man should steal the
medication for his wife because she is deathly ill and the laws do not take the
circumstances into account.
In the 5th stage, members begin to consider “What makes for a good society?”
They are able to step back and assess each situation as a whole, reflecting on what is
good and just. Reflecting on the morals and ethics of their current of their current
community allows them to address inconsistencies in their values and attempt to fix
what they do not agree with. A society that runs smoothly does not necessarily
uphold their desired principles. This is one step ahead of stage 4, where the main
goal is to keep a society functioning at all costs.
Let us proceed to the Third Level Stage 6.
Stage 6: Universal Principles
APPLICATION
Let us use the same problem and to answer the question - Was Heinz action (to steal the
drug) right or wrong from the point of view or from the point of moral reasoning of a
person on Level 3 and Stage 6?
The final stage of Kohlberg’s theory states that moral reasoning is based on
personal values. In the above PROBLEM, it is okay for the man to take the medication
without paying as objects or property are not as valuable as his wife’s life.
Stage 6 was developed when Kohlberg discovered that elected processes
do not always result in fair outcomes. Individuals at the 5 stage of moral reasoning
th
recognized the importance of protecting human rights while also resolving
challenges in a democratic way. Unfortunately, some majority votes resulted in
regulations that actually hurt a minority group leading to questions of an even
higher level of reasoning.
The 6th stage was created to acknowledge the use of justice in moral
reasoning. General universal morals and ethics are used as a baseline for what is right
and just. These are often abstract concepts that cannot be clearly defined, only
outlined. Equality, justice, dignity, and respect are all ideas that from the basis of
universal principles, Laws and rules are only effective if they support the universal
principles, which each person at this stage works to uphold.
Similarly, they work on disobeying laws that are unfair and feels guilty if they
don’t obey the laws that they believe in: individuals at this level of reasoning
behaved in a certain way because it was the right thing to do, and were not
motivated by laws or societal expectations. Kohlberg found it challenging to identify
participants in his studies who could consistently display moral reasoning in the sixth
stage.

SUMMARY:
There are two (2) summaries included. I would help you a lot if you read both
Summary One:
In the 1st stage, children obey the rules and believe what society says is right.
Avoiding punishment is a leading factor in their desire to obey authority. This has
diminished by stage 2, where children can see that they (there) are multiple points of view
to the matter in question. They tend to reason according their own self-interest, including
bartering with others.
In stage 3, people value a supportive community and therefore have the desire to be
a good helpful member. This changes as they move into stage four where they seek instead
to meet the goals of the society, which includes maintaining law and order. Throughout
both stages, we see how young teens value the morals and ethics of the group of
which they are part.
In stage 5, people evolve from the idea of being good into what would be the right
thing to do. They seek to create morals and values for a good society instead of
maintaining the society for the sake of doing so. They take these ideas one step further in
stage 6, where they work to incorporate justice and creating a fair society for all.
SUMMARY Two:
1. In Kohlberg’s reasoning, people who merely follow the rules and regulations of their
institution, the laws of their community or state, the doctrine of their religion - even if they
seem to be the truly right thing to do - are trapped in this second conventional level, which
is still not yet the highest. The point of Kohlberg’s theory is not to ascertain what defines the
goodness or rightness of the act. Thus, in this sense, Kohlberg’s idea is not an ethical theory.
Instead, it is a psychological theory that attempts to describe the stages of a person’s
growth in moral thinking. The morally mature individual, for Kohlberg, must outgrow both (1)
the pre-conventional level, whose pleasure-and-pain logic locks one into self-centered kind
of thinking, an egoism, as well as (2) the conventional level, which at first glance looks like
the sensible approach to morality. The second level might, de facto, be the way that many
(if not most) adults think about morality, that it is simply a question of following the right rules.
The great insight of Kohlberg, however, is that a truly morally mature individual must
outgrow even the simple following of supposedly right rules. This is where the third level
comes in.
2. One does not have to agree completely with Kohlberg’s theory of moral development to
see its overall value. This theory helps, at the very least, point out the differences in moral
reasoning: the more mature kind is seen in people who are not anymore dictated by the
logic of reward and punishment, or pain and pleasure. Simply following rules even if,
theoretically, they are the correct ones, does not necessarily qualify as morally mature
behavior. One must make free use of her own power of reasoning in cases of moral choice
and not remain a creature of blind obedience to either pain or pleasure or to the demands
of the group, if one aspires to moral maturity.
The significance of studying the different ethical theories and frameworks becomes
clear to individual who has achieved, or is in the process of achieving, moral maturity. For
someone who is still in Kohlberg’s pre-conventional or conventional stages, moral valuations /
judgment / decisions remain a matter of seeking reward or avoiding punishment, or at best, a
question of following the dictates of other people. For one who is well on the way to moral
maturity, the task of using one’s reason to understand moral issues becomes a real
possibility and an authentic responsibility. Part of this maturity is also the realization that
ethical thinking is not a completely intellectual task, but one that also involves the feelings.
II. SECOND MATERIAL to be read for the assignment.
Keep in mind: After reading this article, you must be able to answer the question - “Based
on Ramon Castillo Reyes’ WHO ONE IS, what is a matured moral agent or person?” The
answer to this question is challenging as you need to analyze deeper.
RAMON CASTILLO REYES’ WHO ONE IS
A. WHO ONE IS
The individual human is tasked to think about what is “right” and why it is so, and to
choose to do so. Who is that individual? Who one is, in the most fundamental sense, is
another major topic in the act of philosophizing. Who one is is the Filipino answer of Filipino
Philosopher Ramon Castillo Reyes to the famous Greek famous saying “Epimeleia he auto”
famously translated into English as “Know thyself”. Philosopher Reyes explained that said
Who one is is a cross-point.
B. CROSS-POINTS
By this he means that one’s identity, who is or who I am, is a product of many forces and
events that happened outside of one’s choosing. Philosopher Reyes identifies four (4) cross-
points:
1. The physical,
2. The interpersonal,
3. The social, and
4. The historical
Who one is, firstly, is the function of the physical events in the past and material factors in
the present that one did not have the choice in. You are a member of the species Homo
sapiens and therefore possess the capacities and limitations endemic to human beings
everywhere. You inherited the genetic material of both your biological parents. Your body
has been shaped and continues to be conditioned by the given set of environmental factors
that are specific to your corner of the globe. All of these are given; they have happened or
are still happening whether you want to or not. You did not choose to be a human being, nor
to have this particular set of biological parents, nor to be born in and/or grow up in such a
physical environment (I.e., for Filipinos to be born in an archipelago with a tropical climate
near the equator along the Pacific Ring of Fire, with specific set of flora and fauna, which
shape human life in this country to a profound degree).
The person is a product of interpersonal cross-point of many events and factors
outside of one’s choosing. One did not choose her own parents, and yet her personality,
character traits, and her overall way of doing things and thinking about things have all been
shaped by her parents and how they brought her up. All of these are also affected by nthe
people surrounding her: siblings, relatives, classmates, playmates, and eventually workmates.
Thus, who one is - in the sense of one’s character or personality - has been shaped by one’s
relationships as well as the physical factors that affect how one thinks and feels. Even Jose
Rizal once argued what Europeans mistook as Filipinos “laziness” was actually a function of
the tropical climate and natural abundance in the archipelago. Filipinos supposedly did not
need to exert effort themselves as much as Europeans in their cold climate and barren lands
were forced to do.
SOME THOUGHTS:
1. Reflect on above’s statement about Filipinos’ “laziness”: How about the OFW? What do
foreign employers say about them? Is Jose Rizal wrong?
2. Re-read the last two sentences of the paragraph above and contemplate.
3. Answer the questions: a) What explains the OFW phenomenon?
The third cross-point for Philosopher Reyes is the societal “who you is” is shaped by
one’s society. The term “society” here pertains to all the elements of the human group - as
opposed to the natural environment - that one is a member of. “Culture” in its varied aspects
is included here. Reyes argues that “who one is” is molded in large part by the kind of society
and culture - which, for the most part, one did not choose - that one belongs to. Filipinos have
their own way of doing things (e.g., pagmamano), their own system of beliefs and values (e.g.,
closely-knit family ties, etc.), and even their own notions of right and wrong (e.g., a communal
vs an individualistic notion of rights). This third cross-point interacts with the physical and
interpersonal factors that the individual and her people are immersed into or engaged in.
The fourth cross-point Reyes names is the historical, which is simply the events that
one’s people has undergone. In short, one’s people’s history shapes “who one is” right now.
For example, the Philippines had a long history of colonization that affected how Philippine
society has been formed and how Philippine culture has developed. This effect, in turn,
shapes the person who is a member of Philippine society. A major part of Philippine history is
the Christianization of the islands during the Spanish conquest. Christianity, for good or bad,
has formed Philippine society and culture, and most probably the individual Filipino, whether
she may be Christian herself or not. The historical cross-point also interacts with the previous
three (physical, interpersonal, and societal). Each cross-point thus crosses over into the others
as well.
C. PROJECT FOR ONE’S SELF
However, being a product of these cross-points is just one side of “Who you is”.
According to Reyes, “who you is” is also a project for one’s self. This happens because man
has freedom. This freedom is not absolute: one does not become something because one
chooses to be. Even if one wants to fly, he cannot, unless she finds a way to invent a device
that can help her do so. This finite freedom means that one has the capacity to give herself a
particular direction in life according to her own ideal self. Thus, for Reyes, “Who you is” is a
cross-point, but in an an existential level, he argues that the meaning of one’s existence is in
the intersection between the fact that one’s being is a product of many forces outside her
choosing and her ideal future for herself. We can see that ethics plays a big role in this
existential challenge of forming one’s self. What one ought to do in one’s life is not dictated
by one’s physical, interpersonal, societal, or historical conditions. What one ought to do is also
not abstracted from one’s specific situation.One always comes from somewhere. One is
always continuously being shaped by many factors outside of one’s own free will. The human
individual thus always exists in the tension between being conditioned by external factors
and being a free agent. The human individual never exists in a vacuum as if she were a pure
rational entity without any embodiment and historicity. The moral / ethical agent is not a
calculating, unfeeling machine that produces completely objective and absolute correct
solutions to even the most complex moral / ethical problems.
Do not forget you are supposed to discuss - “Based on WHO ONE IS, what is a matured
moral agent?”