CHAPTER III

MAN AND HIS ENDS

Its is unthinkable for man to exist without, a goal in life: an end, a
destiny. The only way to give meaning to human existence is to posit a
goal, the very reason for being and existence.

Ignacio (1985) puts it in a syllogistic form:

All acts tend toward an end.
But human existence is an act.
Therefore, human existence tends toward an end.
THE END OF HUMAN ACT IS GOOD
The end is that which is apprehended as desirable. Since it is desirable, iit
attracts the agent to do an act towards it. If the end is desirable and attractive to
the agent (person), then it must be good.
There is no one who would intend to attain evil for an end. This is because evil
is ugly, not good, hence not desired or attracting for any agent. If one is attracted to
evil, he must be abnormal. Evil perse cannot be desired as an end to be attained
THE GOOD
What is the meaning of “good”? What and when is something good? There
seems to be three modes of perceiving and using the good. They are the following:
1. GOOD AS TO UTILITY- An object or act is perceived as good when it is useful
for one’s purpose ans satisfication.
2. GOOD AS TO BEAUTY- People consider an object or act as a thing of beauty
when it satisfies their aesthetic appetite. The beauty of a person, physical or
social, is synonymous to goodness.
3. GOOD AS TO NATURE OR REALITY- Goodness by nature is real, not
accidental. In this context a thing is seen as good, not because of usefulness or
aesthetic value, but because it is nature and reality. In other words, the nature
of the object is goodness itself. That is “the reality of completeness according to
the nature or design of a thing is the quality that makes a thing good” good as
to nature is calssified as philosophical good.
CLASSIFICATION OF ENDS
The ends of human acts may be generally classified as (1) the end of the act,
(2) the end of the agent of the act, (3) temporal end and (4) ultimate end.
1. AS END OF THE ACT.- The end of the act is that end toward which the act of
its own nature is immediately directed. It is the direct object of the act..
2. AS END OF THE AGENT.- The end of the agent can be different or the same
as the end of the act depending upon the agent.
3. TEMPORAL ENDS, INTERMEDIATE END- When an end is subject to time and
place, it is classified as temporal. It is temporal in the sense that it does not last
forever, but good only for a certain time. Or it is good only for a certain place or
space.
4. THE ULTIMATE END- The ultimate end is the last and final goal of human act
and the human agent. It is called end-of-all-ends, since this cannot be used to
attain any higher end. The ultimate end is permanent and absolute, and can
never be converted as means.
 There are two aspects of the ultimate end: the subjective and the objective.
1. SUBJECTIVE ULTIMATE END- This is the aspect of the ultimate end which is
the subjective possession of the objective ultimate end by the person. The
possession results to enjoyment or happiness.
2. OBJECTIVE ULTIMATE END- This is the aspect of the ultimate end is
inseparable from the subjective ultimate end. The objective ultimate end
subjective aspect, the objective ultimate end gives the agent happiness by
possession thereof.

Subjective and objective aspects of the ultimate end are one in the person of
the agent. The ultimate end, as taught by theist philosophy and Christian teaching,
is the SUMMUM BONUM or Supreme Good, the highest good of all goods.
 PERFECT HAPPINESS is man’s last end or ultimate goal. And only when this
ultimate end is attained that man’s craving for happiness rests. (Ioanes di Napoli,
1961: 172-173).

SOME ULTIMATE GOALS OF LIFE

CHOSEN BY CERTAIN THINKERS
Not all men have the same ultimate goals in life. They vary in their ethical
views. As a result, their supreme goods differ from one another. Common to them,
however, is that all their ultimate ends are to be attained in this world. Mundane in
nature, such life’s highest goals are not permanent, everlasting or absolute. They
are temporal and, therefore, relative, subject to time and space. A few of them, the
more popular ones, are presented below. Di Napoli gerally calssify them under the
following:
 MATERIALISTIC ETHICS- This tendency holds that the supreme good of
human life are human pleasures and satisfaction. This type is classified into
Hedonism and Utilitarianism.
 Hedonism teaches that the highest end of human life is found in sensual
pleasures and bodily satisfaction man can enjoy in this world (Glenn:11). These
includes biological, sexual and social pleasures and all kiinds of bodily enojyments.
Utilitarianism holds that the ultimate end of man is the possession of political
power through conquest of other nations. The prospsonents of this were Epicurus
and his followers followed by Lueretius and Horace. In the modern periof, we have
Hobbes and Nietzche.
Stuart-Mill. Social utilitarianism is the same as Russian’s communism or
collectivism taught by Karl Marx(1818-1883).
 ULTRA-SPIRITUALISM- This type of ethics takes spiritual matters and virtues
in this life as a ultimate end of man. There are two forms of this kind:
a. Greco-Roman Stoicism- This ethics takes virtue and abstinence from
sensual pleasures as the highest end of man. Proponents of this ethics were Zeno
of Citius, Chrysippus and Seneca.
b. Humanistic Personalism- Christian Wolff (1679-1754) and others hold
that the ultimate end consisits of human perfection through knowledge, virtue,
honor which must be acquired.
 PROGRESSIVE ETHICS- The ethics of progress takes indefinite progress,
material or spiritual, as the ultimate end of man. Aristotle, a Greek proponent of
his thinking, states that the final goal of man is the continuous acquisition of all
temporal goods, which may be socioeconomic-political, or cultural and moral
progress, taken as a whole, as general or individual well-being in society.
Leaders of this kind of ethical thought were Kant, Hegel, Comte, Spencer and
Bergson, among others (Di Napoli:175).

These ultimate values ignited the following remarks:

• Temporal happiness and temporal progress as ultimate end of man is egoistic,
limited to temporal values, and lacking foundation for moral imperative. It
ignores divine values and it does not give meaning to human suffering (Ethics
for nurses, SLU,1986).
• Self-perfection and well-being, taken as the ultimate goal of life, have received
these similar cristiciss: they are individualistic, hence, egoist, lacking superior
values like love and concern for others; limited in the naturalist sense, denying
religious and divine values (Ibid.).
CHRISTIAN ETHICS
A brief historical background of Christianity is imperative for a better
understanding. Christian Ethics emanates from the teaching of Jesus Christ and
His Church, embodied in the Holy Scriptures and church doctrine (teaching).

There are two basic points in Christian ethics (Ibid.):

1. God promises salvation to man, and
2. Man freely accepts the condition for his salvation: to do or not to do God’s will
(the commandments).
Man is free to accept and perform the conditions. He is not forced to do
such. But this is an agreement between man and God. It is a covenant intended by
God, however, to be fulfilled by man. For man to beb saved, he must do his part.
God had done his part.