By Dr. Dennis Severo Acop
What does life mean to you? Where are you in life? Are you happy? Are you peaceful? Through all the noise and haste, do you still find your way? Can you? Life gets confusing sometimes and we feel lost. Some of us may sense it more than others. But we are all in the same journey. We all live under the same roof. We impact each other no matter what. Everything we say or do to each other matters. Individually or collectively, there are decisions to be made and consequences to be had from those decisions. These decisions and consequences are reflected on a daily basis in the developments we see about human affairs throughout the world. Whether we like it or not, we are all in this together. No one is an island. Events that are happening on the other side of the globe still affect us because our individual values are impacted. Why do we care? Why don’t we care? Do our dealings with others reflect who we are? I think they do. I also think it goes way deeper than that. We may not realize it but we are still in search of meaning. We often get distracted in the process. But this nagging feeling always finds us when we least expect it. It will always be there the remainder of our lives. In this continuing search for meaning, it may help to be reminded about the foundations of what governs how we act and hopefully leave the text with a take-away of knowing which path we are on or ought to be.
First, let us be reminded of the English philosopher John Stuart Mills whose principle of utilitarianism has inspired the spread of Democracy and democratic governance throughout the world this past century promoting the greatest good for the greatest number as a national value and goal. Mills’ “Utilitarianism” preaches the Greatest Happiness Principle, advocating for actions that promote the greatest happiness for the greatest number, distinguishing between higher (intangible) and lower (tangible) pleasures, and emphasizing the importance of individual liberty and the cultivation of character.
Second, many among us may not be aware but a wise German philosopher, Immanuel Kant, further advanced the Catholic Church’s moral teachings. Kant was born in 1724 and lived until 1804. Kant’s moral theory, rooted in deontology, emphasizes duty and universal principles through the Categorical Imperative. This Imperative argues that actions are moral if motivated by duty and their maxims are universally applicable. It also stresses treating individuals as ends in themselves, not merely as means to an end. Kant’s ethics is deontological in the sense that it focuses on the inherent rightness or wrongness of actions, rather than their consequences. Kant countered the earlier Machiavellian strategy of “end justifies the means” used to justify wars. The popular term now used to describe unscrupulous political tactics originated from the political treatise “The Prince” (written in 1513) authored by Niccolo Machiavelli, an Italian diplomat and philosopher. The treatise explored the acquisition and maintenance of power even through seemingly immoral means. Machiavelli argued that a ruler’s primary concern was the stability and security of the state even if it meant sacrificing traditional moral values. Thus, the term “Machiavellian” became synonymous with political cunning, deceit, and ruthlessness, often in a negative way. Meanwhile, the core of Kant’s moral theory is the Categorical Imperative, which is a fundamental principle of morality. It states that we should act only according to principles that we could will to be universal laws. One formulation of the Categorical Imperative is the principle of universalizability, which states that an action is morally permissible only if it can be willed as a universal law, meaning it could be followed by everyone without contradiction.
Another important aspect of Kant’s theory is the idea that humans are ends in themselves, meaning they have inherent value and should never be treated as mere means to an end. This means we should never use people for our own purposes without respecting their autonomy and dignity. Kant believed that the only thing that is good without qualification is a good will, which is the will to do what is morally right out of a sense of duty. Kant emphasized the importance of acting from a sense of duty, rather than from inclination or self-interest. Kant also emphasized the importance of autonomy, the ability to act rationally and make our own moral decisions. He envisioned a hypothetical “Kingdom of Ends” where all rational beings act as if the principles of their actions establish a law for the community. While Kant’s theory has been criticized for being overly rigid and for potentially leading to conflict between different moral duties, it has also been praised for its emphasis on impartiality, respect for individuals, and focus on moral clarity.
Finally, where are we today in our human ethics? I’m sure we still have some kind of ethics; otherwise, the world would be in total chaos living back in ignorance and mere brutal dominance of the fittest as in the days we lived in caves. What one of my young students wrote caught my interest as his ideas and sentiments perhaps generally represent our own thoughts today. My student wrote that “many moral theories have good parts and have issues, but that doesn’t necessarily mean that they are awful”. Despite their not being perfect, he agreed with Kant’s moral theory that human beings are ends in themselves. My student also agreed with Mills’ utilitarianism: “Some people take pleasure in horrific actions, and that should not make those actions okay”. But I had to point something out when my student said that Kant didn’t have an answer to suicide which “uses a person’s humanity as a mere means to escape from life’s pain” arguing that suicide is no different from self-sacrifice when one gives his life for another. To which I suggested for the sake of idea development that while both suicide and self-sacrifice appear to assault Kant’s formula of Humanity, they are actually dissimilar. Suicide involves only one human life. Self-sacrifice involves more than one. There’s a big difference there. And while some may say that suicide no longer gives value to human life, even this is arguable as no one really knows the choice a soul makes at the very brink of death. Others would argue that a soul instinctively clings to life as it is being separated from the body even after a decision of suicide had already been made. The latter, self-sacrifice, gives up life, not because the living wants to, but because he values another life more. What about you and I? What do we value more in this life today enough to dedicate ourselves to or willing to die for?
