IN the heat and passion of our political exchanges, as in the many
other fields like in sports, entertainment, social issues, etc., we
should try our best to be sober enough to keep a firm grip on what
would constitute as moral and immoral views and to resist the strong
temptation to fall into all kinds of rationalizations to justify
certain positions that we hold, either individually or as a group.
Nowadays, especially in the political field, a lot of rationalizations
are made. Many people are of the view that because of a certain
problem that is widely considered as raging and harmful to a large
sector of the populace, certain drastic measures can be made.
In theory, of course, these measures can and even ought to be done.
Serious problems that affect the lives of many have to be met with
forceful, vigorous and hopefully effective solutions.
But for all this theoretical practicality of this radical and even
extreme approach to such problems, morality should never be
sacrificed. We don't do evil so that a certain good may be achieved.
That the end never justifies the means is a classic moral principle
that will never go obsolete. Violating this principle can only trigger
a vicious cycle of hatred and revenge that would divide people into
unfair and inhuman categories and woud perpetuate the law of Talion, a
tit-for-tat kind of culture where mercy has no place in the pursuit
for justice. Violating this principle violates the very nature and the
law of our freedom itself.
Nowadays, many people, including our leaders, appear to be unclear
about what is moral and what would make a human act, personal or
collective, immoral. In the case of the extrajudicial killings, for
example, many would justify it because the intention is supposed to be
good, or it has lowered down the rate of criminality, or it is
supposed to be an expression of a strong and relevant political will,
or that there were more EJKs in the past, etc.
Others mouth a new moral doctrine about a certain justifiable
collateral damage when there is some kind of undeclared war.
These are pure rationalizations. Forgotten is the objective evaluation
of the morality of the act itself. It seems that even our leaders do
not know anymore where the sources of morality have to be taken. That
one has to consider the object of the act, the intention and the
circumstances is not anymore done.
Things now seem to depend only on a certain idea of political
effectiveness based on some statistics, popularity and acceptance of
at least a simple majority of the people, or profitability. It seems
morality is now measured by these criteria.
Aside from EJK, other immoral acts are now being justified. Detraction
is one, as shaming by exposing the hidden faults of some public
figures is made. The Catechism says that especially in the media, “the
information must be communicated honestly and properly with scrupulous
respect for moral laws and the legitimate rights and dignity of the
person.” (Compendium 525)
Vengeance is another. And all forms of insults and personal derision
are hurled. Fallacies are now the new logic. There are now all sorts
of misinformation and disinformation glutting the media.
Among the collateral victims of this new culture are the very
principle of human rights, the standing of God, Church and religion
itself in society, basic decency and courtesy to all including
offenders.
A certain build-up of fanaticism, a culture of simplistic
black-and-white categorization of people, can be observed, with its
corresponding wave of hatred against those who choose to be different
from the majority.
We need to go back to the basics of morality. We have to assess human
acts, especially those with public character, according to their
objective morality before considering them in their political, social
or economic contexts, etc.
As said earlier, the sources of morality are three: the moral object,
the intention of the subject who acts, and the circumstances which
include the consequences. As the Catechism would put it:
“An act is morally good when it assumes simultaneously the goodness of
the object, of the intention, and of the circumstances...It is not
licit to do evil so that good may result from it...On the other hand,
a good end does not make an act good if the object of that act is
evil...Circumstances can increase or diminish the responsibility of
the one who is acting but they cannot change the moral quality of the
acts themselves.” (Compendium 368)
This is the new challenge we have.
other fields like in sports, entertainment, social issues, etc., we
should try our best to be sober enough to keep a firm grip on what
would constitute as moral and immoral views and to resist the strong
temptation to fall into all kinds of rationalizations to justify
certain positions that we hold, either individually or as a group.
Nowadays, especially in the political field, a lot of rationalizations
are made. Many people are of the view that because of a certain
problem that is widely considered as raging and harmful to a large
sector of the populace, certain drastic measures can be made.
In theory, of course, these measures can and even ought to be done.
Serious problems that affect the lives of many have to be met with
forceful, vigorous and hopefully effective solutions.
But for all this theoretical practicality of this radical and even
extreme approach to such problems, morality should never be
sacrificed. We don't do evil so that a certain good may be achieved.
That the end never justifies the means is a classic moral principle
that will never go obsolete. Violating this principle can only trigger
a vicious cycle of hatred and revenge that would divide people into
unfair and inhuman categories and woud perpetuate the law of Talion, a
tit-for-tat kind of culture where mercy has no place in the pursuit
for justice. Violating this principle violates the very nature and the
law of our freedom itself.
Nowadays, many people, including our leaders, appear to be unclear
about what is moral and what would make a human act, personal or
collective, immoral. In the case of the extrajudicial killings, for
example, many would justify it because the intention is supposed to be
good, or it has lowered down the rate of criminality, or it is
supposed to be an expression of a strong and relevant political will,
or that there were more EJKs in the past, etc.
Others mouth a new moral doctrine about a certain justifiable
collateral damage when there is some kind of undeclared war.
These are pure rationalizations. Forgotten is the objective evaluation
of the morality of the act itself. It seems that even our leaders do
not know anymore where the sources of morality have to be taken. That
one has to consider the object of the act, the intention and the
circumstances is not anymore done.
Things now seem to depend only on a certain idea of political
effectiveness based on some statistics, popularity and acceptance of
at least a simple majority of the people, or profitability. It seems
morality is now measured by these criteria.
Aside from EJK, other immoral acts are now being justified. Detraction
is one, as shaming by exposing the hidden faults of some public
figures is made. The Catechism says that especially in the media, “the
information must be communicated honestly and properly with scrupulous
respect for moral laws and the legitimate rights and dignity of the
person.” (Compendium 525)
Vengeance is another. And all forms of insults and personal derision
are hurled. Fallacies are now the new logic. There are now all sorts
of misinformation and disinformation glutting the media.
Among the collateral victims of this new culture are the very
principle of human rights, the standing of God, Church and religion
itself in society, basic decency and courtesy to all including
offenders.
A certain build-up of fanaticism, a culture of simplistic
black-and-white categorization of people, can be observed, with its
corresponding wave of hatred against those who choose to be different
from the majority.
We need to go back to the basics of morality. We have to assess human
acts, especially those with public character, according to their
objective morality before considering them in their political, social
or economic contexts, etc.
As said earlier, the sources of morality are three: the moral object,
the intention of the subject who acts, and the circumstances which
include the consequences. As the Catechism would put it:
“An act is morally good when it assumes simultaneously the goodness of
the object, of the intention, and of the circumstances...It is not
licit to do evil so that good may result from it...On the other hand,
a good end does not make an act good if the object of that act is
evil...Circumstances can increase or diminish the responsibility of
the one who is acting but they cannot change the moral quality of the
acts themselves.” (Compendium 368)
This is the new challenge we have.
No comments:
Post a Comment