THE
SELF-REALIZATION OF THE HUMAN PERSON
The
Destiny of Man: Happiness
Principles governing human actions
Freedom in Revelation and Theology
The destiny of man is the point of stage
at which, we can say, he has actualized, passively and actively, all his
potentialities. Morally speaking, this destiny is no other than his end, to
which he projects radically his life. He acts and tends toward the attainment
of this stage because he considers it good, i.e., something desirable. The
attainment of his ultimate end is the main factor which motivates his own acts,
consequently affecting his options, attitudes and habits radically.
End in the moral sense
End is that which everything tends to.
Everything that exists always has an end. In ethics, the end is that to which
the will acts. Man wills this or that action, performs it, precisely because of
an end which he desires to obtain.
Kinds of moral end
In morals, ends can be classified
according to some certain divisions. By reason of completion or of that to
which the action is ordained, we have proximate and remote ends.
Proximate end is the immediate and nearest outcome of an act with respect to
time or sequence. Remote end is that which one wishes to achieve later on. If
the end is willed for its own sake, it is called last or ultimate end;
if it is willed as a means to a further end, it is called intermediate.
End may be further divided into end of
the action (finis operis), i.e., when the end itself is completed, or end of
the agent (finis operation),i.e., end of the actor, as when he is incapacitated
to do the act any longer.
The next division will be by reason of
influence, of priority, of ranking, of gravity of nature, in which case, we may
speak of principal and secondary ends. The end is principal if it
is the first intention, or is graver in nature.
End as Good
Man does not perform an act for the sake
of the act itself, but for, and because of, and end which he desires to achieve.
He wills an end precisely because it is good i.e., it is something appetible,
delightful, and pleasing to his appetite. Good, indeed, is that which everybody
desires. In moral theology, good has an added sense as it rather implies what
is convenient to nature.
Divisions of Good
By reason of truth, good is either
apparent, when it seems to be in conformity to the nature of reality when in
fact it is against; or true, when it conforms to nature.
By reason of perfection, good may be
perfect, when it is unlimited and eternal (i.e., summum bonum); imperfect, when
it is relative, short lived, not totally satisfying.
By reason of appetibility, there is the
honest good, i.e., really and sincerely good in itself; pleasurable good, i.e.,
if it gives satisfaction and pleasure; and useful good, i.e., if it is useful
as a means.
I. Happiness
Happiness, the attainment of good
Man is in the state of happiness when he
is in the stage of possessing or experiencing what he wants. Happiness,
therefore, is the stage of man satisfied in the possession of good, the
possession of which results to joy. Bliss, peace, contentment are the
characteristics of his reaction.
Kinds of Happiness
Happiness may be classified as absolute
and relative. It is absolute if it is infinite and nothing beyond it is there
to be desired. It is relative when it is fleeting, and experienced or possessed
only in this or that time and place.
We may also speak of objective or
subjective happiness. Object is that object, the possession of which will give
happiness to man. Subjective happiness is the possession by the subject, i.e.,
by man, of the objective happiness.
Ultimate Objective Happiness
The ultimate objective happiness is that
object the possession of which will give us the perfect happiness. To be this,
the object has to possess four elements: 1. it should be ultimate, not
intermediate nor referable to another, 2. it is no evil, does not involve any evil,
3. it is sufficient, enough and completely satisfying, and 4. it is
everlasting.
Money, fame, honor, power, pleasure, both
bodily and spiritually, wisdom, virtue and love, each is objective happiness,
i.e., they really can make us happy. But each is not ultimate objective
happiness because they can not fulfill all the requirements as posited above.
Money on the Christian Morality
In the O.T, prosperity (i.e., wealth)
seems to be a blessing from God, but not the blessing from God.
It is the secondary to peace of soul, name, fame, and wisdom. Neglecting or
persecuting the poor is condemned. Care for the poor is presented as a duty
towards God. The poor are the “anawim” praised by God Almighty.
In the N.T, attachment to wealth
(avarice) is condemned. The supreme value is the Kingdom of God while the
material goods become very secondary (cf. 1 Tim 6:17). Money is regarded as the
root of all evil. Jesus commands ever one to share wealth with the poor (cf.
Mt. 19:21; Lk. 12:33).
The Church teaches that the goods of the
earth belong to all private property is a secondary right. As St. Thomas says,
every one has the right to share in the good of the world (cf. Vat. II, Gaudium
et Spes. Nos. 69-72. Populorum Progressio no. 48 speaks of the same right even
on the level of nations.)
Nevertheless, money does matter; we need
it. It is a useful goad, a means. But it is a secondary good and we should not
be attached to it. The question is, do we possess money or are we possessed by
it? It is dangerous, for possession of it can make us desire further evil.
Power in the Christian Perspective
Power is always to be for common good,
and must be execised within the limits of moral order. Gaudium et Spes nos.
74-75 speaks against totalitarian and authoritarian form of government. Power
is given not to lord it over people but to serve. It is to be used for the
people, to build up true community.
Christian Attitude towards Pleasure
1.
Pleasure is evil
if it is harmful
2.
Pleasure is evil
if it harms others
3.
Addictive
pleasure is not right
4.
Unproportionately
costly pleasure is not right
5.
Pleasure,
however, is part of life; it relaxes the mind and the body.
God, the Ultimate End of Man
Perfect happiness, the ultimate good, can
not be found in material goods. It no created good can be the perfect good, the
perfect good must be uncreated good. If the object of the intellect is
universal Truth, the object of the will must be universal Good. Hence, only
God, the universal Good, can alone satisfy the will of man.
To the question on whether happiness is
the ultimate end of man or it is the glorification of God (cf. Ps. 19:1; Prov.
16:4; Is. 6:3; Rom. 11:36; Apoc. 1:8), we say there is no real distinction.
Rationally, there is a distinction; God’s glorification is above the happiness
of man. The ultimate but secondary end of man is that to which he is necessary
inclined by nature, i.e., happiness.
II. PRINCIPLES
GOVERNING HUMAN ACTIONS:
I. PRINCIPLE OF DOUBLE EFFECT
This principle applies to human acts (a
common cause) from which two effects come about: one good and the other evil.
With all the following conditions fulfilled, the indirectly willed evil effect
is not imputed to the agent, thus, morally permissible.
1.
the act itself
must be good or indifferent
2.
the good effect
must be immediate (preceding) or simultaneous to the evil effect
3.
the intention of
the agent must be good (he must not will directly to the evil effect)
4.
the reason for
acting must be proportionally grave
When
one of the above conditions is unfulfilled, the action is morally wrong.
II. PRINCIPLE OF TOTALITY
This principle proceeds from the idea
that “the part exists for the whole”. Thus, the good of the part is
subordinated to the good of the whole. When a need arises, a part could be
sacrificed for the benefit of the whole.
In the past, this principle has been used
to justify the morality of capital punishment (death penalty). A hardened
criminal could be deprived of his right to life for the sake of the common good
of the society as a whole.
But contemporary moral theology only
limits the applicability of this principle to the bodily human organism as a
whole. Thus, this justifies the morality of bodily mutilations for the sake of
the whole bodily organism. But never could this be applied to social organism,
not to marital whole.
III. PRINCIPLE OF STEWARDSHIP
“Man is steward of the earth and its
resource”. He does not own it absolutely. He has to give account for it. Since
things are not absolutely his own, he has the duty to share. The right to
“private property” must be subordinated to the universal destiny of the goods
of the earth.
“God intended the earth and all that it
contains for the use of every human being and people. Thus, as all men follow
justice and unite in charity, created goods should abound for them on a
reasonable basic. Whatever the forms of stewardship may be, as adapted to the
legitimate institutions of people according to diverse and changeable
circumstances, attention must be always paid to the universal purpose for which
created goods are meant. In using them, therefore, a man should regard his
lawful possessions, not merely as his own but also as common property in the
sense that they should accrue to the benefit of not only himself but also of
others.” (Gaudium et Spes, 69)
IV. PRINCIPLE OF
SOLIDARITY
“We are one human family”. From this
principle springs the duty to help one another in the individual – family –
national and international level. Love in service should shine out as the main
value.
“Today the bonds of mutual dependence
become increasingly close between all citizens and all peoples of the world.
The universal common good needs to be intelligently pursued and more
affectively achieved. Hence, it is now necessary for the family of nations to
create for themselves an order which corresponds to modern obligations,
particularly with reference to those numerous regions still laboring under
intolerable need”(Gaudium et Spes, 69)
“Christians should collaborate willingly
and whole-heartedly in establishing an international order involving genuine
respect for all freedoms and amicable brotherhood between all men.”(Gaudium et
Spes, 88)
V. PRINCIPLE OF COOPERATION (IN EVIL
ACTION)
Cooperation is any real help extended to
another person in the performance of an action which is immoral. It could be
classified into:
1.
Formal
cooperation: the one who cooperates has the same intention as the agent of the
evil act.
2.
Material
cooperation: one who does not agree with the intention of the agent but helps
in the performance.
a.
immediate or
direct: substantial help
b.
mediate or
indirect: accidental help (the evil act could happen without his helping)
We will take one
example:
In the performance of the abortion, the
doctor intends it to happen. He knows that it is morally evil, yet he intended
to proceed with the act. For the head nurse who directly assists, the evil act
is imputable to her too. She may not agree with the doctor’s intention, but the
help she extended is so substantial that the abortion could not take place
without her help. For an attendant who prepares the materials and equipments of
the operation, the evil act could not be imputed to him if he does not agree
with the doctor’s evil intention. He may have just been forced by circumstance
to assist or else he may be fired out form the work.
III. FREEDOM
IN REVELATION AND THEOLOGY
Freedom
(outline)
1.
In Revelation
a.
In the O.T
(Genesis)
b.
In the N.T (esp.
St. Paul)
c.
Teaching of the
Church
2.
theological
Elaboration
a.
Existence of
freedom
1.
from the personal
point of view
2.
from the historical
point of view
3.
from the
philosophical point of view
b.
Definition
c.
Division
I. in Revelation
A. In the O.T
1. Man is both an autonomous and a
heteronomous being. As an autonomous being, man is created free. As a
heteronomous being, man is not totally free. He remains to be dependent upon
God, his creator. This reason flows from man’s nature itself, as God created
him to be.
2. Sin (the fall) does not come from God.
It was the consequence of man’s free use (abuse) of freedom.
3. The commandments given to man are not
against freedom. On the contrary, they are given to him to facilitate his use
of freedom.
4. Essentially, the O.T understanding or
freedom is a religious freedom, i.e., freedom from sin. It also speaks of
freedom in its aspect as well as of its social aspect.
B. In the N.T (esp. St. Paul)
1. Christ is the freest man and yet
perfectly obedient to the Father. For a Christian to be free means to be like
Christ, to imitate him, to be united with him in obedience to the Father.
2. For St. Paul, freedom is explained in
the ff:
i. negatively:
a. freedom from sin
b. freedom from the law
c. freedom from death
ii. positively:
d. freedom for love
Freedom from sin. Sin
is the origin of tyranny. Sin is a form of slavery. Christian freedom,
therefore, is radically the liberation from the bondage of sin (personal and
collective sense) wrought by Christ who made us children of God.
Freedom from the law. Freedom
from the law does not mean that man is not rendered lawless but that the law
takes only a secondary significance. It is Christ who saves and not mere
pharisaic observance of the law. Above the law is the love for God and
neighbor.
Freedom from death. Man
still dies but death receives a new meaning in Christ. Christ has conquered
death. Death for a Christian becomes only transitory. Life is changed in death,
not ended.
Freedom for love. Positively
understood, freedom is not just ‘freedom from’ but a ‘freedom for’. Christian
freedom is a freedom for love. Christian love is a free love. A Christian as a
child of God, lives with love in total self-giving to God and to others in
imitation to Christ. Christian freedom at times may even mean to freely
renounce one’s freedom for the sake of charity.
C. Church Teaching on Freedom
(cf. eps. Gaudium et Spes, 75, 17;
Redemptor Hominis, 2)
In summary, there are the ff.
characteristics of freedom:
1.
great sing of
human dignity
2.
religious freedom
3.
right to cultural
and political freedom
4.
freedom is based
on truth
5.
sin is as
obstacles to freedom
6.
freedom to love
II. Theological Elaboration
A.
Existence of
Freedom
1.
from personal
point of view (common sense)
Patet
ex experientis, we can personally testify for ourselves that we can say YES or
NO in doing an act. We can personally say YES to ourselves in waking up at 6:00
AM to be on time for the class or the alternative to say NO and stay in bed for
as long as we like.
2.
from the
historical point of view
History
tells us concerning the existence of punishment, jails i.e., this means that
there has been a collective consent on the accountability for what man has done
and man is only accountable because he is free.
3.
from the
philosophical point of view
Man
is rational. Man is not necessitated to do an act. Man can choose what to do
and which to prefer. The intellect presents the hierarchy of goods while the
will chooses.
B.
Definition
Freedom
is the power to elect the means while safeguarding the end.
C.
Division of
Freedom
1.
ab extrinsico:
freedom of spontaneity from the external forces e.g., prison, sickness…
2.
ab intrinsico:
subdivided into the ff:
a.
exercitii:
refers to the power of the will to act or not to act.
b.
Specificationis:
freedom in determining the different objects in particular.
c.
Contrarietatis:
freedom to choose between good and evil (this belongs to the essence of
freedom)
OPTION,
ATTITUDES AND ACTS[1]
Man is and becomes: being and becoming
are the two poles of his existence. In possession of himself, he decides his
own life, the way he wants to live it and what he wants to become – though not
absolutely. However, his decisions may be elicited in different ways: he mat
act out of passion, other times, out of custom, and often, because he has
radically chosen to do so. His way of acting makes and determines his
personality.
Man is free to realize himself thru
different actions which, preceding from different attitudes, express a radical
option. Actually, there is only one fundamental value common to all men and
accepted without the possibility of election: “to want to be oneself, to wish
to self-realize oneself deeply and more simply, to wish happiness”. The wish to
be happy is an act of nature more than an act of the person.
From this common instinct ‘to be happy,
man decides radically how to concretize his wish for happiness, particularly in
his radical choices, that is, in his fundamental options.
FUNDAMENTAL OPTION
It is a decision springing from the
center of personality; a fundamental decision for or against God that
conditions as a basic intention of all other acts. It entails openness in
commitment to another (faith: God) precluding selfishness (praise: autonomy).
It is not given in as explicit act, but implicit: “The fundamental option is
the decision thru which man determines freely and radically his relation to the
ultimate end.
For J. Fuchs, the fundamental option of
‘basic decision’ is a ‘mature act of self-determination’; for K. Rahner: ’the
total self-understanding and the radical self-expression which remains
frequently empty and unfulfilled.
MORAL ATTITUDES
It implies a concept almost equal to
traditional ‘habit’. It is a concretization of the fundamental option, e.g.,
the fundamental Christian option is to accept Christ; the Christian attitudes
or virtues… will concretize the option for Christ in the various fields of life
– of truth, of fidelity and of Love.
MORAL ACT
It is a sign or manifestation of the
content of the fundamental option and moral attitudes.
[1] Since the beginning of the decade of the 60’, some moralists stress
fundamental option, attitudes and acts in this order – as the profound
expression of the human person as a responsible moral person. Although not
really diverging from St. Thomas’ expression of end, habits and human acts,
this new expression, nonetheless, expresses perhaps more forcefully and
dramatically the dynamic, anthropological and personalistic dimensions of
morality.
Walang komento:
Mag-post ng isang Komento