Spencer P.

Reyes
M.A Philosophy Program
spreyes.rock47@gmail.com

Philosophical Essay:
Contemporary Problems in Ethics in Line with Metaphysics & Religious Movements in
Existentialism

In ancient times, Socrates, Plato and Aristotle were known as the great thinkers. They

called as great thinkers because they use reason to be able to discover the soul of being human.

Ethics was made because of the help of this ancient philosophers. Ethics used to preserve

humanity. To prevent the successive misused of power is the primary goal of ethics. While

internalizing the mode of Ethics, the future generation determined that the use of ethics is to give

value to the face of the society as well as the dignity of human being, its rights and voice. Most of

the criteria of Ethics are prone to misinterpretation. It is being interpreted mistakenly because of

the fact on self-interest. Doing good for the sake of own-interest. Perhaps, it might neglect its

importance of morality which Socrates told but many adopted its sense as it is the main purpose

of life. Prior to know the existence of being, I think, respect is the primary goal and the first step

of a knower.

Some immoralist like Sir Alphonso Lingis, a Professor of Philosophy in Pennsylvania State

University once said “there is an ambivalence in persons in the sense that they like to think of

ourselves as moral, concerned with standards of behaviors based on a sense of right and wrong.”

The implication of this statement is greatly unmeasurable. In determining what is right or wrong,

every person can hardly identify and can have headache to determine good from evil, correct from

wrong it is because pure knowledge following the criterion of Ethics is merely a self-preservation

or we can say it is a self-protection, in other words, knowing what is right or wrong is unknowable.
“It is not just that we are ready to suspect them of hypocrisy. It is virtue itself that we find suspect.”

The question is, “does the person determine right or wrong?” or “does the person know only what

he knows right or wrong?” Who can tell I have offended the other?

The topic which I tackled from the writings of Sir Alphonso Lingis, is a manifestation of

self-interest so as his idea of knowing the ability of man. Sir Lingis is not totally contradicting the

notion of Ethics but rather he tries to clarify that doing ethics is not on reason along but rather in

all aspects that human beings have. He believes that knowing what is good is not merely known

through human reason alone but rather through our emotions and appetite. He gives emphasis that

what can be known by reason can also be known through our emotions as well as through our own

needs. This is the problem of today’s generation. The attitude of each person is fulfilling one self’s

desire. Each person tends to have a total care first before caring the other. This is simply what St.

Augustine said, “Nemo dat quod non habet” or simply said, “I cannot give which I cannot have.”

I understand Sir Lingis thought, it is because the era he lives in is in the contemporary world which

every individual is important.

In the latter part of Sir Lingis, he said, “Many times we disapprove of righteousness in

those whose behavior we otherwise find no fault with. There are times when we feel a kind of

indifference and even disdain for someone who has never lied, never cheated on a lover, or never

got drunk.” This is to say that every person has its own ideal approach on Ethics. Ethics is much

abstract in attitude but concrete in a way we use it. This is to say that Ethics is somewhat define

as good for the greater number of people without making offense to anyone. In contrast to the

Ancient Philosophers, we know ethics by knowing it through reason. Just like, If Ben is a human

being, then he will not adapt the attitude of an animal. Ethics is a wake-up call for those who

have extremely forgotten their capacity to do good at all times. As what I have known in the
several discussions, it has been said that the farthest distance for a person to cross is the distance

between the head and the heart.

On the several stanzas which discussed above, the writer made a comparison on how to be

morally good or to become an immoralist in a sense of questioning the ability human being that

applicable also, which is to say, that not only reason could justify my doing if it is right or wrong.

It is also emotions and appetite. But if we look back, it is not bad to use emotion and appetite to

determine what is ethical but we have to be very much aware on what aspect we will be using

these. It is because these, emotion and appetite, are the primary aspect that we become wrong.

Therefore, the reason is important and above all a significant tool to become human for the other.

As Plato said, my responsibility is how to make the “polis-city state” becomes real. This is actually

what Plato emphasized that it is reasonable to be a voice of the environment as a concrete home

for our future generation.

In the medieval times, they did Ethics because they knew that they did it for God sake.

Christianity is the source of all moral because of Jesus Christ’s teaching in preserving one’s

dignity. That is why, many faithful at that time offers themselves just to seek comfort in God. For

them, the essence of good is God and no other. They discipline themselves in having committing

sin. They were conscious on the things that are unknown to them. That is the attitude that long

being forgotten in our era. We tend to forget that it is a sin to abuse the surroundings. Oftentimes,

we blame each person because we experience such difficulty like floods, landslide etc. Afterwards,

we regret to the calamities happened in our life because it affects our livelihood, our business and

our lifestyle. Each of us experience this because every individual has different conditioning in

facing life. The thinking that some of us have is a calculative thinking. Every individual has

forgotten that in doing distraction in our land is a sin that could brought us to death. Moreover, it
is knowing what is right without actually changing the way we behave morally is nothing but

useless knowledge. Thus, the notion of knowing what is right abides to the action that manifests

on what we know.

The sense of being a rational animal is our advantageous that a thinking being is in

ourselves. A man can change everything in the world. Every individual can have inventions in line

with their desire. On the contrary, doing good to the environment is not a desire but a necessity to

make the environment still in stability without damage. In the Renaissance and Modern times,

many inventions prosper in its own way. Scientists are preoccupied of something that could help

them famous. In these times, many things were being experimented even human being was being

experimented. It is being adapted up to know, that is why, through medicine, many are being

published. Nonetheless, it is good to have that kind of ethical idea. It is because that is thinking on

the life’s preservation as well as environmental preservation. This is to emphasize that every era

has its own way in using ethics. Different behaviors are manifested in their own way. Living the

good life has always been one of mankind’s most noble and enduring pursuits since time

immemorial. On this sense, if every man’s wish is to live a good life, then the land, trees, mountains

and etc, has the right to live peacefully in their own way.

The balance of life is not happened only in life but also on the world we live in. Our

progress in life is not only stuck in us but the environment must be the sharer of every man’s

success. This is to say that by not forgetting the essence of ethics is the primarily aspect of living

a good life. It is because we mean ethics as a useful strategy in cultivating ourselves as we develop

also our land. It is on caring that we show love and respect so as we love our Creator.