Philippine Democracy Online

Dr. Romulo G. Bautista, Ph.D. Social Ethics Society                                        Social Ethics Society for Social Protest and Social Justice If you witness a crime against humanity or nature, should you be compelled to take action or simply redirect your attention and pretend nothing is happening? If you do such thing, would you not become an accessory to the crime through your own inaction? Would you not lose your soul a little bit and over time become disempowered and disenfranchised?

Dr. Romulo G. Bautista                                       Quasi-Religious/Quasi-Secular Ethics maybe described as a hybrid of religious and of secular ethics, a middle ground between the religious and the secular ethics. In other words, a “quasi” ethics is in part secular, in part religious. As such, its middle ground is not exactly the center or equidistant to both extremes; rather the middle ground maybe leaning more toward religion (right-of-center) or leaning more toward autonomy (left-of-center). If it leans more toward religion, then it either leans more toward a religious ethics or more toward an anti-religious ethics. It must be stressed, though, that both the religious ethics and the anti-religious ethics recognized and acknowledge the existence of God, but they have opposing beliefs about the essence of God. For instance, the religious ethics might say “God exists and He is a gre...

Dr. Romulo G. Bautista                                        What is “moral” is always “ethical”, but what is “ethical” is not necessarily “moral”. “Moral” and “ethical” are similar in that both have to do with the difference between right and wrong. But they are also dissimilar in that “ethical” tends to refer to a system, theory, or code of judging rightness or wrongness; whereas “moral” tends to refer to more concrete choices and issues that arouse strong feelings. We might say that “ethical” refers to right and wrong”, while “moral” refers to good and evil. Thus, for example, the behavior of a professor who plagiarizes a writing of another professor without acknowledging the latter as the original author is unethical because it violates the code of ethics against plagiarism. 

By Jamil Matalam Ateneo de Davao University                                      After asking students to read Plato’s “The Apology of Socrates” Allan Bloom asks his students what are their verdict; do they acquit or convict Socrates? The question is important because in the Dialogue Socrates was talking to his judges and was not talking about philosophical concepts; Socrates wanted to be judged upon. The great philosopher provided us the method to judge him, i.e. by the method of “truth”. The impeachment of Chief Justice Corona gives us a good opportunity to revisit this most enigmatic Dialogue by Plato.

By Romulo G. Bautista, Ph.D.                                                Prologue All sorts of professional experts, except perhaps the professional philosophers, have been asked to help resolve definitively the war in the conflict areas of Mindanao. It is about time that the professional philosophers in Mindanao should say their views to make a difference on the resolution and settlement on such conflict. I would like to share mine grounded in my modest philosophizing, which begins from my “philosophical” view of the Old Testament. This can be viewed and interpreted from various angles of the readers because they could never existentially transcend their subjectivity.

By Armando Parantar University of the Immaculate Conception                                        I have long contemplated on what to share in this gathering; the thoughts of astounding thinkers have enticed me to begin and proceed through others which have similar tenets and end with a grand finale most probably in the vein of Hegel. At one point I have resolved to stay suspended as if on air; I have no intention to stay on the grounds of any one philosopher if ever I may be found to sound like or echo the ideas of the likes of Heidegger. I don’t intend to speak for anyone of them. Why? I see them as (with respect to a few who have tried it) inutile and just as regular as you and me. At one time, I read about the paradox of modern life stating how human living has stretched the disparity between what should be and what is. I had once that thought that this only applied in politics an...

Dr. Romulo G.Bautista Moral Philosophy is not monolithic, which means that there is no unquestioned and established ethical code of morality for every one to follow, because there is a subtle distinction between “moral” and “ethical”. Both “ethical” and “moral” are similar in meaning in that both have to do with the difference between right and wrong, in which case both can be used interchangeably. But they are dissimilar in that ethical tends to refer to a system or theory or code of judging rightness or wrongness, whereas moral tends to refer to more concrete choices and issues that arouse strong feelings:, in which case “ethical “ and “moral” should not be used inter-changeably. The behavior of unscrupulous student who cheats during exams would be unethical for it violates the school code against cheating; but a military officer who orders the mass killings of innocent people, such as the Maguindanao massacre, would be called immoral because his behavior violates morality.