Lourdes College

Inc.
Integrated Basic Education Department
SENIOR HIGH SCHOOL
Gen. Capistrano Street, Cagayan de Oro City
S.Y. 2020 - 2021, First Semester

LEARNING MODULES
Introduction to the Philosophy of the Human
Person

Prepared by

ALLAINE KIN G. DORMAN

Modules for the Week

November 9-13, 2020

 Lourdes College
Integrated Basic Education Department
SENIOR HIGH SCHOOL DEPARTMENT
Gen. Capistrano-Hayes St., Cagayan de Oro City

Module for Online Learning

General Instructional Guidelines

SUBJECT: INTRODUCTION TO THE PHILOSOPHY OF THE HUMAN PERSON for Grade 12 HUMSS
& STEM

Greeting: Good morning / afternoon everyone! Praised be Jesus and Mary! Welcome to our module for
this session. You will find here our general instructional guidelines, then the components of
our module. You will be guided one step at a time through the specific instructions of the
learning tasks given below, which intend to develop our cognitive skills as well as our values,
considering current social realities. Let joy and peace abound in your mind and heart as you
genuinely and responsibly respond to the learning processes that this module offers.

I. General Instructional Guidelines

1.1 Please refer to the Unit Plan for the Subject description, minor and major performance tasks, and
criteria for grading. Consultation will be provided through our group chat, email, Gmail, SMS,
Edmodo or other social network. I will monitor your participation in our learning activities
through these chosen media. In addition, you are always encouraged to voice any concerns
on internet connections so that appropriate adjustments can be done.

1.2. Your honesty and integrity are few of the most important component to whatever outputs asked
from the module. A plagiarism-checker tool will be utilized as one of the measures in assessing your
outputs. Use in-text citation (citing the author and year) when you mention a statement coming from a
source other than the list of references that can be found in your paper.

1.3. Feedback is an essential component in this mode of delivery. You will be asked of your
assessment of your learning experience in this subject so that we will be able to improve our learning
processes in the succeeding instructional delivery.
Module No. 2: Philosophy, Society and Life

Module Overview: This module demonstrates a deep understanding of philosophy within the
context of human freedom and intersubjective human relations in analysing its interplay
between the individuality of human beings and their social contexts, and human beings as
oriented towards their impending death.

LESSON 5: FREEDOM OF THE HUMAN PERSON

TRANSFER GOAL/LEARNING OUTCOME:
The students in the long run and on their own will be able to make sound judgments in
preserving and conserving nature for the benefit of humanity in the society as part of God’s
magnificent creation.

OBJECTIVES:
In these lessons, you will do the following:
1. Elucidate the value of Freedom
2. Evaluate such actions; and,
3. Clarify that choices have consequences

CONTENT FOCUS: Human Freedom

What is Freedom?
Freedom or liberty is a social and political concept which has great significance in how
people participate in society. The concept of freedom has emerged as an important
philosophical issue in 18th-century Europe during the Age of Enlightenment. During this period,
intellectuals pondered on the origins of society and the state and the nature of human freedom.
Enlightenment thinkers believed that early mean existed in “natural state” and has absolute
freedom. However, the establishment of societies require people to surrender some of their
freedoms in order to live in harmony with other and ensure the survival of society. In
establishing society, people entered into a “social contract” which defined the freedoms that
they will be enjoying as members of a society and the state. (Abella, 2016, Introduction to the
Philosophy of the Human Person, p. 93)
Besides, the definition of freedom has traditionally delimited by proponents of
determinism. Hard determinists even contend that there is no freedom. They claim that human
behaviour can be programmed and manipulated as if man is only one of the objects around the
environment.
Determinism: Undermining Free Choice
What opposed the notion of freedom or free will is the concept of determinism. In
general, this view states that “the world is governed by (or is under the sway of) determinism if
and only if, given a specified way things are at a time, the way things go thereafter is fixed as a
matter of natural law.” This view suggests that a determinate set of conditions can produce only
one possible outcome given the fixed laws of nature. Through the principle of universal
causation, every physical event under the laws of nature is caused in accordance with these
laws. Universal here means that there is no part of nature in which the law of nature does not
apply. Hence, the idea that every physical event has a cause logically determine that there may
be an explanation for an event because it has a necessary cause.
Determinism has a direct implication on human actions. The human action as an event
that was caused by something implies that free choice is impossible because the regularity of
actions means that the cause of an action, given a determinate set of conditions, will result in
one possible outcome only. This is the same with choices, as events will imply that no other
choice is possible except for that one choice a person is determined to choose.
Causal Determinism is incompatible with the notion of free will because it can undermine
free choice if past events will be revealed as the cause of future actions and not really chosen
by the individual as a free agent. Will the individual still find his or her choice valuable it he or
she discovers that it is caused by an event outside his or her autonomy?
The other perspective is physical determinism. Physical determinism claims that since
the body is physical, every event involving the body is determined. According to this view, given
a set of determinate conditions in the brain and the laws of nature, bodily movements are
causally determined. The state of the brain immediately before a decision is made is what
makes the person do a certain act, and that decision is the only possible outcome at the
particular moment when the action is being done.
Example: helping an old woman carry her bags
The act of helping is causally determined by the laws of nature affecting the neural
connections and chemicals in the brain, which fired up the muscles to move and do the act of
helping. This means that the act is not a voluntary act but is causally determined.
Philosophical discussions on free will and determinism also involve the notion of
punishment and responsibility. If an action was determined, then it seems unjust to punish a
person or hold him or her responsible for an act if such act has been proven to be causally
determined and that the conditions are outside the person’s control. (Caraan, 2016, Introduction
to Philosophy of the Human Person, p. 77-78)
Human Freedom
According to Sartre, an individual is free in which man is totally freedom. In other words,
man is actually condemned to be free. (Stumpf, Socrates to Sartre: A History of Philosophy, p.
478)
For Sartre, Human freedom precedes in man and make it possible; the essence of
human being is suspended in his freedom. What we call freedom is impossible to distinguish
from the being of “human reality.” Man does not exist first in order to be free subsequently; there
is no difference between the being of man and his being free. (Sartre, Being and Nothingness,
p. 25)
A human person is not only free to choose his/her actions, but also, to create meanings
in his/her own life. That a human person is nothing in the beginning and he/she becomes
something through his/her actions. It is in his/her actions that he/she becomes who he/she is. It
is through his/her freedom to act that he/she creates and recreates himself/herself. (Camiloza
and others, Philosophy of the Human Person, p. 169)
The Way to Freedom
Freedom has always been a word to stir men’s hearts. Today it is fast becoming a
universal battle cry. Not only in our land, but through the world, individuals, and groups and
whole nations loudly insist on their right to live tier own lives, to make their own decisions. They
will break no outside interference in their exercise of this basic human prerogative.
Without in any way questioning the justice of their cause, it may not be amiss to point out
that modern champions of freedom sometimes overlook an essential step on the way to the
goal they need. Too often it is seen merely as an absence of external restrictions on my native
capacity for self-determination. Too seldom is it recognized that the greatest obstacles to
freedom are not outside but within, me; that, quite apart from what other do, I need more than
free will to be free. What this “more” is can perhaps best be seen if we look at freedom in the
light of its corollary, responsibility.
Suppose we start out by saying that a free act is one for which I am responsible. It is an
act of which I am the source. In this sense, freedom is identical with my selfhood, with my
capacity to act on my own, to say yes or no to my surrounding, to decide for myself what shall I
do. This is freedom in the sense of free will, and I have it simply by being a person. Because a
person is himself, the origin of what he does, he is held accountable for his deeds. He is
responsible.
But the fact that I am responsible for what I do does not mean automatically that my
actions are responsible actions. A person is not infrequently charged with irresponsible
behaviour. He is held accountable for doing something for which he cannot give a rational
account.
Here we come to some ambiguity in the notion of responsibility, an ambiguity that also
affects the idea of freedom. Being a person makes me responsible for my actions: being
responsible for my action however, does not make me a responsible person.
Freedom and Responsibility
Responsibility in the fuller sense is not mere accountable. It is precisely the ability to
given an account. It means that I can actually justify my actions as truly responsible to the
objective demands of the situation. Responsibility thus includes responsiveness. The
responsible person is one whose actions are shaped in response to objective requirements and
not simply by his own whims. Because he takes all the factors in his complex environment into
account when he acts, seeking to respond to them and not merely assert himself, he has no
difficulty later in accounting for what he done.
 Now, just as merely accountable does not by itself insure my being able to give an
account so neither does mere free will insure my being free. Freedom means more than my
ability to act on my own, so that my actions are mine and not someone else’s. being free means
that I have the expedite capacity to act rationally, i.e., in a way that is genuinely proportionate to
the concrete situation that confronts me. (Dy, Philosophy of Man, p. 197)
Because a human person is free, he/she is responsible not only for himself/herself but
also for others and ultimately for humanity. First, a person is in-charge of his/her own life. A
person is the “master of his/her fate and the captain of his/her soul an adage says. To be free
then is to be responsible for one’s existence. What a person is and how he/she should exist is
his/her responsibility.
For example:
Your parents cannot send you to college; they urged you to look for a job to help
them provide for your family’s basic needs. It is your dream to be a lawyer and you understand
the financial requirements of the course. You also understand the condition of your family. You
are then in dilemma: you want to be a lawyer by searching for a job or you can pursue your
dream of becoming a lawyer by searching for scholarship grants. But you can also accomplish
both at the same time: you can look for a job and a scholarship grants and be able to pursue
your dream and help your family. It is all up to you. The possibilities are boundless; it is a matter
of choosing the path you want to take.
Actions and Consequences
- All our actions (spoken and physical) have consequences. Some are good (positive) and
some bad (negative)
- Consequences are a result or an effect.
- It is important to try to behave in a way that has positive consequences.
https://www.slideshare.net/mobile/mikethess/introduction-to-the-philosophy-of-the-
human-person
Consequentialism
Consequentialism whether an act is morally right depends only on consequences (as opposed
to the circumstances of the intrinsic nature of the act or anything that happens before the act).
The paradigm case of consequentialism is utilitarianism, whose classic proponents were Jeremy
Bentham, John Stuart Mill and Henry Sidgwick. These classic utilitarians held hedonistic act
consequentialism.
Act Consequentialism
- Is the claim that an act maximizes the good, that is, if and only is the total amount of
good for all minus the total amount of bad for all is greater than this net amount for any
incompatible act available to the agent on that occasion. Hedonism then claims that
pleasure is the only intrinsic good and that pain is the only intrinsic bad.
- These claims are often summarized in the slogan that an act is right if and only if it
causes “the greatest happiness for the greatest number.”
Classic Utilitarianism
- Is consequentialist as opposed to deontological because of what it denies.
- It denies that moral rightness depends directly on anything other than consequences,
such as whether the agent promised in the past to do the act now. Of course the fact the
agent promised to do the act might indirectly affect the act’s consequences if breaking
the promise will make other people unhappy.
Classic Utilitarianism is actually a complex combination of many distinct claims, including the
following claims about the moral rightness of acts:
a. Consequentialism whether an act is morally right depends only on consequences (as
opposed to the circumstances of the intrinsic nature of the act or anything that happens
before the act)
b. Actual Consequentialism whether an act is morally right depends only on the actual
consequences (as opposed to foreseen, foreseeable, intended, or likely consequences)
c. Direct Consequentialism whether an act is morally right depends only on the
consequences of that act itself (as opposed to the consequences of the agent’s motive,
of a rule or practice that covers other acts of the same kind, and so on)
d. Evaluative Consequentialism moral rightness depends only on the value of the
consequences (as opposed to non-evaluative features of the consequences)
e. Hedonism the value of consequences depends only on the pleasures and pains in the
consequences (as opposed to the other supposed goods, such as freedom, knowledge
life, and so on)
f. Maximizing Consequentialism moral rightness depends only on which consequences are
best (as opposed to merely satisfactory or an improvement over the status quo)
g. Aggregative Consequentialism which consequences are best is some function of the
values of parts of those consequences (as opposed to ranking of whole worlds or sets of
consequences)
h. Total Consequentialism moral rightness depends only on the total net good in the
consequences (as opposed to the average net good per person)
i. Universal Consequentialism moral rightness depends on the consequences for all
people or sentient beings (as opposed to only the individual agent, member of the
individual’s society, present people, or any other limited group)
j. Equal Consideration in determining moral rightness, benefits to one person matter just
as much as similar benefits to any other person (as opposed to putting more weight on
the worse or worst off)
Agent-neutrality whether some consequences are better than others does not depend on
whether the consequences are evaluated from the perspective of the agent (as opposed to an
observer) https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/consequentialism/
BOOKS:
Abella, Roberto D. (2016). Introduction to the Philosophy of the Human Person. Quezon City,
Philippines. C & E Publising, Inc.
Camiloza, Loreto G. and others. (2016). Philosophy of the Human Person. Quezon City,
Philippines. The Phoenix Publication House, Inc.
Sartre, Jean-Paul. (1965). Being and Nothingness. Translated with an introduction by Hazel
Barnes. New York, USA. Citadel Press.
Stumpf, Samuel Enoch. (1999). Socrates to Sartre: A History of Philosophy. Sixth Edition. New
York, USA. McGraw-Hill Companies, Inc.
Dy, Manuel Jr. (2012). Philosophy of Man (3rd ed.). Makati City, Manila, Philippines. Katha
Publishing Co., Inc. and Manuel Dy, Jr.
Caraan, Aleli M. (2016). Introduction to Philosophy of the Human Person. Makati City,
Philippines. DIWA LEARNING SYSTEMS INC.
INTERNET REFERENCES:
Armstrong, Walter S. (2019). Consequentialism.
https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/consequentialism/
Isidoro, Thess. (2016) Introduction to the Philosophy of the Human Person.
https://www.slideshare.net/mobile/mikethess/introduction-to-the-philosophy-of-the-human-
person

Prepared by: Reviewed and Checked by:

Mr. Allaine Kin G. Dorman Chrisand Godwyn M. Sabayton

Philosophy Instructor HUMSS and STEM Strand Leader

Noted by:

Alexander P. Suan, Ph.D.

LCSHS Coordinator