1.

2 Freedom and Morality

The concept of freedom, as well as the application of freedom to individual rights, has been widely used
in different levels of analysis in Philippine society as a whole. Freedom as a concept that pertains to the
moral realm is examined in this section. An important question that must be brought to light is : What is
freedom and how is it exercised in the realm of morals?

John Paul Sartre, an existentialist philosopher, assumes the idea of radical freedom by claiming that
“man is condemned to be free”. Sartre conceives of “man” as an unconstrained free moral agent in the
sense that he always has a choice in every aspect of his life.

Even if somebody points a gun at his head, he still has a choice whether to follow the wishes of his
captors. Sartre claims that “Man is nothing else but that which he makes of himself.”

“Man” is never compelled or determined; he is totally free and therefore, totally responsible for all the
things that he does. When you exercise freedom in making your choices, you are taking control and
assuming full responsibility for those choices.

However, there is one important caveat: you are free but this freedom is not absolute. You cannot
do anything that you please without taking into consideration the norms of your society. Mores are there
to serve as a form of social control to limit, govern, or regulate your behavior in order to maintain order
in your society.

For example, you cannot just go about killing people you consider as obnoxious. You are perhaps
familiar with the saying ‘your freedom ends where my freedom begins’. Within the given parameters of
our environment, including the economic, political and social environment, we assume freedom.

Our discussion will come to nothing if we assume otherwise — i.e. that human beings are not free and
their choices are always determined by factors or forces in their environment. This deterministic view is
tantamount to saying that human beings are like robots or machines whose actions and functions can
be predicted like cause and effect given the parameters of the variables in his/her environment. Nor can
we embrace fully the extreme view of radical freedom without taking into consideration the norms of our
society.

Freedom of the human person in the moral sense of the word assumes that one is a free moral agent.
Moral, in this sense, refers to the freedom to make one's choice in accordance with one’s own moral
discernment of what is good and bad, and one is taking full responsibility for one’s own actions and is
using his/her rational and empathetic capacity as a moral being. Aside from our reason and critical
thinking, we also have the ability to empathize or to feel what other beings feel and to situate ourselves
in their shoes.

1.3 Necessary Conditions for Morality: Freedom and Obligation

According to John Mothershead, there are two necessary conditions for morality to occur: freedom
and obligation.

As explained above, freedom is assumed when one is making choices and is the agent taking full
responsibility for planning his/her life, and in the process, planning and budgeting his/her actions for
some future goal. This is in accordance with the individual’s moral and rational capacity to know and
discern what is right and wrong. This condition of freedom can be seen as limiting or constraining
the realm of morals for human beings.

Animals do not have the capacity to look forward and consciously plan for the future. Even when
ants hoard their food for the rainy days, this action is based on instinct. Only human beings are
capable of planning for their future, planning their life, and setting their goals as a result of these
plans.
The assumption of freedom entails another assumption, which is obligation. In its moral sense,
obligation is construed as a one’s duty to him/herself to exercise freedom as a rational moral
being. In other words, it is seen as his/her duty to him/herself to do this budgeting and planning for
the future because the future is yet to be and the only way to make it better is by being obliged to do
so. In other words, you are not free to be unfree.

In making moral decisions and choices, it is within the capacity of the human person as an active
and free moral agent to exercise his/ her freedom of choice as his/her obligation to him/herself.

Our discussion of freedom entails this basic presupposition: That the human person is free in the
exercise of making choices in the realm of morality—that is, in making choices with regard to
determining what is the right thing to do in situations and circumstances in his/her own life.

This can be summarized in our Filipino saying, “Buntot mo, hila mo!” It is taking full responsibility for
your actions and being obliged to do so. When was the last time you blamed other people for a
mistake that you made? There is a tendency for people to blame others for their choice of a course
of action.

For example, a couple who freely choose to marry each other out of love could, when the marriage
sours, blame each other for their predicament and end up saying he/she was forced or coerced by
the other into the marriage. However, it is one’s obligation to oneself to exercise one’s capacity for
deliberation and reflection by thinking about the consequences before making a decision. In other
words, this is an exercise of one’s rationality to the fullest without forgetting one’s humanity and
his/her capacity for empathy.
1.2 Freedom and Morality

The concept of freedom, as well as the application of freedom to individual rights, has been widely used
in different levels of analysis in Philippine society as a whole. Freedom as a concept that pertains to the
moral realm is examined in this section. An important question that must be brought to light is : What is
freedom and how is it exercised in the realm of morals?

John Paul Sartre, an existentialist philosopher, assumes the idea of radical freedom by claiming that
“man is condemned to be free”. Sartre conceives of “man” as an unconstrained free moral agent in the
sense that he always has a choice in every aspect of his life.

Even if somebody points a gun at his head, he still has a choice whether to follow the wishes of his
captors. Sartre claims that “Man is nothing else but that which he makes of himself.”

“Man” is never compelled or determined; he is totally free and therefore, totally responsible for all the
things that he does. When you exercise freedom in making your choices, you are taking control and
assuming full responsibility for those choices.

However, there is one important caveat: you are free but this freedom is not absolute. You cannot
do anything that you please without taking into consideration the norms of your society. Mores are there
to serve as a form of social control to limit, govern, or regulate your behavior in order to maintain order
in your society.

For example, you cannot just go about killing people you consider as obnoxious. You are perhaps
familiar with the saying ‘your freedom ends where my freedom begins’. Within the given parameters of
our environment, including the economic, political and social environment, we assume freedom.

Our discussion will come to nothing if we assume otherwise — i.e. that human beings are not free and
their choices are always determined by factors or forces in their environment. This deterministic view is
tantamount to saying that human beings are like robots or machines whose actions and functions can
be predicted like cause and effect given the parameters of the variables in his/her environment. Nor can
we embrace fully the extreme view of radical freedom without taking into consideration the norms of our
society.

Freedom of the human person in the moral sense of the word assumes that one is a free moral agent.
Moral, in this sense, refers to the freedom to make one's choice in accordance with one’s own moral
discernment of what is good and bad, and one is taking full responsibility for one’s own actions and is
using his/her rational and empathetic capacity as a moral being. Aside from our reason and critical
thinking, we also have the ability to empathize or to feel what other beings feel and to situate ourselves
in their shoes.

1.3 Necessary Conditions for Morality: Freedom and Obligation

According to John Mothershead, there are two necessary conditions for morality to occur: freedom
and obligation.

As explained above, freedom is assumed when one is making choices and is the agent taking full
responsibility for planning his/her life, and in the process, planning and budgeting his/her actions for
some future goal. This is in accordance with the individual’s moral and rational capacity to know and
discern what is right and wrong. This condition of freedom can be seen as limiting or constraining
the realm of morals for human beings.

Animals do not have the capacity to look forward and consciously plan for the future. Even when
ants hoard their food for the rainy days, this action is based on instinct. Only human beings are
capable of planning for their future, planning their life, and setting their goals as a result of these
plans.
The assumption of freedom entails another assumption, which is obligation. In its moral sense,
obligation is construed as a one’s duty to him/herself to exercise freedom as a rational moral
being. In other words, it is seen as his/her duty to him/herself to do this budgeting and planning for
the future because the future is yet to be and the only way to make it better is by being obliged to do
so. In other words, you are not free to be unfree.

In making moral decisions and choices, it is within the capacity of the human person as an active
and free moral agent to exercise his/ her freedom of choice as his/her obligation to him/herself.

Our discussion of freedom entails this basic presupposition: That the human person is free in the
exercise of making choices in the realm of morality—that is, in making choices with regard to
determining what is the right thing to do in situations and circumstances in his/her own life.

This can be summarized in our Filipino saying, “Buntot mo, hila mo!” It is taking full responsibility for
your actions and being obliged to do so. When was the last time you blamed other people for a
mistake that you made? There is a tendency for people to blame others for their choice of a course
of action.

For example, a couple who freely choose to marry each other out of love could, when the marriage
sours, blame each other for their predicament and end up saying he/she was forced or coerced by
the other into the marriage. However, it is one’s obligation to oneself to exercise one’s capacity for
deliberation and reflection by thinking about the consequences before making a decision. In other
words, this is an exercise of one’s rationality to the fullest without forgetting one’s humanity and
his/her capacity for empathy.
1.2 Freedom and Morality

The concept of freedom, as well as the application of freedom to individual rights, has been widely used
in different levels of analysis in Philippine society as a whole. Freedom as a concept that pertains to the
moral realm is examined in this section. An important question that must be brought to light is : What is
freedom and how is it exercised in the realm of morals?

John Paul Sartre, an existentialist philosopher, assumes the idea of radical freedom by claiming that
“man is condemned to be free”. Sartre conceives of “man” as an unconstrained free moral agent in the
sense that he always has a choice in every aspect of his life.

Even if somebody points a gun at his head, he still has a choice whether to follow the wishes of his
captors. Sartre claims that “Man is nothing else but that which he makes of himself.”

“Man” is never compelled or determined; he is totally free and therefore, totally responsible for all the
things that he does. When you exercise freedom in making your choices, you are taking control and
assuming full responsibility for those choices.

However, there is one important caveat: you are free but this freedom is not absolute. You cannot
do anything that you please without taking into consideration the norms of your society. Mores are there
to serve as a form of social control to limit, govern, or regulate your behavior in order to maintain order
in your society.

For example, you cannot just go about killing people you consider as obnoxious. You are perhaps
familiar with the saying ‘your freedom ends where my freedom begins’. Within the given parameters of
our environment, including the economic, political and social environment, we assume freedom.

Our discussion will come to nothing if we assume otherwise — i.e. that human beings are not free and
their choices are always determined by factors or forces in their environment. This deterministic view is
tantamount to saying that human beings are like robots or machines whose actions and functions can
be predicted like cause and effect given the parameters of the variables in his/her environment. Nor can
we embrace fully the extreme view of radical freedom without taking into consideration the norms of our
society.

Freedom of the human person in the moral sense of the word assumes that one is a free moral agent.
Moral, in this sense, refers to the freedom to make one's choice in accordance with one’s own moral
discernment of what is good and bad, and one is taking full responsibility for one’s own actions and is
using his/her rational and empathetic capacity as a moral being. Aside from our reason and critical
thinking, we also have the ability to empathize or to feel what other beings feel and to situate ourselves
in their shoes.

1.3 Necessary Conditions for Morality: Freedom and Obligation

According to John Mothershead, there are two necessary conditions for morality to occur: freedom
and obligation.

As explained above, freedom is assumed when one is making choices and is the agent taking full
responsibility for planning his/her life, and in the process, planning and budgeting his/her actions for
some future goal. This is in accordance with the individual’s moral and rational capacity to know and
discern what is right and wrong. This condition of freedom can be seen as limiting or constraining
the realm of morals for human beings.

Animals do not have the capacity to look forward and consciously plan for the future. Even when
ants hoard their food for the rainy days, this action is based on instinct. Only human beings are
capable of planning for their future, planning their life, and setting their goals as a result of these
plans.
The assumption of freedom entails another assumption, which is obligation. In its moral sense,
obligation is construed as a one’s duty to him/herself to exercise freedom as a rational moral
being. In other words, it is seen as his/her duty to him/herself to do this budgeting and planning for
the future because the future is yet to be and the only way to make it better is by being obliged to do
so. In other words, you are not free to be unfree.

In making moral decisions and choices, it is within the capacity of the human person as an active
and free moral agent to exercise his/ her freedom of choice as his/her obligation to him/herself.

Our discussion of freedom entails this basic presupposition: That the human person is free in the
exercise of making choices in the realm of morality—that is, in making choices with regard to
determining what is the right thing to do in situations and circumstances in his/her own life.

This can be summarized in our Filipino saying, “Buntot mo, hila mo!” It is taking full responsibility for
your actions and being obliged to do so. When was the last time you blamed other people for a
mistake that you made? There is a tendency for people to blame others for their choice of a course
of action.

For example, a couple who freely choose to marry each other out of love could, when the marriage
sours, blame each other for their predicament and end up saying he/she was forced or coerced by
the other into the marriage. However, it is one’s obligation to oneself to exercise one’s capacity for
deliberation and reflection by thinking about the consequences before making a decision. In other
words, this is an exercise of one’s rationality to the fullest without forgetting one’s humanity and
his/her capacity for empathy.