Submitted to:

Ms. Vina M. Zaragoza

By:

Ponio, Ailenne
Satur, Jan Dmitri
Tampos, Roxan Vee
Romano, Kaeza Ken
 We all want good neighbors, but it’s hard to know hot be kind of neighbour our
neighbors want. What makes a good neighbor? How can we become better ones?

Many people today, particularly those who have grown up with Facebook and
Twitter, have amassed relationships with people around the globe. But at the end of the
day, how many are real friends? Friends and friendship mean different things to
different people. So it is with being a good neighbor. Being neighborly means different
things to different people as well.

Who is our neighbor?

The Bible has much to say about neighbors. In fact, Jesus presented an entire
parable to show how important it is to be neighborly; and not only that, He showed how
being a good neighbor figures into inheriting eternal life!

A lawyer asked Jesus Christ what he needed to do to receive eternal life.

Jesus, knowing that it was the lawyer’s duty to be familiar with God’s law,
answered the lawyer with a question of his own.

“He said to him, ‘What is written in the law? What is your reading of it?’ So he
answered and said, ‘You shall love the LORD your God with all your heart, with all your
soul, with all your strength, and with all your mind,’ and ‘your neighbor as yourself’”
(Luke 10:26-27).

The lawyer answered correctly, and Jesus advised him to do this (verse 28). But
the lawyer, wanting to justify himself, asked, “Who is my neighbor?” (verse 29).

Being a good neighbor involves compassion

The parable of the Good Samaritan (verses 30-37), reveals the answer to the
lawyer’s question—“who is my neighbor?” The parable tells of a certain man attacked,
robbed and left injured on the side of the road.

The first two travellers who saw the injured man may have truly felt bad for the
man and may have wished him well in their hearts, but they simply had no time or
inclination to become involved with him. Sadly, they were a priest and a Levite—men
who should have been setting an example of what it is to be a good neighbor.

However, when the Samaritan (despised by those in the community) passed by,
not only did he feel bad for the victim, he had compassion—and that compassion
moved him to action! Having dressed the victim’s wounds, he then took him to an inn
where he told the person in charge to do whatever was necessary to ensure the man
got the best of care. He paid the bill and said he was willing to pay more if needed.
 In this story, we see no mention of the Samaritan being concerned about the
identity, race or nationality of the wounded person. His caring actions were not
portrayed as payback for some good deed that had been previously done to the
Samaritan. Nor does the account suggest that the Samaritan was hoping his good deed
would cast his people in a different light—to improve the Jews’ low opinion of the
Samaritan people. He simply treated this unfortunate person as a neighbor.

No doubt the lawyer was feeling a little uncomfortable, especially when Jesus
asked him to render a judgment on which of the three passersby was a good neighbor
to the injured man. “And he said, ‘He who showed mercy on him’” (Luke 10:37).

The lawyer answered correctly again, but perhaps a little more contritely this
time. Jesus told the lawyer, “Go and do likewise.”

Duties toward neighbors

Relevant verses about duties towards neighbors

A. Leviticus 19:18 “ You shall not take vengeance, nor bear any grudge against the
sons of your people, but you shall love your neighbor as yourself; I am the Lord.”
B. Mark 12:31 ‘'YOU SHALL LOVE YOUR NEIGHBOR AS YOURSELF”
C. Romans 13:10 “Love does no wrong to a neighbor; therefore love is the
fulfillment of the law “
D. Romans 15:1 “Now we who are strong ought to bear the weaknesses of those
without strength and not just please ourselves”
E. Romans 15:2 “Each of us is to please his neighbor for his good, to his
edification”
F. Exodus 23:4-5 "If you meet your enemy's ox or his donkey wandering away, you
shall surely return it to him. "If you see the donkey of one who hates you lying
helpless under its load, you shall refrain from leaving it to him, you shall surely
release it with him.”
G. Leviticus 19:13 'You shall not oppress your neighbor, nor rob him The wages of
a hired man are not to remain with you all night until morning”

Even apart from civil society men are bound to reciprocal duties in virtue of the
likeness of their specific nature and the identity of their end. -- All men have the same
specific nature, the same origin, and the same end. This establishes a kind of affinity
among them which, apart from civil society, imposes on them reciprocal duties.
 The foundation of all duties to one's neighbor is the precept, Thou shalt love thy
neighbor as thyself. -- Love of one's neighbor is not a mere natural inclination resulting
from likeness of specific nature, but it is a precept of reason. For order demands that as
other men have the same human nature as ourselves, we should wish them the
blessings that we desire for ourselves. Yet because the bond of identity or substantial
unity is stronger than that of likeness of specific nature, we should indeed love our
neighbor as ourselves, but not as much as ourselves. -- The precept of loving our
neighbor imposes both negative and positive duties. The former are contained in the
maxim, "Do not to others what you would not have them do to you;" the latter, in the
maxim, "Do to others as you would that they should do to you."

From love of one's neighbor results the duty of doing nothing that injures his moral
dignity, or impedes or perverts the lawful exercise of his free will. -- The moral dignity of
one's neighbor is impaired by scandal, which gives him an occasion of falling into evil;
by seduction, which deceives him in order to draw him into evil; in a word, by whatever
turns him from his duty. All these acts are a manifest violation of the love of justice due
to our neighbor. But if a man of evil habits have a good name, and thereby take
occasion to injure the rights of others, it is lawful to reveal his true character, but so far
only as is necessary to protect the innocent.

From the love of one's neighbor arises the duty of doing no violence to his intellect
by deceitfully leading him into error. -- Veracity is indispensable to society. Take away
from speech its nature as sign of thought and you destroy all intercourse among men.
Besides, even if lying would not harm society, it would still be an evil, for God has given
speech to man as a means of expressing his thoughts and communicating with his
equals; therefore, to use it to deceive is to oppose nature.

From love of one's neighbor results the duty of not attempting his life or
maltreating his body. -- Life is a most precious boon to man, for it enables him to work
out his present destiny and to prepare for his future state; hence homicide is one of the
greatest crimes that can be committed. The interdict laid upon homicide extends to
every action that impairs the integrity of the human organism, such as mutilations,
wounds, and blows.

From love of one's neighbor arises the duty not merely of doing him no harm, but
even of doing him good. -- We ought to love our neighbor as ourselves; now, we wish
not only that others do us no evil, but also that they do us good. Hence
besides negative or perfect duties, we have also positive or imperfect duties toward our
neighbor. We should enlighten his mind, strengthen his will in the practice of good, help
him in need, and defend his good name. Positive duties are
either humane or beneficent. They are duties of humanity if they are rendered our
neighbor without any personal sacrifice; they are duties of beneficence if they involve
some personal inconvenience or loss. They are, therefore, more meritorious than the
former class. Yet though both kinds of positive duty are commanded in a general way,
they do not constitute a determinate obligation in this or that particular case; their
obligation being only moral and not juridical, no one can he forced to fulfil them. They
become a strict and imperative duty only in case of our neighbor's extreme need, owing
to the presence of imminent and deadly evil to soul or body.

Both negative and positive duties of loving our neighbor oblige us in regard to
our enemies. -- The love due to our neighbor is not founded in his personal merit, but in
his dignity and specific nature as man. Hence, although it is permitted to detest the
wrong done us by an enemy and to demand satisfaction, it is not lawful to pursue with
hate the author of this evil and to neglect in his regard the duties that bind us toward
other men as such.

RIGHTS AND DUTIES IN RELATION TO SOCIAL GOOD.

Social good is that which a man enjoys as a member of a constituted

community. -- Man is composed of soul and body. The social blessings that pertain to
the life of his soul are honor and reputation, and consist in the good opinion in which he
and his qualities are held; those that benefit the life of his body are property or wealth

Man is bound to guard his honor and reputation. -- Man ordinarily must live in
society to attain the end of his existence. But if his reputation be injured, he loses a part
of that benefit which he would otherwise derive from society; therefore he must see to it
that he does not, compromise his reputation. Yet his care for his good name should
have a just limit, and so far is one from being obliged always to make known his good
parts, that he often proves his virtue by concealing them

Man has a natural right to his honor and reputation. -- No man may of right
demand to be honored by others with positive marks of consideration unless in virtue of
some legitimate dignity added to that of his nature as man; but every man may demand
that no one shall injure his natural dignity.

From love of one's neighbor arises the duty of not injuring his honor. --
Honor or reputation is one of man's most precious possessions; to injure it without
lawful motive is to violate one of his dearest rights. Therefore does the natural law forbid
unjust suspicion, rash judgment, contempt, false testimony, detraction, and calumny.

Every man is bound to procure for himself the material goods necessary for life. -
- Since man is bound to preserve his life, and cannot live without the material means of
food, clothing, and lodging, it is evident that he must provide himself with these means.
For Jesus, to love your neighbor as you love yourself was to practice justice towards
your fellow human beings.

 Live generously towards the poor and alien (Lev. 19:9–10).

 Do not steal from anyone (Lev. 19:11).
 Do not be deceptive in dealings with people (Lev. 19:11).
 Do not swear in God’s name (Lev. 19:12).
 Do not oppress, rob, or exploit the poor by paying unfair wages (Lev. 19:13).
 Do not curse the deaf or put a stumbling block before the blind (Lev. 19:14).
 Do not be partial to the poor or show favor to the great but judge honestly (Lev.
19:15).
 Do not commit financial fraud. The word slander in Hebrew is rakhil,and it may be
related to the term rokheleth, meaning merchant. (Lev. 19:16).
 Do not hate your brother (Lev. 19:17).
 Do not seek revenge or hold a grudge but extend forgiveness (Lev. 19:18).
 Justice is one of the most important moral and political concepts. The word
comes from the Latin jus, meaning right or law. Justice is the virtue of treating people in
accordance with their actions. It is applying the law of identity to people. All people are
not equal. Some are good and some are evil and they must be treated accordingly.

Acting justly requires the willingness to judge. You must identify people and their
actions as being good or evil and act on it. Justice is judging and acting on your
judgment. But judging requires a standard of judgment, and that standard should be the
same as your moral standard, man's life.

Injustice is turning the other cheek or showing mercy to wrongdoers. Those

actions are evasions of reality because you are acting as if a person hasn't acted the
way they have. Injustice is also not recognizing achievement and greatness in others --
specifically treating an achiever as a non-achiever or worse. Judging people by
methods other than their actions (such as racism) is also an injustice.

Acting justly is in your self interest because good people around you will feel
recognized and continue their good behavior. Bad people around you will be
encouraged to stop their bad behavior because of the consequences. Also, the people
around you will tend to treat you justly, which is a good thing assuming that you live a
normal, productive life.

Four Kinds of Justice

1. Commutative Justice

Law and Legal Definition. Commutative justice refers to that which is owed
between individuals, such as in conducting business transactions. Commutative
justice calls for fundamental fairness in all agreements and exchanges between
individuals or private social groups.
It is distinguished from other forms of justice, such as contributive justice, which
refers to what individuals owe to society for the common good; legal justice,
which refers to rights and responsibilities of citizens to obey and respect the
rights of all and the laws devised to protect peace and social order; and
distributive justice, which refers to what society owes to its individual members,
i.e., the just allocation of resources. Restitution in moral theology signifies an act
of commutative justice by which exact reparation as far as possible is made for
an injury that has been done to another.

2. Distributive Justice, which refers to what society owes to its individual

members, i.e., the just allocation of resources as already explained above.
 Distributive justice concerns the nature of a socially just allocation of goods in a
society. A society in which incidental inequalities in outcome do not arise would
be considered a society guided by the principles of distributive justice.

“Distributive justice” is based on the idea “to each according to his contribution.”

3. Legal Justice

The constant and perpetual disposition to render every man his due. It
is the conformity of our actions and our will to the law.Likewise it refers to
rights and responsibilities of citizens to obey and respect the rights of all
and the laws devised to protect peace and social order

4. Social Justice

Justice in terms of the distribution of wealth, opportunities, and privileges within a

society. Social justice is the fair and just relation between
the individual and society. This is measured by the explicit and tacit terms for
the distribution of wealth, opportunities for personal activity and social privileges.
In Western as well as in older Asian cultures, the concept of social justice has
often referred to the process of ensuring that individuals fulfill their societal
roles and receive what was their due from society. In the current
global grassroots movements for social justice, the emphasis has been on the
breaking of barriers for social mobility, the creation of safety nets and economic
justice.
Principles of Justice

A. “Participative Justice” describes how one makes “input” to the economic

process in order to make a living. It requires equal opportunity in gaining
access to private property in productive assets as well as equality of
opportunity to engage in productive work. The principle of participation does
not guarantee equal results, but requires that every person be guaranteed by
society’s institutions the equal human right to make a productive contribution
to the economy, both through one’s labor (as a worker) and through one’s
productive capital (as an owner). Thus, this principle rejects monopolies,
special privileges, and other exclusionary social barriers to economic self-
reliance.

B. “Distributive Justice” defines the “output” or “out-take” rights of an economic

system matched to each person’s labor and capital inputs. Through the
distributional features of private property within a free and open marketplace,
distributive justice becomes automatically linked to participative justice, and
incomes become linked to productive contributions. The principle of
distributive justice involves the sanctity of property and contracts. It turns to
the free and open marketplace, not government, as the most objective and
democratic means for determining the just price, the just wage, and the just
profit.

Many confuse the distributive principles of justice with those of charity.

Charity involves the concept “to each according to his needs,” whereas
 “distributive justice” is based on the idea “to each according to his contribution.”
Confusing these principles leads to endless conflict and scarcity, forcing
government to intervene excessively to maintain social order.
Distributive justice follows participative justice and breaks down when all persons
are not given equal opportunity to acquire and enjoy the fruits of income-
producing property.

C. “Social Justice” is the “feedback and corrective” principle that detects

distortions of the input and/or out-take principles and guides the corrections
needed to restore a just and balanced economic order for all. This principle is
violated by unjust barriers to participation, by monopolies or by some using
their property to harm or exploit others.

D. Legal Justice
The constant and perpetual disposition to render every man his due. It
is the conformity of our actions and our will to the law. Likewise it refers to
rights and responsibilities of citizens to obey and respect the rights of all and
the laws devised to protect peace and social order

Principles of Self-Defense

The ethics of defending ourselves are usually only called into question when we
think of physical defense. We defend ourselves in many other ways, and the ethics of
those defensive measures are hardly ever questioned. For instance, we defend
ourselves financially using instruments like conservative investments, insurance policies
and a last will and testament. We might use a contract or keep an attorney on retainer
to protect ourselves legally. Some people are very devoted to religious beliefs to protect
themselves morally, and so on.

The ethics of using violence in any conflict are grounded in the culture of the
people involved. This is as true for a violent encounter between individuals as it is for
the use of violence in war. Consequently, the justification for such use of violence is
evaluated based on those same cultural ethics. Self-defense, especially where lethal
force is used, is scrutinized carefully to determine its justification. In this article, we will
examine these ethics and how they affect the evaluation of an encounter with violence
in which one of us might be involved.

Whenever a nation is involved in an armed conflict, questions are raised as to

whether or not that involvement is justified. Can one country use violence against
another without violating the most basic principles of ethics, morality and
righteousness? If not, doesn’t that make every war immoral? Or, if there is such a thing
as a “just war,” how can we recognize it? A similar question is the basis for the legal
aftermath of a self-defense incident. A prosecuting attorney will scrutinize the incident to
determine whether or not a jury would consider the use of lethal force “justified.”
PRINCIPLE 1: INNOCENCE
This principle is fundamental in that it establishes that the person claiming self
defense, must indeed have actually been defending him or herself rather than initiating
the violence. Generally if the person is seen to have been the aggressor or otherwise
‘thrown the first punch’ this would preclude him or her from a successful self defense
claim. However, there are certain instances in which the person can be said to regain
their innocence.

PRINCIPLE 2: IMMINENCE
This principle is all about the urgency of the situation. For a successful self-
defense claim to be made, it must be established that the threat was imminent and that
the person had no other choice but to defend themselves forcefully. In this way a self
defense claim cannot be “pre-emptive” to prevent a possible future threat. Instead the
person is expected to find another, non-violent solution. Similarly the threat cannot have
already occurred and ended, in which case later action by the victim would be seen as
revenge rather than self defense.

PRINCIPLE 3: PROPORTIONALITY
For the the principle of proportionality in a self defense claim to be me the person
making the claim must have acted in a way that is deemed proportional to the threat let.
A threat of non-deadly violence should not be met with a self defense of deadly
violence. For instance it would not be acceptable to shoot or stab a potential attacker
who clearly only intended to slap or push the person making the self defense claim.
That would not be viewed as a proportional reaction. However shoving or slapping the
aggressor away would be seen as proportional and a claim of self defense could
perhaps be used to avoid an assault charge.

PRINCIPLE 4: AVOIDANCE
The principle of avoidance in self defense claims states the person making the
claim must not have been able to avoid their actions. Generally this would include that
the person did not have the opportunity to safely run away or otherwise escape the
threat. However, the principle of avoidance is often one of the most contested because
the interpretation of avoidance may vary and so too do state laws. Some states have
“stand your ground” laws which do not require the person claiming self defense to have
first attempted to escape. Other laws in various states known as “castle laws” also state
that the person is allowed to defend his or her home or other property. However, for a
self-defense claim to be successful it will still have to be established that the person
making the claim was not the aggressor.
PRINCIPLE 5: REASONABLENESS
The principle of reasonableness requires that the person making the claim of self
defense had evaluated the circumstances in a way consistent with how a “reasonable
person” would have done it. In other words the person cannot shoot someone and claim
that he or she thought the bouquet of flowers the person was holding was a gun,
because a “reasonable person” wouldn’t have made that mistake. Along the same lines
a person cannot use self defense and say they felt it was their only option if a
“reasonable person” could have been expected to find a different, non-violent solution.
Since this last principle is somewhat open to interpretation this is often the area of the
case in which character witnesses and past history might be used to establish a pattern
of behavior for either the victim or the aggressor.

Self defense laws are complicated and, as mentioned above, they vary from
state to state. That is why it is important to discuss your case thoroughly with your
attorney and to always legitimately try to find a non-violent way out of a dangerous
situation if possible. When trying to understand a self defense case that you hear about
in the news or media, it is also important to realize that in the heat of the moment
people’s judgment and perceptions can be affected.

God’s benevolent concern for humankind. All religions have some idea of the
importance of love. Christian theology stresses the importance of love
because God has revealed that he is love ( 1 John 4:8, 16). Love is both what
God is and what he has done; God always acts in love.
Sources:

(Beutler, 2000, Conclusion section, para. 1)

(Hughes, Brestan, & Valle, 2004)

(Smith, 2004, p. 39)

Carter, A., Dougherty, S., Addington, M., Stanley, R., Stanley, C., Schuffler, G., . . .
Smyrna, B. F. (2004).

Cf. Russo, pp. 144, 145.

De Phil. Mor. Prael., p. 140.

Devas, Political Economy, p. 478. Ibid., p. 893.

Encyclical Letter on the Condition of Labor.

http://modelmugging.org/self-defense-principles/

http://vimeo.com/72277009

Jenkins, S.H., and P.E. Busher. 1979. Castor canadensis.