CHAPTER 1

UNDERSTANDING MORALITY1

Thesis 1: Morality is co-existence. This means that the rightness or the

wrongness of acts or purposes depends on how one stands before the others,
how others stand before him and her and how they stand before the society as a
whole. These relationships bring about the setting up of norms acceptable as
significant in the society and therefore becoming imperative to all.

I. Our Life Experience

We can never deny that we know a fair bit about morality. It is something that we come
to terms with everyday of our life. Easily we can understand the call to be moral. This means
that we can understand, for example, when people tell us to be kind, loving, forgiving, just, etc.
We regret when we fail to realize these virtuous acts, causing us dissatisfaction and unhappiness.
We feel bad when people do not live up to these ideals. We know how to make distinctions
between acts considered as good and those considered as bad, between wrongful and rightful
actions.

Daily in our conversations and in our keeping in touch with reality, we manifest our
concern on the question of morality. Just look at the papers these days today. We can read these:
“The husband of the President of the Philippines is not a upright person.” “There was
widespread cheating in the last national and local election.” “Abortion is wrong.” “Women have
rights to their bodies.” “Hardened criminals lose their right to live.”

Most of the time, we tend to associate morality with concrete acts. However, we know
that it also refers to intentions, dispositions, desires and character (Juan is cruel; he is lazy; he
has a bad mouth; he is malicious). When talking about morality we make different forms of
moral language. We know how to distinguish between different kinds of behavior (Ana is truly
kind; she is respectful of the elders; she is committed to the struggle of the poor for justice and
dignity). Moreover, we know that when we make a moral statement, what we are doing is not
just a simple act of making a factual statement or are we making a neutral statement (e.g., the
house is green). In recognizing that a particular act is immoral, we know that it is something that
commits us to avoid it. On the other hand, when we acknowledge that a particular act is right or
moral, we know that in pursuing it we can be commended and thereby receive honor or praise.
These simply show that morality has a claim on us; it is prescriptive and calls for a sense of
obligation.

1
This chapter is basically taken from Vincent MacNamara’s work, The Truth in Love (Dublin: Gill and
Macmillan, 1988).
For Students Private Use Introduction 2

1. Difficulties Relative to Morality

In spite of our knowledge of what morality is, we know that we are still limited by this
morality talk. We experience difficulties with regard to morality.

1. Difficulty in determining the source of morality. One difficulty we experience is to

determine its source. Where does morality come from? Does it come from God? Does it come
from the Ten Commandments? Related to this problem is how we can link morality to God.

2. Difficulty relative to the question of criterion in the acceptability or the non

acceptability of a particular act or behavior. We have trouble in determining the criterion to
determine why a particular act is good and why it is not. We grapple with the meaning of the
primordial principle: to do what is right and avoid what is evil. It is in the area of determining
what is right or wrong that interests many people about morality. I believe we need to go beyond
particular issues why we say and how we know that things are right or wrong. This means that it
is not only our duty to ask ourselves what is right or wrong in particular acts or behaviors but we
must also ask what is the meaning for us of the words right and wrong and why do we use them.

3. Difficulty regarding the prescriptive character of morality. This means the obligation
that it imposes on us. Why must we do what is right and avoid what is wrong? Where does
morality get its binding force? Since we oftentimes talk of morality in terms of the law of God,
is God the One who makes morality binding?

4. Difficulty in nailing down the point of view. While we cannot deny the existence of a
moral point of view, we still need the language of morality as our recourse in the moral judgment
that we make. Without the language and concepts of morality it is impossible for us to say what
we want to say about ourselves and other people. Besides, without them we cannot describe how
life can best present itself to us. Just think of what would our life be if we live the day without
the language of right, wrong, good, bad, duty, obligation, responsibility, blame, culpability, fault,
etc. In terms of moral language we can avail different perspectives: the language of equality and
mutuality by feminists; the language of liberation by liberation ethics; the language of
sustainability by environmentalist, etc.

We know when we talk about morality and when we are not. Morality is an area in
human life which has a high degree of specificity. This does not mean, however, that the whole
of life will revolve around this area alone.

2. The Deeper Reality in Moral Statements

What is really in the moral statements we make?

Take this example. If one says: “Fried chicken is my favorite viand,” what he/she is
actually saying is that fried chicken is the food he/she likes most. He/She does not really care
whether the others have other favorites. In other words, for him/her it is alright that another
person may like another food. There is nothing wrong with having differences in tastes.
For Students Private Use Introduction 3

However, in our experience, there are certain areas in life in which there is a great deal
involved in what we do or value. In this regard, differences matter a lot. For example, if one
says that “The President is a dishonest person and she cheated in the last election, therefore she
has lost her moral ascendancy to lead the nation,” what he/she saying is that this is not a
desirable human behavior and that it is not perfectly alright to be so. Therefore to hold an
opposite position that it is alright to be dishonest and cheat in the elections is not acceptable.

Looking at the two examples, we can clearly see what is entailed in making moral
statements. In the first example, we can see that making moral statements is not a simple
expression of our tastes or it is simple liking or disliking something or someone, allowing the
other to take an opposite point of view. When we make a moral statement, like what we did in
the second example, what we are actually doing is to say, based our judgment, that there exists
something right or wrong or true or false in the reality at hand or in the event reflected on and
that there is no way an opposite point of view is acceptable. Thus in the statement about the
dishonesty of the President, we are not making such a statement as a mere expression of a
subjective view of her human behavior and that we expect another to affirm it as something
good. Why? It is because moral statements presuppose the existence of objectivity. Holding
this position means, therefore, that when we say that the President is dishonest and a cheater, we
are not saying that a point view opposite us is perfectly alright. In other words, we are firm in
our stance that it is not alright for her to be that. For someone to hold a contrary position, that it
is perfectly alright to be dishonest and a cheater, is not acceptable to us. Following the same suit
in moral statements, if we hold the position that rape is wrong we do not consider others as
justified in holding an opposite point of view, that is, rape is not wrong. The determinateness of
moral statements does not allow for the acceptability of an opposite view point.

There is a truth to be discovered in moral statements. It is a truth that calls for rigidity in
assertion, a truth founded on true relationship of things, people and events. In other words, in the
moral statement we make about the dishonesty of the President, we are expected to give reasons
in order to justify our position. This means that even an expert can show in some sense the
reasonableness of our position in the light of the relationship of events, people and things.

In the statement regarding the immorality of dishonesty and cheating, ideas like respect
for human dignity, sensitivity to the weak, concern for the human development and welfare,
equality, transparency in leadership and other values emerge as fitting the nature of a human
person in leadership. These are different ideas altogether, however, there is a relationship
existing among them. They refer one way or the other to a person in community.

Having said this, we affirm that morality is not a series of commands and prohibitions
coming from the heavens. Morality arises from the human community’s awareness of the claims
and demands of interrelatedness. In other words, morality is all about human co-existence. It is
the search for the acts, attitudes, dispositions––and more fundamentally perhaps the virtues and
institutions––that make for successful being with others. If this is at the heart of morality
therefore we can say that in us is something that wants to be moral, to desire goodness and
righteousness. We fail in our humanity if we do not recognize this fundamental reality in us as
persons because listening to the moral force in us is equal to listening to what is deeply human
in us.
For Students Private Use Introduction 4

3. Etymological Origin

Our discussion shows that the meaning of morality is a reality faithful to its etymological
origin. Morality comes from the Greek word ethos and the Latin word mos.

A. Greek Etymology

The Hellenistic world uses the word ethos with two meanings:  (with epsilon) and
 (with eta). The original seems to be with ethos with  which denotes residence, house, a
place where one lives. Later the word evolves from a simple understanding of the word as
exterior place (a house or a country) to a more interior understanding as attitude. In the
Aristotelian tradition  is understood as mode of being, a character or a style of life which a
person wants to give to his/her human existence. This is not in the passive sense as a
psychological structure but as mode of being that is acquired or incorporated in one’s own
existence. Thus the word would have a more individual ethical tone; it refers more to personality
—the totality of qualities which distinguish a person and which create in him/her a behavior. In
this light, ethos is the font of life which individual acts inherit.

The second meaning of ethos (with ) means habit or custom. More directly it refers to
customs which govern the community. They are principles of co-existence that guide the life of
a polis. Possibly it refers to general norms of conduct such as “honor the gods,” “know
yourself,” “do good,” etc. Perhaps its setting is a cultural period in which the individual is
considered as a member of a social group and consequently he or she must be governed by some
maxims which comprehend a higher educational value for co-existence. Such type of conduct
engenders certain uses or social customs which must motivate identical habits of conduct in each
individual.

In this understanding ethics evokes social conduct, more than an evaluation of actions
which originate from one’s own conscience. However, it is evident that the ethicity (human
activity develops itself in conformity with ethical principles) in each person is enriched in the
measure that he or she interiorizes those moral norms which govern social life while at the same
time one’s personal conduct would be reflected immediately in his/her behavior in the social co-
existence.

B. Latin Etymology

In Latin there is only one word which expresses the two meanings of ethos. This word is
mos which means custom or the natural inclination to do something. Thus moral is defined as
the science of customs. It was Cicero, the famous Roman orator, who invented the Latin word
moralis because he did not want to use the Greek word. Since the Greeks refer to customs with
the word ethos, Cicero proposed to call it de moribus. But later this was enriched by adopting
the word moral. St. Thomas is mainly responsible for this.

Mos can mean two things: at times it means customs (like in the Acts of the Apostles:
“If you are not circumcised according the law of Moses you will not be saved”); at
For Students Private Use Introduction 5

another time it can mean a natural or quasi natural inclination to do something. In this
sense one can say that animals have customs as we read in the Book of Macabees
(“launching oneself above the enemies as the lions often do, they finish with it”), The
word mos has that sense also in Psalm 67: “thy flock found a dwelling in it” But this
double meaning in Latin has only one meaning today. But among the Greeks they have
two distinct meanings as regards  which we translate custom. At times  it is
used with a long letter and is written with  (eta) and at other times it is used with a
brief letter which is written with  (epsilon). The name moral virtue comes from the
word mos in the sense of inclination or quasi natural inclination to do something. The
other meaning of mos is custom. The latter is related to the first because a custom in a
certain sense becomes natural and produces an inclination similar to natural
inclination.2

As a summary, ethics refers to customs and to character or mode of being. Since the
Latin etymology concerns itself more in the treatise on customs and the manuals interest
themselves in them, ethical science must not be limited to this study. Without diminution, it
must help in the creation of customs both individual and social but in the line suggested by St.
Thomas—the moral must preoccupy itself with personality or mode of being, that is, moral
virtue. This quality in modern language is attuned with the Greek understanding of ethos; and,
more than mere conduct or behavior, it evokes fidelity and rectitude in that natural or quasi
natural inclination to act. Ethics and morals in this light therefore will study the principles which
orient the conscience in the search for electing and executing the good in the light of social co-
existence.

C. Distinguishing between Ethics and Morality

Although ethics and morality are often used interchangeably, it is good to make a
distinction between the two of them. This distinction zeroes in on the indication between the
activity of lived experience and the intellectual reflection associated with an academic enterprise.
In light of this distinction, morality refers to what we live while ethics refers to what we study.
When we are continuously engaged in living good lives, we are striving to live in a morally
appropriate way. If we want to stay in course of this undertaking, it is important that we direct
our attention to specific questions about how we ought to act in a given situation, or what is the
right thing to do under the present circumstances. Insofar as we are caught up act in a systematic
consideration of such questions, we are engaged in the study of ethics.

Ethics may be defined as the reflective investigation into what is morally proper to do.
When we talk about morally proper we basically mean here the practice or effort to become ever
more truly and fully human by living peacefully with others or by co-existence with others. Thus
the struggle to be moral is nothing more than just pursuing to be true to human destiny, that is, to
be fully and authentically human through peaceful co-existence.

4. Contradiction between Moral Thrust and Human Energies

In spite of the presence deep within us of a moral thrust, we fail many times to listen to
the call of morality. In other words, many of us refuse to be moral persons. There is in us the
2
Thomas Aquinas, Summa Theologica, I-II, q. 58, a. 1.
For Students Private Use Introduction 6

desire to do or express otherwise; we want to strive toward new identities borne out of egoistic
ambitions and desires. What these demonstrate is that within us is a strong energy that does not
necessarily take into account the others in terms of respect and justice. The drive towards
egoism leads to the building of energies in us, energies that hide behind virtue, goodness and
holiness but when exposed to their pristine truth they are simply a self-serving preoccupation.
Thus, there is the interplay of good and bad in us. We flatter and beg but we manipulate and
create lies to answer our needs. Herein lies the tension between the moral thrust or the desire to
be moral within us and the rest of our human energies. We do not put all our acts together. In
other words, many times in our life, we have not integrated our energies in the service of our
deepest and most complete desires, of the whole human living.

Our refusal to be moral, or better our failure to be moral, is dictated by our own history.
In life we experience problems differently. This difference is determined by how we are able to
cope up with our energies through the years. In other words those energies or drives in us give
shape and momentum to our lives. Our responsibility is not full but rather partly. History
somehow determines us. Our very nature shapes the type of being that we are. We are
determined by the genetic code we inherited from our parents; we are shaped by the type of
environment we grew up; we are configured by that many life experiences we never decided
upon. Yet despite all these, we have to live this life and the different undetermined elements
constituting us. We need to integrate them in our understanding of our moral selves and in our
attempts to be fully human.

It is possible that we may see ourselves as a jumble of different energies and desires
which are conflicting. Many of us see in ourselves a duality, a good and bad self. St. Paul
articulates well this phenomenon about himself: “What I do, I do not understand. For I do not do
what I want, but I do what I hate” (Rom 7:15). Still there are those who see morality as
something imposed from the outside, a heterenomous reality to which they can only agree in
their heads but not in their hearts.

We can not deny the role of philosophy and religion in the way we see things. The
worldview which philosophy and religion present to us brings out in us a stance about reality.
Philosophy and religion influence the way we look at reality: is creation good or evil; must we
trust our material existence; was I born evil; can I still be moral despite my sinful state and many
more. This influence shapes our sense of ourselves and our moral lives. Unfortunately, the
worldview which we inherit portrays a distrust of desire and instinct, the very beautiful this thing
we call life. Evil pervades our human reality and therefore we need the grace and the sacrament
to bring us into our real selves.

We must remember that the very source of our being and doing is our instincts and
energies. Without those urges and instincts it will be impossible for us to survive, to relate, to
create and to become the person we want ourselves to be. We are in process, in the making; we
strive to arise from the mounting energies within us as a personality, a self determined subject
that corresponds to our deepest desires. We struggle towards a life of harmony with others.
These are all possible because of the totality of energies within us which serve to make and shape
us. We cannot go on living if we do not recognize in us the desire to be moral, to be good, to live
virtuously, to be the best that we want for ourselves. To do otherwise is to miss the point of
For Students Private Use Introduction 7

being human, being moral. In this light, let us look at the personal process dynamics where the
question of morality in the person is articulated.

What the preceding discussions show us is that morality is not focused on rules or
behavior as the scope of its reflection rather it has great interest both in the interiority of the
person, that is, his/her character and also in his/her behavior. The things that matters most in
morality are both the person’s being and his/her doing. In other words, moral reflection focuses
on who we are, our being, that is, what is happening on the person who is performing the actions
rather than on the actions themselves. If in morality we talk exclusively of actions we fall into
the pit of regarding them as something produced outside the subject and having an autonomous
existence of their own. Actions are inseparable from the person; they are always expressions of
the human subject. Likewise, if we talk too much on rules in morality, we might lose sight of the
fact that moral life pertains to a way of life that is inspired and guided by the appreciation of
human co-existence. We must remember that we are first called to be loving persons before we
are called to do what is right. Our being precedes our doing (agere sequitur esse).

In moral theology, our being refers to these: “patterns of actions, or the habits we acquire,
the vision we have of life, the values and convictions or beliefs we live by, the intentions we
have, the dispositions which ready us to act as well as the affections which move us to do what
we believe to be right.”3 The question that the importance of being in morality proposes is this:
Because I am with others, then what must be the type of person I should become? This stress on
being is geared at recovering the interiority of the human person as crucial in moral reflection.

However, concentrating on the being of the person, his/her interiority, does not suffice.
There must also be the consideration given to one’s behavior since it is an expression of a
person’s being. Right and wrong actions are produced depending on the type of person who
produces them. Relative to the importance of behavior this question must also be asked in moral
theology: Because I am a person with others, then what type of action must I perform?

The purpose in bringing the phenomenon of doing in moral life is to be able to remedy
the conflicts arising from differences in moral values. Why? This is because moral reflection
will pay attention not only to duties and obligations of the persons acting but also to the
circumstances surrounding their actions. In this regard, the yardstick to be used in conflicting
values will be the norms and principles.

As a summary we can say that by asking the questions as to the type of person one must
become and the type of actions he or she must perform by virtue of his/her co-existence moral
reflections seeks to bring or put forward the need for meaning behind the being and doing in the
complex realities of living in the world. This means therefore that moral reflection is a critical
reflection that looks into the being, action and sense of meaning of the human person in the nitty
gritty of his/her co-existence with others in order arrive at the knowledge of what is morally
good or morally imperative.

3
Richard M. Gula, SS. Reason Informed by Faith: Foundations of Catholic Morality (New York: Paulist
Press, 1986), 7.
For Students Private Use Introduction 8

II. Two Elements Entailed in Morality

When we talk of morality there are two elements which we need to look into. The first
element is the question of judgment we give to human activity: How can we label human activity
as right or wrong? The second element deals with the question of the primordial principle: Why
must we do what is right or good and avoid what is wrong or evil?

1. Judgment We Give to Good or Evil Acts or Purposes

When we say that a particular human act is good or right, what do we mean? When we
talk about right or good and bad or evil we are entering into a value-laden language play. This is
different from a fact language. Let us try to show the difference between the two types of
language. When we say the carabao is black, there will be less discussion about it; however, if
we say the it is a good animal it will not be easy to agree on this statement. Many will argue
otherwise. This simply shows that the good talk is a particular kind of talk.

A person who is good in an art is not necessarily good as a person. One can develop his
or her goodness in one area and in other areas he/she may not. Thus one can be a good mechanic
but a terrible driver. Putting this in the context of morality, one can be good in one aspect of
morality and be terrible in another aspect. For example a father may be kind to his children but
stern to his neighbors. Having a good character or doing good has deeper significance than
being a good driver or a good mechanic. Few will criticize a person from being a poor driver or
mechanic but when it comes to his neglect of duties as person the criticism will altogether be
different. It is in the latter judgment that things really matter a lot. In other words the judgment
we make of a person as being a good mechanic or driver is not in the same category of judgment
that one is good or he/she has a good character.

What the preceding affirmation shows us is that there is such a thing a judgment of a
moral kind and that there is this thing we call moral living and moral character. This is a fact of
life. This level of assessment is recognized in all cultures at all times. In spite of the difference
between how right or wrong may be understood, there is this underlying reality that some kinds
of acts or purposes are either right or wrong. The rightness or the wrongness of the acts or
purposes depends on how one stands before the others, how others stand before him and her and
how they stand before the society as a whole. This relationship brings about the setting up of
norms acceptable as significant in the society and therefore becoming imperative to all.

2. Rationality in Doing What Is Good or Right and Avoiding What Is Wrong or Evil

Relative to the prescriptive element in morality are these questions: What does “cannot”
or “could not” mean? Where does this oughtness come from? Why should we do what is good
and avoid what is evil? These questions force us to sharpen further our ideas what is this matter
we call morality.

Where does morality come from?

For Students Private Use Introduction 9

1. Religion. For some the whole morality has its origin in religion. God is the one who
gave us the moral rules. Inasmuch as the moral rules come from God, it is incumbent that we
have a clear notion of our moral obligation and responsibility. These people believe that a way
of life has been set up by God that we ought to live out. The heavenly rewards await those who
are faithful to this way of life and the eternal punishments in hell would be the fate of those who
are unfaithful. Many people attribute to the Ten Commandments the source of morality. When
people affirm God as the source of morality, what they are actually saying is that in the past what
is right and wrong had been decided already by God.

In the religious realm, we can find that religion does not necessary bring about a
determined ethical behavior. This affirmation is hard to accept especially in some who live in a
culture where there is a strict link between religion and morality. While it is true that there in an
interchangeable link between religion and morality, it is important to note that a religious
experience includes also other manifestations–ritual, institutional, or cultural which go beyond
ethical behavior. Religion is manifested in concrete ways as expression of faith, of confidence,
of gratitude and of praise. However, it may also be said that a religious phenomenon is opposed
absolutely to being confused with moral actions, e.g., justice in commerce with other people or
the expression of the spirit of goodness and service to the needy.

2. Nature of Things. There are others, however, who will attribute the source of morality
to the nature of things. They argue that since directives regarding morality have been given by
God we are on our own to determine the actual working of what is right or wrong. This means
that we are to do what is right and to avoid the wrong because God wills it so. We must follow
this imperative because it is the law of God that we do so. God is the source of moral obligation.

3. Laws and norms. A specific human act is not immoral simply by being illegal in a
particular place or time in history. Behavior backed up by laws may be seen as immoral by
member of a community. Laws can be manipulated by pressure groups. There are times when
laws can no longer respond to the sensibility of the citizens. The contrary is likewise possible at
times–an action morally praiseworthy may be considered illegal and even punishable. The
heroes and martyrs are a clear proof of this contradiction.

4. Social Consensus. What is declared by the majority as acceptable does not mean that
moral behavior is moral. Truth, beauty and will are never the fruits of social consensus.
However, it can happen that at times consensus can strongly attach the will to determined
fundamental ethical values, leaving others in the dark in order to avoid a catastrophe. Social
plausibility does not determine the morality of actions or omissions. A qualitatively significant
adhesion does automatically realize a qualitatively significant change of moral values. There is
something more needed for this to happen. The fear of freedom unleashes a kind of evaluative
unanimity which exempts from reflection and from risk of solitary commitment. The pioneers
and prophets are present to propose some values and duties that are really humanizing and yet
deprived of applause from the majority.

5. Intuitions and Feelings. What t is moral is not rooted in foundation of one’s feelings
or intuition. While it is true that certain attention to subjectivity can help pose the question of the
eventual responsibility and culpability of the person, nobody can judge the inner being of the
For Students Private Use Introduction 10

person except God alone and that the pedagogy of morality has to consider the subjective
repercussions of moral values, it is however possible we make a legitimate moral judgment on
objective moral conduct when we are victims and not agents of immoral conduct.

For us Christians it is difficult to separate our morality from our religion. Certainly, as
believers it is inevitable that our religion will affect our moral life. This simply shows us that
being moral cannot preclude a context. However, the best service we can give to morality is to
distinguish what is moral from our fundamental religious experience. What this points to is this:
there are many people who are convinced that they are moral despite the fact that they are not
believers. Atheists can not be categorically judged to be immoral. Because we are used to
associating morality with our religion, we think that morality is the monopoly of believers only.

Non-believers can not only be moral like us believers but they can also initiate movement
toward moral progress. This is something we Christians must not forget since morality has been
so subordinated to religious tradition. It is in this light that it is important to make a distinction
between faith and morals.

In the succeeding section we shall be discussing the nuances of morality as distinguished

from faith. In the latter part we shall discuss faith and its relationship with morality.

III. Nuances of Morality

1. Morality as a Human Institution

Morality is a human institution; it arises from human situation. Inasmuch as we live

together in community we become aware of the call to be moral. In co-existence in community
we value the meaning and dignity of the person and his/her welfare; we uphold the virtue of
justice and the responsibility of building a just society. To be a true person entails that we relate
with others, a relationship that is built on love, truth, justice, partiality, brotherhood and
sisterhood, compassion and other virtues important in lifting up the human spirit.

The important question we have to face in doing morality or better in trying to live it out
and to defend and teach it is this: what does it mean to be a person? This is indeed a primordial
question which the humankind has continuously addressed since the beginning of its history.
This question is not something that we find within us and after answering we shall be at peace
with ourselves. Rather, this question makes a claim on us. We cannot manipulate how it is to
live as a person. It is something greater than we are; it is significantly marked by a sacred
character. Hence, the religious meaning attached to being a human person. This means that in
knowing how the human person is to live we perceive and experience its utmost importance so
much so that if we do not attend to it we lose the whole weight of being true to ourselves.

By affirming this human striving to know what is the meaning of being a person, we
negate the general belief that the Church has made morality and is therefore responsible for it. It
is not Christianity that has made morality, not the Church, not even God, except in the sense that
He has made us. Morality is more fundamental, more basically human.
For Students Private Use Introduction 11

This implies therefore that if we are teaching morality, we are importing it into the lives
of others. Morality in some sense is there already and what we are trying to do is help people see
it and understand themselves. Our role is to continuously encourage and awaken in people their
own questions about how they can live as human beings. What is the meaning of being human?
How is the human person to live? These questions are native to all of us and we cannot disregard
them nor belittle them. Through these questions the door becomes open even with those people
who have opted to be immoral in their lives. Immoral people still believe that they have the right
to be treated rightly as human persons, that there is way for people to live together.

What is obviously coming out in our discussion is this: there is the basis or source of
morality. The fact that we live together and we strive toward knowing the meaning of what it is
to be human show us that morality is something we have to work out since the fuller implications
of living together need working out too. This working out the implications may come easily but
most of the time it is a tedious and painful undertaking. Differences in the details will be normal.
However, despite the normalcy of differences there will certainly be some agreements on what
morality is all about and on the original source of moral principles.

2. The Autonomy of Morality

Not only is morality human, it also possesses a certain autonomy. By autonomy here we
mean that it makes its own demand: we are moral because we should be moral.

1. Morality does not immediately need religion. We do not need to know God to be moral
or become aware of moral demands. Even if one abandons his/her religion that person still
possesses morality as long as the question of being human is not abandoned. Morality has been
so dominated by religion that many people think that inasmuch as they have given up their faith
they are entitled to be free from being moral. What this shows is a plain misunderstanding of the
origin of morality.

Yes, it is true that if there were no God there would be no morality since our existence
will be impossible. But we must remember that God is not the author of the principle of
morality. Morality is a human reality. What is asked of us by God is that as human beings we
listen to ourselves, listen to the moral call within us.

In spite of what has been said about religion we can never deny the significant role of
religion vis-à-vis morality. It is undeniable that religious tradition may have arrived at certain
conclusions about how one is to be moral, may give support to the whole enterprise of being
moral and may have its own understanding of the ultimate significance of it.

2. For some morality has to do with reward. This means that there are people who see
moral life as directed at attaining reward in the heavenly existence—salvation of the soul. Many
unbelievers are moral despite their non-belief in God or eternal reward in heaven. These people
consider virtue is its own reward. For them the very fact they live their lives with a firm
conviction of being truly human is already a reward. They live well or shall we say morally not
because of an external pressure like hope for a reward or someone has told them to be so but
because they believe in the value of the other and his/her human dignity.
For Students Private Use Introduction 12

Because of the wrong association of morality with eternal reward, Christianity has been
branded as anti-morality since Christians are in effect not interested in morality but the salvation
of their souls. As we have said earlier, morality has its own claim on us. It makes its own
demand. This is expressed in the presence of truth why we are doing something; there is a
humanizing way in co-existence and that there is a form of genuine society that calls for creation.
In this regard, it is not fair to reduce morality to religion, to God’s decree and to eternal reward.
This will not only make it difficult for us to appreciate what morality truly is; it will also devalue
it.

3. Morality is independent of Churches. Morality is both an institution and a human

experience which must be reckoned with and acknowledged by Churches. Churches have
assumed the role of being good teachers of morality and its defenders; because of this they
demand morality from their members. While this is not a debatable matter, this fact does not
necessarily mean that Churches have the monopoly of morality. Churches are not the ones who
make morality nor are they the ones who make things right and wrong. They can only give
opinion on matters as wrong or right only after finding out what it is. However, their
competence in giving opinion like in ordinary life heavily depends on their competence, honesty
and diligence.

We must remember that a particular thing is never right or wrong because a particular
person in authority says so. Things are either right or wrong depending on way we are in the
world. This implies therefore that even though the Churches make statements about morality for
example in the areas of war, marriages, abortion, etc., this cannot affect the morality of the
actions in war, in breach of marital covenant, in killing the fetus. In themselves, these actions are
either right or wrong.

Churches must recognize that in the area of morality there are other people of goodwill.
In this regard there is a challenge to Churches to discover what is best for the human community
by working with men and women of goodwill who are not Christians but honorable, open and
intelligent. This working together must be imbued by a sincere concern to advance the welfare
and well being of society and not to pursue the promotion of an established position.

3. Morality: A Human Search

The human search for morality is continuous. It must be seen as the product of the great
search of the human race right from its very beginning. Since it is an ongoing process of
searching, there must be a room for it to develop in the future. Morality is evolutionary.

Slavery was acceptable before but now it is a great scandal. It is an abomination of the
dignity of the human person. The inferiority of women in some societies is now challenged by a
strong feminist movements that strive towards equality of sexes. Capital punishment considered
as moral in the past is now meeting strong opposition. These are some of the evolutionary
changes taking place in the moral field. More and more throughout the ages the humankind
struggles to tease out what it means to live together. This implies that morality is something
which we all make or, at least, discover. Discovery in morality is not like finding something that
For Students Private Use Introduction 13

is ready made but it means working toward it and figuring things out till we know what is that
that best suits our desire for a satisfactory living together.

Figuring things out relative to morality is a difficult task. Who is to say that a particular
position regarding a moral question is what right and, therefore, not the opposite? In many
traditional societies, the elders of the village are consulted and their wisdom is considered the
norm. But how sure are these elders? How do they know? Again if look at the modern society,
the Church is considered the one who knows. The official Church makes statements regarding
burning issues of the day. But how does the Church know? How about those many events in our
lives where there are many moral situations that the Church does not have any statement at all?
In those issues we have to depend on ourselves; there is no one to go to except perhaps a close
friend. Others will even question accepting that moral knowledge depends on the fallible minds
of another. If we ourselves who have certainty about moral questions do not know the answer
how much more the others. Even faith at times could not provide certain answers. We do not
really know God. Even our future condition we can never know. Yet in spite of this limitation
we try to manage as we best we can. We hope that we can strike at the right answers for
ourselves and for other people under our care.

There are two ways of approaching the question of morality. One is the fixated approach:
morality is something that is already settled or decided by God and now given to the Church to
teach, promote and defend. The other approach is evolutionary: even though the past is an
important factor in life and therefore the need to conserve it, society is in a continuous state of
search and discovery in the area of morality and in many aspects of being human. In the first
approach we can see morality as simply a matter of loyalty to one’s Church. To question what
the Church teaches constitutes as carelessness as to one’s heritage and, at times, an undermining
of the order in Church and society. In the second approach, morality goes beyond mere
obedience and loyalty. It searches for truth in human co-existence, truth about love. It declares
independence from the Churches. The natural law is the epitome of this position. A thing is
wrong not because the law in society says so nor because religion says it too. As far as morality
is concerned there is the prevalence of its independence from institution.

IV. Caveat in Morality

Misinterpretation is something we cannot avoid to confront in morality. This is true most

especially when we look at the inner character of morality. When we say that morality has its
independence from institutions like the State and the Church, we do not mean here that every
person simply makes up his/her own morality, that is, he/she determines for himself/herself what
he/she thinks is moral without any reference to the community and its tradition. The community
is the context where every person learns morality. The moral tradition of the community is part
of its moral wisdom which is handed on from generation to generation.

Morality is taught and in the development of the human person it is insisted. This is the
reason why one does not have to wait to see what is moral and simply accept it within him/her.

There is difference in the degree that morality is lived out. This means that not all are
good in working out the requirements for a moral life or in equally opening oneself to it. There
For Students Private Use Introduction 14

are experts in the science of morality and the living out and teaching of moral life as there are
experts in other fields of human sciences.

In matters of morality one cannot claim that everything is already fine when he/she is
doing what is right and avoiding what is evil. Morality entails more than these. In morality there
is truth to be discovered and this discovery is important not only for the person but also for the
community he/she belongs. This truth carries it with question of meaning as to why one has to
be moral.

In morality we cannot claim that one solution to a moral question is as good as another or
a moral system is as good as another. Differences is an integral element in morality. We are a
product of our history and the changes in our lives bring about the differences. For example a
Christian will think about morality differently than a Marxist. A Christian will have work out
his/her morality within a Christian vision of life. He/She will have to see morality as the law of
God and his/her reasons for being moral cannot avoid the influence of religious reasons.
Moreover, a Christian will have to see his/her morality as significant for his/her relationship with
the divine. It is under this dispensation that the specific content to one’s Christian morality may
be found. Definitely these will not be so for a Marxist.

IV. A Summary

What we have done so far in this chapter is to establish some preliminary points about the
basic meaning of morality as well as its source. We have affirmed that all of us in whatever
cultures we belong have a kind of unreflective morality. It is good that we continuously ask
ourselves questions for this will make us more aware about morality as well as more conscious
of our processes in doing morality. However, we have not yet answered the question how we
must live. It is in this regard that our task as individuals in moral life is to listen to our
experience and grow in openness to it, to do the truth in love. As a community our moral task is
to encourage the individual to interpret this experience aright and be able to respond to it. This
means that morality is a vocation; it is a task in continuous education.