CONCLUSIONS

“Man’s moral life is too complex to be explained completely by any theory.

Any system of morality somehow always misses something. No matter how profound,

how careful, how tightly reasoned any moral philosophy or any logically oriented

system maybe, they all seem somehow fundamentally inadequate,”1 as recognized by

Archimedes Articulo. True enough, no moral theory can completely encompass man’s

multifaceted life, in one way or another they lack something, no theory can absolutely

claim to be the supreme standard of morality.

In the discussion in previous chapters, Kant gave an outstanding fundamental

moral principle, an a priori principle, whereupon man’s dignity as a rational being was

but given importance, but went to the extreme that man himself was isolated from the

act which he has performed, as if man is not liable for the end he has caused, then

again,

his achievement was monumental. It may very well be that his mistakes along
the way were more important than most men’s successes, but what is beyond
question is that although it is not necessary to accept everything that Kant said,
it is nevertheless virtually impossible to philosophize today without taking his
views into account,2

1
Archimedes C. Articulo, Moral Philosophy (Quezon City: Great Books
Publishing, 2005), 137. Hereafter cited as Moral.
2
Samuel Enoch Stumpf, Socrates to Sartre: A History of Philosophy, 3rd
Edition (New York: McGraw Hill Book Company, 1982), 309. Hereafter cited as
Socrates to Sartre.
 66

as stated by Samuel Enoch Stumpf, though he was pertaining to the whole of Kant’s

philosophy, the same must be given regarding his moral philosophy, it being a part of

the whole of his philosophy, and because of its impact upon moral views; as presented

by Articulo: the whole of Kant’s concept of humanity, reduced to a ‘simple moral

slogan,’ ‘always respect the rights and dignity of man’; that of the principle of

universalizability, ‘do unto others what you want others do unto you’; and the whole

of Kantian ethics, a memorable imperative and a moral standard, ‘the end does not

justify the means’.3 Kant’s moral philosophy has influenced much.

Mill’s moral philosophy also values man’s dignity, believing that man should

develop himself in order to make accurate moral decisions, that all be treated with

equality; one as important as the other, considering all in moral decision making,

though the sole criterion of his moral philosophy remains to be happiness (something

that must have been gotten a posteriori, that is, through experience, as man really does

seek happiness), wherein he went to the extreme, as his moral philosophy is utilitarian,

making man, again, remote from his acts; man’s motives, intentions, that which makes

him act, to be of no worth, that is, part of man himself. This too has influenced much,

for good and for bad.

Kant warns man that mere emotions and passions may lead man astray, and

thus, we must use reason.4 Mill, on the other hand, believes that man’s reason must be

3
Cf. Articulo, Moral, 141-142.
 67

accompanied by the cultivation of emotion.5 There are but truths in the statements, and

both must be considered; reason cannot stand alone as it may go too far from what is

real; emotions or feelings cannot also be on their own, for that would reduce man to a

mere animal; both must guide, complement each other in decision making, to be

rational and not impractical, to be man, that is, of reason and emotion.

Both went to the extreme, disregarding some of the elements of human acts,

there is no question here that both must be considered; that of the consequence and

that of the motive, and other elements as well, to guide actions. In performing an act,

there is always an end sought for which the act was performed, such is true, and that

which makes it good or bad depends upon the motive of the person and the

consequence done; a beneficial result may come out though with evil intentions, and

acts done with good intentions do not always result to a favorable end. True enough,

on their own, what is good is good and what is evil is evil, but there are still things to

be considered. An act must not be seen only as an act, but also as performed by a doer,

and the doer as morally responsible for the consequences of his acts.

This might as well then be considered, as drawn from the discussion: the

pursuit of happiness remains, as it is the goal of man, to be happy, man does

something as he knows that it will bring him happiness, in this world or/and in the

4
Cf. Ibid., 104-105.
5
Cf. Frederick Copleston, A History of Philosophy: Book Three (New York:
Image Books, 1985), 26; Stumpf, Socrates to Sartre, 344-345.
 68

next, but not that of mere happiness, but that of the ‘good,’ moreover, the summum

bonum, as the end sought. The goodwill must also be retained, but not in the strict

sense of doing things for the sake of duty, but that of good intentions guided by a

fundamental moral principle, that of reason and emotion, considering all and the well-

being of all, taking into account the situation, and valuing the dignity in man. The

development of self must well then be retained, as it is he who acts. And, in addition,

to recognize the existence of a Supreme Being who has much to do in man’s

conception of morality. Value the end, means, and intention. Though with no definite

principle, it can still serve as guide in moral decision making.

The end of which is uncertain, but then again, the end looked forward to is

such, with that of Kant as stated by Ramon Reyes,

With faith in man’s capacity and freedom to act in the empirical world and in
history as demanded by morality, and with faith in the existence of God, Who
is all good and the author of all nature, and with faith in personal immortality
and a future life, I hope for a future world of perpetual peace and happiness
where, under the spirit of the moral law, a system of just laws will govern
relations among men and the use of the goods of nature, and there shall be a
community of freedom and reciprocity which includes all men and all nations.6

The Good is sought, man is to act to better himself and others, and be

responsible for his actions.

6
Ramon Castillo Reyes, Ground and Norm of Morality: Ethics for College
Students (Manila: Ateneo de Manila University Press, 1989), 66.