Beruin, Laurence C. Dr.

Alex Tenorio, PhD

MA-TSS
1. How can the concept of good be defined from rationality and experience?

Good = Rationality Based on Well-being + Experience

Good, according to Merriam-Webster Dictionary, is defined as something

conforming to the moral order of the universe. When you ask a person to explain what can
be considered as good, most people will assume the same definition. The term good is
always equated on what is morally right. One is good if one follows the teachings of a
particular belief system. Our belief system tends to be the guiding on what, why, and how
can a person be considered good. However, following Aristotle’s belief, the idea of what
is good (or the highest good) can be more than the act of having friends, following the Ten
Commandments or abiding the law, because being good or attaining the good must come
from the context of human flourishing or eudaimonia.
Man, to attain the good, must attain a state human flourishing. We are to believe
that we are doing specific social actions (e.g. buy and eat food, buy a house, get a car)
not because of personal interests but in Aristotelian belief, those actions will lead to the
state of human flourishing or well-being. This is where Bentham’s principle of utility shall
take the spotlight. The said principle states that our (rational) actions are right as they
promote happiness and pleasure. Humans will always choose a social action based on
how he/she will benefit from it. When it comes to our own welfare or well-being, our
reasoning will always point to that beneficial option. Yet, as we are well-aware off, humans
are not molded to believe something as beneficial if they only have experienced it once.
Hume’s context on the importance of sufficient experiences will serve as a requisite in
supporting the relevance of decisions based on one’s well-being.
Thus, to explain what is good, is to explain the rationality on decisions based off
an individual’s well-being proven through sufficient (and repetitive) experience.

2. How is utilitarianism evident in the Lakas-ng-Loób/Bahala na Filipino trait?

Utilitarianism is the doctrine that man’s worldly happiness is the only good. It
prioritizes the well-being of the majority of the people regardless of the consequence, and
follows the mantra that “The end justifies the means”. The greatest happiness for the
greatest number, so to speak, as it considers the weight of the majority and their happiness
as opposed to one or few individual. The philosophy of utilitarianism was the guiding
principle amongst welfare states in Europe and most developed nations by focusing on
creating and implementing laws and policies that will benefit the majority. For a developing
country like ours in which personal interests of the privileged few is being favored by the
government, the greatest happiness of all Filipinos for all the Filipinos can be a wishful
thinking. The idea of us becoming a welfare state by employing social and political reforms
for all Filipinos feels like a dream that is still out of grasp.
While the idea of achieving a welfare state through utilitarian principle was
nowhere in sight, the core value of what utilitarianism is already present in one of our
Filipino traits which is the lakas-ng-loob/bahala na mentality. According to Reyes’ article
 entitled “Loób and Kapwa: An Introduction to a Filipino Virtue Ethics”, Lakas-ng-
Loób/Bahala na (positively translated as courage to face uncertainty) is not blind fatalism
or just any act of courage but rather, a courage of self-sacrifice for kinship group. Rooted
on the value of kapwa (together with other person), Lakas-ng-Loób/Bahala na presents
the idea that Filipinos are willing to sacrifice not just for himself but for the greater good.
Much like how Rizal and Aquino displayed their Lakas-ng-Loób/Bahala na mentality
despite their possible (inevitable) deaths looming at the corner, they took the risk and died
but for the welfare of the nation. His paper also used OFWs as modern examples of
Filipinos displaying their Lakas-ng-Loób/Bahala na mentality. This mentality was display
in a way that regardless of the uncertainties upon entering a foreign land for the first time,
what’s important is the welfare of their families who were left in the country. For the sake
of a better future for his/her family, an OFW is willing to take a risk. One can be ready to
sacrifice the comforts of his/her home to provide happiness in terms of financial stability
and a possibility of a better standards of living, something this country alone cannot
provide. More than 10% of the total Filipino population, all left and will still leave the country
with this type of attitude.
In essence, we Filipinos possess the trait needed to create a nation that will benefit
most, if not all, Filipinos. While Lakas-ng-Loób/Bahala na mentality is aptly presented in a
more personal depiction, if placed into a larger context, we can be willing to do things for
the common good. If we can be willing to transcend the Lakas-ng-Loób/Bahala na
mentality from the confines of one’s household to the realms of this under-developed
nation, there is still hope in seeing a country bounded by the genuine will of the majority.

Sources
https://www.academia.edu/8607601/Lo%C3%B3b_and_Kapwa_An_Introduction_to_a_Filipi
no_Virtue_Ethics
https://revisesociology.com/2017/01/26/max-webers-social-action-theory/