The
devastation brought about by monster typhoon Yolanda came as a surprise not
only to the Filipino nation but to the whole
world as well. Everyone was shocked by the aftermath of the typhoon most
specially in the city of Tacloban which was given much attention by different
local and international media organizations. The survivors gained a bit of
favorable media mileage to clamor on their condition and eventually won the
sentiments of the citizens of the world, not only the Filipinos’. Material and
financial help were outpouring from both ends of the world. Different
organizations got themselves busy with different fund raisers to beef up the
aid soon to be deployed in many relief operations. Unfortunately, all these
good intents and good works were put on a halt by the difficulty in distributing
the so-called humanitarian help with urgency due to limited transportation to
forward goods, lack of manpower to do the jobs, obstructed roads, to name a few
reasons. Due to the unwanted delay of relief operations, if I may say that,
people started to get hungry and fought for their own survival. With the
emergence of the civil unrest, looting had become an option for many. At this
point, many a few felt so frustrated with the robbers and the robbed
commodities. Some were heard defending the cause of the stealers; some were
heard demeaning the looters.
The determinants of morality are
enumerated, viz., the act itself
(object), the end of the agent (end),
and the circumstances other than the
end of the agent (circumstance). For an act to be morally good, the three
criteria must be present and established to be good. Hence, an act is morally good
act only if the act is good in itself, in its end and in its circumstances,
says Paul Glenn. Further, Glenn added that the object or act itself is the primary
determinant of morality; that if the object is evil, nothing can make it good.[1]
Applying these rules on the looting incidents in Tacloban, we can say that the
acts are indeed morally evil. For one, stealing is intrinsically evil. The
seventh and tenth commandment clearly state: “Thou shall not steal.” and “Thou
shall not covet your neighbors’ goods.” These laws are considered Divine Law
authored by God Himself; as such, the highest law. Noncompliance to these laws
are grievous and evil. Furthermore, the evil act of stealing can never become
good by the intention of the looters – for survival. The famous line “the end
justifies the means” seem to be obsolete here; instead, we might say, the end
should specify the means. Lastly, the dreadful conditions of Tacloban can never
turn stealing into morally good act. With these, we can tag these looters
immoral. However, our quest must not end here.
Going back to the fundamentals of
ethics, only human acts can be subjected to the evaluation of morality. An act
is human act if it is done with knowledge, freedom and voluntariness.
Obviously, looting was done with consciousness on the part of the survivors.
Likewise, doing the looting is comprehended as willed by them. However, freedom
as an essential part of human act on the part of the looters is quite gray.
Hard Determinism would tell us that since everything has causes that determine
it to be what it is, there is no real freedom. Hence, people must not be held
morally responsible for their actions.[2]
In the case of Tacloban, looting was caused by shortage of supplies. With the
situation they were in, there seemed to be no choice left for the survivors but
to steal others good for their prolonged existence. In here, a window is opened
for us to glance at and be convinced that the act of stealing committed in the
ravaged area of Tacloban undeniably fell short on the requirements for it to be
considered human act. Henceforth, the looters must not be scrutinized, with
regard to morality, for their act is now considered act of man.
With these opposing views at hand,
we might want to refer ourselves to our scripture and see what could be the
best thing to do to reconcile the difference. In an encounter of Jesus with the
scribes and Pharisees when He restored the withered hand of a man, Jesus asked
them, knowing the thoughts of the scribes and Pharisees: “Is it lawful on the
Sabbath days to do good, or to do evil? To save life, or to destroy it? (cf.
Gospel of Matthew) In another occasion, when the Pharisees saw the hungered
disciples pick grains for them to eat on a Sabbath, Jesus said unto them, “Have
you not read what David did when he and his men were hungry? He entered into
the house of God, and did eat the showbread, which was not lawful for him to
eat, neither for them which were with him, but only for the priests? Or have you
not read in the law, how that on the Sabbath days the priests in the temple
profane the Sabbath, and are blameless? But I say unto you, something here is
greater than the temple. The scripture says that it is kindness that I want,
not sacrifices.” (cf. Gospel of Matthew) Clearly, we are encouraged by these
passages to respond like Jesus in the parables who proposed charity and value
for life, instead. In this trying times, we must extend not only our helping
hands but our sympathies to the survivors without being judgmental. Yes, we
must preserve the law and order, but more than that we must maintain in
ourselves some kindness and a bit of sacrificing. Our moderator group, Oratio,
was prompted by this tragedy to savor our substantial work of week-long prayer
for the victims with some good concrete deeds of packing our humble used good
clothes (those which we hardly give away) for them. Ours is surely not enough
but such little acts of charity tendered collectively could offer remedy for
their rubbed identity.
Walang komento:
Mag-post ng isang Komento