Critical Reaction: “Thinking Ethically” by Velasquez, et al
The theme of the article was that although it is difficult to deal with moral issues, there are guidelines to help make the process easier. Listed in the article were five different approaches to resolving an ethical issue successfully: The Utilitarian Approach, The Rights Approach, The Fairness or Justice Approach, The Common Good Approach, and The Virtue Approach.
The Utilitarian Approach, formulated in the 19th century is based on the idea that ethical actions are those that provide the greatest balance of good over evil. In this approach, the goal is to weigh the options and effects in an ethical situation and then to choose the action with the least harm and greatest benefits.
The Rights Approach is solely committed to serving the individual. It promises individuals their rights, or “justified claims on others” (“Rights” article by Velasquez, et. Al). In other words, the rights given to individuals directly affect other people. The article “Rights” by Velasquez, et. al gave this example:
“If I have a right to freedom, then I have a justified claim to be left alone by others. Turned around, I can say that others have a duty or responsibility to leave me alone.”
Philosophers who support this approach suggest that human beings are set apart from other beings because of their ability to choose what they will do with their lives. These philosophers claim that it is because of this freedom of choice that gives humans the moral right to have their choices respected.
Next, the Fairness or Justice Approach is rooted in Aristotle’s teaching. Aristotle, a Greek philosopher, believed that “equals should be treated equally and unequal unequally.” This type of thinking tends to be very complicated, however, because it is difficult to measure fairness and even more difficult to maintain a level of fairness with all people. As humans, we are imperfect and thus have a tendency to show favoritism to people, while at the same time discriminate against others. It is virtually impossible to promote equality among all people.
The Common Good Approach describes a notion that originated more than 2,000 years ago. It seeks to provide everyone—regardless of social status, income, etc-- with the same resources, policies, social systems, and institutions. According to ethicist John Rawls, the common good is “certain general conditions that are…equally to everyone’s advantage.”
Finally, the Virtue Approach seeks to provide and promote rich and pure character, above all else. Virtues such as honesty, courage, compassion, generosity, fidelity, integrity, fairness, self-control, and prudence are ones that hold high esteem and priority in this particular approach. The approach causes one to reflect on the way he or she is living, communicating with others, dealing with problems, and overall maintaining a level of virtue. The idea is that the more virtuous a person is, the more ethical he is. A virtuous person is able to clearly and confidently solve problems, confronting wisely and gently when necessary.
Wednesday, March 12, 2008
ETHICAL RELATIVISM - A. Flores
This paper begin with a parroted summary of Velasquez and etal’s work and a personal reaction. In gist, Velasquez and etal argues: “cultures differ widely in their moral practices.” They emphasize this becomes problematic because ranges of social practices considered morally acceptable in some societies are condemned in others. The practice of infanticide, polygamy, sexism and torture leads us to question whether there are many universal moral principles or whether morality is merely a mater of “‘cultural taste.’” Morality is relative to the norms of one’s culture and the only moral standards against which a society practices can be judged are its own – the theory of ethical relativism. It is cautioned by Velasquez that a possibility of no common framework for resolving moral disputes is present or reaching agreement for ethical matter among member of different societies may be theoretically – “Utopian.”
Velasquez and etal warns that most ethicists reject the theory of ethical relativism. Societies may differ in their application of fundamental moral principles but agree on the principles. Simply because some practices are relative, it does not mean that all practices are relative. As a theory for justifying moral practices and beliefs, ethical relativism fails to recognize that some societies have better reasons for holding their view than others. However, the authors conclude it must be acknowledged that the concept of ethical relativism raises important issues. Ethical relativism reminds us that different societies have different moral beliefs and that our beliefs are deeply influenced by culture – we need to challenge beliefs and values we hold.
----
Velasquez and etal’s piece of Ethical Relativism just added more confusion (more windows) to my personal perspective of ethics. Not that I’m confused at the lexical definition of what ethics is, but that I have gleaned from their paper are more ethical-provoking questions rather than guiding answers.
I believe that every member of humanity should act ethically otherwise without ethics a societal ruin could take place. A most recent, and excellent example, of “ruin” due to lack of ethics is the Enron case. The lives of people that they were slowly building up (for years) for themselves and for their families disappeared - gone, stolen. In this case, if the “corporate thieves” had any “ethics,” (I’m sure these corporate WASP can argue that they have greater “Christian morals” than I do since they are, WASP) the victims would not have gone through their terrible ordeal. However, here is the problem.
When I say, “ethics,” whose ethics should I apply when I look at cases like Enron? Were the victims inalienable rights affected? Were the corporate CEO practices immoral or just practicing paternalism for the victim’s inalienable rights? Isn’t it preached that large business ethics is to get the most out of everyone, no matter how you achieve this?
As an undergraduate student, who is living in the miniscule island of Oahu, a minority when if comes to my ethnicity and my religion - how do I apply ethics when I view the war in Iraq, the situation of Smoky Mountains in Manila, cloning, and the Miss Universe pageant? In what sense can viewpoint values learned from my culture relevant when I make an accounting of the situations mentioned? Also, growing up locally in Hawaii has produced in me several beliefs created by sub-cultures that affect my decision-making. So obviously, ethical decision making which is a part of human life can be, tacitly, guided by culture. But then, someone who is strongly attached to a religious culture is strongly guided orally – by oral traditions for decision-making.
Again, and again, and again, in what sense can we hold onto cultural relativism as a framework for ethical conduct? The simple answer, it is difficult.
Velasquez cautioned that criticism for ethical relativism is its implication for individual moral beliefs because this leads to the assertion that if the rightness or wrongness of an action depends on a society’s norm, then it follows that one must obey the norms of one’s society and to diverge from those norms is to act immorally. To add, ethical relativism leads to the assertion that universal moral standards can exist even if some moral practices and beliefs vary among cultures.
The White’s in South Africa obviously believed apartheid was moral.
I have always leaned on self-choice, Kant’s volition of self-determination, and never agreed with paternalism (although I practice this hypocritically on my children). So can we use Kant’s categorical imperative to make decisions? With Velasquez’ article, I am now more divided than ever. Reaching agreement for ethical matter among member of different societies may be theoretically, as I referred to earlier “Utopian.” Can it be accomplished?
Velasquez and etal warns that most ethicists reject the theory of ethical relativism. Societies may differ in their application of fundamental moral principles but agree on the principles. Simply because some practices are relative, it does not mean that all practices are relative. As a theory for justifying moral practices and beliefs, ethical relativism fails to recognize that some societies have better reasons for holding their view than others. However, the authors conclude it must be acknowledged that the concept of ethical relativism raises important issues. Ethical relativism reminds us that different societies have different moral beliefs and that our beliefs are deeply influenced by culture – we need to challenge beliefs and values we hold.
----
Velasquez and etal’s piece of Ethical Relativism just added more confusion (more windows) to my personal perspective of ethics. Not that I’m confused at the lexical definition of what ethics is, but that I have gleaned from their paper are more ethical-provoking questions rather than guiding answers.
I believe that every member of humanity should act ethically otherwise without ethics a societal ruin could take place. A most recent, and excellent example, of “ruin” due to lack of ethics is the Enron case. The lives of people that they were slowly building up (for years) for themselves and for their families disappeared - gone, stolen. In this case, if the “corporate thieves” had any “ethics,” (I’m sure these corporate WASP can argue that they have greater “Christian morals” than I do since they are, WASP) the victims would not have gone through their terrible ordeal. However, here is the problem.
When I say, “ethics,” whose ethics should I apply when I look at cases like Enron? Were the victims inalienable rights affected? Were the corporate CEO practices immoral or just practicing paternalism for the victim’s inalienable rights? Isn’t it preached that large business ethics is to get the most out of everyone, no matter how you achieve this?
As an undergraduate student, who is living in the miniscule island of Oahu, a minority when if comes to my ethnicity and my religion - how do I apply ethics when I view the war in Iraq, the situation of Smoky Mountains in Manila, cloning, and the Miss Universe pageant? In what sense can viewpoint values learned from my culture relevant when I make an accounting of the situations mentioned? Also, growing up locally in Hawaii has produced in me several beliefs created by sub-cultures that affect my decision-making. So obviously, ethical decision making which is a part of human life can be, tacitly, guided by culture. But then, someone who is strongly attached to a religious culture is strongly guided orally – by oral traditions for decision-making.
Again, and again, and again, in what sense can we hold onto cultural relativism as a framework for ethical conduct? The simple answer, it is difficult.
Velasquez cautioned that criticism for ethical relativism is its implication for individual moral beliefs because this leads to the assertion that if the rightness or wrongness of an action depends on a society’s norm, then it follows that one must obey the norms of one’s society and to diverge from those norms is to act immorally. To add, ethical relativism leads to the assertion that universal moral standards can exist even if some moral practices and beliefs vary among cultures.
The White’s in South Africa obviously believed apartheid was moral.
I have always leaned on self-choice, Kant’s volition of self-determination, and never agreed with paternalism (although I practice this hypocritically on my children). So can we use Kant’s categorical imperative to make decisions? With Velasquez’ article, I am now more divided than ever. Reaching agreement for ethical matter among member of different societies may be theoretically, as I referred to earlier “Utopian.” Can it be accomplished?
REACTION TO AMERICAN ADOBO - A. Flores
SUMMARY: The film is a story centered on a group of Filipino “close friends.” The story focuses on each individuals “drama” as they endeavor to reach their mission or personal goal. As they go through a life-changing ordeal they get to see a different perspective of themselves. In the end, the characters seemed to have corrected perceptions of themselves by others and they become “at peace” with themselves.
REACTION: I will start my reaction with two questions. Is the movie a correct portrayal of migratory Filipinos? Were they honestly at peace with themselves at the end? Before I proceed, just agree with me that, historically, the movie made an impact in some major American cities. My rationale: attentions were given to American Adobo by being nominated in some major categorical movie-award. With all the attention given to the movie, many non-Filipino viewers may have had (excuse the pun) a taste of the Filipino lifestyle.
The old saying is true. “Birds of a feather flock together,” meaning people are attracted to others who are like themselves. In the film context, all characters were somewhat affluent Filipino professionals living in a large American city. This setting is plausible. Here is my reservation.
Beside World War II films, I can’t remember any big-budget film portraying Filipinos. If such is the case, won’t Mr. John Smith, who lives in New York, never been to the Philippines, never been exposed to any Pinoy-movies or Filipino culture, develop some sort of stereotypes of Filipinos. Filipinos who comes to America always makes it – they become materially wealthy. The danger in the portrayal may push the thousands of migrated Filipinos in the United States who are living paycheck-to-paycheck into the world of shame since they “did not make it.” It may lead them or encourage the Filipinos to pursue the character’s lifestyle, to get caught up in materialism - even if you cannot afford it.
Other stereotypes in the subtext of the film include the Filipinos to be carnally interested in people with Nordic-stock. This is shown from the plot lines were one of the character questions whether to maintain a relationship with her unfaithful white-boyfriend. A gay-male “lives for” a sickly white-male-friend. A character who is supposedly to be the most intuitive, keeps asking what sounded like an uninterested white-male on the phone for dates (she marries a white-Amerikano in the end). And lastly, a sexually active young man is first seen with a “clueless blond” and also end up with a blond. Except for the last, this plotline just sounds like a marketing ploy to all white-men to go to the RP where they can easily find a “partner.” And not only can they find a “more than willing” or a desperate partner, they can find (what all Filipinos are) - sadist. All Filipinos will tolerate anything in a relationship.
Through American Adobo, Mr. Smith is programmed to believe that he will have the freedom to engage in infidelity with a Filipino partner. Just sing her a song and she will forgive. When you are old or if you get sick, your Filipino-partner becomes an instant nursemaid. They are as devoted to their partners as they are devoted to their religion.
And the final stereotype, there are three “sexes” in the Philippines – male, female, and gay. I have many Filipino-gays inform me that they are convinced homosexuality is tolerated in the Philippines. “Normal dayta [it’s normal], why do you think all Filipino movies always have a gay character in it?” My question then (based on the movie), it is okay to have a Filipino-White gay relationship, but not Filipino-Filipino gay relationship? The newspaper editor somewhat suggested to his male friend that he was not interested in a platonic relationship. However, he could be a “mommy-partner” by checking on his friend’s children now and then.
From this thought, comes this thought. Are Filipinos only needed for favors? Yes, I know enough of the culture why the editor asked his gay friend to look after his children, but it is the subtext from that scene. First he angrily preached to his wife that the maid is a human being, a better human being although a maid, because of the goodness in her heart. His psychotic, materialistic, bossy wife should not treat the maid as sub-human. But then, the gay character is just a person who can do him a favor, not some he can return his love to, what his friend really wanted for years. The editor and his wife become, in subtext, both masochists. Must all Filipinos be portrayed as living a life of drama, as sadist, or sadist-dramatist? Could character in Filipino films be really at peace when they are still performing task for neo-colonialist who now have different tactics? That is my problem with American Adobo
I will end this paper referring to one of my initial questions. Were the people in the film honestly at peace with themselves in the end? Can the portrayals of Filipinos in American Adobo affect how Filipinos (in the worldwide diaspora) can honestly find peace in themselves?
REACTION: I will start my reaction with two questions. Is the movie a correct portrayal of migratory Filipinos? Were they honestly at peace with themselves at the end? Before I proceed, just agree with me that, historically, the movie made an impact in some major American cities. My rationale: attentions were given to American Adobo by being nominated in some major categorical movie-award. With all the attention given to the movie, many non-Filipino viewers may have had (excuse the pun) a taste of the Filipino lifestyle.
The old saying is true. “Birds of a feather flock together,” meaning people are attracted to others who are like themselves. In the film context, all characters were somewhat affluent Filipino professionals living in a large American city. This setting is plausible. Here is my reservation.
Beside World War II films, I can’t remember any big-budget film portraying Filipinos. If such is the case, won’t Mr. John Smith, who lives in New York, never been to the Philippines, never been exposed to any Pinoy-movies or Filipino culture, develop some sort of stereotypes of Filipinos. Filipinos who comes to America always makes it – they become materially wealthy. The danger in the portrayal may push the thousands of migrated Filipinos in the United States who are living paycheck-to-paycheck into the world of shame since they “did not make it.” It may lead them or encourage the Filipinos to pursue the character’s lifestyle, to get caught up in materialism - even if you cannot afford it.
Other stereotypes in the subtext of the film include the Filipinos to be carnally interested in people with Nordic-stock. This is shown from the plot lines were one of the character questions whether to maintain a relationship with her unfaithful white-boyfriend. A gay-male “lives for” a sickly white-male-friend. A character who is supposedly to be the most intuitive, keeps asking what sounded like an uninterested white-male on the phone for dates (she marries a white-Amerikano in the end). And lastly, a sexually active young man is first seen with a “clueless blond” and also end up with a blond. Except for the last, this plotline just sounds like a marketing ploy to all white-men to go to the RP where they can easily find a “partner.” And not only can they find a “more than willing” or a desperate partner, they can find (what all Filipinos are) - sadist. All Filipinos will tolerate anything in a relationship.
Through American Adobo, Mr. Smith is programmed to believe that he will have the freedom to engage in infidelity with a Filipino partner. Just sing her a song and she will forgive. When you are old or if you get sick, your Filipino-partner becomes an instant nursemaid. They are as devoted to their partners as they are devoted to their religion.
And the final stereotype, there are three “sexes” in the Philippines – male, female, and gay. I have many Filipino-gays inform me that they are convinced homosexuality is tolerated in the Philippines. “Normal dayta [it’s normal], why do you think all Filipino movies always have a gay character in it?” My question then (based on the movie), it is okay to have a Filipino-White gay relationship, but not Filipino-Filipino gay relationship? The newspaper editor somewhat suggested to his male friend that he was not interested in a platonic relationship. However, he could be a “mommy-partner” by checking on his friend’s children now and then.
From this thought, comes this thought. Are Filipinos only needed for favors? Yes, I know enough of the culture why the editor asked his gay friend to look after his children, but it is the subtext from that scene. First he angrily preached to his wife that the maid is a human being, a better human being although a maid, because of the goodness in her heart. His psychotic, materialistic, bossy wife should not treat the maid as sub-human. But then, the gay character is just a person who can do him a favor, not some he can return his love to, what his friend really wanted for years. The editor and his wife become, in subtext, both masochists. Must all Filipinos be portrayed as living a life of drama, as sadist, or sadist-dramatist? Could character in Filipino films be really at peace when they are still performing task for neo-colonialist who now have different tactics? That is my problem with American Adobo
I will end this paper referring to one of my initial questions. Were the people in the film honestly at peace with themselves in the end? Can the portrayals of Filipinos in American Adobo affect how Filipinos (in the worldwide diaspora) can honestly find peace in themselves?
NAILED & BONTOC - A. Flores
CRITICAL REFLECTION TO: NAILED & BONTOC
BONTOC
Bontoc is in line with Linton’s writing questioning the media’s ability to influence audience members. The danger he claims is that the presented media-material has a “direct and virtually inescapable impact.” And if there is no direct impact, “the media [in this case the film] could have indirect effects ‘by shaping the materials of knowledge, norms, and judgments which people acquire and then apply in everyday life.” The lack of detachment and lack of self-consciousness of this relationship between the viewer and the screen world cause him or her to the activities and events portrayed as more real than imaginary.
And that is exactly what Bontoc was warning against. Besides the immoral point of almost “kidnapping” human beings from their environments to be used as commodity for-profit (“Two Filipinos died from freezing in the train car”) the US clips, if one was to believe Linton’s article – portrayed Filipinos as vicious, tribal, dog-eaters. What some in mainstream America now believes.
NAILED
With my attached essay for ethical relativism, although I hate the notion that the colonialist ingrained in the Filipinos’ mental belief that the immoral practice of annually nailing someone is moral – from a religious culture, I have to go with liberty. The film should have been entitled “SCREWED,” - by the Catholic colonialist.
I have every reason to say the practice to be abhorrent, but hey, it is her religion. It is her choice. Beneficence prevail, because of the STRONG belief, although may be considered by some as deluded, that everything is momentary. Everything is temporary. Every suffering is rewarded for the next life awaiting in Utopia.
The more pain, such as whipping, the more absolution, hence your reward will be great. This is why we have extremist Muslims not afraid to, dare I say, perform what others may call immoral acts of terrorism.
BONTOC
Bontoc is in line with Linton’s writing questioning the media’s ability to influence audience members. The danger he claims is that the presented media-material has a “direct and virtually inescapable impact.” And if there is no direct impact, “the media [in this case the film] could have indirect effects ‘by shaping the materials of knowledge, norms, and judgments which people acquire and then apply in everyday life.” The lack of detachment and lack of self-consciousness of this relationship between the viewer and the screen world cause him or her to the activities and events portrayed as more real than imaginary.
And that is exactly what Bontoc was warning against. Besides the immoral point of almost “kidnapping” human beings from their environments to be used as commodity for-profit (“Two Filipinos died from freezing in the train car”) the US clips, if one was to believe Linton’s article – portrayed Filipinos as vicious, tribal, dog-eaters. What some in mainstream America now believes.
NAILED
With my attached essay for ethical relativism, although I hate the notion that the colonialist ingrained in the Filipinos’ mental belief that the immoral practice of annually nailing someone is moral – from a religious culture, I have to go with liberty. The film should have been entitled “SCREWED,” - by the Catholic colonialist.
I have every reason to say the practice to be abhorrent, but hey, it is her religion. It is her choice. Beneficence prevail, because of the STRONG belief, although may be considered by some as deluded, that everything is momentary. Everything is temporary. Every suffering is rewarded for the next life awaiting in Utopia.
The more pain, such as whipping, the more absolution, hence your reward will be great. This is why we have extremist Muslims not afraid to, dare I say, perform what others may call immoral acts of terrorism.
SANTA/SANTITA - A. Flores
CRITICAL ANALYSIS TO SANTA/SANTITA USING IACCINO’S
PSYCHOLOGICAL REFLECTION ON CINEMATIC TERROR:
JUNGIAN ARCHETYPES IN HORROR FILMS
AS A FRAMEWORK
As a terse synopsis, Santa/Santita qualifies as a horror film. Why so? Characters “used to depict th[e] struggle between the ‘good and evil’ self” were presented in the film (Iaccino, p. 4). In addition, these characters are what Iaccino describes as archetype. Archetypes, according to Jung, are the left over traits in modern man from time when we walked on four appendages. These primordial traits are buried below our consciousness. “One genre that has provided a suitable outlet” for this archaic trait or expression is the horror film (p. 4). Hence, Santa/Santita qualifies as a horror films for the films portrayals of archetype characters associated with horror.
Starting with the mother/child archetypes, Santa/Santita pushes these characters to the front of the screen. The nun suffering from a dermal disease, the mother who is the intercessor for those who are afraid to or do not know how to approach God, and the daughter who eventually becomes an instrument of god – all archetypes of the “helpful or nurturing agent.” The miracle-performing daughter is endowed with life sustenance, comfort, security, and was associated with fertility. Since archetypes can be both good and evil, the wealthy married woman provided the archetype of ancient Eve – the temptress, the seducer, and the poisoner.
However, the brilliance in portraying the archetype of Santa/Santita or mother/child archetype comes from the miracle worker's great portrayal of playing both good and evil throughout. Her innocence at the beginning of the movie trying to convince people to purchase a protective charm and minutes later kicking a helpless blind handicap. A pretending young sick child later becomes young man’s fertility companion. A miracle worker mystical Virgin Mary figure who asks someone to assist her in a confession. The director throughout included a constant play in mother/child archetypes. Even the young-sickly innocent son of the non-believer survivalist becomes the heroic child making a god-like deed by presenting himself as redeemer. He was or became the ransom for his father’s sins.
The film also presented the persona/shadow archetypes. How many masks did the cobra-tattooed character wear in order to attain his diabolical needs? He was the Dr. Jekyll charmer as he dated the miracle worker, to his son and uncle, and to his “business clients.” He dons the mask of Dr. Jekyll “for the benefit of others and for self-advancement” (Iaccino, p. 6). He instantly becomes Mr. Hyde when threatened or if things do not go his way. He resorts to his phallic symbol, his gun, his manhood to avenge the wrong that was done to him.
Iaccino wrote, “The person’s real ‘face’ remains hidden underneath and may never have a chance to be fully expressed. Sometimes the role that a person plays becomes so strong that he or she becomes a victim on an inflated ego; namely , the role is so convincing that other are not only deceived but also manipulated by this sophisticated (and power-hungry) actor ( p. 6). Hence, the male-hustlers son died, and he demanded the miracle worker to bring the dead back to life, and it was not possible; he resorted to his inherited animalistic way of expressing an unexpressed expression – an action that is similar to a roaring howl. That is as close as you can get to an archetype.
There were also other archetypes portrayed. The wise man/magician archetype. As mentioned earlier, when the miracle worker is desperate for advise, for directions on her God-given power, when things are almost at a lost between choosing carnal pursuits or curing the sick, the wise old man appeared, the alcoholic priest who performs the confession.
Then there is the animus/anima archetype. The male prostitute actually becomes the victim. And Eve reincarnated as Mrs. Hoffman becomes the seducer-vanquisher. The masculine is deceived by the feminine. The conquering warrior is the feminine.
Since all of these archetypes and other archetypes that could not be discussed in this paper are present in the film, and since having these archetypes in the films qualifies as a horror film, Santa/Santita qualifies, according to Iaccino, as a horror film.
PSYCHOLOGICAL REFLECTION ON CINEMATIC TERROR:
JUNGIAN ARCHETYPES IN HORROR FILMS
AS A FRAMEWORK
As a terse synopsis, Santa/Santita qualifies as a horror film. Why so? Characters “used to depict th[e] struggle between the ‘good and evil’ self” were presented in the film (Iaccino, p. 4). In addition, these characters are what Iaccino describes as archetype. Archetypes, according to Jung, are the left over traits in modern man from time when we walked on four appendages. These primordial traits are buried below our consciousness. “One genre that has provided a suitable outlet” for this archaic trait or expression is the horror film (p. 4). Hence, Santa/Santita qualifies as a horror films for the films portrayals of archetype characters associated with horror.
Starting with the mother/child archetypes, Santa/Santita pushes these characters to the front of the screen. The nun suffering from a dermal disease, the mother who is the intercessor for those who are afraid to or do not know how to approach God, and the daughter who eventually becomes an instrument of god – all archetypes of the “helpful or nurturing agent.” The miracle-performing daughter is endowed with life sustenance, comfort, security, and was associated with fertility. Since archetypes can be both good and evil, the wealthy married woman provided the archetype of ancient Eve – the temptress, the seducer, and the poisoner.
However, the brilliance in portraying the archetype of Santa/Santita or mother/child archetype comes from the miracle worker's great portrayal of playing both good and evil throughout. Her innocence at the beginning of the movie trying to convince people to purchase a protective charm and minutes later kicking a helpless blind handicap. A pretending young sick child later becomes young man’s fertility companion. A miracle worker mystical Virgin Mary figure who asks someone to assist her in a confession. The director throughout included a constant play in mother/child archetypes. Even the young-sickly innocent son of the non-believer survivalist becomes the heroic child making a god-like deed by presenting himself as redeemer. He was or became the ransom for his father’s sins.
The film also presented the persona/shadow archetypes. How many masks did the cobra-tattooed character wear in order to attain his diabolical needs? He was the Dr. Jekyll charmer as he dated the miracle worker, to his son and uncle, and to his “business clients.” He dons the mask of Dr. Jekyll “for the benefit of others and for self-advancement” (Iaccino, p. 6). He instantly becomes Mr. Hyde when threatened or if things do not go his way. He resorts to his phallic symbol, his gun, his manhood to avenge the wrong that was done to him.
Iaccino wrote, “The person’s real ‘face’ remains hidden underneath and may never have a chance to be fully expressed. Sometimes the role that a person plays becomes so strong that he or she becomes a victim on an inflated ego; namely , the role is so convincing that other are not only deceived but also manipulated by this sophisticated (and power-hungry) actor ( p. 6). Hence, the male-hustlers son died, and he demanded the miracle worker to bring the dead back to life, and it was not possible; he resorted to his inherited animalistic way of expressing an unexpressed expression – an action that is similar to a roaring howl. That is as close as you can get to an archetype.
There were also other archetypes portrayed. The wise man/magician archetype. As mentioned earlier, when the miracle worker is desperate for advise, for directions on her God-given power, when things are almost at a lost between choosing carnal pursuits or curing the sick, the wise old man appeared, the alcoholic priest who performs the confession.
Then there is the animus/anima archetype. The male prostitute actually becomes the victim. And Eve reincarnated as Mrs. Hoffman becomes the seducer-vanquisher. The masculine is deceived by the feminine. The conquering warrior is the feminine.
Since all of these archetypes and other archetypes that could not be discussed in this paper are present in the film, and since having these archetypes in the films qualifies as a horror film, Santa/Santita qualifies, according to Iaccino, as a horror film.
FRAMEWORK FOR MORAL DECISION MAKING - A. Flores
Velasquez etal mentions five approaches to deal with moral issues. The utilitarian approach, Immanuel Kant’s individual rights, fair or justice approach, common good approach, and the virtue approach. The utilitarian approach stems for John Stuart Mills’ view of paternalism – choose (for someone) the best action out of many for the right decision. Kant’s approach is personal choice. The third approach is to avoid discrimination or favoritism when making a choice. The common-good is to make a decision to benefit the entire community. The last approach is the most religious conscious of all the approaches.
Here is what I think. We cannot approach an ethical decision without choosing a part from all five approaches mentioned. I have always believed in Kant’s view; the inalienable right to choose self-determination. No matter how evil the outcome seems to be, humankind must have the right to choose for themselves. If a person chooses to abort a fetus, commit rape, cannibalism, if it is their kuleana (business) - it is their right. If their action is illegal, with their own decision comes penalty, still they have the right to choose their own course. Who are we to infringe on their rights, what they believe must be right. Is the practice of marijuana smoking for the Rastafarian’s religious purpose unethical? Were the headhunting practices of the mountainous people of the Philippines (presenting a severed head to the bride’s family) unethical? Must we encroach on people’s individuals rights?
As a hypocrite, I will say, yes – paternalism has its place. I always trample on my children’s individual right. I shamelessly preach my utmost volition for Kant’s theory, however, discard this belief so I can paternalistically be able to lead them in the “proper path.” Supposedly, I have experience that they should take in consideration - paternalistic suggestions to trample on their individual right for self-choice.
Going back to the thought of not being able to make an ethical decision without including all approaches, here is my reasons why think this way.
Take the case for the use of blood transfusion. If a persons religious belief is to abstain from blood (take the meaning of “abstain” at face value), even under the most dire medical situation, the person will refuse blood transfusion. A person may religiously believe that this life is momentary – a better and permanent afterlife is possible if he/she is faithful to all the laws of his/her belief. Moreover, if one of the tenets is to abstain from blood, the person will abstain from blood even if it means death. Therefore, the person has every right to choose for herself ethically not to have blood transfusion even if it means death because that is her faith. That faith guides her inalienable right.
However, this ingrained belief in no blood transfusions is a paternalistic belief given or dictated to her by her religion. “God will not grant you everlasting life,” the church says, “if you violate the law on blood.” So here, two approaches are claimed in order to choose an ethical choice. The virtue approach also applies since is she is now making to her pre-disposed moral principles – do not violate God’s law. The common good approach could be reasoned that by refusing blood transfusion and if the medical emergency becomes successful, medical care will change their practices and the reliance for blood transfusion will be reduced. Thus, the whole healthcare industry will be revamped.
I could make claim that choosing or accepting no blood is a fair- judgment but a greater question comes to mind. What if she is pregnant, and if she does not choose a transfusion and she kills herself and her baby? Would this not violate the justice of fairness approach, in the unborn child’s perspective?
Therefore, in everything, it is not easy to use just a single approach in order to make an ethical decision. Using a multi-approach, a synthesis of several approaches sometimes is the best approach to make an ethical decision.
Here is what I think. We cannot approach an ethical decision without choosing a part from all five approaches mentioned. I have always believed in Kant’s view; the inalienable right to choose self-determination. No matter how evil the outcome seems to be, humankind must have the right to choose for themselves. If a person chooses to abort a fetus, commit rape, cannibalism, if it is their kuleana (business) - it is their right. If their action is illegal, with their own decision comes penalty, still they have the right to choose their own course. Who are we to infringe on their rights, what they believe must be right. Is the practice of marijuana smoking for the Rastafarian’s religious purpose unethical? Were the headhunting practices of the mountainous people of the Philippines (presenting a severed head to the bride’s family) unethical? Must we encroach on people’s individuals rights?
As a hypocrite, I will say, yes – paternalism has its place. I always trample on my children’s individual right. I shamelessly preach my utmost volition for Kant’s theory, however, discard this belief so I can paternalistically be able to lead them in the “proper path.” Supposedly, I have experience that they should take in consideration - paternalistic suggestions to trample on their individual right for self-choice.
Going back to the thought of not being able to make an ethical decision without including all approaches, here is my reasons why think this way.
Take the case for the use of blood transfusion. If a persons religious belief is to abstain from blood (take the meaning of “abstain” at face value), even under the most dire medical situation, the person will refuse blood transfusion. A person may religiously believe that this life is momentary – a better and permanent afterlife is possible if he/she is faithful to all the laws of his/her belief. Moreover, if one of the tenets is to abstain from blood, the person will abstain from blood even if it means death. Therefore, the person has every right to choose for herself ethically not to have blood transfusion even if it means death because that is her faith. That faith guides her inalienable right.
However, this ingrained belief in no blood transfusions is a paternalistic belief given or dictated to her by her religion. “God will not grant you everlasting life,” the church says, “if you violate the law on blood.” So here, two approaches are claimed in order to choose an ethical choice. The virtue approach also applies since is she is now making to her pre-disposed moral principles – do not violate God’s law. The common good approach could be reasoned that by refusing blood transfusion and if the medical emergency becomes successful, medical care will change their practices and the reliance for blood transfusion will be reduced. Thus, the whole healthcare industry will be revamped.
I could make claim that choosing or accepting no blood is a fair- judgment but a greater question comes to mind. What if she is pregnant, and if she does not choose a transfusion and she kills herself and her baby? Would this not violate the justice of fairness approach, in the unborn child’s perspective?
Therefore, in everything, it is not easy to use just a single approach in order to make an ethical decision. Using a multi-approach, a synthesis of several approaches sometimes is the best approach to make an ethical decision.
THE COMMON GOOD and IMELDA - A. Flores
Using the two materials (reading and the film) as my framework, I conclude that Imelda is “sinless.” Let me first aver that I am politically neutral (at least I think so), never voted for any political party to be put in office, and I have not done a thorough research on the Marcoses. All I know about them was through second hand community gossip and media presentations. So, if I remove my conscience or bias and remain legalistic using just two materials, I will argue why Imelda is sinless.
However, let me first answer the required Reflection Questions. The question of common good is an important question because ethically no society is able to achieve its goal if “common good” is to be followed by its definition. For the common good! Velasquez and etal defines common good as, “having the social system, institution, and environments on which we all depend work in a manner that benefits all people.” Since most societies are pluralistic, different people with different agendas pushing for the common good will never reach a unanimous stand.
I don’t quite understand the second question, however, actors act in accord with the common good usually to appease the viewing majority – most of the time the moral majority. If the actor projects the image that the public wants or demands – this should produce a facet for the common good. I will skip questions 3- 5 since the revolutions were portrayed minimally in the film and this questions may pertain to the other film not viewed yet.
Finally, the last question, since the Filipinos’ individual rights were already being violated, most individuals sacrificed their individual rights “for the common good.” They protested for a new collective government. Now back to my “mode of analysis” (Berger) defense of “Mother Santa Imelda” - the sinless, the immaculate. As Berger mentions, “The purpose of film criticism … is to interpret and explain film.” And I would like to add as Berger mentioned, not to criticize but to understand. Also, I would like to remind my readers, it is an OBJECTIVE analysis.
If we set-aside for a moment the question of “for whose good?” and “discard the notion of relative values” and just concentrate in the meaning of “for the common good,” Imelda has fulfilled her ethical requirements. Common good is reached when “members relatively [have] ready access to their own fulfillment.”
Imelda’s maxim was, “If I lived well, the poor lived well.” Although (if I may take the liberty to say, no pun intended) that her thinking may be deluded to us, if her notion of “I for all succeed” is to be taken as truth, she succeeded in reaching “for the common good.”
Admittedly, she lived a “beautiful” life. A lavish life. Although frowned upon, she put the Philippines on the map by applying make-up to it. Although, immoral to some, her intent of for the common good of the Philippines, in and in her words, “for the honor of the Philippines,” she and the population attained a façade of “common good.”
Yes, the population was drunk by her didactic reasoning and as a coping mechanism for the parentless beggar in the Smoky Mountains, the beggar gives her blessing to Imelda to perpetuate the common good. The actor is playing the viewers psychological want and goal. Since Imelda is such a great actor, she is working for the common good.
Even her questionable “edifice complex” did generate somewhat of an economic push. The dress, the shoes, the arts, the childish idea of creating Philippines as the center for the arts in Asia made her stay true to her maxim of presenting the Filipino people as living beautiful. In the interest for the Filipino, did she not say when she is to be seen in public, she gets ready for an hour for dignitaries and royals but one-a-half hour for the common Filipinos?”
Since she was able to get the population “drunk” (the way the harlot, Babylon the Great, got everyone drunk in the book of Revelation) with her goal, the impoverished deluded, naïve citizens (what seems as a whole) seems to have accepted her mission. Thus, if she keeps up her bargain to keep being beautiful (remember Velasquez and etal, “choose to [continually] do [her] part) and if the “swayed” people choose to continually revere her as mother demi-goddess, she and they are innocently doing what is “common good.” Remember, when they came into her closet, “they found shoes, not skeletons.”
God, save us.
However, let me first answer the required Reflection Questions. The question of common good is an important question because ethically no society is able to achieve its goal if “common good” is to be followed by its definition. For the common good! Velasquez and etal defines common good as, “having the social system, institution, and environments on which we all depend work in a manner that benefits all people.” Since most societies are pluralistic, different people with different agendas pushing for the common good will never reach a unanimous stand.
I don’t quite understand the second question, however, actors act in accord with the common good usually to appease the viewing majority – most of the time the moral majority. If the actor projects the image that the public wants or demands – this should produce a facet for the common good. I will skip questions 3- 5 since the revolutions were portrayed minimally in the film and this questions may pertain to the other film not viewed yet.
Finally, the last question, since the Filipinos’ individual rights were already being violated, most individuals sacrificed their individual rights “for the common good.” They protested for a new collective government. Now back to my “mode of analysis” (Berger) defense of “Mother Santa Imelda” - the sinless, the immaculate. As Berger mentions, “The purpose of film criticism … is to interpret and explain film.” And I would like to add as Berger mentioned, not to criticize but to understand. Also, I would like to remind my readers, it is an OBJECTIVE analysis.
If we set-aside for a moment the question of “for whose good?” and “discard the notion of relative values” and just concentrate in the meaning of “for the common good,” Imelda has fulfilled her ethical requirements. Common good is reached when “members relatively [have] ready access to their own fulfillment.”
Imelda’s maxim was, “If I lived well, the poor lived well.” Although (if I may take the liberty to say, no pun intended) that her thinking may be deluded to us, if her notion of “I for all succeed” is to be taken as truth, she succeeded in reaching “for the common good.”
Admittedly, she lived a “beautiful” life. A lavish life. Although frowned upon, she put the Philippines on the map by applying make-up to it. Although, immoral to some, her intent of for the common good of the Philippines, in and in her words, “for the honor of the Philippines,” she and the population attained a façade of “common good.”
Yes, the population was drunk by her didactic reasoning and as a coping mechanism for the parentless beggar in the Smoky Mountains, the beggar gives her blessing to Imelda to perpetuate the common good. The actor is playing the viewers psychological want and goal. Since Imelda is such a great actor, she is working for the common good.
Even her questionable “edifice complex” did generate somewhat of an economic push. The dress, the shoes, the arts, the childish idea of creating Philippines as the center for the arts in Asia made her stay true to her maxim of presenting the Filipino people as living beautiful. In the interest for the Filipino, did she not say when she is to be seen in public, she gets ready for an hour for dignitaries and royals but one-a-half hour for the common Filipinos?”
Since she was able to get the population “drunk” (the way the harlot, Babylon the Great, got everyone drunk in the book of Revelation) with her goal, the impoverished deluded, naïve citizens (what seems as a whole) seems to have accepted her mission. Thus, if she keeps up her bargain to keep being beautiful (remember Velasquez and etal, “choose to [continually] do [her] part) and if the “swayed” people choose to continually revere her as mother demi-goddess, she and they are innocently doing what is “common good.” Remember, when they came into her closet, “they found shoes, not skeletons.”
God, save us.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)