Gadamers Interpretation, Habermas Concensus, and Levinas Face: A Critique to RH Bill

Contemporary Philosophy
By: Kristoffer Lorenz L. Basbao

Introduction: Questions about RH Bill

In this paper of mine, I would like to critique the RH Bill using the different philosophies of
the contemporary philosophers. These are Gadamers Interpratation, Habermas Consensus and
Levinas Face.
Reproductive Health Bill or Responsible Parenthood Bill is a bill that would allow the
government to distribute any form of contraceptives to the people for free. It would also allow ligation
to the women. Aside from this, sex education will also be taught to the elementary students who are
still at their innocent stage. The question is, why will they make it a law if the use of contraceptives is
already allowed in our country? Why would they distribute contraceptives to the people? Is this really
necessary? What is the very reason why they push RH Bill pass as law? Is it for the good of all or for
the benefit of the people who are in position?
The RH Bill is a deadly bill. It is a deadly bill because many potential lives will not become
life because of it. Many will become defective with the too much use of contraceptives. It even leads
to the death of the one using it. It is because contraceptives have also bad side effects. If the RH Bill
will become a law, for sure, time will come that there will be lesser Filipinos living in our country. RH
Bill is a kind of genocide that will kill our Filipino race. It will slowly kill us Filipinos.
According to what Ive heard from other people, the very reason why politicians would push
RH Bill, is the big amount of money they can get from the foreign people who pushes it to us. Maybe,

this is the reason why politicians wanted it to pass as soon as possible. They cant wait for the big
amount of money they can get from the passing of the bill. This is what is wrong with us. Our leaders
are so selfish, thinking only of themselves, for their good. They dont care anymore for the good of all.
They care for themselves and families alone. RH Bill is a poison for us. It is evil presenting itself to it
people as good. We should not let RH Bill swallow us.
Gadamers Interpretation and the Vagueness of RH Bill
Hans-Georg Gadamer is one of the famous philosophers in the field of Hermeneutics. The
main point and subject of his philosophy is Interpretation. In interpretation, there are three things to be
considered. These are the Geist, Bildung, Sensus Communis and Taste. Geist refers to the
flow of history, its spirit, where history is going, and the consciousness of events. Bildung
refers to the imageness, the context and culture. Sensus Communis refers to the usual
understanding of the word, the feel of the word (including its nuances), and the standard
understanding. Taste refers to the uniqueness in style and manner.
`

RH Bill is a liar bill. It is full of fallacies. The use of words would confuse and deceive us.

The content of the bill contradicts to its title. The bill is not healthy in our part. It is deadly for us.
If it is healthy, then it enables health, it enables living, but the reality would tell us that it does not. RH
Bill is an anti-life, a bill that will lead to the death of innocent babies, of potential human beings. It is
the nature of contraceptives to be anti-life. It is also stated in the bill that contraceptives are essential
medicines. It shows that contraceptives are important medicines one must take. It is somehow similar
to that of vitamins. If we will analyze the statement, how can it become essential medicines? Are they
really necessary in our body? Is it good for our health, or a poison that will lead us to death?

`Habermas Consensus and the Wrong Understanding of Representative

Jurgen Habermas is a neo-marxist philosopher. He is Marxist in critique but not in philosophy.
His philosophy is all about Dialectics in Word. In his philosophy, dialogue is being emphasized. The
ending point of his philosophy is his emphasis on the necessity of reaching Consensus. Through
consensus, no one is being left-out. All stakeholders should participate in the consensus. Those who
are defective are given the chances to become capable of knowing the better side, the better decision.
It is formative in the part of the one who explain things, who explain the reasons to the defective ones.
If they give in, they become active participators of consensus. In order to reach the consensus, there
are three things to be recognized/observed. These are openness, humility, and the unforced force of the
better idea. First, both side must be open to the truths of the other side. One must recognize the truth
from the others idea. One must also be open to see the not-so-good-idea in ones idea. Being open
to it is an act of humility. One must be humble enough to accept the not-so-good-idea in ones idea. If
that happens, one must change his side. With that, better idea wins. It finds its way to surface. In
agreeing and accepting, communal owning happens. In communal owning, winning happens to all
because all became active participators of the consensus.
Philippines is a democratic country. All has a say, all has a voice. We are not monarchical,
wherein the king/queen can decide on him/her own (because the king/queens decisions are considered
as divine). Here in the Philippines, we vote for our Representative in the Congress. They are what we
call Congressman/Congresswoman. They represent a certain district. As representatives, they are the
ones to voice out the views of the people. Regarding the RH bill, they must share whatever the views
of the people they are representing (about the RH Bill). The problem now is that, our congressmen and
congresswomen who are supposed to be representing us in the congress, do not even ask us about our
views in the RH Bill. They just decide on their own. With these problems, I can say that we have
problems about Consensus. For Habermas, the views/ideas of all must be heard and considered

because we are all stakeholders. Our ideas and personal views really matter to contribute for the good
of all. As representatives, they need to ask us first whatever our view about the RH bill. For them,
because of their being representatives, they thought that whatever their personal decisions are, would
serve as the decision of the entire district. They are very wrong with that. They are known to be
representative. And so they must represent the entire district. Supposed to be, all their decisions would
come from the people they are representing.
Levinas Face and RH Bill as Anti-Face
Emmanual Levinas is known in his philosophy, the Infinite Responsibility to the other.
Levinas did not agree with Husserls Immanent Transcendence. For Husserl, the Other is part of the
Ego, but the Other is other and not the Ego. Levinas would not agree with him. For Levinas, the Other
is totally Transcendent, totally alien. The Other is a foreigner, and never just a part of the ego. Even
though the Other is not part of the ego, the ego has the responsibility to the Other. The measure of
responsibility is infinite. There is surplus of responsibility in every ego. This surplus can explode the
ego because its too much for the ego to contain. This is what Levinas called the Infinite
Reponsibility to the Other. The essence of the Other is Face. For Levinas, there is a great calling in
us to face the Face, to face our responsibility to the Other.
The Face is the essence of the Other. The Others Face begs to others be for me, to face
the Face. Facing the Face means recognizing ones responsibility to the Other. That responsibility
to the Other is infinite. In relation to the RH bill, is facing of the Face possible with it? Is there any
acceptance of responsibility?
The RH Bill is an anti-Face. It is anti-life. It is for the death of both the potential face and
the formed face. Contraceptives are a form of abortion. There is a killing of life with the use of it.

Using contraceptives would also mean denying ones responsibility to the Face(both in the babys
face and mothers face. There is an unacceptance of responsibility with the use of contraceptives.
RH Bill is really evil. If this will become a law, the government will distribute contraceptives
to the people for free. In their distribution of contraceptives, it is as if saying Go and use these
contraceptives. Enjoy life and be merry. It encourages us to use the contraceptives and have sex (not
in the proper time). Is this not evil? What kind of people are our government want us to be? Do they
want us to be maniacs and sex addicts? After having sex, will the Faces be responsible to each other
and responsible to the new Face, to face the Face of the baby (if the contraceptives wont work).
Conclusion and Summary
The RH Bill is a vague bill. Evil is always vague and will distort everything as if it will look
good. It is a bill with full of fallacies. The title itself would speak about health and life but its content
is about the slowing death of the Filipino race. In other words, RH Bill is a deadly bill. It is a genocide
that will later erase our race in this world. If the RH Bill will become a law, for sure it is not a product
of consensus. The representatives dont even find means to ask the people about their views with the
bill. Most of the representatives will just agree with the bill because they can benefit from it
financially. Whats proper is that, the representatives will ask all the people they are representing,
about their views, and discuss things. The main point is to reach the bloody consensus. It is what is
ought because all are stakeholders. All are responsible with the decision. It is also very clear that the
RH Bill is an anti-Face and anti-life. If it will become a law, many innocent faces will be killed. It
promotes death. The RH Bill is denying ones responsibility to the Faces one should be responsible
of.