THE CONCEPT

OF A
HUMAN BEING
PLATO

• Plato considers the world of ideas as the world of perfections. For example,
everyone has an idea of a dog. And when we compare one dog from other
dogs, we realize that they are different, but we still recognize them as a dogs
because of our idea of a dog. Our idea of a dog is thus far superior than the
dog that we see in the streets. The real dogs are in Plato’s world of idea—the
idea dog. For Plato, a human being is composed of body and soul, but he
argues that the human is essentially his soul.
• Plato considers the body as a prison of the soul, which
prompts him to set the ideal of liberating the soul from the
body. The soul is immortal while the body is mortal. So
when we die, our body will decay but our soul will return
to the world of idea. Thus, a human being is essentially his
soul.
Plato’s concept of a human being is the soul’s division into
three parts:
• Reasoning
• Spiritedness
• Appetites
 The republic, where the characters dicided that the
ideal society is made up of three types of citizens: workers,
soldiers, and rulers.
The ruler’s counterpart in the human body is the head,
which symbolizes the reasoning part. The soldier’s
counterpart is the stomach,which symbolizes the spirited
part. These parts and their functions have their
corresponding virtues: wisdom for reasoning, courage for
spiritedness, and moderation for appetites.
ARISTOTLE
• Aristotle also believes that human beings are composed of
body and soul. However, it is how the soul is related to the
body that Aristotle differs from plato.
• Aristotle considers things as composed of two co-principles
which he calls matter and form. Form, is the principle which
actualizes a thing and make a thing what it is, while matter is
viewed as the potentiality to received the form. In short, form
is viewed as act while matter is viewed as potency.
Aristotle also divides the functions of soul into three:
nutrition, sentation, and intellection.
• The nutritive function is that which we share with plants,
while the sensitive function is that which we share with
other animals. The human soul as an anmating principle
is far greater than the animating principle of plants and
other animals because of the higher function of
intellectual. It is the intellective function which not only
separates us from all other beings, but also defines us a
human beings.
DECRATES
• Rene Decrates, on the other hand, widened the gap
between the body and soul even more as he sets out to
prove that the only thing in this world which cannot be
doubted is the existence of the thinking self.
• Decrates argued that we should doubt everything that is
delivered to us by our senses. But how can we doubt
something which is already obviously real.
 The only thing which he can’t doubt was that he doubts,
which is a form of thinking. He may doubt his bodily existence
because his thinking requires a subject- the thinker.
Decrates did not prove the existence of man when he
pronounced. “I think, therefore, I am” because man or rational
animal is vague concept.
For Decrates, the existence of the soul is more distinct and
clear than the existences of the body, leaving us with the idea
that man is more certain of the existene of his soul than the
existence of his bofy.
 LESSON 2:
AN EMBODIED
SUBJECT

LARA MARIE D. NATIVIDAD

• Gabriel Marcel- a French existentialist that considers two ways of
reflection, which is the PRIMARY REFLECTIONS and SECONDARY
REFLECTIONS.

• Existential break- a reflective activity that has a consequence to the

disturbance in the chain of our daily life. It shakes us to pause and
think about what happened.
 PRIMARY REFLECTION

Occurs when we inquire about the things

in a distant and objective manner.

Focuses on scientific inquiry that aims for

objectivity and therefore sets the object of
the study in a distance.
 SECONDARY REFLECTION

Cannot occur without involving the

inquirer to his inquiry.

It is inevitably links the inquirer to the

subject of his inquiry.
GABRIEL MARCEL’S EMBODIMENT

Answering the question about the human

being, one cannot simply discard the body
as what Descartes and other philosophers
did.

Who we are is linked to our body. But, not

everything that we are is our body. What
we are then is more than just a body.
 GABRIEL MARCEL’S EMBODIMENT
He made an analogy of the ownership of our body to that of
someone owning a dog.

The main point of Marcel in the analogy is that “The experience

of the ownership of my body which cannot be formulated in
intellectual terms”.

The embodied subject necessarily faces his own self, through his
body, whenever he inquires about what human being means.
 MARTIN HEIDEGGER’S
BEING-IN-THE-WORLD
He calls human being Dasein, a German word which literally
means being there.

“To be in the world” means that our experiences are always

situated in the world.

In short, being-in-the-world means that we live with things, with

other people and within a particular place and time.
 MARTIN HEIDEGGER’S
BEING-IN-THE-WORLD
Being-in-the-world means to be with things.

We are encountering things as soon as we are born and the

way we relate the things around us is practical.

We should accept the reality that the things around us affect
the definition of who we are.
 MARTIN HEIDEGGER’S
BEING-IN-THE-WORLD
Being-in-the-world also means to be with other people.

We encounter people as familiar.

In most cases, the people around us define who we are and it is
true that the people we encounter shape our identities.
 MARTIN HEIDEGGER’S
BEING-IN-THE-WORLD
Being-in-the-world means that we are situated in place and time.

We are immersed in a particular culture language, and social

structures.

We are born in a particular era that allows us to see the world
within the lens of that era.

Being-in-the-world is always in time. And we move with time.

 MARTIN HEIDEGGER’S
BEING-IN-THE-WORLD
The place where we are situated also plays a big role in
shaping who we are.

Overall, Heidegger’s concept being-in-the-world informs us of

the every nature of which we are, that is, that we are shaped
by everything around us.
RIGHTS AND
JUSTICE
ETHICAL SITUATIONS GENERALLY INVOLVE (1) A MORAL AGENT,
(2) AN ACTION OR SERIES OF ACTIONS, (3) CONSEQUENCES,
AND (4) A RECIPIENT OF THE CONSEQUENCES.
Consequence
1. Moral Agent: Responsible for Agent Action
action (the doer, or the actor, to OW!
which praise or blame is typically
assigned)
2. Action: Something that occurs as a
results of the moral agent’s
decisionmaking process
3. Consequences: Result from action
4. Recipient: Receives the
consequences of the moral agent’s
action(s)
Recipient
THREE OVERARCHING ETHICAL THEORIES DIRECTLY RELATE
TO THE FOUR PRIMARY ELEMENTS OF AN ETHICAL
SITUATION:
Virtue of? Consequences of?
• Virtue Ethics: Relate to the moral
agent’s character
• Deontological Ethics: Relate to the
agent’s duties and obligations in any
given situation
• Consequentialist Ethics: Are
concerned with the outcome of an
agent’s choice of action and what Obligation to?
that means for (the) recipient(s)
 A RIGHT IS A “MORALLY JUSTIFIED CLAIM” (KERNOHAN P. 85) ON ANOTHER.
RIGHTS-BASED ETHICS FALL UNDER THE CATEGORY OF DEONTOLOGICAL
ETHICS—THEY ARE CONCERNED WITH A MORAL AGENT’S DUTIES AND
OBLIGATIONS.
Total Utility
When considering rights- Had rights violated.
Agent
based ethics, remember
that an action is unethical if
it does not respect the
rights of those involved,
even if the total aggregate
utility for all concerned is
increased…
… A SYSTEM OF RIGHTS, HOWEVER, CAN BE JUSTIFIED
THROUGH UTILITARIANISM BECAUSE IT PRODUCES THE
GREATEST UTILITY TO RIGHTS-HOLDERS.
Respect for rights
increases utility.
Agent
?
?

?
A DEONTOLOGICAL APPROACH TO ETHICS MEANS THAT A
MORAL AGENT MUST ACT TO UPHOLD THE MORAL PRINCIPLES
RELATED TO AN ACTION (OR ACTIVELY-CONSIDERED INACTION).

This is duty-driven ethical action. Though I wish to possess

your gorgeous book, I will
I have a right to own not steal it, because to do
personal property. so would be immoral and I
have a duty to uphold our
rights.
IMMANUEL KANT (1724 – 1804) ARTICULATED HIS
MODEL OF DEONTOLOGICAL ETHICS WITH THE IDEA
OF THE CATEGORICAL IMPERATIVE. SUMMARIZED BY
PAUL DOMBROWSKI (2000), THE IMPERATIVE STATES
THAT WE SHOULD:
“Act in such a way that, if you had your way, the principle guiding your actions
would become a universally binding law that everyone must act in accordance
with (in relation to you), applying to everyone, everywhere, and always, without
exception” (2000, p. 49).
SO, TO PUT THE TWO TOGETHER, RIGHTS-BASED
ETHICS ASKS US TO ACT IN SUCH A WAY THAT OUR
ACTIONS RESPECT THE RIGHTS OF MORALLY-
CONSIDERABLE RECIPIENTS, AND TO DO SO WITH THE
UNDERSTANDING THAT OUR ACTIONS SHOULD APPLY
TO EVERYONE, EVERYWHERE, AND ALWAYS, WITHOUT
EXCEPTION, GIVEN SIMILAR CIRCUMSTANCES. If I had that book, I would
not want it stolen either.
I have a right to own No one should steal
personal property. personal property.
WITH RELATION TO RIGHTS, WE MUST CONSIDER CORRELATIVE
DUTIES, AS WELL AS NEGATIVE AND POSITIVE RIGHTS.

A correlative duty means that if person X has a right that person

Y do or not do something, then Person Y owes a correlative duty
to person X to do or not do that thing.
I have a right to own I will not steal your book.
personal property.

X Y
NEGATIVE RIGHTS IMPOSE A DUTY TO NOT INTERFERE WITH THE
RIGHTS-HOLDER.
POSITIVE RIGHTS IMPOSE A DUTY TO ASSIST THE RIGHTS-BEARER.
I have a right to own personal property, I will not steal your book, and I will not
and I have the right to read my book infringe on your right to freedom from
where I please, but it looks like I’m interference, as long as you don’t try to
about to step in a hole and break my come into my home to read your book.
leg. Also, LOOK OUT!

X Y
RIGHTS ARE LIMITED. MANY RIGHTS ARE SAID TO END
WHERE ANOTHER’S RIGHTS BEGIN.

I have the right to read

my book where I I have the right to read my book where
please, and I like it I please, and I would like to be RIGHT
here. THERE.
RIGHTS CAN BE ASSIGNED. UNDER WILL THEORY WE HAVE THE
WILL TO MAKE PROMISES WHICH ASSIGN OTHERS RIGHTS. A
LIMITED RIGHTS-HOLDER CAN CHOOSE NOT TO CLAIM OR
ENFORCE THIS RIGHT.

I promise I will give you this book when

Thanks, X!
I am done with it.

Right to book Limited rights-holder

SOME RIGHTS ARE INALIENABLE (INCAPABLE OF BEING
SURRENDERED). LIFE, LIBERTY, AND THE PURSUIT OF HAPPINESS,
FOR EXAMPLE, ARE INALIENABLE. INALIENABLE RIGHTS MAY,
HOWEVER, BE FORFEITED BY CHOICE—RIGHT TO LIBERTY, FOR
EXAMPLE, CAN BE FORFEITED THROUGH THE WILLING
COMMISSION OF A CRIME.

HEY!!!!
Ha HA!
UNDER INTEREST THEORY, RIGHTS ARE ASSIGNED BASED
ON RELEVANT, REALISTIC, AND IMPORTANT INTERESTS.

Subjective Interests can I be am interested Objective Interests (non-mental)

I am interested in in a bowl of
“weighed.”
living a healthy life. Spaghetti-O’s!
relate to the inherently valuable.

Both X and deserve the freedom to

preserve their own happiness.
ANY CONSIDERATION OF RIGHTS NECESSARILY
INVOLVES DISCUSSION OF JUSTICE.
Justice = moral equality, but moral equals need not be treated
equally. Proof of expertise, for example, or certain skillsets, equate to
different treatments, as do the consequences of violating laws/systems
of rights.
I got the job because I had a better
skillset and more qualifications.

D. G. ROSS, AUBURN UNIVERSITY

JUSTICE DEMANDS THAT WE DO NOT CONSIDER MORALLY
ARBITRARY FEATURES IN OUR CONSIDERATIONS OF WHAT IS
JUST.
Morally arbitrary features include (among Non-arbitrary differences (recognition of need
others): for special treatment) include:
• Race • Family dynamics
• Class • Disability
• Age • Violation of contracts
• Religion • Meritorious conduct
• Sexual orientation • Some sex-based accommodations: leave from
work, special washrooms, etc. These (among
• Economic class
others) are increasingly controversial.
THERE ARE TWO MAIN TYPES OF JUSTICE.

Retributive Justice Compensatory Justice

• Corrective • Involves forms of payback to victims

• Considers fit of punishment to crime
LAST, THERE ARE, OF COURSE, DIFFERENT MODELS
OF RIGHTS AND JUSTICE:
• Under a libertarian theory of justice, an individual has the right to the products of their labor and
anything gained through the exchange of those products.
• Indirect Utilitarianism (setting standards for rightness) suggests that particular patterns of rights
are justified because these patterns produce the greatest utility for everyone. We should consider
each person’s interests equally. Under this theory, some interests require more resources to bring
about utility than others.
• A Social Contract Theory of Justice says we are all equated the same rights. We can choose,
however, to enter into contracts which abrogate certain rights. Therefore, we are expected to enter
into contracts which maximize our utility…or, put another way, reasonable actors maximize their
utility via social contracts. Critics argue that this model suggests that only unreasonable people put
themselves in situations which minimize utility (slavery, poverty, etc.).