APPL 115: Empowerment Technologies

An Short In-depth Investigation into Cerebrovascular Accident (Strokes)

Mel Lawrence R. Abergos

Ateneo de Naga University SHS
March 8, 2023
 I. Background Information
Morality and religion overlap because of the relationship between religious beliefs
and morals. Religions frequently contain value frameworks for personal behavior
intended to aid members in determining right and wrong. Various sources may outline
and interpret these frameworks, including holy texts, oral and written traditions, and
religious leaders. Some theological systems have tenets in common with secular value
systems, such as consequentialism, freethought, and utilitarianism.
Religion and morality are not the same things. Though religion may rely on
morality and even grow alongside morality, morality does not always rely on religion,
despite what some call an "almost instinctive presumption" to the contrary. Religion and
morality must be defined separately and have no definitional ties. Morality and a
religious value system are conceptually and practically distinct types of value systems or
action guides. Some people believe that morality and religion can coexist. According to
one definition, morality is an active process that is, at least, the effort to lead one's
action by reason, that is, doing what is best for the best reasons while taking into
account the interests of all those affected by what one does.
Value judgments differ widely between and within the teachings of numerous
ancient and modern religions. Some religious systems, such as Christianity, may derive
conceptions of good and evil from the rules and laws established by their authoritative
authorities and religious leaders. The ability of religious faiths to generate helpful and
consistent value systems is still debatable. Some theological commentators have
claimed that one cannot live a decent life without the guidance of an absolute lawgiver.
Other observers argue that moral behavior is not based on religious doctrines
and/or that moral guidelines change with time and space rather than remaining
absolute, while secular commentators highlight ethical issues within diverse religions
that contrast with contemporary social norms. Religious traditions coexist with secular
value frameworks such as humanism, utilitarianism, and others within the broad range
of ethical traditions. Religious ideals come in a variety of forms. Modern monotheistic
faiths such as Islam, Judaism, and Christianity (and, to a lesser extent, others such as
Sikhism) define good and wrong through the laws and norms established by their
respective gods and as interpreted by religious leaders within the respective faith.
Polytheistic religious traditions are less rigid. For example, in Buddhism, the
individual's intention and the circumstances play roles in determining whether an action
is right or wrong. There is a further disparity between religious morals, stating that in
Hinduism, "practically, right and wrong are decided according to the categories of social
rank, kinship, and stages of life."

II. Major Issues

● For instance, the issue on reproductive health draws gargantuan negative
comments from among citizens in the republic. Proponents of this reform
postulate that educating the people about the brighter side of this endeavor will
benefit the entire country in every aspect. (Religious Views vs Modern
Practices such as contraceptive and abortion)
● These realities coupled with the advancement in technology exposed the Filipinos
to modernity as well as practices, attitude and behavior from the west side of the
globe. The most alarming thing probably is many Filipinos conceive an erroneous
and lackluster understanding of secularization up to the extent of justifying
wrong deeds because this particular ideology somehow allows them. They would
rationalize misdeeds basing their arguments on secularization. (Using
unacknowledged belief systems or seemingly non-religious values as
an excuse to justify bad actions)
● It is sad that Christian faith or faith for that matter is most of the time founded
on fear. For instance, God’s wrath due to man’s sinfulness may result in various
catastrophic events. Another horrifying instance is the continuous projection of
hell instead of focusing on the idea of a loving and benevolent supreme being.
Many Christians believe and would continue to believe in their faith even if things
do not go well anymore. They claim over and over again that the results of their
actions whether good or bad are not totally imputable to them since they did
what they could and left everything to God. Originally, this concept portrays
positive connotations about one’s submissive and trust in a divine being and
acknowledges Him as a powerful entity where everything can be made possible
through His assistance. It also shows bravery among Filipinos willing to accept a
challenge no matter how intense and difficult. However, in the course of time this
concept has deviated from its original meaning with the loose and neglectful
understanding of some Filipinos. It has been associated with the concept of
fatalism. (Since faith is mostly founded one fear, we tend to believe that
whatever happens is predestined and inevitable in order to “fear” God.
This view can undermine personal responsibility and coping and lead to
paralysis.)
● For example, we would rather use bahala na as a convenient excuse or alibi for
not taking any responsibility or accountability for our actions. In this manner, it
does not work for us, but against us. Further, they tend to follow their religious
belief for fear of losing something supposedly promised to them by their religion.
A lot of Christians cling to their religious ideology for one reason, and one reason
alone. Despite the evidence to the contrary, despite the conversations they’ve
had repeatedly, despite the billions of other god claims out there in the world,
 they believe in the god of the bible out of fear. They fear the consequences of
what will happen to them if they don’t. (Basically explains the point above
but with the example bahala na. While this trait can sometimes be
helpful in time of adversity, the mentality of “ what goes around,
comes around,” can also keep us from finding ways out of tough
situations.)

III. Consequences
● Ironically, the religiosity of a person does not automatically convert to a state of
moral uprightness. Man’s religious intensity is sometimes far-fetched from his
moral actualities which may be an issue or concern in ethics. For instance, we
nowadays can call it insatiable greed for wealth and political power
(mutually reinforcing); the drive behind the propensity of politicians to form
“familial political dynasties” and others to wish and work for.
● A person may be religious but the guarantee of his moral character can be
prejudiced through actions not in conformity with moral standards and others
existing laws. This phenomenon is undeniable as its existence can be found
anywhere in every corners of the world – Philippines in particular. There has to
be an interplay between these two concepts whereby man can be guided so he
can exercise both effectively in his day to day convictions. “Take the case, my
brothers, of someone who has never done a single good act but claims that he
has faith. Will that faith save him? If one of the brothers or one of the sisters is
in need of clothes and has not enough food to live on, and one of you says to
them, ‘I wish you well; keep yourself warm and eat plenty’, without giving them
these bare necessities in life, then what good is that: if good works do not go
with it, it is quite dead” (The Jerusalem Bible, Jm. 2. 14-17). (What good is to
be religious, to have faith without the good actions/work to back it
up?)
● These are “group-centeredness or group-thinking and the ‘Don’t be caught’
attitude. Group-centeredness is best manifested in this situation:” One’s in-group
determines for the individual what is right or wrong. The individual who has not
yet attained moral independence and maturity will ask: “ What will my family, or
my relatives and friends, or my barkada think or say?” “What will others say”
usually determines Filipino moral behavior; it is “conscience from the outside.”
For instance, parents tell their daughter who is being courted: “Iha, please
entertain your boyfriend at home. Do not go outside. What will the neighbors
say? Nakakahiya naman.” “Shame or hiya makes the parents and the girl
conform to the social expectations of the neighbors lest they become the object
 of chismis or gossip”. (Basically long-standing traditional Filipino logic
trying to manipulate one’s behavior)
IV. Root Causes
● What used to be submissive to the dictates of the Spanish authority slowly
assimilated with the coming of the Americans with the latter bringing a wider
notion and practice of freedom of speech and expression, and introducing new
religions like Protestantism. (History, of course)
● The establishment of a secularized public school system and the use of English
as a medium of instruction and communication laid the foundations of a
continuing Westernized direction to Philippine modernization, and an insidious
acceptance of American values and models of development, notwithstanding
gross differences in history, culture and resource bases. (Western culture
driving the Philippines; contradicting Filipino’s culture & values)
● Faith has sometimes become an escape-clause for this people to justify their
misdeeds. They claim over and over again that faith is the reason they believe,
and that if things don’t necessarily make sense, they don’t really have to. After
all, god knows best. All they have to do as followers (see sheep) is to have faith
that god is in control. The rest is out of their hands. (Another case of
Fatalism: the attitude of mind which accepts whatever happens as
having been bound or decreed to happen.)
● The values taught in schools or churches may be different from those being
taught in homes or in the community. The former would tell the faithful or
students regarding ideal concepts of morality like obeying the teaching of God
and the churches, loving their fellowmen, helping those in need, respecting
parents and elders, many others. These are true while the latter would be
practicing some activities which are on the contrary, in effect becomes a disvalue.
While the true norms of morality are continually being taught in churches and
schools, the family or the community encourages activities which are sometimes
on the opposite. Conversely, there are instances when church people and
teachers become predators of the lay faithful or students in which love, care and
dedication are entrusted to them by the unsuspecting parents and peer groups.
(Inner Groups such as your family’s values contradicting or just a bit
different from the ones you’ve been taught at school. Example from
me: Not trying to reason back to my parents since they are quite
traditional because it’s seen as a challenge to authority)
V. Things to Note/Solutions
Things to Note:
● Secularization
● This notion among Filipinos should be corrected like eliminating the present
understanding of Bahala Na which is very repressive and downgrading for the
Filipinos. Renewing the original concept of it can alter their belief in their deity
and oneself. Bahala Na used to mean confidence in oneself, belief in ones
capability and best of all trust in God. Fear should not be the basis for one’s
belief in a certain religion.
● There is a split scenario between the ideal Christian Filipino and the actual
Filipino norm of morality. The problem for the Filipino individual is to be “aware”
that the two inconsistent norms of morality are allowed to coexist in his
personality and life and that he must overcome this split if he is to become a
mature Christian Filipino (196). The Split-Level Christianity as Fr. Bulatao would
call it should be corrected in order for the Filipino to have a definite thought of
what is good and evil. Overcoming its misconception can be an avenue for
Filipinos to adhere to what is good and evade what is evil.
● Furthermore, religion is an important part of man’s existence as he is a moral
entity. His actions have corresponding moral responsibility. He will have a clearer
grasp of good and evil if aided with the teachings of religious agencies.
● Dynamic morality is an invitation to man in his continuous process of arriving
certainty of right and wrong. “It calls on every freedom-conscious Filipino to act
and decide by and for himself , and not simply to relyon religious teachings or
prescriptions. Decide we must by ourselves, for it is we, and not religious
authorities, who will ultimately bear the burden and consequences of our moral
decisions
● Secularism is a philosophical process that burdens that religious thought ought
not to influence the general population and religion and establishments ought to
be separate entities.