Hybrid morality

Given the advances in the contemporary human world, religious morality may no longer be that influential in Filipinos’ way of life. But the depth of Filipinos’ religious identity can also mean that it is not possible to make decisions solely on secular grounds. In confronting the onslaught of modernity and its consequences, the only realistic approach for the young generation is by means of what we may call a “hybrid morality.”

Indeed, the advent of the information age has necessarily resulted in the explosion of liberal values and the implosion of our own, influencing the lifestyle of today’s youth, the so-called generation XYZ. The French thinker Jean-Paul Sartre provided the most pressing case for human freedom, arguing that under the stare of another, the individual may find oneself rejected by the world around one. And yet, that same individual still possesses the ultimate power to decide. According to Sartre, man has the absolute responsibility to make a choice, and it is for this reason that for man, existence is a curse. “Man,” Sartre said, “is condemned to be free.”

Secular morality is primarily based on the supremacy of human reason. Any judgment about right and wrong is a matter of choice and responsibility. The glory of humankind can be traced back to the Enlightenment, which was meant to liberate the individual from the Dark Ages. In contrast, religious morality is grounded on Church teachings. The teachings of the Church are not a static guide for human behavior. Religious norms are also moral edicts meant to be followed by the believer if he or she desires eternal salvation.

But freedom from sin must not be confined to human spirituality. Human faith is fully cognizant of the realities of modern life. It is not monolithic. The problem, however, is that while a young professional may know, for instance, that millions of impoverished people go hungry every day, it seldom bothers his or her conscience that it is only an irrational urge that coerces him or her to buy the latest iPhone model.

Romulo Bautista has pointed out the waning influence of religious morality. Tech-savvy people often find themselves giving more credence to their autonomy than obedience to any form of authority. Consumerism may be the culprit, considering that liberal Western values permeate every gadget, unwittingly influencing human behavior. Consciously or not, the reality is that today’s youth may find their lives organized around a mobile phone, and the many facets of their social existence built around Facebook, Twitter or Instagram.

But Herbert Marcuse has argued that modern technology is not necessarily deterministic. While technological structures may constrain the individual to become calculating and one-dimensional, human agency remains a factor in terms of how the same person pursues his or her true emancipation. While technocratic control may dominate and obfuscate our consciousness of the human world, the capacity to make rational judgments remains considerably important in making modern technology adaptable, equitable and democratic.

We have been warned, of course, that consumerist values are dangerous. Tools may not be that innocent. Modern instruments have been so configured in order to optimize the possibility for profit on the part of corporate America, in pursuit of its utilitarian goals. The young’s overexposure to or imprisonment in the virtual world does not only diminish their sense of wellbeing but also defeats the very purpose of authentic human relations—human contact.

The young should be asked, for instance: Who are they listening to? Do they still listen to the authority of their parents? What is the value of authority in this respect? “We now live in the modern world,” the old might find themselves being told by today’s young generation. Our communitarian way of life rebels against this new phenomenon. But, of course, we have to be reminded that rebellion is also a thing of the Enlightenment.

In a way, the basic contention here, given the power of Western individualism, is that of developing the principle of tolerance. Hybrid morality does not mean one has to set aside one’s religious values. What it implies is that one is open and more understanding of the humanity of others, of what they feel, of what they think, or of the reality that they are experiencing. Culture, of course, is not a static reality. It is true, for instance, that the “God Question” has not been solved, at least not yet. But in the broader spectrum of things, you will find a prism in which right and wrong, good and bad, tread very thin lines. In this regard, universal values, like the myths of old, might simply become a thing of the past.

Christopher Ryan Maboloc is assistant professor of philosophy at Ateneo de Davao University. He has a master’s degree in applied ethics from Linkoping University in Sweden. His article, “Social Transformation and Online Technology: Situating Marcuse in the Online Age” is forthcoming in the Swedish journal “Techne: Research in Philosophy and Technology.”