Conservatives and Liberals

Liberals argue that the right is prior to the good. They insist that good is not always right.

For purposes of analytic clarity, good and evil pertain to ends while right and wrong pertain to actions.

Good and evil are values. They vary from one individual to another according to their situations. They are matters of taste and preferences on what is pleasant, desirable and favorable. They are merely declarative statements which are descriptive of how particular experiences appear to a person. Put another way, good and evil pertain to “is” statements.

Right and wrong are imperatives. They are supposed to be commands based on moral worth. They are assumed to be immutable and timeless. They are categorical imperatives which are prescriptive of what must be done in situations. In other words, right and wrong pertain to “ought” statements.

Thus, liberals conclude that what matters above all are not the ends that we choose but our freedom to choose them.

Liberals believe that citizens should have all the freedoms possible to frame, revise and pursue their own conception of the good consistent with the equal amount of freedoms of others. That is, governments must not impose a preferred way of life without the due consent from its citizens.

This is so because liberals conceive of a human being as a person. That is, a rational being who possess reason or the capacity to set his own ends. Because of this nature, every human being is essentially free, which implies that he has the ability to make his own choices and be accountable for them.

Therefore, regardless of their gender, race or station in life, all human beings are essentially equal. They have the innate right to freedom of action. This is the foundation of the idea of universal human rights.

On the contrary, conservatives question the basis for granting citizens all the freedoms possible to determine their life choices. If left with all the freedoms possible, citizens might make repugnant or disgusting choices.

Conservatives retort that the purpose of the creation of a government is paternalistic. That is, it functions like a father to his children guiding them through life by helping in their formation into good citizens. That is by informing them on the ideals of the good life.

Conservatives are afraid that freedom can be used as a dangerous means to an end. The government must be granted the authority to legitimately interfere with and curtail the freedoms made available to its citizens in order to protect a preferred way of life.

Questions:

1. Is good always right?
2. Which is prior the good or the right?
3. Are you a conservative or a liberal regarding the issue on the RH Bill? (See reading materials)
4. Review the Bill of Rights (Article III, 1987 Philippine.Constitution).
On rights, is our constitution conservative or liberal?
Support your answer by quoting at least 2 sections of Article III, 1987 Philippines Constitution.
If you think it is conservative, should it be liberal?
If you think it is liberal, should it be conservative?

Advertisements

102 Responses

  1. Is good always right?

    Some would say that it is. Because for some right and good are just the same, but i beg to disagree. There is always a distinction.

    Right, in its definition in the dictionary, is something conformable to standard of propriety or to the condition of the case; while good is something beneficial.

    For good to be considered right, it has to conform to standards and/or rules that set right as right. it couldn’t be the other way around because for something to be right, it doesn’t always have to be good. it is right because it complies to the rules/standards.

    Good is not always right because nobody can say what is good or what is not. Not even all that is right is good because, yes it is good for some, but still not good for all. This is because good is subjective. But what is right we can tell because right is objective. it is universal. it is absolute.

  2. ESSAY 1:: Is good always right?

    The good is not always right.

    What is right? A right is a noun which applies to something, such as a power or possession, to which one has an established claim. A term is said to be right when it is suited for something, or in a situation. On the other hand, good is defined as having some sort of positive effect on society. It can also be defined as that which possesses desirable qualities, promotes success, welfare, etc.; – opposed to evil. It is good to get high marks in an exam, but it is not right if you acquire it from cheating.

    The two terms is very much distinguished from one another using the saying “The end does not justify the means.” (I made the sentence to its negative form to emphasize my stand.) The “end” would pertain to the good, for it may possess desirable qualities or promote success, and the “means” would pertain to the right, if the act is suited. It can also be put as the claim of the doer, upon the act done. Not every good act can be considered right, such as stealing money just to give it to poor people. It may be good because it is desired, but it is not right because neither the stealer, nor the benefiting people have a claim upon the stolen goods.

    If it must be said that good is always right, or “The end justifies the means,” then cheating or stealing must also be considered right, provided that it does us good, providing us money or high grades. But it clashes with the definition of right both as a claim and suitability, for we definitely, do not have any right to any possession or knowledge that is not ours, and it is also not suitable to steal for selfish motives.

    ESSAY 2:: which is prior, the right or the good?

    the Right is prior to the good.

    As defined in essay 1, A right is a noun which applies to something, such as a power or possession, to which one has an established claim. A term is said to be right when it is suited for something, or in a situation. On the other hand, good is defined as having some sort of positive effect on society. It can also be defined as that which possesses desirable qualities, promotes success, welfare, etc.; – opposed to evil. It is good to get high marks in an exam, but it is not right if you acquire it from cheating.

    Judging by the definitions, we can say that a right is based on a person’s claim over something and a good is what is in itself desirable and promotes positive outcome upon a society. We can also conclude that not all right can be good, and vice versa. The right is prior to the good, because what is suitable, or what our claim, or right, of something, must come first before the endearment of a group of people. Again with the example from the previous essay, it must be thought that stealing money to give to the poor people must not be done, no matter how good it does to them, because the act, stealing, is not right. (none of a person’s rights is to claim/steal or give anything that they do not own.)

    If we must say that the good is prior to the right, then it is also safe to violate a person’s right just to receive satisfaction for the people, which provokes injustice. An example from this side of the argument is that abortion, because it would ease the lives of families, couples, or supposed-to-be-single mothers, should be accepted, even if we rob the human in the womb of his mother his right to live. That which is all but a human act to be done.

    ESSAY 3: : Are you a conservative or a liberal regarding the issue on the RH Bill?

    I am more of a liberal concerning the RH Bill.

    The conservative view on the RH Bill claims that this “Death Bill” is anti-poor, anti-life, and anti-moral. For them, it encourages people to be promiscuous style of living, even at a young age, and also legalizes the act of abortion, which is equal to murder. The liberal view, on the other hand, claims that the RH Bill is definitely pro-poor, pro-life, and pro-family. It makes family planning among couples more effective, thus giving them more allowance to raise a family; it reduces the population, which furthermore reduces the government’s expenses. More importantly, it aims to provide the people enough information regarding proper care of their reproductive health.

    I choose to be on the liberal side of this debate because I believe that the RH Bill’s main aim is to disseminate information to provide guidance to plan families with the use of different methods, either natural or modern. It is important not to keep this information to the people so they can have the choice how to manage their families. I also think that if couples decide that they are ready to engage in a sexual act, they must be fully responsible to whatever consequence they will have to face. To attain this responsibility, they must have the knowledge of what the consequences are, and the legal options they are free to choose from. I also think that the use of artificial contraceptives is fairly acceptable. We all do agree that sexual practices are not merely done for procreation. It is also an act of love and intimacy towards a partner. It is also proven that the use of modern contraceptives prevent unwanted pregnancies as a much higher rate than that of the natural methods of family planning.

    The opposing side would argue that the Bill suggests that abortion be legalized. So does it encourage people, even at a young age, to engage in a sexual act. to oppose this argument, it is not written in the bill that abortion will either be legalized or otherwise, therefore it does not declare anything about this judgment; thou I strongly believe that it should be considered illegal because it robs a fetus, a becoming person, off its right to live. As to the sex education at a young age, educators can still stress out that the point of this education is not to promiscuity, but the value for one’s self as a person and their responsibility upon their actions.

    ESSAY 4:: Is our constitution conservative or liberal?
    If you think it is conservative, should it be liberal?
    If you think it is liberal, should it be conservative?

    Our constitution is more liberal than conservative.
    A constitution is said to be liberal when it is written to expound the liberty of its citizens. It is more centred on the rights of the people, the rules which govern them, as well as its limitations. It is conservative when it is centred on the well fare, or ‘good’ of the country as a whole. A liberal constitution would suggest a more free country since the rights of the citizens are being encouraged, while a conservative institution suggests an ‘industry-centred’ country, which is more focused on the benefits of the country as a whole. Communist countries usually have a conservative constitution while democratic countries have a liberal constitution.
    Article III of our constitution is liberal. It is evident that it is written for the purpose of expounding its citizens’ freedom to a boundary where they do not interject with each others rights (except when they previously violated a law). It is shown in the following articles:
    Section 18. (1) No person shall be detained solely by reason of his political beliefs and aspirations.
    Section 9. Private property shall not be taken for public use without just compensation
    Section1. No person shall be deprived of life, liberty, or property without due process of law, nor shall any person be denied the equal protection of the laws.

    Section 1, 9 and 18 of the constitution gives emphasis on the people’s freedom of choice. May it be about his beliefs or possessions, except if he, after undergoing an investigation or a trial, is proven guilty of committing a crime. Section 9 specifically points out that any possession of a man cannot be taken by the government for public use. In this section it is clear that the right of man as a person comes first before the good of the country. Therefore, it is, for me, a liberal constitution.

    I believe that the constitution should remain liberal as it is. The reason for this is that i believe that government consists only a fraction of our lives as human beings. The government is the one that should provide for our well fare, not the other way around. We have rights as persons and we should exercise them freely. If the government should interfere with these rights, its purpose must be to promote justice among the people.

  3. oops… wrong page….

    sorry sorry sorry….

    waa nakakahiya….

    SIR,…. pwede po pa-erase???

  4. Question #1: ” Is good always right?”

    Good is not always right.

    Good is defined in the dictionary as something or an action that is of a favorable character, something that is agreeable. Right on the other hand is defined as just, proper or when it conforms to the truth.

    According to the definitions given earlier good is not always right because some options happen to favor us or our condition without the assurance that it conforms to what is just and proper. people tend to oversee being just and choose something that would do them good. Therefor good can only be considered as right if it follows a set of formulated standards.

    Some on the other hand tend to believe that it is the other way, that good is always right. According to this point of view, all good actions are set by a norm, it is the just thing to do, therefor it is right.

  5. Question #2: “Which is prior, the good or the right?”

    Good is prior to the right.

    Good, referring to its given definition is that which is agreeable or of a favorable character. Right on the contrary is defined as just, proper or something which conforms with the truth.

    The good is prior to the right because even if there were no set standards of living for every individual to follow, there would still always be the option that would be more appealing or more preferable for their benefit. Therefor the right for me is just a standardized set of good things and choices that would be the best for everyone, or if not, at least for the majority.

    Contrary to this, some believe that the right i prior to the good. The right being the basis of what people would consider as good. The good according to them is the product of the right.

  6. Question #3: “Are you a conservative or a liberal regarding the issue of RH Bill?”

    I am a liberal when it comes to the present RH Bill.

    Liberal with the definition of being open to certain facts and truths which may or may not conform to my religion or the standards we grew up with. Conservative on the other hand, as in the case of the catholic Church who does not accept anything that does not follow the standards which has been set for the longest period of time.

    I am liberal because I am willing to accept the fact that in our world today, if there would be no proper education and actions regarding population control, people would not understand its hazards and disadvantages. Because without the help of the RH Bill our population would continue to grow in number without control. An increase in population for me can be tolerable for as long as people can still support the needs of their families, but in the case of the Philippines over population would only lead to hunger even death. For me contraceptives can be a big help to control overpopulation, the only problem is if the people would use this option properly or not, anyways they would be the one’s who would suffer the consequences of their actions.

    On the other hand, others argue of conservatism, that the government should not step into issues regarding reproduction because it is an issue only God has control on. But for me God said multiply and not kill the young ones of hunger and poverty.

  7. ESSAY # 1. Is good always right?

    The Conclusion.
    Good is not always right. What is good is merely based on a person’s point of view while what is right is based on the natural law of moral ethics. What is good for one may not be good for others while what is right gives respect to each and every person.

    The Terms.
    Good – something beneficial based on a person’s preferences.
    Right – actions of a person which does not deprive others of their own freedom, and is based on the natural law of moral ethics.

    The Premises.
    Well, in the past nineteen years I’ve seen the distinction between these two confusing terms. There are things in the world which benefit some people yet those things may be dangerous and may become a hindrance for other’s freedom. It would be hard and vague to explain only through words so I shall state few examples to prove this. I think the distinction between the right and the good would be more understandable through examples.
    For example, a government official who steals money from his constitutes thinks that stealing and cheating his people would be good for him since he would get rich by doing so. But it is not the right thing to do since he is violating the purpose of the money he had stolen, and that is, for the improvement of the lives of his constitutes. With his action of corruption, he has taken away his people’s privilege of enjoying their benefits from the government.
    Another example is the illegal logging. Illegal loggers have the guts of just cutting down trees, though it is not permitted by the authorities because they would earn a huge profit from this act. It is good for them. However it is not right since, first of all, they destroy the nature, which disrespects not only those people who live near logging area but also the animals living in that area. What is beneficial for the illegal loggers is harmful to the inhabitants of the area.
    There are still lots of situation in this world which could explain the difference between the good and the right. But they all point out to one thing – that good is not always right. There are things which are good but harmful for others, therefore making the act wrong.

    On the contrary…
    On the other hand, some believe that there is no difference between the good and the right. It is since they believe that something would never be right if it is not innately good in the first place.

  8. Question #4:
    “Review the bill of rights. (Article III, 1987 Philippine.Constitution).
    On rights, is our constitution conservative or liberal?
    Support your answer by quoting at least 2 sections of Article III, 1987 Philippines Constitution.
    If you think it is conservative, should it be liberal?
    If you think it is liberal, should it be conservative?”

    For me the Philippine Bill of Rights is conservative.

    Conservative as defined as something preservative or is disposed to maintain existing views and liberal liberal is defined as something that is not narrow in opinion.

    The Bill of Rights in the Philippine Constitution is conservative because it is concerned mainly on preservation. The constitution is Based on control.
    Two sections of Article III (Bill of Rights) can be used to support the claim on conservatism of the constitution.

    Section 1. No person shall be deprived of life, liberty, or property without due process of law, nor shall any person be denied the equal protection of the laws.

    Section 2. The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects against unreasonable searches and seizures of whatever nature and for any purposes shall be inviolable, and no search warrant or warrant of arrest shall issue except upon probable cause to be determined personally by the judge after examination under oath or affirmation of the complainant and the witnesses he may produce, and particularly describing the place to be searched and the persons or things to be seized.

    The Bill of Rights for me should be made more liberal because the control imposed by the law tend to only make the citizens rebellious and do contrary to what the constitution states.

    On the other hand, some people believe that the constitution is too liberal because they do not feel that what it states are followed.

  9. QUESTION no.1: Is good always right?

    Good is not always right. The definition of the terms depends on the person’s view of what is good and what is right.

    Good is something morally positive and is conforming to a standard.

    Right is conforming to truth or fact and qualities that constitute what is correct, just, proper, or honorable.

    Things are clasiified based on a certain norm or standard. The classification of things or actions depdends on who would classify it as good/evil and right/wrong.

    There are things that are good but are not right. A person must act according to what he believes is right and not only thinking whether it is good or evil. For a person to say that something is good, he should be aware what are the things that are considered as evil. Same goes with what is right.
    There are things that are good because it only conforms certain standards, but still cannot be considered as right.

    Others believe that good is always right because when you say that somethiing is good, it means it has passed the standards or laws made by a certain body, therefore it is right.

  10. Potek anlulupet ng mga essay ah! haha. try ko gandahan akin..

  11. QUESTION no.2: Which is prior the good or the right?

    Right is prior to good.

    Same definition as question number 1.

    Right is more important than good. When you say something is good, it is just conforming to certain laws made by other people’s view, meaning it became good because it has not violated that certain laws wihthout thinking whether it is right. On the other hand, when you say something is right, it still may be good at the same time right. Without the rules and laws, a person could still think and decide what is right not like what is good.

    Others believe that good is prior to right perhaps because of what is happening in our society. Our actions are based on the laws we should follow.

  12. 1. Is good always right?

    Good is not always right.

    Good is defined in the dictionary as anything beneficial to the character. For me, good is just a matter of taste. Good and evil is something or somewhat that affects your feelings and judgment about something. Right is defined as what is equal, just, and resulting in truthfulness. Right is universal for me and does not take someone’s side.

    The good thing to do doesn’t necessarily mean that it is the right thing to do. And sometimes, the right thing to do would hurt you and is not easy. It would take a lot of courage to do the right thing rather than doing what is easy. There’s this such thing called “Moral Fiber”, and I think is the essence of doing the right things in life. Moral Fiber is shown in a Harry Potter movie, where he could have easily won the contest but rather sacrificed his life for another contestant who’s sister would drown if not saved by Harry.

    Problems would come and go but the important thing is how we deal with those problems we face. Time would come that we would have to decide in doing what is right, and what is easy.

    On the other hand, right things become good depending on the type of person you are and the norms of the people around you. Do what is good for you and what makes you feel happy and comfortable. Life is too short, SIN a little.=P

  13. potek tatlo pa! haha.

  14. BUZZ!

  15. #1 question

    Is good always right? Abruptly, that depends upon anyone’s definition. Good is something that possess desirable qualities, promote success, welfare, or happiness or is otherwise beneficial, while right is being in accordance with what is just, good, or proper. We are all situated in the world as we’ve known. We may see something good but for the others it may not. Vice versa also for something right. To sum it all up, good isn’t always right.

    #2 question

    Right is more prior than good. Right is based on rules, that will have a just effect, while good is just a point of view of someone’s instincts. Also, the antonym of right is wrong, and good is bad or evil. In this case, doing something wrong is better than doing something evil. That leads to right is prior to good.

  16. madaling pumili ng kongklusyon. madaling kumontra sa sariling kongklusyon. madaling maghanap ng terms sa diksyunaryo. pero napakahirap magjustify. hahaha…

  17. ESSAY #2. Which is prior the good or the right?

    The Conclusion.
    Good is prior to the right. It is said that a person is born with natural goodness, free from the original sin.

    The Terms.
    Good – a quality of a person which is morally favorable.
    Right – actions of a person directed by his values.

    The Premises.
    Those who currently read this might think that I am contradicting my first essay. In this essay, I defined the terms also from the previous essay differently.
    I believe that humans are innately good. It is only that as he grows, his values change due to some factors like peers, environment, and the like. As he grows, his definition of what is good also changes and he begins to understand things which are right and which are wrong for him. He was born with natural goodness, and then he learns what is right.

    On the contrary…
    Some will argue that right is prior to the good since a person cannot decide what is good for him if he does not know what is right.

  18. ESSAY #3. Are you a conservative or a liberal regarding the issue on the RH Bill?

    The Conclusion:
    On some parts regarding this bill, I am a liberal. I agree to the education of the minds of the youth specifically from Grade 5 students up to high school students as regards the reproductive health issue. I believe that educating young minds is one of the keys to control population and lessen poverty.

    The Terms:
    Liberals – those people who value most their freedom.
    Conservatives – those people who see the government as a paternal institution.

    The Premises:
    I believe that it would be a lot better for young people to learn about reproductive health inside an educational institution if not in their homes than for them to learn about it from other people who are not capable of educating others. This is a very critical issue and I think there is a proper way to disseminate information regarding this topic. If this would not be taught and learned accordingly, then the problems of teenagers having casual sex, outrageous population growth and poverty, and the like arise.

    On the contrary…
    There are some sections of the bill which make me conservative. I am afraid that this Bill may promote more sexual activities not only among unmarried couple but also among teenagers. In this case, it may become an anti-women bill since in the long run women would be treated not as partners but as object of pleasures of men.

  19. hmm… as of nov 24, 8:24 PM, iilan pa lang meron, haha…

    (nakakahiya, ilang beses ako pabalikbalik dito sa wordpress di ko mahanap ang site… ang nasa notes ko kasi “gouste2008”, “govuste2008” pala hahaha….)

    di ko ata kaya tapatan ang mga to… kailangan pa ng konting thinking time…

  20. 1. Is good always right?
    Good is not always right. As defined in the dictionary, good is doing the act that is pleasurable, desirable or favorable. Right on contrary is defined as conformance to justice or law or morality.

    Based on the definitions above, it can be said that good for one person isn’t good for others. We have different basis for what is good. We are situated in the world and we have different pictures on what is good. Nowadays, people do what they think that is good for it is needed without considering its conformity to the law. For example, a man steals money to buy medicine for his illness. It is good that he would able to buy his medicine and cure himself but indeed the act of stealing isn’t right. It does not follow that if the end is good then the mean is always right. People tend to do good and forget what is right because this is what would favor them. Good will only be always right if we people have same perspective on what is good.

    On the contrary, good maybe considered as right because there are SUCH actions that the end is good still the mean is right.

    2. Which is prior the good or the right?
    The good is prior to the right. Referring to the dictionary, good is defined as the act that is pleasurable, desirable or favorable and right defined as conformance to justice or law or morality.

    Pondering about which is prior, for me, good is prior. It is true that we must consider the rightness of an act but we tend to oversee it because of the weight of the goodness is much heavier. We are more concerned of what is good for it is more essential than right and it is what would favor them. Students would rather copy his/her classmate’s assignment than being marked zero. It is not right to copy but they know it’s good that copying will help them pass the subject. It may be selfish, but importance is what we talk about not morality.

    On the other hand, some believe that right is prior to the good because they consider morality.

    3. Are you a conservative or a liberal regarding the issue on the RH Bill?
    I am liberal concerning the issue on RH Bill. Conservatives are people who reject any new idea/concept while liberals are people who are open to new concepts or ideas. The RH bill may be seen as conservative or liberal. In the conservative view the bill is anti-poor, anti-life, and anti-moral while the liberal views the bill as opposite.

    Sex is done primarily because of two main reasons “kasiyahan sa mainit na pagmamahalan” and “pagbubunga” (according to the church). Due to poverty, sex nowadays is more of a past time than a sacred act done by couples. People tend to forget the term “kasiyahan sa pagmamahalan” and replace it with “kasarapan” resulting to rapid growth of population, escalating poverty, and increasing prices of basic commodities and services. These scenarios must be stopped as soon as possible. Filipinos, particularly the poor, urgently need access to information (like the use of contraceptives etc.) and services that will address their reproductive health needs. This will effectively reduce the rate of unwanted pregnancies compared to using traditional methods. This reproductive health law will help empower Filipinos to achieve a better quality of life.

    On the contrary, others still believe on the conservative view of the issue for it is what the church wants and the government must not mind or trespass regarding this issue.

    4. Review the Bill of Rights (Article III, 1987 Philippine.Constitution).
    On rights, is our constitution conservative or liberal?
    Support your answer by quoting at least 2 sections of Article III, 1987 Philippines Constitution.
    If you think it is conservative, should it be liberal?
    If you think it is liberal, should it be conservative?

    On rights our constitution is liberal. Liberals which are broad-minded believe that citizens should have all the freedoms possible to frame while Conservatives are favor of preserving and is afraid that freedom can be used as a dangerous means to an end. The two sections in The Bill of Rights below may be used to support the claim on liberalism of the article.

    Section 1. No person shall be deprived of life, liberty, or property without due process of law, nor shall any person be denied the equal protection of the laws.
    Section 4. No law shall be passed abridging the freedom of speech of expression, or of the press, or the right of the people peaceably to assemble
    Section 18. (1) No person shall be detained solely by reason of his political beliefs and aspirations.

    These 3 sections emphasizes that citizens are given all the freedoms possible. The law does not deprive its citizens their rights and liberties. It respects the freedom of its people thus, making it liberal.

    It should stay as liberal as it is for it protects our rights and liberties. It is better to give us freedom and know our own limitations than enforcing us to do things that deprive us from our freedom. We are a democratic country, thus needing a liberal constitution. On the contrary, others say that constitution is conservative, because we cannot fully use our freedom and the government limits our freedom.

  21. Question 1: Is good always right?

    I beg to disagree…
    For something to be called right, it should suffice to be proper, correct, or something in the norm or standards. It is universal as it is, compared to something which is good, which we can refer to as subjective, meaning the degree of being good or bad of something may differ to that of another person. In essence, good = right, is a fallacy with respect to how each is defined….

    =========>>>>
    Question 2: Which is prior, the good or the right?

    Although I’ve differentiated the two in the previous section, and as my statements point to prefer what is right, I would have to say that I believe that the good is something to be considered first.I would have to argue, that as humans, we have the tendency to prefer what fits our view on morality, which is shaped through our religious belief and values on which we grew up on.

    But then, there is that conclusion I had when I read the book, Sophie’s world, (Please don’t think of me as an Atheist after this…) god is simply one of our human needs, like water, food, or shelter. A god is simply an authority, one that we ought to respect and copy. The need here is the desire to have comfort in the fact that there is something greater out there, guiding or shaping us. This is why there are a variety of religions, sects, or even cults out there, as we are situated in the world, out “taste” for what a god should be shows… (wow I lost my point…)

    Anyway, since we are the ones that create our view of god, and since our morality is defined more or less by faith, this would then mean that our morality actually comes from ourselves. To simply put it, we know what is good within…

    On the contrary though, since others argue that good can vary with degree, they think that to be safe, the right is the right choice…

    =======>>>>
    uhh.. just to be safe I’ll post these first…

  22. Is good always right?

    Goodness of heart does not always accompany choices righteous in act.

    Something is said to be “good” if it is pleasing, desirable, and acceptable by society. “Good” pertains to anything positive in the eyes of man. Things are “good” depending on the context of one’s taste and perspective. Consequently, something is “right” when it conforms to justice, the truth and the law. The “right” is any action that links to the virtue of justice.

    Goodness makes man pure. Righteousness makes man incorruptible.

    Based on human nature, gods are created to fill in the mysteries and the vague. Supreme beings are born in human minds to make a truce with the questions of man about his identity, wellbeing and relations in society. This turns to the creation of religion. Religion is one basic factor of morality of a person. In this turn, man creates his own boundaries of good and evil. Discrepancy of religion leads to discrepancy of what is good and evil. Outside the context of religion, man is acting according to what is right if and only if his actions are justified, clear of malicious thought and are selfless. Self-sacrifice is an example of righteousness. Sacrifice may not be good for one but becomes right if the end is for the benefit of the greater.

    Negating this claim, if good could always be right, this could become a possibility if your sense of what is good directly translates into what is right and turns every other thing evil and wrong.

  23. onto….

    Question 3: Are you a conservative or a liberal regarding the issue on the RH Bill?

    Well, I can’t actually find if abortion is part of the RH bill…
    (I think its not anyway)
    I would have to choose the liberal side of this argument though, as I choose that it is the right (not necessarily the good) think to do…

    It’s really sad that many people think that many are uninformed when it comes to reproductive health. The other thing that saddens me is that although some heard of it, they would still go on and make babies, may it be an accident or not. But as we know, this happens because of the older generations of people who still believe that their children (the number of children) are their wealth. As seen in latter generations, people are aware that having less children is the easier life, as income can be used for more things. BUT, with these latter generations, the problem becomes different. Casual sex becomes a habit on younger people, may they be minors or not…
    And then, the other problem is that we are the Filipinos of today. By that I mean we lack the discipline to follow what is set. Tinatamad tayo na sundin ang bagong bill na ito…

    Will it be effective or not? I cant really conclude on that…
    But, having this bill up would mean there would be greater chances that people would incline to change, so I’ll have to vote on it may it fail or not….
    I just hope this new generation, open to casual sex, would not think that doing “it” is ok because you can do something about it…

  24. Which is prior, the right or the good?

    Righteousness is prior to what is good.

    Regarding the definitions stated, something is said to be “good” if it is pleasing, desirable, and acceptable by society and pertains to anything positive in the eyes of man. “Good” is guided by man’s religion. Accordingly, something is “right” when it conforms to justice, the truth and the law and links to the virtue of justice.

    Based on said definitions, man can evaluate something good based on his claim over what makes distinction between what is good and what is evil. He may think of something good as everything that pleases himself and everything that doesn’t is evil. But this doesn’t fall into the sense that everything that is good is what suffices justice. This leads that not all that is “good” conforms to the truth and the law. The “right” is prior to the “good” because what is more essential is justice. Rather than thinking what is good for the people, thinking what is right for the people stands upfront. Though “goodness” of heart is important, “righteousness” of act is more important.

    “It is a fine thing to be honest, but it is also very important to be right.” – Winston Churchill

    If it is more apt to say that the “good” is prior to the “right” then man would live in a world that is run according to what is “good” for another person he could even not be aware of. Blindly controlled by someone whose sense of what is “good” and what is “evil” is mysteriously more favored than anyone. Imagine a world where genocide and deviltry is perceived to be good and the sense of righteousness is just a flickering light against an overwhelming darkness.

  25. Are you a conservative or a liberal regarding the issue on the RH Bill?

    I stand as a liberal concerning the RH Bill.

    The liberals view the RH Bill as an answer to the problematic rise of our country’s population. This leads to better reproductive health for the people and a better concept of it. This Bill would also lead the country into much less burden and economic disputes. The conservatives, on the other side, view this Bill as manifestation of evil itself. This stirs people to live a malicious life even at their youth and reaks of death for having legalized abortion.

    I stand as a liberal on the issue for I believe that our country failed to spread education regarding reproductive health and family planning etc. and to accept and think of a solution to the impending danger this would bring is nothing else but a priority. Accepting this fact, I honestly agree that the RH Bill would bring the country into a better shape, because without it, the population would continue to rise without limit. Though a rise in population is not itself a problem, the failure to comply to this situation is the real problem. Inability to support a family you chose to have is definitely a crime in a time of crisis. The RH Bill promotes the use of contraceptives and other forms of family planning. This could prove to be an important panacea to the cancer of overpopulation

    Regarding the conservative argument, the government has no right to enter into issues regarding reproduction because it is something that man couldn’t comprehend and has no power over it other than God himself. Even if this proves to be right, it has its flaws: Could God accept death of hunger and not the use of contraceptives?

  26. ok, last…

    Question 4:
    Review the Bill of Rights (Article III, 1987 Philippine.Constitution).
    On rights, is our constitution conservative or liberal?
    Support your answer by quoting at least 2 sections of Article III, 1987 Philippines Constitution.
    If you think it is conservative, should it be liberal?
    If you think it is liberal, should it be conservative?

    In my opinion, the bill of rights is rather conservative more than liberal. Its not because the rights are rather expanded, but because they are based more on what is good instead of right…

    Section 5. No law shall be made respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof. The free exercise and enjoyment of religious profession and worship, without discrimination or preference, shall forever be allowed. No religious test shall be required for the exercise of civil or political rights.

    This right is actually a necessity to be placed in the bill, but on the way it is stated, it shows that religion plays a big part on how the bill was made. As Filipinos, we are attached to our Christian values, and this is better shown when we look at how we have “a hard church and a soft state”.

    Section 8. The right of the people, including those employed in the public and private sectors, to form unions, associations, or societies for purposes not contrary to law shall not be abridged.

    In association with section 12, this right protects organizations as well as religious groups.
    Although not quite noticeable, majority of the rights are limited to what is good instead of what is right.

  27. Is our constitution conservative or liberal?
    If you think it is conservative, should it be liberal?
    If you think it is liberal, should it be conservative?

    Regarding our rights, we have a liberalized constitution. The Liberals believe that freedom is what makes man human. Man deserves the freedom he is entitled with since the beginning of existence. Oppositely, Conservatives favor the thought of putting a boundary to this “freedom” that the liberals are striving for. They believe that without any strings attached to freedom; anything harmless could lead to something unbearable.

    These sections in Article III of our Constitution are a vivid example of liberalism.
    Section 1. No person shall be deprived of life, liberty, or property without due process of law, nor shall any person be denied the equal protection of the laws.

    Section 4. No law shall be passed abridging the freedom of speech of expression, or of the press, or the right of the people peaceably to assemble

    Section 12. (1) Any person under investigation for the commission of an offense shall have the right to be informed of his right to remain silent and to have competent and independent counsel preferably of his own choice. If the person cannot afford the services of counsel, he must be provided with one. These rights cannot be waived except in writing and in the presence of counsel.

    (2) No torture, force, violence, threat, intimidation, or any other means which vitiate the free will shall be used against him. Secret detention places, solitary, incommunicado, or other similar forms of detention are prohibited.

    Section 18. (1) No person shall be detained solely by reason of his political beliefs and aspirations.
    The 4 sections stated above highlights the freedom that the Filipino citizens deserve all the freedoms possible. The Constitution does not abridge its citizens’ rights, liberties – their freedom. The Constitution is a contract that obviously values the freedom that is entitled to every Filipino.

    The Bill of Rights is liberal and should continue to be as what it is. It shouldn’t be less liberal because a citizen should not be deprived of his freedom especially within his country. The Bill of Rights is our vanguard to any deprivation of our personal freedom. Though freedom is granted, it is not limitless. The limit to freedom is when it deprives others of freedom. We are humans and we must treat others at par. Though there are conservatives that say that the Bill of Rights should be more conservative. If so, what is the sense to this freedom if you’re always pulled by one leg?

  28. ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
    1. Is good always right?

    No, good is not always right. There are instances when something good is deemed wrong.

    Good is subjective in nature. It is determined by a preference that varies from one person to another. On the other hand, the right is objective. To be correct is its quality.

    As stated a while ago, the term good differs depending on one’s perspective. A person may feel that lying is good but we know that modifying the truth is wrong. The goodness of an act does not guarantee its rightness.

    On the contrary, some would argue that the good is always right. They say that there is no difference between the two terms and therefore, what is good is always right.

    ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
    2. Which is prior the good or the right?

    The right is prior to the good. What is just is more important.

    The dictionary defines good as that which is beneficial or morally good. It defines right as what is just. According to the lectures, the good is concerned with the outcome of an act while the right is concerned with the means.

    If an act would be defined or judged by its outcome, then thieves could argue that they broke in because they were hungry, or the murderers could reason that the human race is better-off without the people they killed. But this isn’t the way to run the world. The manner in which a deed was executed can never be justified by its product. It follows that the method is more significant than the result.

    On the other point of view, some say that the good is prior to the right. If good refers to the moral standards set by God. Then it follows, that it is right because it is good. (However, the definition of terms of this argument is completely different.)

    ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
    3. Are you a conservative or a liberal regarding the issue on the RH Bill?

    I am against the RH Bill, therefore, a conservative regarding this issue.

    Conservatives believe that a government must be an interventionist. Liberals believe that the government must be weak, a non-interventionist.

    The bill might sound good because it aims to reduce poverty in the country but it does not necessarily mean that the goal can be attained if the bill is passed. Population is not the only factor that affects economic development. The government should focus more on providing education and job opportunities to its citizens, not reduce its population and consequently its manpower.

    The liberals that push the bill believe that it is both pro-poor and pro-life. They argue that it is beneficial to the country, the family and the women. (It may be true that a smaller family might bring a richer future but this is also attainable without passing the bill.)

    ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
    4. Review the Bill of Rights (Article III, 1987 Philippine.Constitution).
    On rights, is our constitution conservative or liberal?
    Support your answer by quoting at least 2 sections of Article III, 1987 Philippines Constitution.
    If you think it is conservative, should it be liberal?
    If you think it is liberal, should it be conservative?

    I believe that the Bill of Rights of the 1987 Philippine Constitution is liberal.

    “Liberals believe that citizens should have all the freedoms possible to frame, revise and pursue their own conception of the good consistent with the equal amount of freedoms of others.”

    “Section 4. No law shall be passed abridging the freedom of speech, of expression, or of the press, or the right of the people peaceably to assemble and petition the government for redress of grievances.”

    It is evident in Section 4 that the constitution allows its people to express themselves. Also, it does not give restrictions to minority groups, thus, treating them with equal amounts of freedom.

    “Section 5. No law shall be made respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof. The free exercise and enjoyment of religious profession and worship, without discrimination or preference, shall forever be allowed. No religious test shall be required for the exercise of civil or political rights.”

    Section 5 also shows that the constitution gives ‘all the freedoms possible’ including that of religion.

    Some would claim that we have a conservative constitution because somehow our freedom was diminished.
    ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

  29. 1. Is good always right?

    Good is not always right. This is because of the difference of each person’s point of views. Some things might be good and right for us but it may be bad and wrong in other peoples view.

    Good and right are two distinct words. Good is an end that is appealing to someone’s view. While right means correct.

    Right is always good but good is not always right because of the different situations we are in to. There are some situations wherein good is not that good to other people that they may be affected negatively then they will say that it is not right. But, if it is right, it will be assumed good or well due to its absolute nature of being correct or beneficial.

    On the other hand, some people think that good is always right. This is due to the influences of someone or something superior or a set of norms just like morality.

    ***

    2. Which is prior, the good or the right?

    Right is prior to the good, because you can’t say that it is good if you haven’t done something yet.

    We define terms as right which means correct and good as an appealing end to someone’s point of view.

    People see things differently. They each have their own point of view. This results to varied concepts and beliefs. In a case of decision making, a person tends to think what will be the acceptable decision. If it is normally right to do, it will end up well then it will be considered as something good or simply a good decision.

    On the other hand, good is prior to right due to circumstances where people will go for something that they could benefit or could bring good to them. They think good is prior because they think of themselves first and go for the one that they may benefit to even if it means stepping on other people.

    ***

    3. Are you conservative or liberal regarding the issue on RH bill?

    Liberal, because a conservative type of bill can’t provide solution to the growing population of our country. In a country like the Philippines, where the citizens are hard-headed, a reinforced and strict approach is more appropriate.

    Liberal means being broad-mindedness which means, liberals offer a wide variety of solution and are open to criticism and changes. Conservative means resistant to change. They tend to do things traditionally.

    I think it will be good if the youth are properly taught about sex in school because they will not be able to learn it outside the school walls. One reason is they will surely be shy of afraid to open up this topic to their family. Another is the use of contraceptives. It is also a good way because we can’t force people not to have sex. We don’t have the authority to tell them what they are supposed to do. They are human beings that could think. The only thing we can do is try to make them aware of the possible outcomes. Therefore, a more sounding awareness campaign or be taught about it well enough is a good approach.

    On the other hand, being conservative is like hoping for snow to fall here in the Philippines. It’s impossible to stop such big problems by holding back. The government should reinforce and be much stricter in implementing rules and a more liberal approach will be much effective.

    ***

    4. Review the bill of rights (article iii, 1987 constitution). On rights, do you think our constitution is liberal or conservative? If liberal, should it be conservative? If conservative, should it be liberal?

    I think the bill of rights is conservative and it should be a little more liberal.

    Liberal as defined as broad and open to changes. Not the conservative type that does everything in the traditional way.

    By mere saying what a person has or must have in the state is not enough. It should be consulted to the people. As a democratic country, the government must listen to what the people need and based on those, they may see what is lacking and what must be improved. They should be more liberal and be open to changes. Time goes fast and situations changes. Not everything is applicable in a particular time. The bill of rights also should be more liberal to be able to cope with the new generation.

    The government should be flexible to the needs and the changing time. As time progresses, beliefs changes and not all that we are used to are applicable and still effective. We need changes and improvements.

  30. ESSAY #4. Review the Bill of Rights (Article III, 1987 Philippine.Constitution).
    On rights, is our constitution conservative or liberal?
    Support your answer by quoting at least 2 sections of Article III, 1987 Philippines Constitution.
    If you think it is conservative, should it be liberal?
    If you think it is liberal, should it be conservative?

    ARTICLE III
    Bill of Rights
    SEC. 1.
    No person shall be deprived of life, liberty, or property without due process of law, nor shall any person be denied the equal protection of the laws.
    SEC. 2
    The right of the peo[p]le to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects against unreasonable searches and seizures of whatever nature and for any purpose shall be inviolable, and no search warrant or warrant of arrest shall issue except upon probable cause to be determined personally by the judge after examination under oath or affirmation of the complainant and the witnesses he may produce, and particularly describing the place to be searched and the persons or things to be seized.
    SEC. 3.
    (1) The privacy of communication and correspondence shall be inviolable except upon lawful order of the court, or when public safety or order requires otherwise as prescribed by law.
    (2) Any evidence obtained in violation of this or the preceding section shall be inadmissible for any purpose in any proceeding.
    SEC. 4.
    No law shall be passed abridging the freedom of speech, of expression, or of the press, or the right of the people peaceably to assemble and petition the Government for redress of grievances.
    SEC. 19.
    (1) Excessive fines shall not be imposed, nor cruel, degrading or inhuman punishment inflicted. Neither shall death penalty be imposed, unless, for compelling reasons involving heinous crimes, the Congress hereafter provides for it. Any death penalty already imposed shall be reduced to reclusion perpetua.
    (2) The employment of physical, psychological, or degrading punishment against any prisoner or detainee or the use of substandard or inadequate penal facilities under subhuman conditions shall be dealt with by law.

    The Conclusion:
    I think our constitution is conservative enough that it clearly states the rights of a person in the Bill of Rights. It does not require becoming more liberal since it emphasizes the respect for a person, most especially respect for the lives of others.

    The Terms:
    Liberals – those people who value most their freedom.
    Conservatives – those people who see the government as a paternal institution.
    Constitution – please refer to the index page of this site.

    The Premises:
    The Bill of Rights I think is fair enough for each and every Filipino citizen. It is not only the lives of normal citizens are respected; the lives of the lawbreakers are being respected as well as stated in Section 19, that death penalty will not be imposed as a punishment for the wrongdoing of one. Disrespect for the life of a prisoner is also punishable by law. Even the people’s right to express their freedom is also protected. Generally, the Bill of Rights is capable of protecting Filipinos from disrespect by others, especially by the authorities, as stated in Section 2.

    On the contrary…
    Some still think that the constitution should be more liberal since some believe that humans are capable of deciding for what is good and what is bad for them. And it is also that humans are intelligent enough for them to require a paternal institution which is the government. It is also liberal in the sense that it does not meddle much on the freedom of expression of the citizens. Regarding this, I suggest that it should be more conservative since I have been observing that not all who express their grievances on the streets are saying something meaningful. Some express their selves on the streets just for personal interests.

    Source:http://www.geocities.com/no2idnow/consti.html

  31. 1. Is good always right?

    The good is not always right. There are situations that an action is wrong but it can be good or beneficial, and there are situations that an action is right but it is really evil in nature. It is because we are situated in this world.

    Good is defined as of favorable character or tendency. It is synonymous to the word virtuous, and its antonym is evil.
    Right is defined as conforming to facts or truth. It is synonymous to the word true, genuine and correct. Its antonym is wrong.

    There are situations that are wrong and good, and right and evil. It is true because right and wrong pertain to the action done. But good and evil pertain to the end or the result of the action.
    For example, in world war II, USA dropped the atomic bombs to Hiroshima and Nagasaki, Japan to end the war. USA’s action is wrong because bombing the japanese cities will kill thousands of people. But it turned out to be good because it was a means to end the world war.
    An example of a right-evil situation is when a politician offers a feeding program to poor people to gain their trust and in turn, elect him in the position that he wants. The feeding program, which is the means is right but the end, to get the position that he wants, is really evil because he used a right deed for an evil cause.

    On the contrary, good can also be right. Rather, the right can also be good. A right action can be good if the end of the action is beneficial to the receiver of action.

  32. 2. Which is prior the good or the right?

    As I said in the first essay, right pertains to the means and good pertains to the end. The right must be prior to the good because the truth is absolute. We may have different views of the world but we all seek one thing, the truth. It may or may not be beneficial to us but it is the basis of everything.

    The definitions of good and right are in the first essay. Truth is defined as sincerity in action, character and utterance. It is also defined as an actuality and in accord with fact or reality. Prior is defined as taking precedence in terms of importance.

    The right must be prior to the good because before a person does something, he thinks first right? It is because man is a rational being. We are born with will and the ability to reason out for our actions. We think first if we will do the right thing or if we are doing the right thing. If we do the right thing, the action being good or not is decided after the action is done.

    On the contrary, good may also be prior to right. We may think first if our action will be beneficial to others and to ourselves before we do it, regardless of the action being right or wrong.

  33. ISSUE # 1:
    ”Is good always right?”

    I agree that all of us are situated in this world so each of us has their own perception of good and evil with right and wrong. I’m not really into liberalism but for me GOOD IS NOT ALWAYS RIGHT.

    Good is an adjective indicating that something is approved of or desirable, while right is associated in conformity with fact, reason, truth, or some standard or principle. Some would say that these words are similar with each other but actually they’re not, most especially when it comes to making a claim. Good is more on the subjective side which emphasizes on the preferences, taste, etc. Its concern is more on the end itself. On the contrary, right is objective in nature which gives prior to the act itself rather than the end.

    Considering the definitions mentioned previously, I can say that the end does not justify the means, even if the situation is favorable for you or for everyone, we should take in to consideration our actions. For example, a student will have an exam for tomorrow but he failed to prepare for it, so the next day since the situation calls for it, he cheats. Cheating per se is wrong but since we are situated in this world and that is his situation the “good” thing that he can do is to cheat (since it is favorable with him). I think this example explains my stand. Acts and outcome must come hand in hand so that it’s not just good but it’s also right.

    On the contrary, some says that good and right has no difference. For me this issue depends on the person itself, just like what I’ve said a while ago, all of us are situated in this world.

  34. 3. Are you a conservative or a liberal regarding the issue on the RH Bill?

    I am a liberal regarding the issue on the RH Bill. It is because the need for responsible parenthood and family planning is increasing. The Filipino people must be aware of the pros and cons of reproductive health.

    a. Responsible Parenthood – refers to the will, ability and cornmitTrient of parents to respond to the needs and aspirations of the family and children more particularly through family planning;

    b. Family Planning – refers to a program which enables couple, and individuals to decide freely and responsibly the number and spacing of their children and to have the information and means to carry out their decisions, and to have informed choice and access to a full range of safe, legal and effective family planning methods, techniques and devices.

    c. Reproductive Health -refers to the state of physical, mental and social well-being and not merely the absence of disease or infirmity, in all matters relating to the reproductive system and to its funcitions and processes. This implies that people are able to have a satisfying and safe sex life, that they have the capability to reproduce and the freedom to decide if, when and how often to do so, provided that these are not against the law. This further implies that women and men are afforded equal status in matters related to sexual relations and reproduction.

    I believe that people must be educated first regarding the RH Bill before they agree or disagree in its contents. Especially the poor people. The main problem of the country is poverty and overpopulation. It is because poor people lack information on family planning and safe sex. They tend to follow their sexual instincts and not think first, thus leading to unwanted pregnancies. This is also true for teenagers. Sex and sexuality education must also be included in the grade school and high school curriculum for the teens to know more about the issue. It is not really an issue of pro or anti-life but an issue of knowing and not knowing what happens after the urge of sex.

    On the contrary, anti-RH Bill people states that family planning and the use of contraceptives are anti-life. It is true that when you use contraceptives, you prevent procreation. It is like when you agree to the RH Bill, you also disagree to the procreative side of sexual intercourse. The RH Bill also promotes promiscuity among teenagers and young adults. I think that with proper education, this situations can be prevented.

  35. 4. Review the Bill of Rights (Article III, 1987 Philippine.Constitution).
    On rights, is our constitution conservative or liberal?
    Support your answer by quoting at least 2 sections of Article III, 1987 Philippines Constitution.
    If you think it is conservative, should it be liberal?
    If you think it is liberal, should it be conservative?

    The Article III, or the Bill of Rights is liberal in nature. It is because it promotes equality among the citizens.

    Liberal is defined as one who is open-minded or not strict in the observance of orthodox, traditional, or established forms or ways. Conservative is defined as one who adheres to traditional methods or views.

    These are the first two sections of Article III:

    Section 1. No person shall be deprived of life, liberty, or property without due process of law, nor shall any person be denied the equal protection of the laws.

    Section 2. The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects against unreasonable searches and seizures of whatever nature and for any purpose shall be inviolable, and no search warrant or warrant of arrest shall issue except upon probable cause to be determined personally by the judge after examination under oath or affirmation of the complainant and the witnesses he may produce, and particularly describing the place to be searched and the persons or things to be seized.

    In these two sections, it is clearly stated that the people must be free and no one can be deprived of their liberty. Liberty of each individual is one of the characteristics of being liberal.

    On the contrary, it can also be conservative because it respects every person and limits his freedom so that he cannot deprive others of their freedom.

  36. question 1: is good always right?

    I myself doesn’t believe that good is always right for many reasons.

    so that we are on the same plane and point of view, let us define the terms good and right. the word “good” pertains to being virtuous, righteous, and morally excellent while “right” has the meaning of being in accordance with what is good, proper, or just.

    some people tend to do terrible things thinking that it is good but on the contrary it is the opposite. let’s take an example of Adolf Hitler. He committed a genocide which he thought that it is good because the people he killed are of the lesser race but obviously it is not right. he thinks that he is doing the world a big favor by killing all those people. he has a different perspective of what good really is.

  37. question 2: which i prior, the good or the right?

    i believe that right is prior to good.

    Goodness, for me, is a law that came from our faith, upbringing and what is accordance to many people that must be followed and enforced at all times. We may be blinded by the fact that these “goodness” came also from people who, shall we say, are not perfect. Because nobody is perfect, we can’t be absolutely sure that these “goodness” is the appropriate thing.

    Rightness, on the other hand, is different from goodness. it is isolated and free from the things that bind something from being good. doing something right is more appropriate than doing something good.
    When you say something is right, it still may be good at the same time right.

  38. Essay # 1:

    Is good always right?

    Is good always right? my stand is NO. I don’t believe that good is always right. the situation dictates whether good is right. I believe that there are occassions that demands the good action but it may not be the right actions.

    Good in this statement is defined in the dictionary as being agreeable; pleasant; beneficial; or considarable. While right in the statement is de fined as obeying the moral law or in conformity with the moral law; that which is morally right. Morality is having upright conduct.

    The definition of good speaks of as being beneficial. Rights speaks of following a standard which is morality. As humans situated in the world we face different circumstances. This circumstances gives us the opportunities to choose what action we will play out. A situation may pressure humans. They may choose to do what is good for the moment or for the circumstance they are in. But if weighed if their actions were right, it may not pass the standards set by morality. Actions may be good for the situation. It may be beneficial to the doer. It may seem as the considerable thing to do.From the moral standpoint, it may not be correct. Right is a strict set of standards. It does not care about situations. It is not conforming to anything but morality itself. It is objective in the sense that it judges your actions if it followed the standards of morality. So our actions may be good for us but not right. Thus good is NOT ALWAYS right.

    Thinking farther, good may seem to be always right depending on the person. If his standards of what is right is coplanar with his definition of what is good.

  39. Essay # 2:

    Which is prior, the good or the right?

    What comes first? That is the question in hand. I would have to say the RIGHT. Before acting you must first know by heart that it is right. Then, comes if it is good. If both are met then the action is outstanding.

    I have defined GOOD as something being agreeable, pleasant, beneficial, considerable. While right is defined as obeying or in conformity with the moral law.

    As before, we are humans here on earth facing different sutations. Maybe we are facing same problems but we have different ways to tackle them based on what we beleiveor what we decided to do. When we based our actions on what is good, we are saying that we are considering only what is beneficial for the situation we are in or what is agreeable for the moment and what is considerable for us to do. If we first based it on what is right then we are saying if it is in tune with the standards of morality. Morality is set by the society so that not everybody would act out what is only beneficial for them. That would be like every man for himself and not thinking how others will be affected. Some things may be good for a person but not pleasnt or beneficial to another. As social beings, we must think of others too. Thus, we should consider what right before considering if it is good.

    There are situations sometimes that makes us weigh more on the good side rather than the right side. Like if it is wrong to kill but you have no choice but to defend yourself against an enemy out to kill you. We would be left with one action in hand but to defend ourselves. We would consider then if it is good for us first rather than considering if it is right.

  40. 2. which is prior, the good or the right?

    Good is prior to right. What is the right thing to do that would lead to truthfulness is much more important than doing just what makes you feel good.

    Good stated is just a matter of taste, it is something good if it is favorable to you and an easy thing to do. Right is somewhat different, it is timeless and universal.

    Good things just come second to (prior to) making the right things. Doing the right thing makes use of your own moral fiber and our freedom to choose our acts, wether it would hurt us or even if it is not good for us. Doing what is just good for us is totally a one sided decision because the act is judged based on its favourability to the subject, or its ends to the person, rather than the truthfulness of the act itself.

    In other instances, right is prior to good depending on the subject. Some cases that you can’t think or decide for yourself much, doing the good thing for you is the best choice rather than evaluating the act itself, especially under time pressure or you have to make an instant decision.

  41. yan 2 nlng..

  42. andami ng andito. panu kea bbashin ni sir to? haha. ako nga nahihilo na eh.

  43. sir nextym kc onti lang pagawa mo. haha!^__^

  44. Is good always right?

    Good isn’t always right.

    Being good and being right isn’t the same thing at all. It always depends upon the definition of the words.

    “Good” is defined as having the qualities that are desirable in nature while the “Right” pertains to the legality and justice of a thing.

    Like what I’ve said earlier, good isn’t always right. This is because being good isn’t as well all about being right. There are some good things for us which for some people are wrong. It depends on each person’s interpretation.

  45. 1. Is good always right?

    At some point good may not always be right.

    Good may be defined as something with the desired quality. On the other hand, right is something that is morally and socially correct.

    With the definitions given above, good may not always be right when a right thing doesn’t please you at all. People may see things in different way. It would depend on the judgement given aomeone on when a right thing will be good on his/her point of view.

    On the other hand, good will always be right n a point where in a person declares it to be. A good act may be a right act if it will benefit the social colony or the community itself.

  46. Which is prior? The good or the right?

    Right is prior to good.

    By referring to the meaning of the terms mentioned on my first essay, we can say the “right” is objective and the “good” is subjective.

    Things in this world are seen differently. It doesn’t necessarily mean that someone is right when he/she did something good. There are some things we think of as “good” but actually are not for some people.

    Being right, on the other hand, is different. If we think of the right things, we can except that something good will be the outcome.

  47. Is good always right?

    I don’t believe that good is always right but we know that sometimes the good is right and the right can be good.

    I have my own definition of this 2 terms. What is good? good is what we, ourselves, think is best thing to do. What is right? for me is what the majority think is good. for short the norms.

    The best example for this argument is what our parents always tell us. Sometimes they will say that we should do this and that based on their own experience and the things they been hearing from others. then they will say “ito ang gawin mo kasi ito ang tama” . Then we walk out the room and tell to ourselves “wala silang alam, hindi nila ako naiintindihan, hindi nila alam kung anong makakabuti sakin” (hindi ko to life story. example lang.. hehehehe).

  48. sir naputol nasubmit koagad eto yung next paragraph

    We can’t tell others what is what they should do in our there life. because what we think is right is not always good for them.

  49. hehe dumadami na pala…

  50. (hmm.. testing lng)
    Sir! magulo pa isip ko sana pwede pa mag-post bukas >_<

  51. 1. Is good always right?

    Good is not always right.

    First of all, what is good? What is right? Good as used in this question, is our virtues in life, how we used it in our everyday lives. Right is defined as one aligned with the law of the country. it is supposedly called as legal.

    Things that we do is considered good if it helps or benefits others. Good is only good if it is within the majority, if everybody agrees with what you are doing. Right on the other hand is aligned with the law. Whatever you do is compliance to the rules or law of the country. you will be judged through the laws written in the Constitution.

    These things affect each other, having done something considers both factors. Though what is done is good, but is it good prior to the laws? that is the question. Everybody has its point of view but our point of view may not affect what is written to the law.

  52. ISSUE # 2:
    Which is prior the good or the right?

    Good is more fundamental than right. Just like what I’ve said in the first question, I’m not really into liberalism so I choose to stand in the conservative side.

    Good is something that is approved of or desirable, while right is associated in conformity with fact, reason, truth, or some standard or principle. Some would say that these words are similar with each other but actually they’re not, most especially when it comes to making a claim. Good is more on the subjective side which emphasizes on the preferences, taste, etc. Its concern is more on the end itself. On the contrary, right is objective in nature which gives prior to the act itself rather than the end.

    With the definitions explained in the previous paragraph, I believe that it helps my claim in establishing its basic foundation. The concept of good and right can be well explained through an example. I think that the government system in the Philippines is a suitable premise for this. We all know that to have a peaceful and harmonious society we need a government that is concern and very hands-on with its inhabitants. To attain this state we need a government that is interventionist. I believe that having this kind of government will help the people not to abuse their freedom and control their actions and attitudes.
    On the contrary, we should also look the other side of the issue, having a non-interventionist government will not harm the society but we should take into consideration that limiting our freedom will help us in establishing a harmonious society.

  53. 1. Is good always right?
    What is good may sometimes be right, it isn’t always right.
    Good is just a matter of perception of what is pleasurable.
    Right is a matter of conforming with the morals, and not with the perception of what is pleasurable.
    People nowadays have become more liberated and has inclined to what is pleasurable, however wrongly an act is done. Most may be having the wrong ideas of the good and the right.
    What is pleasurable may be for the good of one, a few or all; but what is good that isn’t right will always have its downfalls.

  54. QUESTION no. 3:Are you a conservative or a liberal regarding the issue on the RH Bill?

    I am liberal not conservative regarding the issue.

    Liberal meaning not narrow in opinion or judgment.
    Conservative meaning a person who is disposed to maintain existing views, conditions or institutions.

    All I can say is that the people should not be narrowminded about the issue. They should be open to changes and not stick to traditions and what used to be.
    I think one of the reasons why our country is not progressing is our being to conservative about certain issues. Bottom line is, the Filipino people should know their limitations.

  55. 2. Which is prior, the good or the right?

    Good is prior to the right.

    Prior means taking precedence to the other.

    Abiding by the laws is being a selfish one. Though it is a right thing to do, being always by the law is just protecting yourself. You’ll earn protection but you’ll not gain good terms with others. Though doing right can sometimes be a good thing, we cant assure if what we do will be a good thing or a bad thing. But doing good would be helping others and we can be sure that what we do is good. on the other hand we cant also be sure if what we know as “good” is good to the others. This would come up to complicate things though our only intention would be good.

  56. 2. Which is prior, the good or the right?
    As for me, right is prior to good.
    Good may be sensual, but will wrong at times.
    Right may be inconvenient at times; but, it definitely will do you right.
    “Be not deceived; God is not mocked: for whatsoever a
    man soweth, that shall he also reap.” (Galatians 6:7 KJV)
    Right reaps what is right. What it reaps may be good for you; if not, it’s for the good of others.

    What is right might not treat you well. It may not be what is good for you.
    Well, who cares? For a will done the right way and ends right: it doesn’t matter who gets the goodies.

  57. QUESTION no.4: Review the Bill of Rights (Article III, 1987 Philippine.Constitution).
    On rights, is our constitution conservative or liberal?

    Support your answer by quoting at least 2 sections of Article III, 1987 Philippines Constitution.

    If you think it is conservative, should it be liberal?
    If you think it is liberal, should it be conservative?

    Our consitution is liberal.

    same definition as question num 3.

    Our constitution is liberal.

    Section 1. No person shall be deprived of life, liberty, or property without due process of law, nor shall any person be denied the equal protection of the laws.

    Section 2. The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects against unreasonable searches and seizures of whatever nature and for any purpose shall be inviolable, and no search warrant or warrant of arrest shall issue except upon probable cause to be determined personally by the judge after examination under oath or affirmation of the complainant and the witnesses he may produce, and particularly describing the place to be searched and the persons or things to be seized.

    It is clearly stated that the people have their rights and are given the chance to decide on their own.

    There should still be limitations regarding certain issues because there are some people who are just taking advantage of their rights.

  58. 3. Are you conservative or liberal regarding the issue on the RH BILL?

    I am conservative in this issue.

    Conservative means adhering to traditions.
    Liberal means open to changes and open-minded.

    I side with conservatism in this issue because though changes have to happen in our world, there are things that are to stay in their way. Others say that a child is not yet a human when it is still not 2 months old, so why think twice when aborting it. That is the problem, though we think that is has no life yet, we are already killing it. We threaten the life that is to be born in this world. If abortion is our point of view, then why would we keep our enemies living? it is like killing another person. If we accept abortion, then we also make killing legal.

    On the other hand, practicality is their priority. Others will think ‘What is more beneficial to us?’, and they would think that having less worries will be beneficial. ‘In order to obtain we want, we need to sacrifice other things.’ That is also a point of the other liberals. Dreams being broken because of a responsibility on a baby, but on the first hand , they shouldn’t have done it if it will hinder their plans. So i think that, being conservative is better than being liberal.

  59. Is good always right?

    I cant say that good is always right. It will have to depend according to the situation.

    Good is base on someone’s concept of morality, while right will always be right no matter what, it is universal. Something may appear good to one person but it may seem wrong for the others. As i may quote “We are situated in the world”, this is the exact explanation why something good may not be always right.

    Contrary to what i have concluded, I also believe that the right were based on what was good. This universal rights that we are considering were also made by people long ago through their experience of what was good and what was evil. Before there was right there was only good.

    ….. Confusing :p

    Which is prior the good or the right?

    As I have mentioned on my first essay i believe that the good was prior before the right.

    I have explained that i believe that the right were based on what was good. Though the concept of one’s morality is a factor on deciding. Before something became right it was first good. I don’t think that anything bad would become right at the first place.

    On the contrary, something may be right before it was good. In a case to case basis this may happen. Something that was considered as evil, yet when enforced as a right it became good.

    More Confusing….. @_@

    Are you a conservative or a liberal regarding the RH Bill issue?

    I must say that I’m a liberal. I believe that this will help our country’s economic status.

    I believe that over population causes unemployment and leads to poverty. If people cant control their selves then the government must do something to control it.

    Having stated my conclusion i must say that i also have some contrasting idea with this bill. It has been known that this bill may lead the way to legalization of abortion. I have no problem with artificial birth controls but abortion is another thing because i believe in the immorality of abortion.

  60. 4. Review the Bill of Rights(Article III, 1987 Constitution)

    I think it is liberal.

    It is liberal because people from the country can do what they want, but not all. What i mean is their insights can be heard, they can demand if they are violated, they are also protected by the law. If people from the country do what they want( limited), they can express their selves freely and they can have a chance to change something they want to change. They are not enclosed to a society which prohibits all of their movements.

  61. P.S.

    Student Number: 2006-006404

  62. 1. Is good always right?

    My answer is no. Good is not always right.

    Good is something that is not evil/bad. Right is something that is proper or something that is not wrong.

    Ideally, good is always right because something that is not bad is not wrong. Yet sometimes, the right thing for a person to do in a given situation is not good. For example, a person is given two negative options which s/he must choose either one. Eventually, the person will choose the lesser evil. It is still evil so therefore it is bad, but it is the right thing to choose rather than choosing the greater evil. Hence, good is not always right.

    Good will always be right if the person’s perception of “good” is the same with other people’s perception of “good.” But this is quite impossible because each person has their own way of thinking and beliefs.

  63. 2. Which is prior the good or the right?

    I think good is prior from the right.

    Good is something that is not evil/bad. Right is something that is proper or something that is not wrong.

    We may say something that is good is right, or rather something that is right is good. Both make sense and are correct. Since good is the opposite of evil, it is then be the basis for the right. Therefore, good is prior from the right. When a person decides, s/he usually thinks first of the absolute good. If this good thing be improbable, s/he then thinks for the practically right.

  64. question 3: Are you a conservative or a liberal regarding the issue on the RH Bill?

    i’m a liberal in this issue.

    Liberal pertains to being favorable to reform or progress while conservative means to be disposed to preserve existing conditions; or to restore traditional ones.

    i do believe that we should educate the young minds at an early age and qualified educators should be the one to handle it. and as we all know, not everything can be learned inside the four corners of our classrooms so parents should be the one to continue and follow-up about the reproductive health issue when the students/children are at home. and also, teachers can’t do this alone, they should work hand on hand with the parents for the bill to be a success.

    on the contrary, there is still bit of conservatism left in me for this bill. for instance, the bill can pave way for the legalization of abortion. you are killing an unborn child. if this happens, we might as well get murder legalized. the only difference the two, in my opinion, is that the unborn child can’t fight back or try to defend him/herself.

  65. 1. Is good always right?

    Good is not always right. As applied here, good is defined as something agreeable because it’s pleasurable, beneficial or ideal. Thus, that which that pertains to good is never painful – at least for a person. Because everyone is different, what is good for an individual might not be good or can even cause harm for another. When is something right? To know what’s right is to understand and accept one’s own limitations – to discover humility. This acceptance is more liberating than limiting. But for definition purposes, something is said to be right when no liberties are violated.

    Good is something that will immediately be preferred, all other factors being neglected. Good is fleeting like a small leaf. A leaf that changes color, falls through the ground and allows itself to be carried as a far as it can by the strong currents of change. While right, irrespective of it being agreeable or not is still right. It’s like the tree – rooted firmly in the ground, stays, and lives for hundreds of years. It’s something that’s firm enough which make it millions of times more difficult to uproot, that is, if it can ever be uprooted. To feign ignorance when one has damaged another person’s property (and would have to pay for it under normal circumstances) when there’s no way that he or she could be held responsible is good (for the person who now has a way of escaping) but it is not right. To throw everything and everyone considered as a liability could be good for business but it is not right. Since, we are living; we are progressing but not necessarily in a linear, positive direction – almost but not entirely like the leaf. At the end of its journey, the leaf could have or could have not found the place where it has to be. For we, can only have the “human’s eye-view of the truth.” As stated by Daniel Lee in his book (Navigating Right and Wrong, 2002), “The fact that we cannot prove that certain things are right or wrong does not by implication suggest that the only ethical values that exist are the ones we create for ourselves.” The definitions were chosen as such so that one is able to somewhat evaluate and give distinctions to both terms, though not in its entirety.

    On the other hand, it can be argued that good is always right. Good and right as used here, now have the same definitions. Good as defined as something that’s always right pertains to something infinite – beyond our grasp. Good that is not right is a mere illusion. Simply stated, something can’t be truly good if it is not right. A person can only see as a person sees. I can only describe things within the limits of my faculties. A person can’t only depend on her or his reason. Whether our human faculties have failed us, we can only have the chance to know in the end.

  66. 3. Are you a conservative or a liberal regarding the issue on the RH Bill?

    From what I understood, the RH bill has focused more on the future (taking what is, then from there, stating what could be – I think it’s difficult enough to prove something existing in the present, what more if it is in the future?). It intends to find solutions to some problems. However, regarding this issue, I’m more of a conservative in a sense that I believe in family tradition and that is by no means the same as trying to deprive anyone of anything and/ or saying that others do not hold as much belief in family tradition as I do because they happen to hold a different belief.

    The Philippine’s history is as unique as other countries’, and I do not think it as inferior. Sometimes, because we’re excessively looking somewhere else, we fail to see the answers which could only be right in front of us. Even though I admire others who have succeeded in attaining their goals, it doesn’t follow that I would employ the same means to achieve the same goals. In the event that I did choose the same means, it still doesn’t guarantee that I’ll reach the same success. Family traditions which emphasize on strengthening the family and marriage established through respect and commitment are not supposed to rot with “old age”. The definitions of family and marriage seem to have changed and there’s more emphasis on “romantic love” and ‘personal fulfillment”. However, old and modern can be reconciled. I feel that there’s also this tendency to be addicted with one’s “rights” to the extent that it damages one’s original claim to it. It’s more of the “no one must restrict me so I must un-restrict myself” notion, and in so doing, forgetting the real reason why one is claiming her or his rights in the first place. It’s like unconsciously taking a detour and ending up some place else which is completely different from the “real” intended place. Even with the side-view mirror and the interior rear-view mirror, drivers may still have blind spots because it’s still not possible to observe everything that’s happening simultaneously on the roads. What more are the occurrences in the world and more so in the universe! The past (the area behind), the present (the area where we are) and the future (the area ahead) are equally important in reducing these “blind spots”. Overstressing only on one area will lead to traffic accidents and/ or detours that one isn’t really inclined to take. It’s awful to live life like you’re taking a multiple-choice type of test where you can only believe that one of these four choices (which another person has laid out for you): a, b, c, or d is the real answer. It wouldn’t help to see an arrow pointing at one of these letters with a note that reads, “This is the correct answer.” I think it’s frustrating not being able to ask, “Is that a trick answer?” So, I do agree that people should have choices. But I do not think that laying out the answers just like in a multiple-choice type of test is that much of a help. These lines from a drama I’m currently watching, “A number won’t move people. People move people.” are memorable. I assume that the RH bill has yet to take that form in which people realize more of their common views rather than their differences (which I presume is a problem in itself).

    On the other hand, RH bill’s aim is to “propel our people toward sustainable human development”. Contrary to the disseminated information, the RH bill is pro-life and/ or pro-quality life. Through the government’s assistance and guidance, the people will be provided with more choices that will lead to a successful family life. The predictions hold great promise for the future. With all of these things adding up, it could actually improve the countries’ quality of life.

  67. ISSUE # 3:

    Are you a conservative or a liberal regarding the issue on the RH Bill?

    Regarding the issue on the Republic Health Bill, I’d rather be on the LIBERAL side.

    For a LIBERAL person, “what matters above all are not the ends that they choose but their freedoms to choose them”. They are more objective and emphasize with the act itself while a CONSERVATIVE person is more on the subjective side and emphasizes on the outcome or end. (Based from the clippings) The RH BILL addresses the problems of the underprivileged poor women and children in terms of health status, access to and utilization of health services to complement the health and other social and development policies in the country. It responds to related issues of under-funding of maternal and child health services, lack of policies and programs addressing the major causes of maternal and infant, perinatal and neonatal deaths, one of which is poor maternal health associated with poverty, low education, poor access to health care and services.

    Maybe it sounds ironic that all of a sudden I agree on the liberalist ideology on this matter, maybe because I see that theirs nothing wrong with the bill as long as the government will have a profound campaign if ever this bill pass the congress. They should also take into consideration the proliferation of premarital sex nowadays. As a support to my claim, according to Dr. Josefina V. Cabigon, The RH Bill prevents conception; it does not promote abortion and therefore saves lives from abortion. Issues of unintended pregnancies, unmet need, abortion and improving maternal and child health through family planning belong to family planning policy which is a component of the RH bill. The RH Bill is an effective family planning policy that ensures freedom of choice and access to a full range of safe and effective family planning methods (natural and artificial). It does not reflect the politically sensitive term ‘fertility reduction policy’; instead, it aims for a reduction of unintended pregnancies in a healthful manner to capture the health and survival of mothers and children.

    On the other hand, the claim of the conservative side is reasonable because, truly the church condemns the artificial family planning for this violates what the scripture says.

  68. 3. Are you a conservative or a liberal regarding the issue on the RH Bill?

    I am a liberal regarding with the RH Bill.

    I do not oppose the RH Bill. It is just practical to use modern contraceptives for family planning. It is just right to educate people about using those modern contraceptives. We live in a civilization. Modernization is inevitable. Modern contraceptives should be imposed so that an overpopulated country like the Philippines would somehow decrease the poverty rating. The economy would not improve when the supply of food and other necessities is inadequate because of overpopulation. And, also having more children means having more problems for catering their needs. Thus, more Filipinos will be categorized in poor class. If not educated, the cycle will just continue.

    I do not say that the conventional family planning is incorrect. Whether religious reason or not, it is on the people’s choice on using any method they like as long as its effective for them. Just think of it this way: contraceptives or abortion? Of course prevention is better than cure, so might as well be favored on contraceptives.

  69. 2. Which is prior the good or the right?

    Right is prior to the good. From my definitions earlier, right is much more firm and stable as compared to good. Right is unyielding while good is. I think it’s more natural to hold on to something more firm if one doesn’t want to be dragged to an unknown place.

    When making decisions, I think that right should come first because it will remind us how different and how similar our perceptions are to others. Thus, we will be able to consider these differences and similarities and in so doing, both our individual and social characteristics will be satisfied.

    On the other hand, it can be argued that good is prior to the right. But if good is the same as right, then how could any of the two be prior to the other? Then, they become equally important with the same definitions that can be used interchangeably.

  70. 1. Is good always right?

    No, good is not always right.

    Good and bad are based on shifting senses of morality which is subject to the culture of the person/s. They usually pertain to a sense of something being favorable or not to the general opinion. Right and wrong are based on a somewhat universal sense of what courses of action should be taken in a situation.

    Being good means following a set of ideals which you set faith in, and applying it to your life. However, there are situations when what you believe in can come in conflict of what could be the best course of action in a given situation. If, for example, you knew that killing one person you could save a thousand others, and in you faith you believe killing is morally wrong, you would be in conflict. You know what the right thing to do is, but doing it would go everything you would believe in. Therefore, bad becomes right. The same could be same of the opposite of good being wrong. Take the Islamic extremists who choose to terrorize people in following what they believe in is morally acceptable in the ideals of their own faith.

    On the other hand, good can also be right in some circumstances when the ideals of being good overlaps the right course of action. In my opinion, when this occurs, something doesn’t just become the good and right thing, but the best thing to do.

    2. Which is prior, the good or the right?

    I believe that the right is prior to the good.

    Good is something deemed acceptable according to a set of morals. Right is something deemed the course of action that benefits the most.

    In modern times, there are so many branches of faith offered to us, each with their own system of belief on what is good or bad. Sometimes, it can get confusing as to what to truly believe in, as faith is to surrender logic for pure belief. Christianity is the most visible example, with all the different orders, sects, splinter organizations, etc. If morality is disputed, it is usually needed to consult to an elder or leader to interpret and verify its goodness. Right, on the other hand is almost universal in practice. Most morality systems are set to guide us in doing the right thing. The act of being right can be verified by observations and reasoning, making it’s interpretation open to question by anyone.

    However, too much right can also lead to us being nothing more than unfeeling machines. Someday we might do something as commit genocide for the sake of declining overpopulation. Ideals are also there for a reason, to guide us in making the best decisions.

    3. Are you a conservative or a liberal regarding the issue on RH bill?

    I am a liberal about it.

    Liberalism, being believing that ultimately, it’s the person who has to make a choice what to do.

    The RH bill was made to try to curb overpopulation by providing mandatory sex education and promoting contraceptives. The church sees this as poisoning young minds and promoting coitus interuptus, which is against their teachings. Ultimately, it may prove to help our economy and problems with not having enough jobs. The mandatory sex education is nothing new, if not different that it’s being applied earlier. Ig anything, it could even help young people to not be experimental in sexual matters. I for a fact, know a few people who had unwanted pregnancies because they were not properly informed on how the process of reproduction goes. And again, the contraception is nothing new. We’ve seen them all the time in convenience stores and supermarkets. The choice of using them or not was still in our hands before the bill even came to fruition.

    Then again, people can get carried away with their choices, maybe leading hedonistic lifestyles for the pleasure of sex, or something like the news story in the US about a group of friends making, and fulfilling a pregnancy pact. Again, moderation is key.

    4. Review the Bill of Rights, etc., etc.

    I think it is liberal.

    Liberal, being more on the side of right and wrong.

    Its contents speak more of what a citizen should be entitled to do then what a citizen should do.

    I believe the Bill of Rights of the present constitution is adequate enough that it needs no change. It is a mix of conservatism and liberalism, talking of freedom and yet what should be properly done with that freedom. It is a well-blended amalgam of ideals on both sides.

    Apology for the kinda late submission, long time type ideas, yes? 😀

  71. ISSUE # 4:

    Review the Bill of Rights (Article III, 1987 Philippine Constitution). On rights, is our constitution conservative or liberal? Support your answer by quoting at least 2 sections of Article III, 1987 Philippines Constitution. If you think it is conservative, should it be liberal? If you think it is liberal, should it be conservative?

    I believe that THE CONSTITUTION IS LIBERAL in the sense that it allows the people to have freedom (but not absolute) to live, express themselves, etc.

    Article III of the 1987 Philippine Constitution comprise the Bill of Rights of the Filipino people. It gives importance to the freedom and rights of every Filipino people in terms of expressing themselves accordingly. Liberalism is an ideology which gives prior significance with the freedom of every individual, whoever and whatever you are.

    In my own judgment, I believe that the following Sections in Article III of the 1987 Philippine Constitution depict the ideology of liberalism:
    SECTION 4. No law shall be passed abridging the freedom of speech, of expression, or of the press, or the right of the people peaceably to assemble and petition the government for redress of grievances.
    SECTION 5. No law shall be made respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof. The free exercise and enjoyment of religious profession and worship, without discrimination or preference, shall forever be allowed. No religious test shall be required for the exercise of civil or political rights.
    Sections 4 and 5 I think, is a perfect example of letting people have their freedom in expressing themselves. I believe that the ideology of liberalism in this matter gives importance with people as human beings that being rational we need to have “wings” and “a place to fly” (just an analogy with freedom) to express ourselves well. I think the constitution is not so much liberal in this matter, for me it’s acceptable since it’s well pondered by the law makers.

    On the contrary, some conservatives claim that the constitution is lenient in terms of the freedom of the people to the extent that some of them abuse these privileges. For me, the government should be sturdy with its norms and give prior punishments to those who violate these laws. I believe that there’s no need for the constitution to be revised as long as the government is consistent and incorruptible.

  72. ISSUE # 4:

    Review the Bill of Rights (Article III, 1987 Philippine Constitution). On rights, is our constitution conservative or liberal? Support your answer by quoting at least 2 sections of Article III, 1987 Philippines Constitution. If you think it is conservative, should it be liberal? If you think it is liberal, should it be conservative?

    I believe that THE CONSTITUTION IS LIBERAL in the sense that it allows the people to have freedom (but not absolute) to live, express themselves, etc.

    Article III of the 1987 Philippine Constitution comprise the Bill of Rights of the Filipino people. It gives importance to the freedom and rights of every Filipino people in terms of expressing themselves accordingly. Liberalism is an ideology which gives prior significance with the freedom of every individual, whoever and whatever you are.

    In my own judgment, I believe that the following Sections in Article III of the 1987 Philippine Constitution depict the ideology of liberalism:
    SECTION 4. No law shall be passed abridging the freedom of speech, of expression, or of the press, or the right of the people peaceably to assemble and petition the government for redress of grievances.
    SECTION 5. No law shall be made respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof. The free exercise and enjoyment of religious profession and worship, without discrimination or preference, shall forever be allowed. No religious test shall be required for the exercise of civil or political rights.
    Sections 4 and 5 I think, is a perfect example of letting people have their freedom in expressing themselves. I believe that the ideology of liberalism in this matter gives importance with people as human beings that being rational we need to have “wings” and “a place to fly” (just an analogy with freedom) to express ourselves well. I think the constitution is not so much liberal in this matter, for me it’s acceptable since it’s well pondered by the law makers.

    On the contrary, some conservatives claim that the constitution is lenient in terms of the freedom of the people to the extent that some of them abuse these privileges. For me, the government should be sturdy with its norms and give prior punishments to those who violate these laws. I believe that there’s no need for the constitution to be revised as long as the government is consistent and incorruptible.

  73. 4. Review the Bill of Rights (Article III, 1987 Philippine.Constitution).
    On rights, is our constitution conservative or liberal?
    Support your answer by quoting at least 2 sections of Article III, 1987 Philippines Constitution.
    If you think it is conservative, should it be liberal?
    If you think it is liberal, should it be conservative?

    Our constitution is liberal. Here are 3 sections from Article III that would help defend my answer:

    SECTION 1. No person shall be deprived of life, liberty, or property without due process of law, nor shall any person be denied the equal protection of the laws.

    SECTION 4. No law shall be passed abridging the freedom of speech, of expression, or of the press, or the right of the people peaceably to assemble and petition the Government for redress of grievances.

    SECTION 5. No law shall be made respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof. The free exercise and enjoyment of religious profession and worship, without discrimination or preference, shall forever be allowed. No religious test shall be required for the exercise of civil or political rights.

    Section 1 states that everyone are equal in terms of their rights. It shows that everyone is a free man, a liberal being… Section 4 is about the Freedom of Speech, a perfect way of being liberal. The people, especially the media, are free to express their intentions & emotions to the government. No law should hinder them from doing so… Section 5 is about the government’s separation from religion. It must be unbiased from any religion in making laws. A state is liberal when any citizen may practice his/her own beliefs. The government must not condemn, eradicate, or discriminate a certain religion.

  74. i say…

    #1 – Is GOOD always RIGHT?

    Distinguishing the difference between “good” and “right” is quite a complicated matter. As a matter of fact, some may claim these two terms have the same meaning. But, if I were to confront this issue, I would answer, no.

    Something is considered “good” when it is virtuous and morally excellent. While “right” would pertain to those actions which uphold natural law and would not violate a person’s freedom.

    For that reason, it is evident that good is not always right. One may consider an act as good, but then is it always right for all of us? Since we are situated in the world, each of us see things in a different picture. Judging an act doesn’t end on determining its ‘goodness’, it is better to consider if upon doing the act, it would also be the ‘right’ way.

    As mentioned, ‘good’ and ‘right’ may have no difference at all, for some people. I understand that this is because, when one knows that an act is ‘good’, it is automatically implied to be the ‘right’ thing also. Therefore, it is important that both ideals be respected and taken into consideration.

    ~.~

    #2 – Which is PRIOR, the GOOD, or the RIGHT?

    Emphasizing on the importance of ‘good’ and ‘right’, in my own point of view, good is prior.

    Reiterating the definitions given above: “good” are those which are virtuous and morally excellent; and “right” would be those actions which uphold natural law and would not violate a person’s freedom. Prior, would mean, taking precedence (as in importance) to the other.

    Justifying my statement, I consider good to be prior because it is better for me to discern first an act as ‘good’, then, afterwards, decide if it is ‘right’. I do not say that ‘right’ is not important, however, determining the innate goodness of an act (if it is moral) before approving it is an important point to consider for me as a moral being. I must also ensure that if an act is ‘good’ for me, it wouldn’t mean that the thinking process would already end there. The act should be ‘right’ also.

    Nevertheless, it is also possible that ‘right’ may be prior in some instances. However, everything will really have a case-to-case basis, depending on how complicated the situation or issue involved.

    +.+

    #3 – Are you a conservative or a liberal regarding the issue on the RH Bill? (See reading materials)

    The issue on the RH Bill is a social dilemma involving the Church and the government. If, I would raise a stand in this issue, I can say that I would be more liberal.

    Being a liberal is promoting maximum individual freedom as well as being open minded and tolerant. While, a conservative is disposed to preserve existing conditions and limit change. Connecting this to the House Bill No. 5043, otherwise known as the Reproductive Health and Population Development Act of 2008 (RH Bill), which “has literally become the battleground for what can only be described as a long-brewing ‘culture war’ between conservatives and liberals.”

    I say that I am a liberal regarding this issue because, being realistic and seeing the condition of our country today, the RH Bill can be a good instrument of change and foundation of development, if it is seriously pursued. National population is increasing and continuously causing a domino-effect of economic crisis (poverty, poor education, increase in prices of commodities, etc). If we want to alleviate the nation, the solution should start, the sooner the better, and this RH Bill maybe could help. Or, the government should concentrate on more programs that will really improve and be of assistance to the people, rather than spreading more political issues and corruption.

    On the contrary, the RH Bill has been referred, as “pro-abortion”, “anti-life”, and “immoral”, because of its provisions that violate human rights such as the policy that two children being the “ideal family size”. Maybe it can be a compromise to ammend the RH Bill pertaining specially to the aspects which some groups have expressed strong objections.

    `.`

    #4 – Review the Bill of Rights (Article III, 1987 Philippine Constitution).
    On rights, is our constitution conservative or liberal?
    Support your answer by quoting at least 2 sections of Article III, 1987 Philippines Constitution.
    If you think it is conservative, should it be liberal?
    If you think it is liberal, should it be conservative?

    The Bill of Rights of our 1987 Philippine Constitution is liberal for me.

    By the given definitions, the Constitution is liberal in a sense that it promotes freedom as well as being open minded and tolerant. It is does not impose much limitation and constraints on the right of the people to be free in their belief and expression. As support to my statement, these are some sections I quoted from Article III:

    Section 4. No law shall be passed abridging the freedom of speech, of expression, or of the press, or the right of the people peaceably to assemble and petition the government for redress of grievances.

    Section 5. No law shall be made respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof. The free exercise and enjoyment of religious profession and worship, without discrimination or preference, shall forever be allowed. No religious test shall be required for the exercise of civil or political rights.

    Section 8. The right of the people, including those employed in the public and private sectors, to form unions, associations, or societies for purposes not contrary to law shall not be abridged.

    Section 18. (1) No person shall be detained solely by reason of his political beliefs and aspirations.

    In my own opinion, our Constitution, specifically, the Bill of Rights, is fair and just as it is now, therefore, I do not think of its need at the present to be more conservative.

    But still, it may also have a point to consider certain amendments to strengthen the power of the Constitution. Those areas pertaining to punishments can be more intensified in some ways, although strict implementation may be another problem.

    *.*

  75. …continuation of #4:

    I think the constitution should remain liberal. Everyone is equal in their rights. Democracy has freedom of speech. The Philippines, with dominantly Christians citizens, has still multiple religions. The government must not be biased only with Christianity. Therefore, there’s no need to make the constitution conservative.

  76. 4. Review the Bill of Rights (Article III, 1987 Philippine.Constitution).
    On rights, is our constitution conservative or liberal?
    Support your answer by quoting at least 2 sections of Article III, 1987 Philippines Constitution.
    If you think it is conservative, should it be liberal?
    If you think it is liberal, should it be conservative?

    The World Book Encyclopedia defined liberalism as “a political and economic philosophy that emphasizes freedom, equality, and opportunity.” Thus, on rights, our constitution is liberal.”

    “Section 1. No person shall be deprived of life, liberty, or property without due process of law, nor shall any person be denied the equal protection of the laws.” — this section already clearly embodied all three that are said to characterize liberalism.

    “Section 4. No law shall be passed abridging the freedom of speech, of expression, or of the press, or the right of the people peaceably to assemble and petition the government for redress of grievances.” — another section which also characterizes liberalism – freedom without any imposition by the government to think only in a certain way.

    I don’t think that it should be conservative. It’s not extremely liberal after all. In my point of view, liberalism doesn’t mean discarding of every tradition a country has (just because they’re called traditions – that’s extreme). I don’t think it’s about the count on how many restrictions a person has unrestricted herself/himself from. It’s also not supposed to be disorderly. There are good reasons why individual freedom is of primary importance but there’s danger in recognizing only YOUR individual freedom. As much as you value your freedom, so are others value theirs. There’s also the difference (sometimes a very thin line) between an arrogant person and a person who values his or her freedom. Different beliefs do not necessarily need to cancel each other out or to create disharmony.

  77. ——————————————————————————-
    1. Is good always right?
    ——————————————————————————-
    Good is not always right.

    The ‘good’ is used to denote the supposed final end at which action must aim: an intrinsically valuable state classically identified with some compound of happiness, virtue, freedom from care, and success with respect to a man’s preference. It is something resulting in a beneficial effect or state for himself. While right is conforming with or conformable to justice, law, or morality; and in accordance with fact, reason, or truth. It is morally justified and correct, or consistent with generally held ideas of morality and proper conduct.

    A simple subjective proposal is made by Hobbes: “whatsoever is the object of any man’s appetite or desire is called good” (Leviathan, I. 6). From this, something good is only set by a man’s preference or desire. And because everyone is exceptional from the other, no two persons can have the same view on something which can be good for some but not always applicable to all. And something right is based upon something which is morally good and correct in accordance with fact, reason, or truth. Sometimes it has been interchanged with the concept of whoever in charge of power means the one who is righteous. It is not who is right, but what is right, is important. Right is set for the welfare of everyone not just for the interest of a single soul.

    On the contrary, good can also be right if we choose to do things which are morally good and correct, to perform actions conforming the will of God, and learn to set our goals for the common good not for just personal advantage.

    ——————————————————————————-
    2. Which is prior the good or the right?
    ——————————————————————————-
    The right is prior to the good.

    The word ‘prior’ means fundamental or more important. ‘Good’ is defined as something set by man’s preference or desire which is beneficial to them. While ‘right’ is defined as something morally justified and correct in accordance with fact, reason, or truth.

    Rightness is of more importance than goodness. It is considered good when it is desirable, beneficial, or pleasurable for one’s perspective. Because we are different persons situated in the world, we view good things in a different way. Good is just a matter of taste. Something can be good to some but does not completely apply to all individuals. On the other hand, right is consistent with generally held ideas of morality and proper conduct. It offers order, harmony, and freedom to all individuals. It is the natural goodness of every person inherited from generations to generations. Therefore, good are only desirable preferences of man compared to the inherited instinct of every person to determine what is morally right.

    Otherwise, the good is prior to the right. A morally right action produces good consequences. In other words, the ends justify the means. It means in order to achieve something important, it is acceptable to do badly.

    ——————————————————————————-
    3. Are you a conservative or a liberal regarding the issue on the RH Bill? (See reading materials)
    ——————————————————————————-
    I am a liberal regarding the issue on the RH Bill.

    A Liberal is a person favoring gradual reform, especially political reforms that extend democracy, distribute wealth more evenly, and protect the personal freedom of the individual. In short, he is an open-minded person. While a Conservative person is in favor of preserving the status quo, traditional values and customs, and against abrupt change.

    Some groups, including the Catholic Bishops Conference of the Philippines (CBCP) and other “pro-life” groups, vehemently oppose the RH Bill because they claim that it is pro-abortion and anti-life. They also argue that it promotes abortion and that it will encourage children to try sex sooner, rather than later.

    I believe that the RH Bill will actually help the poor and promote life. It is stated in the Bill that abortion is still a crime and it will not be legalized. Therefore, it is not anti-life and strongly not pro-abortion. It also provides information about family planning, sexual education, and reproductive health. Therefore, it is for a wealthy, healthy, and educated population which in turn means a wealthy, healthy, and educated Filipino nation. If each cooperates in achieving a healthy, developed, and wealthy population, the reward will be a healthy, developed and wealthy state.

    On the contrary, people who opposed the RH Bill could be identified as Conservatives. They want to preserve the status quo, fearing that if more options are available, it’s only a matter of time before pro-abortion and anti-life laws be approved. What they fail to understand is that change is always inevitable. Instead of opposing it, try to adapt to changes if it will pave a new and right direction.

    ——————————————————————————-
    4. Review the Bill of Rights (Article III, 1987 Philippine Constitution).
    On rights, is our constitution conservative or liberal?
    Support your answer by quoting at least 2 sections of Article III, 1987 Philippines Constitution.
    If you think it is conservative, should it be liberal?
    If you think it is liberal, should it be conservative?
    ——————————————————————————-
    Our constitution is liberal.

    A Constitution is a written statement outlining the basic laws or principles by which a country or organization is governed.

    “Section 1.NO PERSON SHALL BE DEPRIVED OF LIFE, LIBERTY, OR PROPERTY WITHOUT DUE PROCESS OF LAW, NOR SHALL ANY PERSON BE DENIED THE EQUAL PROTECTION OF THE LAWS.

    Section 4.No law shall be passed abridging the FREEDOM OF SPEECH, OF EXPRESSION, or of the press, or the right of the people peaceably to assemble and petition the government for redress of grievances.

    Section 7.The RIGHT OF THE PEOPLE TO INFORMATION on matters of public concern shall be recognized. Access to official records, and to documents and papers pertaining to official acts, transactions, or decisions, as well as to government research data used as basis for policy development, shall be afforded the citizen, subject to such limitations as may be provided by law.”

    Our constitution has provided its people the right amount of liberty. Too much of anything is bad. Therefore, too much freedom will only result to prejudices. Although it does not need to be more liberal, it does not mean it has to be more conservative. For changes and amendments of the constitution are inexorable.

    The only thing that has to be improved is the promulgation and enforcement of the laws. It must be supervised that the authorities themselves are law-abiding and trustworthy. For what is the essence of having a law if even the authorities themselves do not follow. Therefore what’s the sense of having a nation if its people will not follow?

    ————————————END————————————-

  78. bakit andaming hiwa hiwalay ang essay?

  79. 1. Is good always right?
    Good is not always right.

    Good in my own scholar way of defining it is something virtuous or morally perfect. While right is something that is just to majority if not to all.

    Good food, deed, people, dress. These things are all nice to see but are these right for us? We eat lechon which is a good food. But is this the right food if we have a high blood pressure? Good person, who doesn’t have any vice. But is this the one right for you? We always ask for the right person for us. Now, good deeds or acts, sometimes we kill pests, like rats, roaches and chismosa neighbors. Killing is bad in nature. But if we do it for the better of the place we are staying at, it will be a good act.

    Good, on the other hand is ‘right’ in itself as long as a person does not one’s life in any way imaginable.

    2. Which is prior, the good or the right?

    Right is prior to good.

    Like I said, right is just to the majority if not all. Because in this way, we could express ourselves freely without destroying oneself.

    Good, shouldn’t be prior to right because every single person in this world we are living at has his/her own thought or idea of what is good without considering other’s perception.

    3. Are you a conservative or liberal on the RH bill?

    I am a liberal on the RH bill.

    Being liberal is you accepting progress in the right way. It pertains to advocating individual freedom of action or expression that is free from prejudice. It is also being practical and smart or wise.

    We should accept changes especially if it is for the betterment of our country and planet. I see nothing wrong in using contraceptives. Because using such things, for me, doesn’t kill no human being or baby. Condoms, we use them to block the sperms cells from fertilizing the egg cell. We also have spermicidal and pills. The way I see it, we are only killing cells. And in my scholarly point of view, cells are not yet human beings. They don’t have brains, nerves, souls – using the religious way, and thoughts. After all, if we use these, we could prevent the explosive increase of population in our country which is one cause of poverty.

    However, being conservative on this part is just respecting what the bible is saying.

    4.Do you think our constitution is liberal or conservative?

    “Section 1. No person shall be deprived of life, liberty, or property without due process of law, nor shall any person be denied the equal protection of the laws.”

    “Section 5. No law shall be made respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof. The free exercise and enjoyment of religious profession and worship, without discrimination or preference, shall forever be allowed. No religious test shall be required for the exercise of civil or political rights.”

    Our constitution, particularly on sections 1 and 5, is liberal. In this sections, the law does not dictate what we should do. Instead, it tells us that we have our freedom to choose whatever we please to do. This is a characteristic of liberality.

    In my scholarly point of view, we should not change our constitution. It is perfect just the way it is because of so many cultural differences in our motherland. Changing it would disrespect some cultures. This in turn needs a more liberal type of constitution to respect other person’s way of living, particularly on their beliefs.

  80. Essay # 3:

    Are you a conservative or liberal regarding the issue on the RH Bill?

    Regarding the RH Bill and all the debate about it, I believe it can be a good law. Yes, I am a liberal pertaining to the issue of the RH Bill. I believe it cold help solve our population growth problem greatly.

    The RH Bill is a proposed law that is in the process of approving. It is about providing the Filipinos with the information and tool about artificial contraception methods. It also includes teaching reproductive health education to grade 5 students. Being a conservative means maintaining existing views while being a liberal means not being narrow in judgement.

    The RH Bill brings a new challenge for us Filipinos. I think we are ready to accept this kind of law or solution to our population problem. Being a liberal about it means I see it as right. It can give the women the chance to choose what kind of contraception method they want to use. It has more acceptable outcomes than speculative disadvantages. It could help us control the population which in turn can help the lighten the burden of the economy. Most poor Filipino families are made up of more than what they can support. This is because of unplanned pregnancies. When the population is lessen there would be a great effect on our country. Like they can maintain proper needs for their family. Then the government would no longer have to support them every now and then. The government can now focus on other matters at hand and help our country lead to progress. This bill is not anti-poor. In fact if this is implemented effectively then the basic family would no longer have to worry about how to support their basic needs just because they have more children in their family than in a whole clan. It also does not promote abortion but prevention of abortion. Sometimes pregnancies are accidental and unwanted so mothers turn to abortion. Because of the modern contraception method which is much more effective than the natural method, these unwanted pregnancies can be lessened. Teaching children about reproductive health can have possible effects on their view towards these topics if these were thought correctly. It may be a risk but I believe it a right law to be passed given that it provides a choice for people to be empowered.

    The RH Bill in a conservative view also holds disturbing arguments. The RH Bill can provide reproductive health education to students in turn, with possible wrong instruction may instead mislead them. It can also create a culture of sex in our society. The provisions of the bill are debated on must be trimmed to be fit for the Filipino citizens.

  81. 1. IS GOOD ALWAYS RIGHT?

    No, good is NOT always right.

    Webster’s Universal English Dictionary states that: GOOD is right or proper, beneficial, valid and enjoyable or pleasant. While, it also states that: RIGHT is correct, true, just or good, appropriate and conservative. It is somewhat vague how the dictionary denotes good and right. It defines good as right and right as good. It is hard to define the line which separates the two. Also, it defines right as conservative but in fact, “right” is the mentality of the liberals, not of the conservatives. Before I argue for my conclusion, this is how I will use the terms good and right. Good is when it concerns for the welfare or well-being. On the other hand, right is universally accepted acts, values or ideas.

    Being a liberal, I believe that good is not always right. There may be situations that a “good” means might result a “wrong” end or consequence. Or the other way around, an “evil” means might result a “right” end or consequence. This thinking proves that I am indeed a liberal. As discussed in our class, the conservatives claim that good and right are the same. But I disagree because there is a significant difference between the two. It is just hard to express clearly how they differ as even the authors of the dictionaries cannot separate the two.

    Nevertheless, as humans cannot clearly separate the two and as the world cannot agree on a universal distinction or similarity between the two, good might also be always right.

    2. WHICH IS PRIOR, THE GOOD OR THE RIGHT?

    Right is prior to the good.

    Webster’s Universal English Dictionary states that: GOOD is right or proper, beneficial, valid and enjoyable or pleasant. While, it also states that: RIGHT is correct, true, just or good, appropriate and conservative. Also, the dictionary defines PRIOR as taking precedence in importance. There is no argument regarding the definition of prior. However, it is somewhat vague how the dictionary denotes good and right. It defines good as right and right as good. It is hard to define the line which separates the two. Also, it defines right as conservative but in fact, “right” is the mentality of the liberals, not of the conservatives. Before I argue for my conclusion, this is how I will use the terms good and right. Good is when it concerns for the welfare or well-being. On the other hand, right is universally accepted acts, values or ideas.

    Right should be prior to the good. As I liberal, I have the mentality to be inclined to what is right even if I have to suffer or go through actions which are not good. At the end of the day, the right is what I think about not what is good. I believe in the principle of universally accepted values rather that what is good for the welfare of this certain society. What is good for that society might not be universally right and accepted. However, even if I am favoring the right over the good, it is still better if being good and right is side by side.

    There will really be an instance that we will be fronted to choose what to prioritize, the good or the bad. As much as possible, we should choose the good and the right at the same time. Rather than being evil and right, or good and wrong.

    3. ARE YOU A CONSERVATIVE OR A LIBERAL REGARDING THE ISSUE ON R.H. BILL?

    The R.H. Bill is liberal in nature.

    LIBERAL, according to Webster’s Universal English Dictionary, is being tolerant, general broadening of the mind, non-specialist, and favoring reform or progress. On the other hand, it defines CONSERVATIVE as traditional, conventional and cautious.

    The Reproductive Health Bill is liberal in nature. It presents all kind of options up to those that are very modern which made the Catholic Church react because it is against their teachings. But, we must keep in mind the separation of the Church and the state. Also, even though the bill is liberal, it does NOT support abortion unlike what is reported by the media. At the end of the day, it all boils down to the choice of the people, not what the law or the Church decides.

    However, the people behind this bill should somewhat consider to be a conservative regarding the Mandatory Reproductive Health Education. The bills states that students from 5th grade to 4th year high school must be taught on Reproductive Health. But, there are topics that might teach students, at a very young age, irresponsible actions rather than educating them. These topics are: sexual behavior, sexual health and responsible sexuality.

    4. REVIEW THE BILL OF RIGHTS (ARTICLE III, 1987 CONSTITUTION). ON RIGHTS, DO YOU THINK THAT OUR CONSTITUTION IS LIBERAL OR CONSERVATIVE? IF LIBERAL, SHOULD IT BE CONSERVATIVE? IF CONSERVATIVE, SHOULD IT BE LIBERAL?

    Our 1987 constitution is conservative on the Bill of Rights.

    LIBERAL, according to Webster’s Universal English Dictionary, is being tolerant, general broadening of the mind, non-specialist, and favoring reform or progress. On the other hand, it defines CONSERVATIVE as traditional, conventional and cautious.

    I find the Bill of Rights of our constitution conservative as it favors for the good rather than what is right. I am a liberal and I think that even though it favors the freedom of the people, granting that freedom to the people means favoring to the good. This is true especially for the freedom of speech. As we see in the news, a lot of rallies is about “fighting for the good”. But, these situations result to the question, are they doing the right thing? Fighting for what is good but doing it NOT in the right way.

    The Bill of Rights being conservative, I strongly believe that it should be liberal, I choose RIGHT over good. Being good does not all the time constitute being right.

    *support:
    Section 4. No law shall be passed abridging the freedom of speech, of expression, or of the press, or the right of the people peaceably to assemble and petition the government for redress of grievances.
    Section 8. The right of the people, including those employed in the public and private sectors, to form unions, associations, or societies for purposes not contrary to law shall not be abridged.

  82. CONSERVATIVES AND LIBERALS

    1. IS GOOD ALWAYS RIGHT?

    Not all good is right.

    According to the Webster’s English Dictionary, good is having the right or proper qualities, beneficial, valid, healthy or sound, enjoyable and pleasant. On the other hand, it defines right as correct, true, just, good, appropriate, fit and conservative.

    Good is not always right because there may be instances that we need to choose or act “evil” in order to attain the “right”. It can also be expressed that the means to an end might be evil in order for that end to be right.

    However, the two terms being defined vaguely leaves us a lot of hanging questions that challenge our minds and require for a lot of deep thinking. We never know, good might be always right.

    2. WHICH IS PRIOR, THE GOOD OR THE RIGHT?

    Right is given more priority than the good.

    According to the Webster’s English Dictionary, good is having the right or proper qualities, beneficial, valid, healthy or sound, enjoyable and pleasant. On the other hand, it defines right as correct, true, just, good, appropriate, fit and conservative. Also, it states that: prior is taking precedence in importance.

    Right should be given more priority that the good because we have the freedom to choose and decide what is good for our welfare. It is in our consent that we can be right in either being good or being evil. It would be a lot better if we will do acts that are good and right at the same time.

    Although the question asks which is prior, and even if the good might be prior to the right, it would be better to give importance equally the good and the right. Because there might be situations that being right might not be good for our well-being.

    3. ARE YOU A CONSERVATIVE OR A LIBERAL REGARDING THE ISSUE ON R.H. BILL?

    I am a liberal regarding the issue on the R.H. Bill.

    Webster’s English Dictionary defines liberal as tolerant, general broadening of the mind, non-specialist, and favoring reform or progress. Also, the dictionary defines conservative as traditional, conventional and cautious.

    I find the Reproductive Health Bill liberal because the bill lays out all the options the people can have, from the use of contraceptives to family planning. It is up to the consent and decision of the people if they would be liberal or conservative in choosing what is right in all the options they have.

    However, the law-makers must also consider being a conservative and keep in mind the nature of the Filipino society. The bill is made for good intentions and has good policies. But having this kind of culture, how sure are they that this will be implemented the way the plan it to be?

    4. REVIEW THE BILL OF RIGHTS (ARTICLE III, 1987 CONSTITUTION). ON RIGHTS, DO YOU THINK THAT OUR CONSTITUTION IS LIBERAL OR CONSERVATIVE? IF LIBERAL, SHOULD IT BE CONSERVATIVE? IF CONSERVATIVE, SHOULD IT BE LIBERAL?

    The Bill of Rights of our constitution is liberal.

    Webster’s English Dictionary defines liberal as tolerant, general broadening of the mind, non-specialist, and favoring reform or progress. Also, the dictionary defines conservative as traditional, conventional and cautious.

    The Bill of Rights in the Article III of our 1987 Constitution is liberal as it emphasize on the freedom of the people, the Philippines being a democratic country.

    But as we see in our culture today, can a conservative constitution change the society and uplift our country? Maybe we should consider having a one.

    * Section 4. No law shall be passed abridging the freedom of speech, of expression, or of the press, or the right of the people peaceably to assemble and petition the government for redress of grievances.
    * Section 5. No law shall be made respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof. The free exercise and enjoyment of religious profession and worship, without discrimination or preference, shall forever be allowed. No religious test shall be required for the exercise of civil or political rights.

  83. 1. Is good always right?

    Good is not always right.

    God is defined as being positive or desirable in nature. Right is defined as conforming with or conformable to justice, law, or morality.

    Considering the definitions mentioned previously, I can say that the end does not justify the means, even if the situation is favorable for you or for everyone, we should take in to consideration our actions.
    For example, a mother is about to bear her child. But due to her unstable condition, the doctor asks the father to choose whether he wants the baby or his wife to live. In this situation,there ca be a debatable issue about what to choose over the other but others may say that there is no right or wrong choice in this circumstance.

    On the contrary, good can also be right. A right action can be good if the end of the action is beneficial to the receiver of action.

  84. 2. Which is prior the good or the right?

    The good is prior to the right.

    Referring to the dictionary, good is defined as the act that is pleasurable, desirable or favorable and right defined as conformance to justice or law or morality.

    Being right is always absolute because no one is responsible for the other but themselves. . He/she has the capability to choose his/her own end. All people are equal regardless of gender, race station in life and authority.

    On the contrary, the good should not be prior because it is only subjective. Something that is good to one is not good to others. Thus we don’t need to say that good is prior to the right because good changes meaning in every person.

  85. 3. Are you a conservative or liberal on the RH bill?
    I am a liberal regarding the issue on the RH Bill.
    A Liberal is a person favoring gradual reform, especially political reforms that extend democracy, distribute wealth more evenly, and protect the personal freedom of the individual. In short, he is an open-minded person. While a Conservative person is in favor of preserving the status quo, traditional values and customs, and against abrupt change.
    We should accept changes especially if it is for the betterment of our country and planet. I see nothing wrong in using contraceptives. Because using such things, for me, doesn’t kill no human being or baby.
    On the contrary, the RH Bill has been referred to as pro-abortion or anti-life. Maybe it can be a compromise to ammend the RH Bill pertaining specially to the aspects which some groups have expressed strong objections.

  86. 4. REVIEW THE BILL OF RIGHTS (ARTICLE III, 1987 CONSTITUTION). ON RIGHTS, DO YOU THINK THAT OUR CONSTITUTION IS LIBERAL OR CONSERVATIVE? IF LIBERAL, SHOULD IT BE CONSERVATIVE? IF CONSERVATIVE, SHOULD IT BE LIBERAL?

    Our 1987 constitution is liberal in nature on the Bill of Rights.

    Liberal is defined as one who is open-minded or not strict in the observance of orthodox, traditional, or established forms or ways. Conservative is defined as one who adheres to traditional methods or views.

    SEC. 3.
    (1) The privacy of communication and correspondence shall be inviolable except upon lawful order of the court, or when public safety or order requires otherwise as prescribed by law.
    (2) Any evidence obtained in violation of this or the preceding section shall be inadmissible for any purpose in any proceeding.

    In the first two sections of article 3, it is evident that our constitution promotes liberty among all and no one should be deprived of freedom.

    On the contrary, it can also be conservative because it respects every person and limits his freedom so that he cannot deprive others of their freedom.

  87. question #3

    I am a liberal regarding the RH Bill.
    Conservative means adhering to traditions.
    Liberal means open to changes and open-minded.
    I see the reproductive health bill as a liberal. It only pertains to give resolutions to this monotonous subject. It also exhibits an anti abortion perspective which will solve the turmoiled problem. In this case, the problem with over population may be controlled.
    On the other hand, being conservative on this part may only just reflecting on the past, which may not seem to be practical.

  88. Question #4
    The Bill of Rights 1987 Constitution is mostly liberal. It is liberal because it allows Filipinos to use their freedom in different ways. They are clearly visible in the following sections of the bill:
    Section 5. No law shall be made respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof. The free exercise and enjoyment of religious profession and worship, without discrimination or preference, shall forever be allowed. No religious test shall be required for the exercise of civil or political rights.

    Section 8. The right of the people, including those employed in the public and private sectors, to form unions, associations, or societies for purposes not contrary to law shall not be abridged.

    I can conclude that The Bill of Rights 1987 Constitution is undoubtedly liberal. For it gives freedom with no boundaries. This may be abused by the citizens knowing that they all have the right.
    In my hypothetical way of thinking, they should put a little more of being conservative. It may put a barrier to the impertinent actions by the citizens.
    Wrapping it all up, The Bill of Rights 1987 Constitution should acquire some conservative qualities in order to have a more productive way of guiding our people by the benefits.

  89. IS GOOD ALWAYS RIGHT?

    What does good means, how can you say that some things are good and others are not, how can you distinguish being good from being right? If do you something good, does it necessarily mean that it is right? These are the questions that occupied my mind when I heard “Is good always right?, and thought how hard the question was, and how can I answer.

    How can I regard a thing as good? If it is good, can it also be considered right? How?
    G-O-O-D, a four letter word, easy to say, but definitely hard to put in words and deeds. As for denotation, it is morally excellent, virtuous and pious. Every person in the world are situated differently, it can be by race, religion, beliefs, experiences and a whole lot more perspectives on how one can consider a thing good, on how can he sees it. Although we are all looking on a same item, same picture, we sees it differently, we react differently. Therefore, each sees goodness differently.

    No matter how great your aims, objectives and causes are, still, the end does not justify the means. You cannot consider a thing right though your purpose is good. Robinhood is a perfect example, no matter how hard he tries to do well and help his less fortunate fellowmen by means of stealing, stealing is still and always be stealing, which is definitely a “ big no no” wrong deed to do. Even if you make the world turn turtle and upside down, good cannot always be right, as well as right being always good! Indeed, good can be right, but not for always.

    Means, or the way how thing is being done is one determinant and justification that good is not always right. Secondly, purpose, it can distinguish whether the thing you have done is well and right, or just good. Lastly, the thing itself, because there are things which are good but not right.

    Being good and pious is different from being right and legal. Being good requires heart and concern, while being right demands compliance and sometimes, sacrifice. For me, it is harder to do right, and be righteous than to be good that are usually right. Most of the time, people tend to be naturally good, but being right is a choice that you should stand tall still.

    WHICH IS PRIOR: THE GOOD OR THE RIGHT?

    There are things in life that are good and that are right. But, which is more prior, which is more fundamental? It is hard to answer, but if we revise the question, which is harder, to be right or good? Definitely, I will immediately answer that being right is much much harder than being good, because as human, it is my nature to be good, I was made good. But, being right means a lot of principles, courage, and strong heart.

    There are things that make you feel good, happy and complete, though it is good and pious, still you have to let them go because you and your surroundings need to be right, you needs to comply, and sacrifice.

    Most of the elderly or the experienced adults, say that if you choose to be right, no matter how painful and no matter how hard it is, you should let it be, because sooner, you’ll find true happiness. But it is really hard!

    As I was asked by this question, I thought of a friend, who gave up his loved ones just to be right, it was not his own choice, because for him, their love is more than good enough to make her stay. He does not know where he lacks, but for his loved ones to be happy, he let it be and broke up. He suffered tremendous pain and lot of sacrifices. Each day, he cries and shed lot of tears. He wants her back, but the girl stood firmly to her decision. The meaning of good for him was to make the girl happy, to treat her like a princess and give everything she needs and she want; let it be, he stay good and made his girl’s wish granted: letting go for them to be righteous. It is hard to understand but that is life!

    Good means being pious and virtuous which is far different from right, which means legal, something which complies. As creations of god, it is man’s nature to be good, and it comes naturally, no matter how bad a person is. But to be right needs wisdom to stand because it is a decision, a choice one person makes. To be right, legal and to comply, you need to follow, to obey, to sacrifice and to be courageous.

    Right is prior, it is more fundamental than to good. First, because it is an extra demand to man, to comply to the laws and be lawfully good for his own betterment, and for the standard of living and making a living. Second, because it is a choice that a person selected, it is a will, unlike in being good, it comes natural, no effort; it is a decision which you should stand for. Third, to be right will teach you life’s lessons, it will help you to be stronger and better, while in good, you are much likely to suffer, to be used, and to be abused. Right, makes the world balances. Lastly, as experience says, to be right will make you truly happy, though not to day, but sooner.

    “Stand for what is right, even if you are standing alone.”
    “Do a good turn daily!”

    ARE YOU A CONSERVATIVE OR LIBERAL REGARDING THE ISSUE ON RH BILL?

    The Reproductive Health bill poses nothing that will harm the citizens, but all for the betterment and awareness of one’s life and living, and for the development of the country’s status.

    In today’s situation and crises, we all need to be practical for us to maintain a standard of living, in harmony and balanced. We need a system for this. Sometimes, I feel pity for those children in the streets, out of school, malnourished, and no moral upbringing. Due to the fact that they are financially unstable, there parents still make them plenty to the point that they can no longer sustain and provide for each and everyone of the family members. Who’s to blame? Worst, these parents are unaware of the basic birth control and family planning, because they were also came from the family that is much probably like that.

    There are plenty victims of poverty because of lack of information on how they can achieve a balanced living. Ignorance hinders them to live a life that one must have.

    Being liberal is being open to ideas and concepts of some topics. With this regards, I am definitely liberal, because the Reproductive Health bill will make the quality of living better, not only for me but for each and every citizen of this republic. It is also for a long-term vision and future of the country. Next, lot of children will have a good future, not only in school but as well as in their physical and moral development. This bill will diminish the crime rate and unjust treatment and living. There would be fewer criminals, unfortunates, out of school youth, prostitutes and more. Everything will fall in their places.

    Sometimes, I thought that these crises are happening because it is everybody’s fault. If there will be right family planning, we would be a small number of poor little children who suffer most. If there would be sexual education for each students and out of school youths, there would be lesser teenage pregnancy, rape crimes, etc.

    Every one of us wants a good future, a harmonious and prosperous living. So why settle for less if we could have something better?

    REVIEW THE BILL OF RIGHTS (ARTICLE III, 1987 CONSTITUTION).ON RIGHTS, DO YOU THINK THAT OUR CONSTITUTION IS LIBERAL OR CONSERVATIVE? IF LIBERAL, SHOULD IT BE CONSERVATIVE? IF CONSERVATIVE, SHOULD IT BE LIBERAL?

    Article 3 of the 1987 Philippine constitution deals with the bill of rights, protection, rights and punishments are tackled. In this, nothing violates the value of life, there is no “an eye for an eye, a tooth for a tooth” policy, specifically, death penalty, or harsh/hard punishments, the highest punishment is the reclusion perpetua or life imprisonment. Every law gives citizens a just and moral policies, it protects and fights for the rights of most, all for the benefit of the masses.

    Being conservative means disposed to preserve existing conditions, institutions, etc., or to restore traditional ones, and to limit change; and cautiously moderate. Article 3 of our constitution limit changes, restore traditional ones and cautiously moderate, and is therefore conservative. I considered it conservative because it is moderate and limit changes. It values life and limits punishments. It is all for the benefit of its citizens. Our law is not that strict and liberal, maybe that is why many of the Filipinos lack discipline, and some lack trust to the law makers which worst, are the law breakers.

    If it will be liberal, crime rates and other unwanted incidences diminish. Criminals will think twice to do something unlawful. Citizens will be more mindful and responsible to comply with our law and the law makers should be more mindful as well. So it should be liberal.

  90. Essay # 4

    Review the Bill of Rights (Article III, 1987 Philippine.Constitution).
    On rights, is our constitution conservative or liberal?
    Support your answer by quoting at least 2 sections of Article III, 1987 Philippines Constitution.
    If you think it is conservative, should it be liberal?
    If you think it is liberal, should it be conservative?

    After reading the Bill of Rights of our contitution. I think it is liberal when it comes to providing the citizens with proper rights and liberty.

    The Article III of the 1987 Philippine Constitution contains the Bill of Rights. It contains the Rights that a Filipino citizen may exercise within the territory of the Philippine archipelago. Being a conservative means maintaining existing views while being a liberal means not being narrow in judgement. A conservtive may want to hinder some freedom given to humans because they think that it is the best fo everybody. A liberl thinks that all freedom should be given to humans.

    The Bill of Rights for me is liberal because it provides the people such freedom. I see it as a declaration of what a citizen can do with the freedom given to him by the state in the ruling territory and there is pretty lot of right things that a person can do with his freedom in this country. It hinder a Filipino a citizen or person for that matter to do what it is againsrt his will. These two sections of the Bill of Rights is a clear exmple of how liberal Article III is:

    SEC. 4.
    No law shall be passed abridging the freedom of speech, of expression, or of the press, or the right of the people peaceably to assemble and petition the Government for redress of grievances.

    SEC. 5.
    No law shall be made respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof. The free exercise and enjoyment of religious profession and worship, without discrimination or preference, shall forever be allowed. No religious test shall be required for the exercise of civil or political rights.

    I think in the same manner, our Bill of Rights is conservative. It places limits on up to what extent our freedom can be used. It has some kind of safety net that when our freedom is not propoerly used or hinders others of thier freedom then our right would be cancelled under the laws of the land but only with due process.

    In my opinion, our Bill of Rights should stay as liberal as it is. It gives the people the proper liberty they deserve. Making it conservative more would result to tightening of the government’s hands on its people neck. Maybe everyone should be taught of how to exercise their own freedom in the right way that they would not be the caused of hindrnace of other’s freedom.

  91. IS GOOD ALWAYS RIGHT

    For me, not all actions can be good and right always. The means on how will you do an action and the intentions why will you do it will be some of the determinants whether your action will be good and right at the same time. As the famous saying goes, “the end does not justify the means”.

    By definition, good means morally excellent or virtuous. Right is the exact opposite of wrong which means improper or suitable. By observing their definition, there is already an observable difference between the two.

    Most actions done are good but not right while there are few actions, which are done by certain people, are considered right for them but for us, it is evil. Good actions usually came from the heart. We are usually guided by our conscience before doing such actions. Right actions are usually taught by parents, and strengthened by the environment. In addition, the action called ‘right’ can be a positive action to one crowd, but to the other crowd, it can be wrong. So it usually depends on the people involved.

    In contrast, there are also actions done in accordance with good and right. These are outstanding actions because it gives excellent feedback from everyone. Also, it results to good effects for most people, if not for everyone.

    WHICH IS PRIOR, GOOD OR RIGHT?

    For me, it is obviously more important to choose the good thing rather than the right thing. A person usually does things when he knows that it is good before knowing if it is right. When good meets right, the action done is excellent.

    Good is defined as morally excellent, proper, suitable, and virtuous. While right is defined as appropriate or desirable. In other terms, good is basically based on moral while right usually depends on the situation.

    I believe that good is prior compared to right because of some reasons. Good is basically based on moral. We all know that when a thing is done with morality, this will eventually give an outstanding result. In addition, good actions came from the heart. It means that the action is done because the person believes that the action is proper.

    An action is right depending on the situation and the people involves. It means that it only gives positive effects on some, not at everyone. For example, when the terrorists attacked the World Trade Center, they think it is right and can help them go to heaven. But for us Catholics, we know that murder is against God’s will.

    ARE YOU A CONSERVATIVE OR A LIBERAL REGARDING THE ISSUE ON THE RH BILL?

    Regarding the Reproductive Health Bill or known as the RH Bill, I can say that I am a liberal. I believe that approving this bill, problems of the country such as overpopulation and poverty can be lessened.

    Reproductive health Bill (RH Bill) is an imposed law and still in the process of approving which states that Sex Education must be taught to children under 5th grade of the Elementary Department. It also encourages people to use contraceptives when it is unwanted to have babies.

    I believe that approval of this law can greatly solve problems of the country such as over population and poverty as stated above. Most couples who don’t have jobs are the one who have lots of children and want the government to supply them financially for their needs. I believe that encouraging these types of people with the contraception can help them with family planning resulting to a fewer children to feed and send to school. In addition, this Bill can lessen the unwanted children and can help prevent abortion. Finally, I believe that this law can help in decreasing the number of victims of Sexually Transmitted Disease with the use of some contraceptives.

    However, I can also see the reason why the conservatives don’t want the approval of this law. This law is somehow against the teachings of the church. An application of such contraceptives and preventing pregnancy is like depriving the child of his life. Also, it seems like this law encourages teenager to try pre-marital sex or sex before marriage. Finally, approval of this law will eventually result to a culture of sex.

  92. mahihirapan na si sir dito…wahahaha…dapat talaga konti lang…

  93. waw siyamnapung responses na..c;

  94. 1. IS GOOD ALWAYS RIGHT?

    For me good is not always right. Some will tell that something is good and for them it is right but for the other it is not. Because we have different point of views on different situations that’s why good is not always right.

    Good is defined as being positive or desirable in nature. It is also having the qualities that are desirable or distinguishing in a particular thing. On the other hand, right is defined as conforming with or conformable to justice, law, morality, or anything in accord with principles of justice.

    As I mentioned a while ago, good is not always right because each one of us has a different point of views. Other might say that what they’re doing is good and for them it is right but the truth is it is not. One best example for this is a student who is cheating in an examination. For the student it is right to cheat just to pass the exam but all of us know that cheating is not right. Another example is a policeman who kills a criminal. We all know that killing is not right but killing a criminal will be beneficial to many people.

    On the contrary, some says that good and right is the same. Given that it is morally justified and correct. Thus, something would never be right if it is not naturally good.

  95. 2. WHICH IS PRIOR THE GOOD OR THE RIGHT?

    Right is prior to the good.

    Right is defined as conforming with or conformable to justice, law, morality, or anything in accord with principles of justice; it is also morally justified and correct, or consistent with generally held ideas of morality and proper conduct. On the other hand, good is defined as being positive or desirable in nature. It is also having the qualities that are desirable or distinguishing in a particular thing.

    For me, right is prior than good for the reason that all right things are also good but not all good things are right. As stated in the definition, right is a morally justified and correct so in my opinion, right is prior than good.

    On the contrary, some says that good is prior than right because they think first if their action will be favourable for them not considering that their action are right or wrong.

  96. 3. ARE YOU A CONSERVATIVE OR A LIBERAL REGARDING THE ISSUE ON R.H. BILL?
    I am liberal regarding the issue on R.H. BILL.
    Liberals are the people who believe that they must have all the freedoms possible to frame, revise and pursue their own conception of the good consistent with the equal amount of freedoms of others. While conservatives, are the people who believes that the purpose of the creation of government is paternalistic. Thus, conservatives are afraid that freedom can be used as a dangerous means to an end.
    I can say that I am liberal regarding this issue because we all know that one of the major problems of our country today is overpopulation. And trying to impose this bill might be effective to stop that problem since it enables couples and individuals to decide freely and responsibly on the number and spacing of their children and to have the information and means to carry out their decisions. Thus, there’s nothing wrong about trying. We will not going to know the result if we are not going to try it.
    On the contrary, I am afraid that this Bill might promote more sexual activities not only among single people but also among the youth. Thus, in the R.H. Bill it is pro-abortion and for me it is not right.

  97. 4. REVIEW THE BILL OF RIGHTS (ARTICLE III, 1987 CINSTITUTION).
    ON RIGHTS, DO YOU THINK THAT OUR CONSTITUTION IS LIBERAL OR CONSERVATIVE?
    SUPPORT YOUR ANSWER BY QUOTING AT LEAST 2 SECTIONS OF ARTICLE III, 1987 PHILIPPINE CONSTITUTION.
    IF LIBERAL, SHOULD IT BE CONSERVATIVE?
    IF CONSERVATIVE, SHOULD IT BE LIBERAL?

    Section 1. No person shall be deprived of life, liberty, or property without due process of law, nor shall any person be denied the equal protection of the laws.
    Section 4. No law shall be passed abridging the freedom of speech, of expression, or of the press, or the right of the people peaceably to assemble and petition the government for redress of grievances.
    Section 5. No law shall be made respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof. The free exercise and enjoyment of religious profession and worship, without discrimination or preference, shall forever be allowed. No religious test shall be required for the exercise of civil or political rights.

    Liberals are the people who believe that they must have all the freedoms possible to frame, revise and pursue their own conception of the good consistent with the equal amount of freedoms of others. While conservatives, are the people who believes that the purpose of the creation of government is paternalistic.
    In sections 1, 4, and 5 it is clearly stated that the people must be free and no one can be deprived of their liberty including their property, religion, freedom of speech, freedom of expression, or freedom of the press. Thus, freedom of each individual is one of the qualities of being liberal.
    In my opinion, it should stay as liberal as it is for it protects our rights and freedom. It doesn’t need to be changed maybe some but not all. In addition, the government just have to implement the Bill of Rights in an accurate way because even if we have the best laws in the world if the government don’t apply it correctly it is nothing.

    On the contrary, some conservatives state that freedom can be used as a dangerous means to an end. For me it is better if our constitution is in the middle of being liberal and being conservative because being too conservative and being too liberal is not good.

  98. **************
    1. Is good always right?

    No, good is not always right.

    Good is based on one’s perception. What is good for somebody, may not be good to another person. On the other hand, the right is based on facts given by the norms of the society.

    For good to be considered right, it has to be similar to the ideals or principle that set right as right. And for something to be right, it just has to comply to the ideals or principle.

    On the contrary, some would say that good is always right. They would say that both terms should be morally justified and correct. Like so, something would never be right if it is not good.

    ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
    2. Which is prior the good or the right?

    The right is prior to the good.

    Good, as the dictionary defines it, is something that is morally good. And right is what is just and best.

    Right has to be humane and does not violate human rights. If a snatcher would defend himself in front of the police by saying he did what he did because he needed money to support his sick loved one, and if the good is prior to the right, then that snatcher would be spared from his crime.

    But some would say that the good is prior to the right. For good is subjective and right is objective. It is only you who can tell what is good based from your own perception.

    ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
    3. Are you a conservative or a liberal regarding the issue on the RH Bill?

    I agree with the RH Bill so that makes me a liberal regarding the issue.

    Liberals are open-minded, tolerant and free thinking. While conservatives are traditional, conventional and cautious.

    I agree with the RH Bill because the bill lays out all the options the people can have, from the use of contraceptives to family planning. The RH Bill aims to disseminate information to provide guidance to plan families with the use of different methods, either natural or modern. If a couple has decided to engage in a sexual act, they must be know the consequence and have the proper knowledge and the options they can get to choose from. Family planning is never been wrong.

    However, conservatives would say that population is not the main problem of our country so why waste time doing the RH Bill. For them, no one can control population so instead of stopping it, why not focus more on providing education and job opportunities to its citizens.

    ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
    4. Review the Bill of Rights (Article III, 1987 Philippine.Constitution).
    On rights, is our constitution conservative or liberal?
    Support your answer by quoting at least 2 sections of Article III, 1987 Philippines Constitution.
    If you think it is conservative, should it be liberal?
    If you think it is liberal, should it be conservative?

    I believe that the Bill of Rights of the 1987 Philippine Constitution is liberal.

    “Section 1. No person shall be deprived of life, liberty, or property without due process of law, nor shall any person be denied the equal protection of the laws.”

    “Section 4. No law shall be passed abridging the freedom of speech, of expression, or of the press, or the right of the people peaceably to assemble and petition the government for redress of grievances.”

    “Section 5. No law shall be made respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof. The free exercise and enjoyment of religious profession and worship, without discrimination or preference, shall forever be allowed. No religious test shall be required for the exercise of civil or political rights.”

    On the other hand, conservatives believe that freedom can be dangerous. Like nowadays, people are free to express their thoughts by forming groups and rally to Malacañang whenever they feel deprived from something.
    ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

  99. 1. Is good always right?

    Good is NOT always right.

    Good is defined as of favorable character or tendency while right is defined as conforming to facts or truth or the state of being factually correct.

    Based on the definitions, we can say that there is a difference between the two. Being right is objective. What’s right is right and what’s wrong is wrong. Right things conform to facts or truth. We cannot bend facts nor truth because these are something of actual existence. thus, we cannot bend right to being wrong. Good is subjective. Something is good if it is of favorable character, but to whom or for what? If it is favorable for the wrong person or thing, then, clearly it is not right. So good is not always right.

    But what if it is favorable for the right person or thing? Then we can also say that good is right. Good is also defined as something conforming to the moral order of the universe. What is moral? Moral is defined as conforming to a standard of right behavior. If good is moral and moral is right, then good is right.

    2. Which is prior the good or the right?

    The right is prior to the good.

    The word prior is defined as taking precedence (as in importance). So, the right is more important than the good.

    As I have said on the first question, right is objective. The right cannot be taken as something wrong no matter how we twist its meaning, unlike the good which is subjective. When something is good for the wrong things, then that something good becomes wrong. So, this means that it is more important to follow what is right than what is good.

    But isn’t good defined also as conforming to the moral order of the universe? And the right is also defined as being in accordance with what is just, good and proper. The two definitions make the good and the right almost the same. If the two are just the same then the good can be prior to the right, too, or the good and the right are of equal importance.

    3. Are you a conservative or a liberal regarding the issue on the RH Bill?

    Liberal.

    Liberal is defined as open minded or not strict in the observance of orthodox, traditional or established form of ways.

    I am a liberal regarding the issue on the RH Bill because overpoulation is one of the biggest problems of our country. The RH bill does not promote abortion, it promotes methods so that abortion can be avoided. It promotes family planning that will help our society be more responsible and live a better life.

    The RH bill may also have negative results. The youth might take it as an excuse to irresponsible sexual activity.

    4. Review the Bill of Rights (Article III, 1987 Philippine.Constitution).
    On rights, is our constitution conservative or liberal?
    If you think it is conservative, should it be liberal?
    If you think it is liberal, should it be conservative?

    I think that the constitution is liberal on human rights.

    Section 1. No person shall be deprived of life, liberty, or property without due process of law, nor shall any person be denied the equal protection of the laws.

    Section 4. No law shall be passed abridging the freedom of speech, of expression, or of the press, or the right of the people peaceably to assemble and petition the government for redress of grievances.

    I think that it should be a bit conservative cause sometimes it seems that the people are too free. Freedom should come with discipline and I believe that the Filipinos lack discipline. I’m not saying that the law shoul take away our freedom, NO. The law just needs to help us, the Filipinos, be disciplined and responsible.

  100. 100th RESPONSE! =)

  101. 1. Is good always right?

    If by definition we say good as something of a favorable choice and right as a choice bounded by the teachings and culture, then the answer is no.

    2.Which if prior the good or the right?

    By nature, humans will try to protect themselves, other people and things which they hold dear therefore making choices which are favorable and beneficiary to that of their intent. There are some people who will mostly those with a strong sense of justice prioritize the right choice. In my opinion, the right prior to the good. It is true that the good is inclined to a beneficial outcome but that’s just to selfish. While on the right, you consider the better for the masses.

    3.Are you a conservative or a liberal regarding the issue on RH bill?

    I’d go for the liberal on the RH bill. Liberals are open-minded and with the issue at hand, broadmindedness is needed to fully cite the pros and cons of this bill. Though it’s contrary to the prolife the church is teaching, it does have its benefits.

    4. Review the Bill of Rights (Article III, 1987 Philippine.Constitution).
    On rights, is our constitution conservative or liberal?
    If you think it is conservative, should it be liberal?
    If you think it is liberal, should it be conservative?

    Section 1. No person shall be deprived of life, liberty, or property without due process of law, nor shall any person be denied the equal protection of the laws.

    Section 4. No law shall be passed abridging the freedom of speech, of expression, or of the press, or the right of the people peaceably to assemble and petition the government for redress of grievances.

    i think our constitution is conservative and i think it should be that way. Democracy is good but too much of it leads to abuse and no matter how we look at it, there are people that will take advantage of the freedom they have in their hands. A little control is needed to suppress this.

  102. 1. Is good always right?
    >>>
    Let’s take a scenario. A boy begging for money. You ask yourself whether to give that kid a coin or not. Two choices: give a coin, do not give a coin. We may think of the possibilities or the consequences of choosing either. The results and outcome for a simple decision. If you do give money, will the boy buy something to eat or will he buy something pleasurable to him like “rugby”? If you don’t give money, will the boy starve or maybe he doesn’t mind ‘cause he’s just working for some gangster?
    This is a simple scenario of choices, actions and results. For me, good is not always right. There may be things that can be good for us, good for what we want, we have and we may need. But sometimes they cannot be right. It may have a bad result for our self and even others. Going back to the scenario I gave a while ago, let’s say I chose to give him a coin. Then what will the consequence be? RIGHT if that kid buys food, WRONG if that kid bought drugs, GOOD because it’s a form of charity work (almsgiving), and WRONG will come into place if I chose not to give him alms.
    As the article says, good and evil are results and right and wrong are actions. The results may vary from our actions. But, we as a human being have our own choices. It’s up to us whether how we use this freedom of choice. And definitely, how it will affect us, others and even our conscience.

    2. Which is prior the good or the right?
    >>>
    Being a Catholic with a strong faith in God and the Church, being good is the most important thing and whatever wrong thing we may did to others and even to our self as long as we know that it is good (better), the results will be right-wise. Right and wrong is merely how our emotions are touched. We feel wrong for a person who hurts us, who betrayed us, who disappoints us, etc. But we never know… for example, in a relationship, if a boy left the girl for some reason that girl will feel that the boy did something wrong to her, not knowing that it’s for the better of her. And a few years after, she’ll realize that if her ex-boyfriend did not leave him she would never found the man of her life right now. Something like that. Therefore, the important thing to always keep in mind is the result, the being GOOD.

    3. Are you a conservative or a liberal regarding the issue on the RH Bill? (See reading materials)
    >>>
    Definitely a conservative. Regarding the issue on the RH Bill, I think we must consult the Church about the good way of living. Yes, the church is against what is right for the people and the country. To alleviate the increasing population here in our country, but looking at the other side, these may also encourage people to be more responsible.
    Obeying what the church wants, about being against the contraceptives but implying what the government wants about controlling the population at the same time so right and good will prevail.
    We may have a more wide distribution of idea or knowledge about family planning. It’s effect on our life if not prepared enough and the consequence of having a high number of children without the affordability of growing them healthy, etc.

    4. Review the Bill of Rights (Article III, 1987 Philippine.Constitution).
    On rights, is our constitution conservative or liberal?
    Support your answer by quoting at least 2 sections of Article III, 1987 Philippines Constitution.
    If you think it is conservative, should it be liberal?
    If you think it is liberal, should it be conservative?
    >>>
    The Bill of Rights is conservative, from the preamble itself, it is Catholic-wise. In section 1 below, it is clearly seen that the importance of life is being showed here and also the freedom of choices. In section 2, the freedom of a person to have enough answers to questions and the right of a person to have security for him in his own property.

    Section 1. No person shall be deprived of life, liberty, or property without due process of law, nor shall any person be denied the equal protection of the laws.
    Section 2. The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects against unreasonable searches and seizures of whatever nature and for any purposes shall be inviolable, and no search warrant or warrant of arrest shall issue except upon probable cause to be determined personally by the judge after examination under oath or affirmation of the complainant and the witnesses he may produce, and particularly describing the place to be searched and the persons or things to be seized.
    I think, there is no need for it to be liberal. It’s still good that there’s a rightful law to follow and to guide us. So everyone can enjoy everything without the fear from other’s freedom to do anything.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: