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

50 Responses

  1. 1. Is good always right?
    Good – things we do that makes us feel better.
    Right-a choice that won’t affect other people’s lives negatively.

    In my opinion good is not always right because sometimes by doing what we know is good we still end up hurting other people, physically or emotionally.

    2. Which is prior the good or the right?
    Right is prior than good because all right things are good but not all good things are right.

    3. Are you a conservative or a liberal regarding the issue on the RH Bill? (See reading materials)
    Liberal- thinking that not all good is right.
    Conservative- thinking that all good is right.

    I am a liberal regarding the issue on the RH Bill because for me it is the right way to do to lessen our population and to avoid unwanted babies.

    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?

    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.
    I think it is conservative because its decisions are all based on the law and it doesn’t look in the other side of things. In short it simply shows that no one is above the law. I think it should still be conservative because people can’t have other way of getting around with it and especially people will follow it.

  2. 1. Is good always right?
    -The good is not always right. Good, in religion, ethics, and philosophy, deals with an association with life, community, happiness, or human flourishing. The rights are moral entitlements or permissions that cannot be legitimately modified by any authority. this means that good may differ from person to person, culture to culture, religion to religion. It is also dependent upon authority. Right, on the other hand, will be right whether it is good or not.
    Good also deals with how one feels, while right deals with what one must or must not do. So, good is based on the outcome of an action while right is the action itself.

    2. What is prior, good or right?
    -Personally, even if I know the distinction between good and right, I will choose the good over the right. I am a result oriented person, that is how I was brought up. There will be times when I will choose to deny a person his/her right if it would mean safety of the rights of a greater number of people. I guess I am also a number oriented person.
    -Although this is what I will do, what I believe is a little different. Each person has rights and they should be respected as your own, because you are both humans and denying his/her rights will mean it is fine to also just deny yours. It is just that when a dilemma comes I may not be courageous enough to stand for what I believe.

    3. Are you conservative or liberal regarding the issue on the RH bill?
    -My view about the issue is liberal. It is the right of the parents to choose whether they want to have off springs or not. Whether or not they would use contraceptives is their own decision and freedom. It is their right; therefore, denying it would mean going against their will and thus it violates their right.

    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?
    -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.

    For me our constitution is liberal based on these two sections, because the law does not limit the rights of the people to choose. In fact, by not supporting any religious organization, the government increases out rights because each religion is given equality and autonomy.

    I believe that the constitution should stay as it is. It does not limit freedom and rights while protecting the citizens from what takes these away. The constitution is not the problem. The problem are the ones implementing them and ones trying to go around with them.

  3. 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.

  4. Answers:

    1.) Good is never always right…

    Good is defined as a state of satisfaction of an individual; it is often based on the preferences of the individual and biased on what is pleasant or satisfactory to a person. Right on the other hand is a naturally accepted truth based on its worth in terms of morality.

    Good can be right, but not all the time. There are instances where good is born of wrong acts, as well as there are instances where bad ends come from doing the right thing. Good is and end, right the process used to attain this goal. There are also instances where bad ends are a result of right actions. A case where one hurts the feelings of someone by telling them the truth is an example of this. Telling the truth is the right thing to do, but hurting another person, physically or emotionally is something considered as bad. These situations show that bad things can be right, but only to some degree. The same could be said about good being wrong.

    2.) Right should be more prior than good.

    Right can be said as “what is ought to be done…” or “what we should do”. It is the basis of how good something that is considered good really is. Right is an already predetermined factor, it cannot be affected by a person’s preferences. Good is preferential, a person’s concept of good is determined by what he/she likes and dislikes. Which of them we should we prioritize or is fundamental boils down to what is morally satisfactory, not what is satisfactory for our convenience. We should always consider first what is right and not what is effortless. We could always do what is more convenient or something that that requires minimal effort, but we should ask ourselves what could be the implications of doing these things, we should first consider what are the consequences if we were to continue these actions.

    Good can become more prior than right when doing the right thing will only lead to harm or cause damage to a person’s dignity.

    3.) I am a liberal when it comes to the issue on the RH Bill.

    Liberals are people who are open to new concepts or ideas; they are able to cope with changes. They are people who have a sense of freedom, and this freedom enables them to embrace these new ideas and/or concepts. Conservatives are people who reject any new idea/concept. They believe that things that have worked out in the past can be used right now, because past concepts are already tried and tested.

    In a way, I am a liberal when it comes to this issue because the proposed RH bill can open up various possibilities, and if implemented correctly can benefit the country greatly. The readings have already connected the large population of our country to our poverty, The RH bill, for me will be able to increase the effectiveness of family planning. The natural way of family planning is fine and all, but there is still a chance of failure for this method. Why not allow methods that have a low chance of failure? The bill enables that the right information about family planning reaches the common man, especially the poor. As stated in one of the readings, it would decrease cases of deaths among mothers, as well as children born. Lastly, Natural and Artificial Family planning generally both have the same objective, reducing the population; Why not allow the use of options that are already in front of us.

    There are still some things that can keep me from going straight liberal in this issue. Based on what has been said about the bill, you can never take out the concept of morality. One article has stated that it can become a cause of the legalization of abortion. Being a Christian, I have been taught that we should value life, even an unborn fetus is considered a life, and the constitution has stated that all persons have the right to live. There’s also the issue stated on the articles as to resources that are to be used for a specific program will be used on this program. These have made me reconsider my stand on this law.

    4.) Based on my understanding of the Bill of Rights, I think that our constitution is a manifestation of republicanism/conservatism. Rights are legal or moral entitlements or permissions. Rights are of vital importance in theories of justice and deontological ethics.
    As I have already stated earlier, conservative people are afraid of the freedom that can be abused, so they set up limitations on things. The same can be said about the constitution’s take on the bill of rights. The rights protected by the bill of rights can be stated as the fundamental rights that can be considered great and essential principles of liberty and free government but these are actually limitations on the government, not on the people, just like on section 3 of the bill of rights, the right to have privacy of communications and correspondence. The first part of the section is fine and all, but the second part gives an example on how it limits the freedom of the government,

    “Evidence obtained in violation of this or the preceding section shall be in-admissible for any purpose in any proceeding.”

    Section12 of the Bill of rights is also an example of a limitations imposed by our constitution. Part 3 of this section states that “A confession or admission obtained from the violation of this (part 2: no torture, force, threat, etc. that vitiate free will is allowed) is inadmissible evidence against him. These two parts show of how these rights are created without the need of governmental grants, and the government cannot take them away and must be protected. These examples show how the limitation of freedom of the governing body is being limited. I think that the constitution should stay the same. There should still be limits as to what the governing body can do. Giving the government too much freedom may end up as a government that will be ruled by people abusing their powers.

  5. (1) IS GOOD ALWAYS RIGHT?

    I believe that everything which is good is not always right

    Good is defined as moral excellence or admirableness. It is adapted to answer the end designed. It is being positive or desirable in nature. Right is defined as being morally correct, just, good, or proper. Being right conforms with or conformable to justice, law, or morality. It is in accordance to the law or will of God, conforming to the standard of truth and justice.

    From the terms defined, I would say that good is not always right. Though good is desirable in nature and generally positive, it is however subjective. Nothing in this world is absolute. There is no such thing that is absolutely desirable. We are all exceptional beings. No two art students in a class room can sketch the exact picture of a vase. They all view it from a unique and different angle. Similar to the concept of good, not all individuals have the same perception of what is good. This is due to the reason that we are situated in the world. We recognize something as good but there is always a possibility that it is not right for us, that it would be inconvenient. Unless a human being is treated as an end to himself, no matter how desirable the end is, it is still wrong.

    On the contrary, since good is defined as moral excellence and morality is defined as conforming to the will of God, it is therefore safe to say that everything which is good is always right. It identifies itself according to the definition stated on the first paragraph.

    (2) WHICH IS PRIOR, THE GOOD OR THE RIGHT?

    The RIGHT is far more essential than the GOOD.

    It is of utmost importance that we first define the terms “GOOD” and “RIGHT”. Good is an adjective defined as being positive or desirable in nature. Right, on the other hand, pertains to something which is most favorable, desirable, or convenient.

    Which is prior, the right or the good? Such a dilemma is quite perplexing. Man for such a long time has been constantly struggling which is morally imperative of the two. Not everything right is good and not all that is good turns out right. However, I believe that the rightness of an act is more important than its goodness. A person claiming something to be good is dependent upon certain circumstances. An act which is good to a person may be viewed in a different prospect by another. It is good when it is desirable. Good being desirable is therefore subjective. It does not wholly apply to all individuals. I clearly disagree “The end justifies the mean.” Cheating becomes good for a student who wants to desperately pass the subject. But the question is, “Is it right to cheat?” An evil act (means) done for a good cause (end) does not make it right at all. In choosing to do so means that you consciously allow something evil to happen to meet your ends. It becomes unethical and unjust. Rightness promotes order and justice while goodness is concerned with being favorable and suitable.

    Alternatively, the good is prior to the right. Good is desirable in nature consequently recognizing it as the imperative. As long as it does good, it is permissible and right. The saying goes ,”The end justifies the means.” Success requires sacrifice even if it costs you your actions. The rightness of an act is then measured by the maximum good it can produce.

    (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.

    Conservatives regard the RH Bill as claims that the bill is anti-poor, anti-life, and that it promotes or will even legalize abortion. They argue that the bill would only lead to promiscuity, break-up of families, decay of moral values and hedonism. The liberals, however, regard it as the opposite. They believe that the RH Bill is an integral part of development and poverty reduction strategy. Nevertheless, it offers couples a more safe and effective means of family planning and information that will aid in the properly caring their reproductive health and well-being.

    I definitely agree and support the Reproductive Health Bill due to the reason that it plans to help couples, especially those which are poor, to achieve their desired family size. Since poverty incidence increases with family size, it is very essential that the bill be implemented. Although natural family planning methods exists, training and mastery of such methods is limited by the level of literacy attained by the poor community. Modern contraceptives have also been proven to effectively reduce the rate of unwanted pregnancies compared to using traditional methods. In addition, sexual acts do not always lead to the desire to reproduce. The RH Bill grants mature and responsible individuals the freedom to enjoy a safe and satisfying sex life.

    Considering the effects that the RH Bill would bring about, implementation of the mentioned bill would be possible in triggering family break-ups and acts of premarital sex and therefore corrupting moral values. Use of modern contraceptives would then be abused. It is inevitable. Claims on the RH Bill as being anti-life would have the plausibility that it is true. Engaging in sex using contraceptives definitely opposes the creation of life, which then becomes anti-life. Teaching of reproductive health to children in Grade 5 will only encourage them to sex sooner. There is no assurance that these children would fully grasp what is taught to them.

    (4) ON RIGHTS, IS OUR CONSTITUTION CONSERVATIVE OR LIBERAL?

    (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.

    (SEC4)

    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 consider the 1987 Consitution of the Republic of the Philippines to be liberal.

    According to the readings, 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. On the other hand, 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.

    Our constitution is liberal because the law does not hinder nor deprive its citizens their rights and freedom. It even promotes freedom being consistent with the equal freedom of others.

    The constitution need not to be conservative. The flaw is not within the constitution but rather the one who is in authority that implements such laws. A human is a rational being given the ability to reason out and the capacity to decide for himself. With this nature, he is essentially free. A conservative constitution is in direct opposition of the concept of freedom.

  6. 1. Is good always right?

    -Good is not always right. Being good is only dependent on the perspective of the doer and situated. Being right has its own timeless means of it being right and no authority can change that.

    -Being good is doing the act that is pleasurable, desirable or favorable to the doer. Good is the act of someone which he/she thinks that should be done on a certain situation. It is dependent on the own belief of the person and the way how he/she does things like being aggressive or laying low. If two or more are involved in a certain act, it may be good for one but it doesn’t immediately mean that it is good for all because the act may be pleasurable for one but not the others. Right, on the other hand, is the act in which each person should be treated as a person and not as a thing because every person has his/her own freedom. He/she has a choice because every person has intellect and the capacity to choose. If others make the decisions for them like being forced to do something without their consent or permission that is already a violation of their right.

    -On the contrary, some good acts could also be classified as right because these acts still acknowledge each person to choose for themselves. Nothing is being changed for the situation because the situation itself gives the person its own right.

    2.Which is prior the good or the right?

    -The right is prior to the good. The means of being right cannot be changed and acts that are good are always dependent on the situation.

    -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. Good must not be prioritized because others will take advantage of it most of all the authority. When authority takes part in the decision of everyone, there might be a problem in the end because others might reject it.

    -On the other hand, if being a means to an end is the priority then it must for the sake of all or majority and by majority I mean not merely more than one-half but almost all are going to be giving permission for it.

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

    -I am a conservative regarding the issue on the Reproductive Health Bill. The reproductive Health Bill aims to provide mothers benefits regarding their health and also as means to lessen the people on the verge of poverty by trying to decrease the birth rate in the country using artificial contraceptives.

    -I am a conservative on this matter because even if one part of the bill is to help the mothers in giving birth, the other part of it is trying to stop life from being able to live. No one has the right to take away lives more importantly to stop life. The bill might be able to help our economy rise but on the society we live in, it is not our custom to prevent mothers from being pregnant. Every human being has the right to live. One can call something life not because it already resembles a form of a human being but the fact that things inside our body are life itself because we live.

    -On the contrary, we cannot stop mothers from choosing what they want because it is their right. My only concern about this is the abuse they are going to do because of loopholes in the bill like taking contraceptives not to save lives but to use it for ones own pleasure.

    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?

    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.

    -On rights, our constitution is liberal. The Bill of Rights must always impose the right of the people and for the people. Being right is giving the people their own freedom and let them be able to choose.

    -On the sections posted, every person is treated equally be richer or poor and everyone still has his/her own freedom. Everyone is given his/her own chance for practicing his/her own right. The government cannot take these away and it has the duty to protect its people.

    -The current constitution is good as it is but little limitations could be imposed because these could be used as a means to the downfall of the government and the country. There’s no doubt that others will use these loopholes and abuse it just to be favorable for them.

  7. 1) Is good always right?

    My answer to the question above is that good is NOT always right.

    In order to understand the question, the important terms must first be defined. First of is “good” which can be defined as something that is pleasing. The second important term is “right” which can be defined as something that is in conformance to justice or law or morality.

    Good is not always right because for it to be right, as defined above, it has to be in conformance to justice law or morality. Good, being defined as pleasing, may be so for one person, but may not be so for another person.

    Because no one in the world is the same, we don’t all share the same perspective of what is “good,” and we generally understand that we are not the same. That is why people establish what we must adhere to as “right.” If this were not the case, then the world right now would be in chaos, where everyone does whatever it is they perceive as good, regardless of the consequence to others, and ignoring law or morality. The right exists so that there would be order in the world. Because good is a very relative term, right exists to guide it so that it is accepted by the people as something which is just.

    One may say that good is always right saying that because the result is pleasing, thus it is right, saying that “the end justifies the means”. They ignore the consequences of their actions, only looking for the pleasing “end”. This is what it means for good to be always right. One does not care for others as long as the objective is achieved. There is no wrong or right method, only the good one, the one that attains the desired results and even if not everyone agrees with it.

    2) Which is prior? The good or the right?

    I believe that the right is prior to the good.

    Before answering the question, the key terms must be defined. First of is “good” which can be defined as something that is pleasing. The second important term is “right” which can be defined as something that is in conformance to justice or law or morality.

    From my point of view, the right does not always depend on the good. It is because I believe that good is relative from person to person. Using the definition above, something that is pleasant to someone may be unpleasant to someone else. On the other hand, the right is not relative from person to person. It must be accepted by all as that which is RIGHT. I believe this is the reason for Laws. I believe that Laws exist for the purpose of giving priority to what is right. They are established so that people do not always just do what they think is good. Laws make people think about their actions, helping them to decide weather it is right or not.

    IF right were prior to good, then people would not have to follow laws and would just do as they please, without considering the consequences to the people around them. We as human beings do not just act on what we find pleasing. Being gifted with reason and knowledge, we understand that are actions affect what is around us, and we consider this in order to make the RIGHT decisions and actions.

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

    I am a liberal concerning the RH Bill.

    Liberalism refers to a broad array of related ideas and theories of government that consider individual liberty to be the most important political goal. Conservatism is a term used to describe political philosophies that favor tradition and gradual change, where tradition refers to religious, cultural, or nationally defined beliefs and customs. A liberal is willing to accept change that promotes the liberties of the people. A conservative will be reluctant to change, opting to keep what is already accepted.

    The argument is against the RH Bill generally says that it is anti-poor 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 all these statements have no basis. If anything, I believe that the RH Bill will actually help the poor and promote life. It makes available options that would ultimately lead to abortion NOT being necessary at all. It makes available education about Reproductive Health. When has education ever been a bad thing? It gives more options in family planning that could lead to a reduction of complications and deaths caused by the lack of availability of more effective options in family planning.

    It is said that prevention is better than cure. By having more options available to the people, the need for abortion and the complications that come with it, and unwanted pregnancies can be avoided altogether, so what’s wrong with that?

    Those opposed to the RH Bill dislike change. They want to maintain the status quo, fearing that if more options are available, it’s only a matter of time before laws become even more lenient regarding reproductive health. What they fail to understand is that it’s all a matter of education. Through education, which is present in the RH Bill, people will understand the implications of sex and understand the value of proper reproductive health.

    Change is always inevitable. Rather than oppose it, it is better to help ensure that the change remains in the 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. This is proven by at least the following sections:

    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 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.

    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.

    Section 11. FREE ACCESS to the courts and quasi-judicial bodies and adequate legal assistance SHALL NOT BE DENIED TO ANY PERSON by reason of poverty.

    Our constitution provides the necessary requirements to promote and protect the liberties of the people.

    Regarding whether or not it should be more conservative, I believe it should NOT be more conservative.

    I believe the constitution already provides enough in order to protect liberties to the people. The problem is that the laws to promote or balance these liberties are not properly enforced. Those that are in charge of making sure that the people and the laws follow the constitution abuse their authority and use it to make things more convenient for them. Corruption is indeed one of the greatest enemies of a nation. What use is a Constitution if those that should be bound by it ignore their responsibilities?

  8. 1. Is good always right?

    No, good is not always right.

    In order to back up my conclusion, I will define first the words used in the questions in my point of view. What is right? Right is conforming to the law or will of God. Good on the other hand is a basis to what causes a human being to flourish.

    I have come up with this conclusion because for me, not all good is right. If good is a basis to what causes a human being to flourish, then a good to one person may not be good to the other. We all have different views of what is good to us. If we don’t have the same basis of what is good, then we cannot say that good is always right. Remember that right is conforming to the law or will of God. Good is subjective in nature while right is objective. For example, a government official has been given his pork barrel. For him, taking a certain amount of money for himself is good. It is good for him because this will help him in his personal needs. But for the common people, it is not right to take money from the pork barrel. It does not follow that if the end is good then the mean is always right.

    If the good is always right, then we can do all the things that we want that for us is good regardless of what other people and God thinks about it. For me, this is not the way we should act. Acting in accordance to what is pleasurable to one’s self is selfish in its nature. If good is subjective, then what is good for one is not good for the other. Therefore no one can tell the difference between good and right.

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

    The right is prior to the good.

    What does a person think when he/she hears the word Good? The word Right? The word right is conforming to the law or will of God. The word right also mean correct in judgment. The meaning of good is what causes a human being to flourish.

    So which is prior? The good or the right? We can say that not all good are right. Therefore I think that the right is prior to the good. We say that something is good to us but it is not good to others. This is true because we are situated in the world. We have different views of what is good. But right is different. We can say that something is right and in the perspective of others, it is still right. The right is “What we must” do. We can relate right with mean and good with end. If your goal is good but uses a wrong way to achieve it, we can say that it is still wrong. So we have a saying that the end does not justify the mean. Right in its nature is objective and will never change.

    The good is prior to the right. If this is true then some people will act in a selfish manner. 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.

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

    I am a liberal regarding the RH Bill issue.

    What is liberal? What is conservative? Liberal thinkers are those people who think that having freedom is important. They are people who think that it is important to have a freedom to choose. Equality is also important. These people focus more on the action than the ends of the action. Conservatives on the other hand are the exact opposite of the liberals. These thinkers focus more on the ends of the action than that of the action itself. These people think with values.
    They focus more on the values than freedom. They think on what “is” to be done than what must be done.

    I am a liberal in the issue of the RH Bill. I am pro to the RH Bill. I think that it is ok if it becomes a law. We are in a developing country. Poverty is a concern for all of the Filipinos. Population growth is one of the great factors on poverty. The use of artificial contraceptives can help minimize population growth according to the reading materials statistics. These artificial contraceptives can lessen the percentage of unwanted pregnancy. It can help in the reduction of abortion cases. Having the RH Bill will help the people be more aware of this issue thus lessening unwanted pregnancy, abortion, etc. Having the RH Bill can lessen poverty. It will lessen the mouths to feed in the family. It will help balance the budget of the family thus the family will have a better lifestyle. RH bill have many considerable effects so I think that it must be pursued by the government.

    RH Bill is non-prolife and is immoral. These are the issues thrown by the conservatives. But I will say that it is pro-life and moral. As I say it can lessen abortion which is non-prolife and immoral. The conservatives say that natural family planning can be an alternative for artificial contraceptives. Yes it’s true but natural family planning have a greater failure rate than that of the artificial contraceptive. They say that using AC stops life. AC does not stop life but it controls the number of people. If we continue on reproducing, we might ran out of our resources one day.

    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?

    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 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.

    Our constitution is Liberal.

    Our constitution is liberal. Based on the sections, our constitution respects the freedom of its people. It gives freedom to speech, to express ourselves, to assemble and petition the government, etc. It gives us the power to choose our religion. Our constitution sees every person equal and give each person equal rights. It gives a person the same freedom as the other person would have.

    There should be no change in our constitution. The fact that our constitution is liberal is good for us. If we are to have a conservative constitution, then our government can control our every action. If we will have a strong government that controls our actions, then people might be considered as objects to reach a certain goal. We all know that every human being must be treated as a person with freedom. We should also have the power to choose our decisions, thus we need freedom. We are a democratic nation so liberal constitution is needed. Democracy is for the sake of the people and giving them freedom is the right thing to do. So I believe that our constitution should not be changed.

  9. ANSWERS:

    Good is not always right.

    Good is what you accept that makes you feel better regardless of what other people may think, something you will benefit from. While right is conforming to the moral standards set by society/nature without hindering a person’s free will.

    Good is not always right because not all things that makes us feel better is right. We should also consider the effects of our actions to the people around us. To gain personal satisfaction by using other people as an object or a means to an end is not right, yes It may be good for us because it gives us something beneficial but by doing this we also strip of a person of his own free will.

    We say that for as long as we don’t hinder others from the choices that they make then it is already a right, definitely this also has a negative side to it? For example if someone is to commit suicide? Is it wrong to stop him, from doing it? He chose to end his life? By stepping in you already have deprived him of exercising his free will.

    The priority is right over the good.

    Good is what you accept that makes you feel better regardless of what other people may think, something you will benefit from. While right is conforming to the moral standards set by society/nature without hindering a person’s free will. Prior, preceding in importance or privilege.

    “The end justifies the means”. If good is our priority then we support that saying. But in my opinion the end result doesn’t outweighs doing what is right. Rights are far more important to me. But some people just don’t know how to take care of themselves. Instead they do things which endanger themselves in this cases I am in favor of doing that good thing. Balance is the key. Too much of something is not beneficial too much good is just the same as too much right. What is important is formulating the right mixture of good and right for each community.

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

    I am more of a liberal regarding this issue.
    Just because I approve mostly of the RH bill doesn’t necessarily makes me anti-Life. As we can see families below the poverty line does have more kids that those of families with good stature. What’s more alarming is a great percentage of our population is below the poverty line. That all being said. I am not concerned about population issue. My issue is if the family can provide the necessities needed by the babies that they constantly make. We can see that this people lacks in their decision making favoring more what is good to them and not thinking of the life that can give to their babies that is why I are of this RH bill. On the other hand I think it’s proper that only the married ones should be given these benefits because I do believe in the church and this encourages pre marital sex. The effectivity of this bill is solely dependent on the governments ability to execute.

    Section 9. Private property shall not be taken for public use without just compensation
    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.

    The government is more liberal. This two articles shows that our constitution gives equal protection to both parties. A we can see that due process is applied. How ever this kind of government that we have is only effective if we have a just leader. And the people that are going to judge us should be unbiased. It comes down to execution of the Law and the right judgment of the people to who will lead them.

  10. 1. Is good always right?

    Good is not always right. Good means satisfying, this what makes you feel suited. Right means true, just or fair. By the meaning of these two words we can that all just and fair are satisfyng. Most of us obviously feel satisfaction when we have done right actions. Just like good policemen, they do what is right, just and fair. A good example will be Osama Bin Laden who claimed to be the mastermind behind the 9/11 bombing on New York. What he done is obviously not good, many people was killed for what had happened because of him. But for him, and other sucide bombers, what they did was right, I think they treat suicide bombers as heroes in their country. On the contrary, good can always be right depending on the quantity of people that will benefit from the action, it is only when majority felt good with the action and the outcome is right.

    2. Which is prior, the good or right?

    Good is prior to right, for me. Good is interpretede differentIy, varying only in religion and beliefs. I as a christian, I noticed that teachings to do good is evident, especially when you go to mass and listen well at the homilies, and as well at home where parents teach their children to do good until they grow up. It is only when our minds are mature enough we decide what is right or wrong. Just like Jesus, He tended to do good things prior to right even if it cost Him His life. On the contrary, right is also prior to good. An obvious example is the law, however good the means is when the outcome is wrong you can be arrested and be known as a criminal.

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

    I am a liberal on the RH Bill. Liberal means to do with the political opininon that people should have more freedo. I believe that people have their privileges to choose whether to use contraceptives or not and use their freedom to choose and go under Family Planning and program what is best for their family, and be educated about reproductive health. I think the government is just using this bill to cover their failure. They somewhat blame overpopulation for poverty but it is not true at all aspects. Overpopulation is just a minimal cause for poverty, corruption is what giving us poverty. On the contrary, I am conservative about the issue on abortion. To abort is both bad and wrong. Why not just use the contraceptives if they are not yet ready to have a child, they can enjoy sex using some other method but not abortion. From where I stand, abortion is murder.

    4. Our constitution is liberal. Liberal means to do with the political opinion that people should have more freedom. Most of the sections in the 1987 Philippine Constitution Article III speaks of our freedom and our rights to choose for ourselves. Like even if Roman Catholic is the major religion in this country, the constitution gives the right for anyone ti choose which religion to believe in and the freedom to express their faith freely. For me, the Constitution is just showing us our priviliges as citizens of this country. On the contrary, I can also say that the1987 constitution is conservative, because we can not fully use our freedom, the government limits our freedom and gives us options that they themselves made for the benefit of us, but somtimes abused and made only benefiting them.

  11. 1. Is good always right?
    Good is not always right.
    Good refers to the end while right refers to the means.
    Good is wisdom, about feeling better, the feeling of less guilt, the influence of higher power. While right depends on the norm, the law, the knowledge.
    I say that good is not always right.
    There will always be cases where in you will choose to do wrong for goodness’ sake. Like the cliche goes, there is always an exemption to the rule. Doing wrong is at times healthy. One example is when Jesus questioned the pharisees whether or not they will heal a sick man on a sabbath day, they said no because it is by the law that no work shall be done on a sabbath day, but Jesus healed the man. What Jesus did was good but for the pharisees it was a blasphemy. This is enough proof that good is not always right but if i were to choose between good and right i will do as Jesus did.

    2. Which is prior the good or the right?
    Good is prior than right. Will i rather be called righteous but heartless or good and loving. I believe that love makes the world a better place. If I would choose to do right and condemn my brother for duty or law’s sake will that make me happy? I guess not. For example, squatting is wrong and if I were an MMDA officer it is my duty to wipe them off the place, but since they have no where to go, and their only means for survival is to live in that place, will i do my duty and force them to evacuate knowing they will die, or will i rather let them stay there and forget about my task. If I were him I will let them stay. For what is right is not always the best thing to do. We are given hearts so inspite of the law we can self evaluate what we are to do.

    3. Are you a conservative or a liberal regarding the issue on the RH Bill? (See reading materials)
    I am a conservative in general. But we dont have to be closed minded. As I have read the the Bill I see nothing wrong, and I really think that it can be helpful. I am a conservative but there is no perfect stand, I think that at times we have to be open to liberal ideas too.

    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?

    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.
    I think it is conservative because it is powerful. The law itself
    is very controlling because as the saying goes we need to have limitations so we could be more free. This part of the constitution shows that despite the things we cannot freely do still the constitution provides freedom that are rightful to us.Despite of the strongness of the state we are given protection against abuse of those in power.

  12. 1. Is good always right?

    Good is not always right because not all good deeds are done in a proper way like what Robin Hood did, he helps people by stealing wealth from the rich people. The intention is good though the act is not appropriate. By doing that he defies the definition of what is right that is defined as being accordance with what is just, good or proper.

    If good is always right then there is no freedom.

    2. Which is prior the good or the right?

    right is prior to good because right is always good to someone. And I think right balances the good and the bad. All people have freedom to do good or bad as long as it is right to many.

    If good is prior to the right then no all people will be comfortable with their lives. For example; I have a friend who cheated in a exam then my professor asked me if he/she cheated, should I tell the truth which is good or to tell a lie which is bad? If I told the truth then I will lose my friend and my other friends would not treat me as a friend anymore. In other words, if I do what is right then I could teach someone the good and the bad.

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

    I’m more of a liberal regarding the RH Bill.

    I am liberal because there is a freedom to choose and to choose what is right is one way of planning the future of the family. If a couple chose to have a sexual act, that doesn’t mean that they are ready for the future so this order promotes couples to use contraceptives to prevent unwanted child. Thus, the RH Bill’s purpose is to lessen poverty in the country and also to aid us for our future lives.

    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?

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

    Our constitution is conservative because all the terms there are defined, meaning it is very clear, certain, straight-forward and what is written is precise. And most of all the writers/authors of our constitution are conservative, old-fashioned and traditionalist type of people.

    Our constitution should stay the same because primarily our culture is conservative so it is natural that our constitution should be conservative. More so it is important that our constitution to remain conservative so that we will maintain/upheld our cultural heritage thus maintaining our own identity as a nation. Having such constitution helps or guides our lawmakers and politicians to create or make appropriate laws and statuettes as time progresses since the constitution is the basis of all laws in the land thus building a stronger nation with appropriate and applicable laws.

  13. 1.Is good always right?

    Good is not always right

    Good is something useful for a particular thing or purpose. It is something positive or desirable in nature. It is dependent on certain factors especially the situation and the preference of a being or a person. It is also something contributing to health, welfare, happiness, benefit and advantage. Right on the other hand is something that is fitting, appropriate, suitable, most convenient or favourable, reputable and approved. If good is dependent on the preference of a being, right is dependent on a set basis. It must be in accordance with fact, reason, set standard which would most likely be the law, morality and justice.

    Good is not always right because, basing on our actions, we must think of all possible outcomes or effects of it. Thinking of the right means thinking of the end while thinking of what is good is thinking of our act. As a person that considers the end, we would be able to determine if the act done is constructive or not. All acts that yield constructive effects are good and right but, if we do something good that yields a non-constructive effect, is most likely bad even if the action done is good. It is because, the action done was only beneficial to the part of the actor rather than the receiver. But sometimes it is also inevitable to produce a positive outcome what is most important is our intention of doing the action rather than the action itself.

    On the contrary, if good is always right, then we follow our own satisfaction even if it does not give any to those who will be affected.

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

    Right is prior to what is good. It only means that we are looking after the effects of our actions or of something before we do it. We are agreeing to the belief that “the end justifies the means.” With this claim we can say that not everything that is good would be right.

    Good is the characteristic of having or being positive or desirable in nature. It is also something morally admirable. It is the characteristic of something that is suitable and likely to produce the right results of conditions in short, favourable. But generally we often take good as something positive. Right on the other hand is something accurate, or consistent with the facts or general belief. In everyday life, it is something that is most suitable or desirable. Sometimes it is something healthy or in good physical and mental health. But in the context of our question stated above, right is something that is morally justified and correct, or consistent with generally held ideas of morality and proper conduct. Another meaning would be something that is conforming with or conformable to justice, law, or morality. Then the middle term, prior, is something expected earlier in time or sequence and it can also be something of greater importance over anything else.

    “What is prior, good or right?” practically speaking, I would say that what is right is prior to what is good. There are a few reasons why I chose to stand on what is right rather than what is good. First something that is right is already right and correct even if we look at it in a different perspective. Something that is right would then in turn yield a “good” effect. Second, not everything that is good would be right but, everything that is right is good in nature therefore it is acceptable. For example, it is good to do exercise every day. It becomes otherwise if we neglect our responsibilities and obligations to God and to other people and with this, yielding a negative effect. Third would be the consideration of something if it conforms to God’s commandments. If it does, then we call it that it is the “right” thing to do if not, we decipher which would be our priority, our self or somebody else. Then we call it “good”.

    On the contrary, what if good is prior to what is right? Then we would not agree that the end justifies the means. Instead, we become utilitarian. With this type of mindset, we are saying that even if the end would not be constructive to either of the hosts, as long as the manner or the action done is good, then it would be moral. Then we would have a generalization that everything that is good, is right even if the effect would never give a constructive, positive and moral outcome. If this would be correct, then we would just cling to the immoral than to stick to the moral teachings because man is a constant insatiable being.

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

    Personally, I am on the liberal side regarding the issue on the RH Bill.
    Being on the liberal side does not mean that I am not valuing life. It is just being practical and wise. People nowadays are really suffering because of poverty especially here in the Philippines. We also cannot deny the fact that there are unwanted pregnancies at early ages among the youth. Practically speaking, we really cannot rely on the effectiveness of natural family planning although many doctors say that it is proven to be safe and effective and above all, “cheap”. While when using the modern family planning method, couples have higher chances to prevent unwanted pregnancies but they have to pay the cost. I have presented both ways of family planning, it all boils down to the couple’s preference or their ability to choose which they think would be effective. We know that sex is a right. A right for me is a freedom with a given limitation. No one can be deprived of sex since it is one of the means of procreation but not only that, it is also a sign of love, intimacy and exclusivity to couples. The only limitation to sex is that, every couple should be responsible of whatever the result of their action would be and be able to stand up to it. People should not be deprived of information dissemination. It is through medical bulletins, advertisements, pamphlets, news articles and trivia that people get idea of what would be the right thing to do. With this liberalism, people always assume that we are supporters of the legalization of abortion. But does the RH Bill speak anything of the legalization of abortion? First of all, the RH Bill is all about proper information dissemination and not legalization of abortion. We, the Filipino people are opposed to abortion whether liberal or conservative. For me, the main goal of the RH Bill is to promote a better living for the Filipino family and also to ensure the growth of the youth as responsible citizens and also parents in the future.

    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?

    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 6. The liberty of abode and of changing the same within the limits prescribed by law shall not be impaired except upon lawful order of the court. Neither shall the right to travel be impaired except in the interest of national security, public safety, or public health, as may be provided by law.

    On rights, our constitution is liberal.

    Though we do not have absolute freedom, I still believe that our constitution is liberal in nature and substance. First, we have the statement that 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. Based on my reading on the bill of rights alone, I am assuming that our constitution is giving us freedom but with a set of limitations. These limitations complement other laws stated. These limitations do not enfeeble us; instead, they make us responsible of our own being and especially, our country.

    I think that our constitution should stay as it is. Even if the constitution is liberal in itself, it does not mean that it is making a single citizen above it nor undermine them by its set of limitations.

  14. 1. is good always right?

    Good is not necessarily right. Good is having desirable or positive qualities especially those suitable for a thing specified, capable of pleasing or is appealing to the mind where as right is something which is in accord to with the principles of justice. Therefore something good is not always right because good is something from which we obtain pleasure. And in doing something good for ourselves we might be doing something which is not in accordance to the principles of justice thus doing something wrong for our own gain. Also the right doesn’t specifically entail a good result or outcome, it might even brought forth something which may deal us great amount of pain

    Subjectively speaking good is always right, because of the fact that man tends to chose something which is pleasurable rather than pain. And because of this something pleasurable is how many of us treat as something that is right because of the fact that we don’t obtain losses or pain from it

    2. Which is prior the good or the right?

    The answer would be Right is prior to good. Good is having desirable or positive qualities especially those suitable for a thing specified, capable of pleasing or is appealing to the mind where as right is something which is in accord to with the principles of justice. This tells us that good is something which is dependent on what would be pleasing or admirable for a person which would definitely be biased because of the fact that every person views something differently than the other while right is something that is in accord to the principles of justice which is in our society is universal. And also the right is not necessarily good because at times the right thing to do is something that is not pleasurable but still is in accord to the principles of justice which is something unbiased.

    While on the other hand the good is prior to right because man has the tendency to lean on something which is pleasurable rather than something that might cause great pain therefore makes sense for most of us that good is prior than right.

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

    I am a conservative regarding the RH Bill because because of the fact that it will hinder the progress of life which in fact is a blessing from God and should not be interfered with even if it is for the sake of our economy to be able to prevent poverty and the like. Because as adults it is they must be responsible for the things that they would do adn thus be ready for its consequences therefore there is no need of this to be implemented.

    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?

    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 14. (1) No person shall be held to answer for a criminal offense without due process of law.

    Our Constitution is Liberal because of the fact that it upholds the freedom of an individual to choose of course in accordance to the law.

    The Constitution should stay the same because I think that it is good to give the citizens the rights on what they do and being forced to do or to answer just for the sake of the good. Also it should not change because of the fact that if it became more conservative the good of the many might be used as an excuse to promote the wrong doings just for the sake of gaining the desirable outcome.

  15. 1. Is good always right?

    Good is not always right,

    Good can be defined as something morally excellent or virtuous whereas right can be defined as something which is proper or just; moral, ethical or legal principle as an underlying cause of truth or justice.

    People are situated differently in the world thus, we have our own perception of what is good or evil. Something good does not mean it is right. Just as the story of Robin Hood goes, he steals for the sake of the poor. The act is good because he wants to help, but the act is wrong in nature.

    Good, on the other hand is ‘right’ in itself as long as a person does not harm other persons in any way.

    2. Which is prior, the good or the right

    Right is prior to good.

    Every person is entitled to be able to express himself/herself freely as long as s/he does not harm or violate the freedom of other persons in any way.

    Good should not be prior to right because every person has his own perception of what is good thus, inhibiting free self expression.

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

    I am a liberal on the RH bill.

    Being liberal means favorable to progress or reform. It pertains to advocating individual freedom of action or expression that is free from prejudice.

    We should be open for changes particularly if it is for the better. I don’t see anything wrong in using artificial contraceptives and the RH bill itself, since its aim is to alleviate poverty.

    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 is liberal particularly on sections 1 and 5. In this sections, the law does not state what should be done but instead, the law gives every person the right to choose whatever s/he pleases.

    Our constitution should remain the same since there is a vast cultural difference in our country. This in turn needs a more liberal type of constitution to respect other person’s way of living, particularly his/her culture and religion.

  16. 1. Is good always right?

    Good is always right.

    Right- in conformity with fact, reason, truth, or some standard or principle; correct

    Good- virtuous, commendable; advantageous

    Good is always right when it is defined as virtuous. It will always be on the side of what is just. It will also be based on what is true. Since it’s always on the side of truth, it can never be wrong. It aims to benefit every being as a whole. But defined as advantageous, good can sometimes be wrong. Whatever benefits an individual may not necessarily benefit another. This makes something good unjust and incorrect.

    2.Which is prior the good or the right?

    None of the two is prior.

    Right- in conformity with fact, reason, truth, or some standard or principle; correct

    Good- virtuous, commendable; advantageous

    Based on the first definition of good, right is the same as good. This means that both terms are in favor of what benefits the whole of all rational beings. But defined differently, good only being advantageous, right becomes prior to what is good. This means that good things may not be right. These things may be considered wrong when only a single person or a select few from a population or from the whole of the human race would benefit. But because the world is not perfect, good becomes prior to what is right. This happens because of the selfishness and the feeling of desperation of some people.

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

    Liberal-Favoring proposals for reform, open to new ideas
    for progress, and tolerant of the ideas and behavior of others; broad-minded.

    Conservative-maximize both freedom and virtue

    I’m a conservative when the RH Bill is concerned. This is my stand because from my point of view, the bill promotes the prevention of life. It legalizes whatever that would hinder the creation of life.

    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 our constitution is conservatives. Sections 1&4
    satisfied the conditions of the definition that I used for the term conservative. Both sections maximizes the freedom of
    each individual and respects their right to have ownership, to live, and to speak freely.

    I don’t think it’s a matter of whether our constitution should be liberal or conservative. What’s important is that our constitution is that it aims for the betterment of the nation, promotes the well-being of each individual, and protects the rights of each citizen.

    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. 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.

  17. 1. Is good always right?

    Good is not always right. Good means moral excellence while right means in accordance to the principles of justice. Morality describes the principles that govern our behavior.
    Good is different for every person because of their different way of thinking. Something good for a person is bad in the eye of another person. The goodness of something is upon the upbringing of the society to the person. Societies have standards of good and bad. However, every people would agree of what is the right thing because for me, in every situation there is an outstanding way to approach it. For a person who believes that killing was right, I think that he would say that it is not right when his/her loved ones are the one that will be killed. Therefore, good is different for some people but knowing right is what they have in common.
    On the other hand, religious people would say that good is always right because they believe that all of their gods will is both right and good. They think that what their gods have said that are good are the things that are right or ought to be done.

    2. Which is prior the good or the right?

    The right is prior to the good. Good means moral excellence while right means in accordance to the principles of justice. Morality describes the principles that govern our behavior. These principles came from our society or environment.
    Everyone has their moral codes which shows how great society affects the person. People use their moral codes in order to survive. For example, a person raised by thieves would see stealing as normal, he/she would not see it as a bad thing because it is the reason why he is living. Doing the good thing varies for every person because of their different morality standards. Doing the right thing is also a different thing. For the terrorist who believes that killing innocent people is good because it is their interpretation of what is good, I think that when you threaten to kill their loved ones they will agree that killing is not right. So right is universal for the people. When people are in a situation, most of them will think the same way to solve the situation. Why do we have to prioritize goodness if we have different interpretation of what is good when we all agree on what is right.
    On the other hand, for some people they will prioritize the good thing because they think that it is god’s will first above all things. For parents who arranged a marriage to ensure a good future to their child, they removed the right of their children to choose the person they will love.

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

    I am a liberal with regards to the RH Bill. Liberals believe that people must not be forced to do something. They want to give the people the choice on how they would live their lives. For a conservative, they want to impose something that must be done whether the people does not agree to it.
    It is the right or choice of the people whether they want to use contraceptives or to abort their child. Killing an innocent child or letting it live is not a decision for the government to make but to the person who are going to raise the child. It is them that will carry the burden of raising the child.
    On the other hand, taking away the life of an innocent child is not entirely up to the person that will raise the child. They must raise the child until he/she has the capacity to decide for his/her life.

    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?

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

    The constitution is liberal for me. It gives the people the freedom to choose on what to believe and giving them equal opportunities to express their thoughts and feelings.
    Our constitution must remain the same as it is. The government must protect their citizens with equally. The government must give people their freedom but must give due punishment for those who steps on others rights.

  18. 1) Is good always right?

    The good is not always right. Good is defined as anything that is pleasant to an individual. It is based on the liking of the person on to which things gives him pleasure and satisfaction. On the other hand, right is an acceptable behavior based on truth and the common good. Though these two terms seems to have the same implication, there is a big difference between the two. Not all things that are good to you are right. Not all things that are right are good to you. An example would be, cheating. It may be good to a student to cheat to pass the subject but then, we all know that cheating is a wrong thing to do. On the contrary, the good may be right at times. An example would be, studying hard. It is good to pass a subject with high grades, and the right thing to do to achieve it is to study hard and work hard for it.

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

    I believe the right is prior to the good. As defined above, right is an acceptable behavior based on truth and the common good and good is defined as anything that is pleasant to an individual. This means that biases are incorporated in choosing the good things for an individual. Good is considered to be the end while the right is the process to achieve these ends. It doesn’t mean that if your end is good for you, it is good for everyone and the way how you wish to attain you end is the right thing to do. For example, there is a promotion at stake in the office and you and another co-worker are candidates for the promotion. You really wanted the position badly that you would do anything just to attain it. In this scenario, there are numerous ways that you can do to get what you want. It’s a matter of choice. You can both do well and work hard so that the promotion goes to you or you can just kill your co-worker in order to have no competition. Obviously, it is wrong to kill anyone for your own good. It may be good for you but it’s definitely bad and wrong. This brings me to conclusion that the right thing to do must be prior to the good. On the contrary, there are instances that the good must be prior to the right. We can always do the things that are good for us for our own convenience and satisfaction. Well, as they say, life is a matter of choice. It doesn’t matter if we do the good thing or the right thing. What matters most is we must assure that whatever choice we make, whether to do the good thing or the right thing, we must be ready to face the consequences incorporated to these choices.

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

    I am a liberal when it comes to the issue on the RH Bill. I firmly believe that every person must be allowed to exercise his freedom of choice. In line with the RH Bill, each person has the right to choose whether or not to use contraceptives. Like what I have said above, life is a matter of choice. A couple may have chosen to use contraceptives for various reasons. It may be that they are not yet ready to start a family, they might just want to enjoy themselves, or they might just want to protect their partners from getting diseases by doing it without protection. On the contrary, I can also be conservative on the issue. I think if they are not ready to start a family or they want to protect their partner, might as well not do it at all and abstain or just do it on the safe days.

    4) On rights, is our constitution conservative or 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.

    I think our present constitution is liberal. It is clearly implied to Section 1 and Section 4 of Article 3 of the Philippine Constitution that the freedom of each and everyone under the Constitution is considered and must be prioritized. These sections imply that each and everyone must be equal in rights. On the contrary, our constitution may also be conservative. There are sections in this article that impose laws that we have to abide with in order to maintain peace and order. Liberal or conservative, our constitution is good as it is right now but then, changes may be done if it is for the better.

  19. 1.) Is something good always right?

    For me, anything that is good is not always right. Good is something useful and beneficial for an individual or something that has economic utility or satisfies their economic want while right is something which is in accordance with the principles of justice. Even if we are seeking what is good, it does not mean we are doing what is right. When we try to seek these good things or pleasures for ourselves, we sometimes tend to cross our boundaries and abuse others unconsciously.

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

    Right is prior than good because every people has their own concept of what is good depending on one’s preference while right is in accordance with the principles of justice which means it is a standard thing for everyone. Doing what is in accordance to the principles of justice is prior than doing what is good for an individual’s point of view.

    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. Using contraceptives and other methods does not deny couples of doing what they want to satisfy their pleasures. It is a choice whether you should do it when you feel the urged ;P. Being liberal is being free therefore I am liberal and I am pro-RH.

    4.)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?

    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.

    For me, the 1987 Constitution of the Republic of the Philippines is liberal. Like I said before, being liberal is being free. These articles are in accordance to the principles of justice and freedom. All citizens should have their freedom without crossing ones’ boundaries. This article does not impose a preferred way of life which is a liberal. These articles should remain liberal rather than be changed to being conservative. Conservatives does not promote freedom because they are afraid that this freedom, if abused, would cause a catastrophe to the welfare of the people. It is the government’s job to guide us not to abuse freedom.

  20. 1. Is good always right?

    Good is not always right.

    Good is something resulting in favor of many. It’s something that is pleasing or valuable. Right means socially correct or proper. It‘s something that is most suitable for a particular purpose.

    Actions that we do will always have unavoidable consequences. You will always have to consider the benefits of what you will do and its accordance with moral or social standards. There is no perfect choice.

    But despite the nonexistence of a perfect choice, an action that brings benefits could be acceptable even if it has consequences. Keeping this in mind, good actions can be also treated as right actions.

    2. Which is prior the good or the right?

    The right is prior to the good.

    Good means having desirable or positive qualities. It refers to the moral quality of a human act. Doing the good thing means choosing what will be most beneficial to many. Right on the other hand is something in conformance with justice or law or morality. It pertains to the conformity of a given human act to a moral principle. Doing the right thing means doing the most appropriate action in a certain situation.

    Something that benefits the majority is considered good. But that doesn’t mean you must do it especially if you know that it is not appropriate and that there might be people who will be burdened in the process. Even if most disagree to doing the right thing because the result is a burden to them, it’s still the right thing. Even if the right action is not entirely beneficial or pleasurable, I think that it is good enough.

    On the contrary, doing the good thing can be even more important than doing the right thing. If you can save a thousand people by killing one person, won’t you do it even if killing is wrong? Even if you are bound by laws, sometimes you must defy those laws in order to achieve things that will benefit the majority.

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

    I am liberal regarding the issue on the RH Bill.

    Being liberal means being broad-minded and/or tolerant to change. It also means emphasizing individual rights and equality of opportunity.

    A lot of people who are against the RH bill keep claiming that it will legalize abortion. This claim has no basis and is entirely false. In fact, the bill even states early on that “nothing in this Act changes the law on abortion, as abortion remains a crime and is punishable.” The RH bill will help educate a lot of people on being cautious and responsible when it comes to sex.

    I personally believe that the approval the RH bill will bring about improvement to our country.

    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.

    I think that our constitution or 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 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 1 can be either liberal or conservative but I think it is more liberal since it protects life, liberty and property rather than limiting it. To abridge means to lessen or diminish. Sections 4 and 8 clearly state that freedom of speech and formation of unions shall not be abridged. This is a good example that the constitution is liberal.

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

    I don’t think that there is still a need for the constitution to be conservative. I think that it is already conservative enough since the law is naturally conservative because it must be followed at all times.

  21. 1. Is good always right?

    It is perceived that right and good are the same. Both might be synonymous but it is never the same. Right is defined as appropriate or perfectly suitable, upright or virtuous; while good, refers to having some sort of positive effect on society or it can also be defined as having the qualities that are desirable or distinguishing in a particular thing. Both definitions give us the clarification that good is different from right. Therefore, what is good is not necessarily what is right.

    Good is subjective, it directly pertains to a person’s own taste or preference. The qualities or things that are desirable for someone maybe not be desirable for others. It is because we are all situated, we have different views of life and the different perspectives of what is pleasing, desirable and beneficial. Unlike good, right is universal. It is an imperative; it can be put simply as how a person should treat another person.

    Cheating in class to pass a course is an excellent example to justify that what is good is not always right. The act of cheating itself is unaccepted or a wrong doing; it isn’t virtuous. Cheating is another form of stealing. But on the other hand, cheating is good because the outcome is favorable to person; that in his own situation cheating will be great benefit to him.

    But in some cases what is actually right is also good; for example, giving donations for the needy. The act of giving is right and virtuous and it is also good because it benefits a lot of other people. So, we can say that it is possible that what is good is also right; but it doesn’t always follow that what is good is always right.

    2. Which is prior the good or the right?

    Right and good is never the same; but good and right always goes hand in hand. Now the question is what should be prior? Is it the goodness or the rightness of an act? Should pleasure be considered rather than the action itself? Does the end always justify the means?

    These questions are mind boggling. It entices you to think. There is no correct response; it varies from person to person depending on what they value more. For me, the right should always be prior to what is good.

    Right is defined as appropriate or perfectly suitable, upright or virtuous; while good, refers to having some sort of positive effect on society. Therefore, right is pertaining to the action or the means; while, good directly pertains to the outcome or the end.

    I believe that no matter what the situation is the act itself should be considered. That the action taken should be what you best believe should be done, no matter what the outcome might be. That pleasure or self satisfaction should be achieved without committing any violation on a person’s right.

    Personally, at the end of the day when you reevaluate yourself, you don’t directly consider the outcome but the action taken to achieve that outcome. You still consider if the positive outcome delivers from a right act. No matter how pleasurable the outcome is but if the action is not right guilt will still be present. As a human being you want to be treated in a respectable manner. To get such treatment you should also treat others that way as well.

    If good will be prior to right then it would be safe to say that the end justifies the means. If that’s the case then more and more people will be greedy and selfish. They will do all means to satisfy their own needs and caprices.

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

    The Reproductive Health Bill has been making a lot of noise since it was first introduced to the public. The introduction lead to different questions; will this bill be beneficial to most Filipino people? Is it against pro-life? Is it against our religious inclination? Should this bill be passed? These questions deliver different answers from different people depending on their view of life.

    I’m a proclaimed liberal when it comes to the RH Bill. I believe that passing the bill will benefit most Filipinos in a lot of ways. It will help people plan their families’ future a lot better. It could also help us in our country’s population problem or at least prevent it from boosting.

    The RH Bill promotes information about the natural and modern family planning methods. It gives couples the informed freedom on how to plan and develop their own family based on their needs and religious beliefs. Its main purpose is to prevent unwanted pregnancies.

    The bill will benefit most Filipinos for it will provide the needed information in starting and planning their own family. Health services will be made more available if the bill will be passed. More skilled midwives, hospital based family planning, contraceptives and obstetrics care will be accessible in different health centers. It will also open the eyes of the young generation on the sex education that will be in use for developing their future family.

    The population and poverty problems of our country will also be indirectly be affected by this bill. The UN stated in 2002 that “family planning and reproductive health are essential to reducing poverty.” Smaller families make more investment in human capital per child. These investments are crucial in breaking the chain of intergenerational poverty.

    The conservatives argue that the bill is actually anti-life; that it promotes abortion, the use of contraceptives and it is anti-pregnancy. The bill is actually not anti- life rather it is a pro-quality life. It intends to give parents better options in spacing their children. In that way it will strengthen the family and optimize child care. It also doesn’t promote abortion. It remains a fact that abortion is a crime. The use of contraceptives doesn’t harm the health of its users. Study shows that possible medical risks connected with contraceptives are infinitely lower than the risks of an actual pregnancy and everyday activities. It doesn’t promote the contraceptive mentality. Critics are mistaken that it is anti-pregnancy, it isn’t. It only prevents unexpected pregnancies but not pregnancy in general.

    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 the 1987 Constitution is mostly liberal. It is liberal in sense that it allows Filipino citizens to use their freedom in a lot of different ways, which are clearly visible in the following sections of the bill:

    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.

    The Bill of Rights of our constitution gives the Filipino citizens freedom to express themselves. It doesn’t imply what a person should do. It also doesn’t say how they should do things. Citizens are given the freedom to do whatever they please.

    I believe that the bill of rights is too liberal. In some way it should be a little bit more conservative. It should give boundaries or constrains. Upon my observations more and more people are abusing their rights. For example, all those unreasonable rallies, I don’t think that it is how people should deal with issues. That they should not be divulging a lot of unnecessary information that harms the image of our country.

    I also think that laws are provided to give constrains to use our freedom. What’s the use of those laws if it doesn’t constrain us at all? It should be stricter for Filipino citizens to develop self discipline and be responsible on how to use their freedom.

  22. 1. Is good always right?

    For me, good is not always right.

    In Religion, Ethics and Philosophy, GOOD deals with an association with life, continuity, happiness or human flourishing. On the other hand, RIGHT is synonymous to just or true.

    As a support to my stand, good is not always right, because i believe that good has a tendency to become evil while right is is a standard thing.

    If good is always right, then all that we do good has a tendency to become evil. We want things that are good for us, that is why we are capable of doing anything we can even if the process is wrong or evil.

    2. Which is prior, good or evil?

    Being consistent with my answer in question number 1, I insist that right is prior than good.

    Again, GOOD is defined is associated with life, continuity, happiness or human flourishing. It is something that is well-behaved, kind, excellent, etc. RIGHT means true, just, correct, fair, exact etc.

    Right is prior than good because as I said before, good has a tendency to become evil, thus, making right more prior. For me, there are things which are good, but when abused becomes bad or evil. For example, it is good to have sex. It is a normal thing or deed. It is human nature. But when we start to do it over and over again, at the wrong place at the wrong time, we start to abuse it. We start to abuse our powers, our capabilities. We turn good into something bad. Right on the other hand is standard. It cannot be broken, it cannot be changed. Whatever is right, will always remain right and will never go wrong.

    If good is prior than right, things “can” be abused with improper use.

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

    Actually i am both conservative and liberal on the RH Bill. Since i need to choose and make a stand, I think I or we “need” to be liberal with it. It is a practical choice.

    CONSERVATIVE is defined as something that is tend or disposed to maintain existing views, conditions, or institutions.
    LIBERAL on the other hand can be defined as something that is not bound by authoritarianism, orthodoxy, or traditional forms. For me it simply means freedom.

    Since our country and the whole world is suffering from economic crisis because of many factors, one of which is over-population, we need to be practical.
    We need the reproductive health bill to be passed. There are many advantages that we can get when we pass this law. One of which is that we can regulate or control our population here in our country. We can educate many young or even older people about sex. They will know about family planning, proper usage of contraceptives, etc. Even the unwanted pregnancies or early marriage can also be prevented. Thus reducing poverty and other major economic problems.

    I think the church is only against it because it might lead to abortion and other disadvantages which, I, personally, do not want to happen but in fact, the RH bill is against abortion. What we can do about this RH bill is that set its limits or boundaries where it does not affect the rights of every Filipino.

    The RH bill is no way a conservative because its morality is questioned by the church, and the church itself is conservative.

    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?

    As for my stand, I think the 1987 Philippine Constitution is liberal.

    Again, CONSERVATIVE is defined as something that is tend or disposed to maintain existing views, conditions, or institutions.
    LIBERAL on the other hand can be defined as something that is not bound by authoritarianism, orthodoxy, or traditional forms. For me it simply means freedom.

    The 1987 Philippine Constitution is liberal because it respects the rights of each and every Filipino especially his freedom (liberty) as stated in Article III. Two sections of the said article can prove this namely, Sections 1 and 2. Section 1 discusses about the basic rights of a Filipino of his own life, property, etc. Section 2 on the other hand is about the rights and security of a (Filipino) person who is about to be arrested. Both sections respect the liberty or freedom of a Filipino.

    Should it be conservative?
    Again, being consistent with my answers, i do not think it should be conservative. If so, we will be deprived of our own freedom in our own country. The 1987 Constitution was formed after the Martial law, when Cory Aquino was president. It means that if we had a conservative constitution, the government will be like the government of our former dictator Ferdinand Marcos. In short, having a conservative constitution is like having a martial law (somehow).

    The Constitution is liberal because it is made for the people, by the people and of the people.

  23. 1. “Is good always right”

    Good is not always right. Until now, many are debating about this matter. What do good and right really mean? How can we distinguish these two confusing ideas? Let me first define the essential terms in the question.

    The term good does not have any concrete definition. However, it can be determined by the benefit being resulted from any action. It is said that what gives benefits is what is “good”. “Right”, on the other hand, means conforming with or conformable to justice, law, or morality. It also means fitting, proper, or appropriate.

    Good is not always right. Something can be good because it is beneficial to an individual or group of individuals. But that does not mean that when something is good, that is the right thing to do. It may be good, but it may not always conform to justice, law, or morality.

    The statement “good is always right” is only true to God. This is because goodness and righteousness are both essential nature of God. Only God is considered perfect, a being who does nothing but goodness and righteousness.

    A perfect example that can support this statement is the issue about stealing to escape from the consequences of poverty. Stealing is never right, even if it is intended to give provisions and necessities to a certain poor family or group. There are other ways to overcome the effects of poverty. The effect of stealing may be good, but it is never right.

    2. “Which is prior the good or the right?”

    Right is more prior than good. What does it mean when good is prior than right, or right is prior than good? Let me first define the terms in the question.

    “Prior” means preceding in time or order, or in importance or value. The term good does not have any concrete definition. However, it can be determined by the benefit being resulted from any action. It is said that what gives benefits is what is “good”. “Right”, on the other hand, means conforming with or conformable to justice, law, or morality. It also means fitting, proper, or appropriate.

    In my own point of view, I believe that right is more prior than good. What is right precedes what is good in terms of value. Since “right” conforms to justice and morality, we can say that all things that are “right” are good. If something is just and moral, then it is most likely beneficial. The term “just” means being consistent with what is morally right. If something is morally right, then its effect or benefit is good. Moreover, not all good or beneficial is right. Good actions, without wisdom, can have bad consequences. There are those that are “good” but not the right thing to do. It may be beneficial, but it does not conform to justice or morality.

    Right is universal and consistent. It does not depend on the situation. On the other hand, being “good” is based on situations. It is based on what is favorable or desirable.

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

    Generally, I’m more of a conservative than liberal. However, there are some cases and issues where we can not stick to our constant stand and belief. Sometimes we also have to be open-minded and accept the ideas of the liberals. And with regards to this issue, I accept the arguments of the liberals and agree with them.

    The liberal view on the RH Bill claims that married couples must be allowed to use contraceptives in order to have proper family planning. The dissemination of sex education in youth is also a priority. I believe that married couples have the right to plan when to have their child because of economic purposes.

    The conservatives argue that when sex education is thought in as early as Grade School, the youth might be encouraged to engage themselves in premarital sexual activities, since the use of contraceptives will be allowed. This can be made a consideration for the revision of the RH Bill, wherein the use of contraceptives must only be allowed to married couples. Premarital sexual engagements may result to unwanted pregnancy among the youth. And so, if I were to suggest, I will suggest revising the content of the RH Bill and providing limitations on some of its parts.

    4. “On rights, is our constitution conservative or liberal?”

    Our constitution is liberal on rights.

    A government to be considered conservative means that it imposes laws that inform the ideals of a good life. For a conservative government, laws are made regardless of the freedom of the citizens, but the good benefits it could bring. The government is stronger if it is conservative. A liberal government gives the freedom to choose to their citizens. Two sections from Article III of the 1987 Constitution can prove that the constitution is liberal.

    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.

    In these sections, the freedom of the people to speak and to choose their own religion is being emphasized. Therefore, the constitution is more liberal than conservative.

  24. 1. Is good always right?

    Something good is not always right.

    Right pertains to proper and it is conformable to justice. It is an objective point of view that sees the means or an action. Though the definition of what is good varies to each person, it may pertain to what is in association to happiness. It is a subjective point of view of what is the end or outcome of an action.

    The statement “the end justifies the means” is false; the process or the means of an act differs to the result or the end. There may be different processes but with same result. If the end is not the same as the means, then it can be said that what is good is not always right.

    Yet, can there be some instances where good is always right? If the definition of good is the same as that of what is right, then good is always right. An example is the 10 Commandments. These laws are given to humanity for goodness to arise from them therefore it is right.

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

    The right is prior to the good.

    Right is the objective point that sees the means of an act. It is proper and just. Good is subjective and may associate to happiness.

    Unlike what is good which concerns to something happy, right is related to what is proper and just. Would it be correct to say that something that gives you joy should come before something that is just? If justice should be prior to happiness, then right is prior to the good.

    But, some may consider good a better choice than what is right. They may value their own pleasure and happiness rather than justice. They would prefer to say that the good is prior to the right.

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

    I am liberal regarding the RH Bill.

    A liberal believes that right is prior to the good and implies openness and freedom on different social matters. However, a conservative prefers what is good and conforms to traditional and conventional side of issues. The RH Bill is an act proposed in the Philippines known as the Reproductive Health and Population Development Act of 2008. It is a controversial bill that involves the idea of family planning.

    This RH bill covers the areas pertaining to responsible parenthood, family planning, counselling, gender equality and reproductive health for the development of the people. I am a liberal on this issue due to the fact that I am open to the ideas proposed. I believe this would be beneficial to the people if they would be properly educated on the promotion of responsible parenthood and population development. This act would be of assistance to married couples to have the freedom of informed choice. Since this aims to improve the health and rights of the population, then I see no reason to oppose this.

    On the other hand, conservatives oppose this bill since they do not approve of the use of artificial contraceptives and sex education on schools. They wish to promote more moral authority on 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?

    The constitution is liberal regarding the rights.

    The bill of rights is found in article III of the 1987 Philippine Constitution. It is based on the importance of individuals in democracy that every human must be respected. Liberalism may pertain to equal freedom of others and that the governing body imposes no preferred lifestyle.

    Two sections from the bill of rights which promote 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.

    In section 4, the freedom of speech implies the right to free expression of ideas without control as long as such ideas will not pose any threat or evil. This part is liberal in nature due to its openness and freedom in the part of the people. The people may utter any thoughts as long as other people are not violated.

    In section 5, man is given the right to religious freedom and to choose religious views without dictation by any other person. The state cannot compel a belief or disbelief and that such belief cannot affect the public interest. This part is liberal in nature as it pertains to the freedom of the people to choose without distressing others’ freedom.

    However liberal the constitution seems as it may provide freedom; partly some conservative parts are perceived. Some rights are not absolute and may be subject to regulation in order to prevent detrimental to society. Punishment would be justifiable when danger is immediate. I think that the constitution should remain as it is – liberal in nature but infused with conservative ideas.

  25. 1. Is good always right?

    -No, good is not always right.

    To clarify that there is a same perception of the answer, I will define the involved terms. Good is something that is morally positive. It gives the user a sense of pleasure, security and happiness. Right is something that is proper and just. Good refers to the ends while right refers to the means.

    Whatever the ends or the result of the action is, good or otherwise, if it is achieved in an unfair, unjust and wrong way, it s wrong. For example, in order to obtain food for the hungry family, a person steals money. The ends( the family getting food) may be good but its way of achieving it(stealing) is wrong.

    On the other hand, we are all situated in the world so one action that seems good for one may not be good for others. People can be forced to do things despite the wrong means to achieve it because of their situation in life. They reason that it will benefit people so they think that it is right.

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

    -The right always comes first before the good.

    Good refers to the desirable and positive results while right refers to the means that abide with the morals and justice.

    Good means that any result which brings happiness and pleasure is okay to the doer. It can mean that any action that precedes it is alright as long as the outcome is beneficial to the person. This should not be. The right should be prior to the good because right means that the action is just and proper. It considers everything involved will benefit to the end and not be used improperly. This makes the result to be acceptable and good.

    Some people will consider the good to come first. I do not blame them. There are infinite possible situations that can occur every second to a person. The situations the people who chose good are probably inevitable. For example, a robber appeared before a person in a deserted place and a fight occurred. After the struggle, the robber was killed by the victim. It was wrong to kill but it was inevitable. The other possibility is death. It was a good choice to kill the robber in order to save oneself but it was not right.

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

    -I am a liberal in the RH Bill

    Liberals believe that the people’s freedom should not be limited but be expanded. Conservatives on the other hand believe that people should abide by a set of rules that were given whether they like it or not.

    The RH bill promotes the use of artificial pills for couples to achieve a control over the family size. Conservatives think of this as ‘anti-life’. It does not mean that couples will kill their unborn offspring. The bill only promotes that couples can control their family size before the baby is made. It has been known that population increases along with poverty and studies have proven that they are linked together. Although natural family planning exists, the capabilities of the poor to apply it are very limited. The bill gives the poor population as well as the other populace who has trouble with unwanted pregnancies the chance to reduce it. After all, intercourse does not always lead to the creation of an offspring. People always have the choice not to reproduce.

    On the other hand, the bill may lead to people thinking that since pregnancies can be controlled, they can have premarital sex and prevent the creation of the baby. Younger people may be encouraged to try intercourse sooner rather than later. The bill may be anti-life in a sense so it must be thoroughly studied and explained to the public and all who are concerned.

    4. 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?

    – The constitution is more liberal.

    Liberals fight for the freedom of people while conservatives fight for the security and order. The constitution is a written document which governs and establishes the rules and systems of a state.

    The Bill of Rights of the 1987 Philippine Constitution is very liberal. It is made clear in the first section in the article that “no person may be deprived of life, liberty and property without due process of law.” It gives the people the right over their property and life and it should no be deprived from them without sufficient evidence and a fair trial. Laws should not limit people’s freedom but to enhance it. People should not be silenced for expressing their ideas and beliefs as stated in 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.” People have the freedom and the right to say what they want and be heard.

    On the other hand, too much freedom can lead to problems. Laws and rights should give freedom to people but to a certain extent. Freedom must be used properly as long as it respects others who have their own freedom.

    Both the conservative and the liberal points should be implemented to laws and rights. There can never be an ‘absolute’ in being liberal or conservative as well as other things. As the constitution’s rights are liberal, some points of conservativeness should be placed to have balance. Something may go wrong when there is ‘too much of a good thing.’

  26. 1) IS GOOD ALWAYS RIGHT?

    GOOD IS NOT ALWAYS RIGHT.

    What is good? Good is the absence of evil. Therefore, good may pertain to the virtuous acts and morally acceptable by the society. Furthermore, right is the act of doing things that conforms to the law and the rules.

    However, good may be right but not all the time. There are limitations set for good and right. Good actions may not bear right ends but also right actions may not also give good ends. Although good is desirable and pleasing in nature, it is not fixed it may be temporary and changed to the will and freedom of a person to choose whether that action is good or evil for them, therefore it varies from one person to another. Since they are situated in the world, their morals, beliefs, and ideals vary from their own point of view.
    On the contrary, if good were to be always right. It may be then defined that good conforms to the commandments, laws and teachings of God. Then it is absolute in righteousness and it is morally accepted as the truth.

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

    RIGHT is prior to good.

    Right is defined as an accepted behavior that is based solely on acceptable truth and is accepted as the common good. And good is defined as anything pleasant. If good is considered the end, and the right is the actions, it would mean that whether the outcome is pleasant or not, we know that we did the right thing. Practically speaking, if we choose to the right thing, then it may mean that it we also expect a good end.

    However, if good is prior to right, it would not matter to us if we do the right or wrong things, but we only do it because it would be pleasant and pleasurable for us. It wouldn’t matter if we were to overstep our boundaries just to achieve what we desire and what would be pleasant for us.

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

    In my opinion, I would consider myself a liberal regarding the issue on the RH Bill (Reproductive Health Bill). During the present times, being practical is more important rather than following what other dictates. Practicality in life is important because if we consider the present state of the Philippines, we suffer from poverty because of overpopulation. Following overpopulation, people dictate to the majority, the poor, what is good, rather what is right. They think narrow mindedly because they believe that their ideals are the law the society is conforming to. But in reality and practicality, although life is very important especially in the conception of a child, people choose to what they think they would benefit more. The society dictates that family planning is important, but considering the poor families that reside in depressed areas and in provinces, they lack the education from family planning. Furthermore, it is not practical for us to say that family planning is appropriate at these situations. Also, along with practicality of a person, maturity of the minds also comes into play. They must be wise enough for the decisions they are making; whether it is abortion, contraceptives, and other birth control techniques. For me, the RH Bill to be implemented as it allows individuals to become responsible for their actions and they must justify that what they did is proper for their situation.

    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?

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

    I would consider the Bill of Rights in our Constitution is LIBERAL.
    Though it is liberal for me, I would say there is no need for it to be conservative. As the statements above, no person shall be deprived of life, liberty or property. Meaning, they have all freedom to choose and act as they please. They have the means to do anything as long as they set limitations to themselves and they have the right to express anything they want. As followed by the next statement that No person shall be detained solely by reason of his political beliefs and aspirations, as it would mean, people are allowed to express their criticism as far as it would not overstep its boundaries. Furthermore, the constitution being liberal in nature, being open minded to the citizens and their actions, the citizens on the other hand should not abuse the power of the constitution to promote their own self justified beliefs that they think is the best for the society. Since liberalism is democracy, people must always consider that their actions are for the majority of the citizens and not for the minority with power who has the capacity to abuse their authority.

  27. 1. Is good always right?

    The good is not always right.

    On one hand, the good is defined to as being positive or desirable in nature; it is the positive result of discrimination based on one’s own preferences, inclination or bias. On the other hand, the term right pertains to a conformity to justice, law or morality. It is in accordance to fact, reason or truth. From these definitions, it may be inferred that the good is subjective, while the right, be it be good or not, is always right. Niccolo Machiavelli, in his famous work The Prince, immortalized the debate between the good and right with the now-hackneyed quote, “The end does not justifies the means.” The good focuses on the end or the result of an action (whether it conforms to one’s own standards of positivity), while the right centers on the action itself. Not every good act may be right, as illustrated by the archetypal figure of Robin Hood. Stealing money to distribute it among the poor may be a good, but it is never right.

    2. Which is prior the good or the right?

    The right is prior to the good.

    By definition, the good is something which serves the desired purpose of an end while the right is concerned with the action conforming to justice, law or morality. Cheating in elections to obtain a chance to serve the public may be good based on the intention, but it is never right.

    The choice of priority between the good and the right is a dilemma each and every one of us has to deal with everyday. Not everything that is good is right, and vice-versa. Some may believe that the good, being a satisfaction of one’s desires is prior to the right, but I beg to differ. I am of the opinion that the right is primordial; it comes before anything else. It may be very gratiftying to choose something that can be satisfactory to our preferences even if it is not right, but in the end, the act is still not right. An action that is intrinsically wrong can never be right, even if the underlying action modifications (e.g. intentions) seem to justify the action.

    If good is to be prior to the right, then nobody should care about one another. Each is to fend for himself; there is no need to think about violating other people’s rights and sensibilities if it is for one’s own personal gain. Again, this is a contradiction, and such belief has no place in a civilized society.

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

    I am a liberal in relation to the RH Bill.

    Being a liberal pertains to thinking that each and every one of us has the freedom to choose for ourselves. Liberal people believe that the important thing is that a conscious choice is made with freedom. Being a liberal entails judgment based on the action itself, not on the ends. This is the opposite for conservatives, whose belief is that the emphasis is on the ends of an action.

    There has been much debate regarding this bill, as it will unequivocally change the society we all live in. There are a lot of stakeholders regarding the bill, each with their own legitimate concerns.

    By taking the scientific point of view, legislation of the RH Bill effectively reduces the problem of population control prevalent in developing countries like the Philippines. But is a large population really a problem? A large population certainly does not mean poverty, and population control does not equate to progress. A comparative analysis between a country like the Philippines with little population control and that of Singapore with population control measures would certainly help the case. The Philippines is indeed a poor country with thousands of people dying because of poverty, but Singapore, despite its wealth, encounters a lack of local workforce with its now-ageing population. This analysis makes sense, but by taking into consideration the demographic status of the Philippines, the country is better off with a smaller population as development in urban areas is stymied by the population boom. The key to progress of the Philippines lies in these urban cities, and if population control is not implemented in the cities then more deaths because of poverty will occur. Those who oppose this bill label it as anti-life, but in reality, this bill will save a lot of lives that are in danger because of poverty. It is downright cruel to let a child be born into this world only to expose him/her to the harsh realities of poverty. The present culture of poverty and death is inhumane and must be stopped. Thus, it is imperative for the legislature to expedite this necessary change in the system.

    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 am of the opinion that the present Constitution is liberal.
    • 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 of effectively demonstrates how liberal the present Constitution is. Section 4 gives the freedom to people to express their beliefs without fear of persecution. Section 5 gives the freedom to choose and follow our own religion. The present Constitution gives the people equal rights; no one is above the other.
    There is no need for a change to a conservative theme for the Constitution. A conservative Constitution will reduce the civil liberties we currently enjoy; the State would be more controlling of the people’s actions. This would be tantamount to renouncing the freedom of each individual. We are human beings and we should be treated as such, robbing a person of his/her freedom is treating that person as a means to an end. Each Filipino deserves to be treated with dignity, as an end in himself.

  28. 1. Is good always right?

    The good is not always right.

    On one hand, the good is defined to as being positive or desirable in nature; it is the positive result of discrimination based on one’s own preferences, inclination or bias. On the other hand, the term right pertains to a conformity to justice, law or morality. It is in accordance to fact, reason or truth. From these definitions, it may be inferred that the good is subjective, while the right, be it be good or not, is always right. Niccolo Machiavelli, in his famous work The Prince, immortalized the debate between the good and right with the now-hackneyed quote, “The end does not justifies the means.” The good focuses on the end or the result of an action (whether it conforms to one’s own standards of positivity), while the right centers on the action itself. Not every good act may be right, as illustrated by the archetypal figure of Robin Hood. Stealing money to distribute it among the poor may be a good, but it is never right.

    If the good is always right, then theft, being a possible escape from poverty, may be considered right. If the end justifies the means, then cheating to obtain a public office is acceptable. This is clearly a contradiction to the definition of right, and opposed to reason. No one can ever justify these acts with even the noblest of intentions.

    2. Which is prior the good or the right?

    The right is prior to the good.

    By definition, the good is something which serves the desired purpose of an end while the right is concerned with the action conforming to justice, law or morality. Cheating in elections to obtain a chance to serve the public may be good based on the intention, but it is never right.

    The choice of priority between the good and the right is a dilemma each and every one of us has to deal with everyday. Not everything that is good is right, and vice-versa. Some may believe that the good, being a satisfaction of one’s desires is prior to the right, but I beg to differ. I am of the opinion that the right is primordial; it comes before anything else. It may be very gratiftying to choose something that can be satisfactory to our preferences even if it is not right, but in the end, the act is still not right. An action that is intrinsically wrong can never be right, even if the underlying action modifications (e.g. intentions) seem to justify the action.

    If good is to be prior to the right, then nobody should care about one another. Each is to fend for himself; there is no need to think about violating other people’s rights and sensibilities if it is for one’s own personal gain. Again, this is a contradiction, and such belief has no place in a civilized society.

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

    I am a liberal in relation to the RH Bill.

    Being a liberal pertains to thinking that each and every one of us has the freedom to choose for ourselves. Liberal people believe that the important thing is that a conscious choice is made with freedom. Being a liberal entails judgment based on the action itself, not on the ends. This is the opposite for conservatives, whose belief is that the emphasis is on the ends of an action.

    There has been much debate regarding this bill, as it will unequivocally change the society we all live in. There are a lot of stakeholders regarding the bill, each with their own legitimate concerns.

    By taking the scientific point of view, legislation of the RH Bill effectively reduces the problem of population control prevalent in developing countries like the Philippines. But is a large population really a problem? A large population certainly does not mean poverty, and population control does not equate to progress. A comparative analysis between a country like the Philippines with little population control and that of Singapore with population control measures would certainly help the case. The Philippines is indeed a poor country with thousands of people dying because of poverty, but Singapore, despite its wealth, encounters a lack of local workforce with its now-ageing population. This analysis makes sense, but by taking into consideration the demographic status of the Philippines, the country is better off with a smaller population as development in urban areas is stymied by the population boom. The key to progress of the Philippines lies in these urban cities, and if population control is not implemented in the cities then more deaths because of poverty will occur. Those who oppose this bill label it as anti-life, but in reality, this bill will save a lot of lives that are in danger because of poverty. It is downright cruel to let a child be born into this world only to expose him/her to the harsh realities of poverty. The present culture of poverty and death is inhumane and must be stopped. Thus, it is imperative for the legislature to expedite this necessary change in the system.

    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 am of the opinion that the present Constitution is liberal.
    • 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 of effectively demonstrates how liberal the present Constitution is. Section 4 gives the freedom to people to express their beliefs without fear of persecution. Section 5 gives the freedom to choose and follow our own religion. The present Constitution gives the people equal rights; no one is above the other.

    There is no need for a change to a conservative theme for the Constitution. A conservative Constitution will reduce the civil liberties we currently enjoy; the State would be more controlling of the people’s actions. This would be tantamount to renouncing the freedom of each individual. We are human beings and we should be treated as such, robbing a person of his/her freedom is treating that person as a means to an end. Each Filipino deserves to be treated with dignity, as an end in himself.

  29. Is good always right?

    Good is not always right. Something is good when you treat a person in a manner that appeases him with regards to his values. In that essence a person considers something good if he is delighted by the action or he achieves something prosperous for himself because of the action. Something is right when you treat a human being as a person and not as a thing. In that essence it is like treating a person in a manner respecting his intrinsic worth meaning the person has values in himself.
    Something good can be achieved by two means classified by either a right action or a wrong action. Supposing the wrong action was taken and good for oneself was achieved then this would make the whole action as wrong. Cheating in examinations is an example. The good side of cheating would be making the student pass the said examination. The wrong side of cheating would be violating the neutrality between the teacher and the student by using aiding materials not allowed during the examination. Cheating characteristically is employed to create an unfair advantage so that something prosperous would be attained. On the contrary people strive to achieve something good in the right manner. This is because humans are kind in nature. They tend to do things without disrespecting others but the fact remains that everyone is situated differently in the world making their decisions different from others, something good for one might be evil for the other. Same goes for right and wrong.

    Which is prior, the good or right?

    Right is prior rather than good. Something is good when you treat a person in a manner that appeases him with regards to his values. In that essence a person considers something good if he is delighted by the action or he achieves something prosperous for himself because of the action. Something is right when you treat a human being as a person and not as a thing. In that essence it is like treating a person in a manner respecting his intrinsic worth meaning the person has values in himself.
    Humans are kind in nature and tend to do things without disrespecting others as much as possible. It is as if there exists an unsaid law stating “treat every human being, including yourself, as an end in himself and never merely as a means to an end.”
    Commonly before an action is done the person deliberates first whether it is right or wrong. After arriving at a decision it proceeds to the evaluation of the result of the action as good or evil. On the contrary some people think of what they would gain before doing an action. They evaluate the action by their results making their priority the good over the right but believe it or not in this world what matters most are not the ends that you choose but the freedom to choose them.

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

    I am much more of the conservative than the liberal. I only approve the use of condoms and nothing else. Sex is an inevitable part of life as it is. Respecting yourself and your partner would be the answer. With this discipline concerning sex comes along.
    The fact still remains that some couples just do this for fun or just part of their daily life. Sexually transmitted diseases should be avoided as much as possible that is why I approve the use of condoms. As long as no life or source of life is created then having sex would be fine. However if a source of life has been created that in itself would have the right to live. And depriving it of the chance to see the world would be killing. Saying this I would daresay abortion and other related “solutions” (i.e. the use of pills or “pampalaglag” or “pamparegla”) is murder. Another method that they have decided upon as birth control would be ligation and vasectomy. Altering body parts just for the sake of sex is a violation not only to others but also to you, yourself. Your body should be taken care of none other than yourself. Of course it is your decision if you want to undergo the said procedures but altering your body would be the same as simply discarding things you don’t want in life and not treasuring the true value of your body. It goes down on the result being good but the action as wrong.
    After all that was said I still do not despise those who manufactured these ideas for they were thinking of the future of the couple and the country. Present population problems are already taking its toll on the government and they created a bill to aid this problem. Still the decision all goes down to the couple which are about to do it and hopefully they do what seems to them as right.

    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?

    Section 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.
    Section 13. All persons, except those charged with offenses punishable by reclusion perpetua when evidence of guilt is strong, shall, before conviction, be bailable by sufficient sureties, or be released on recognizance as may be provided by law. The right to bail shall not be impaired even when the privilege of the writ of habeas corpus is suspended. Excessive bail shall not be required.

    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.
    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 think our constitution is a combination of both. Section 3 and 13 proves that it is part conservative. Conservative type of constitution would be having a definite set of laws, a predefined way of life. Section 3 there is a procedure which should be followed concerning communication. Section 13 a condition is stated before one is released of all charges. Both show definite a definite frame, a definite sense of freedom. Sections 4, 7 and 8 prove that it is part liberal. Both sections 4 and 7 state that freedom of speech is present in our country. Section 8 shows that people are free to form organizations of their own accord. Liberals believe that citizens have certain degrees of freedom where in it is possible for them to revise and pursue their own conception of equality of freedom and this can be found in the said sections.
    I think the constitution should stay as it is for there still a need for a law so that freedom would not be over exercised. A certain body still needs to be present to guide all citizens concerned to inform them of what are the boundaries of the freedom that they have.

  30. 1. IS GOOD ALWAYS RIGHT?

    Good is not always right.

    As stated above, good pertains to ends while right pertains to actions. In addition, right is strictly related to matters of ethical or rational choice while good is a broader value of judgment.

    From their very definition, I can say that good is more subjective than right and right is more objective than good. A very good example could be that it’s good to allow people the freedom to choose their own actions but it is not right if they hurt a lot of people in the process. By this example, we could clearly distinguish what makes something morally good and what makes it right.

    On the contrary, something good can also be considered right. Since we are free to choose what we think is right, it is safe to assume that not all good acts/things are morally wrong.

    2. WHICH IS PRIOR THE GOOD OR THE RIGHT?

    The right is prior to the good. Point-blank.

    In today’s society, there is a clear distinction between doing what is right and doing what is good. By doing something good, of course, pertains to doing what is a favorable or an agreeable end to the doer while doing something right pertains to doing what is a just and appropriate act.

    Since birth, it has been ingrained in us the value of selflessness – that we should choose something appropriate – something proper. But that value quickly peters out as we grow older and as we get to know more about the pleasures of life. And I’m not only referring to its perverse meaning. More often than not, a person would choose what could benefit him more instead of choosing the right one. That’s why the criminal records kept in every jurisdiction never ceased; in fact, it continues to grow.

    To conclude, let me touch on the raison d’etre of every human law – it exists because the society should abide to what is right and not just stand for what is good. Whatever end-state results that may come out from doing the right thing can be accepted as good and not the other way around.

    However, if doing something good would be more beneficial to the society in the long run, why prioritize the right over the good?

    3. ARE YOU A CONSERVATIVE OR A LIBERAL REGARDING THE ISSUE ON THE RH BILL? (See reading materials)

    I am a conservative regarding the issue on the RH Bill.

    Yes, while it is true that “family planning and reproductive health are essential to reducing poverty” and that the RH Bill does not legalize abortion and promotes sustainable human development and it will neither spawn “a generation of sex maniacs” nor would it breed a culture of promiscuity, have we ever stopped for a minute to ask ourselves if people would continue to view it as such in the long run? And have we ever considered the possibility that this would not only apply to married couples but would apply to all. To think otherwise would only prove to be delusional. Teenagers nowadays lead a very liberated life, so it’s not a surprise many have already engaged in pre-marital sex (commonly known as PMS). But then, what happened to the teachings of the Church? The values ingrained on us are being flushed down the toilet together with the used condoms and excess or expired contraceptive pills. Oh yes, people tend forget whatever values and principles they have when faced with something pleasurable.

    We cannot overlook the fact that having this bill would deliberately mean we are encouraging the people to think that sex is just an act of lust, and not as a sacred act created by God to procreate and to bring a married couple closer.

    Just like what Kaiser Fernandez said on his blog, “Population is not the problem of the country; it’s mainly the government’s wrong allocation of resources.”

    On the other hand, having everyone, especially the youth educated on sexuality might help make them more conscious of their actions and thus, would make them think twice about having pre-marital sex and they might stop viewing sex altogether as merely a means of pleasure. In addition, the number of deaths of mothers experiencing complications in their pregnancy and during childbirth would lessen.

    4. ON RIGHTS, IS OUR CONSTITUTION CONSERVATIVE OR LIBERAL? SUPPORT YOUR ANSWER BY QUOTING AT LEAST 2 SECTIONS OF ARTICLE III, 1987 PHILIPPINES CONSTITUTION.

    I consider the 1987 Philippine Constitution to be liberal. Being liberal means not being narrow in opinion or judgment while being conservative means being disposed to maintain existing views or conditions.

    As such, there are three sections under the Article III of the Philippine Constitution to prove that it is liberal. These are as follows:

    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 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.

    IF YOU THINK IT IS LIBERAL, SHOULD IT BE CONSERVATIVE?

    Our constitution should stay as it is. In general, we have a very good constitution; it’s only a matter of proper governance and of proper execution of rights.

  31. 1. Is good always right?

    Good is not always right.

    Good is something that maybe beneficial to man. It can also be something that is suitable and is likely to produce the right results or conditions. Right is something that is morally justified and correct. It is consistent with generally held ideas of morality and proper conduct. It conforms with the law.

    Sometimes, an action is mistaken for being good maybe because we are able to benefit from that action. But not all good actions conform with the law. Therefore, Good is not always right. And a simple example for this is cheating. Cheating may be mistaken as something that is good because from the act, someone benefits by getting high grades rather than getting a failing one.

    If we would consider good being always right, it is like saying that all good actions must be considered right even though it does not conform with the law. If that so, would it be right if I say that cheating is good and right? I believe that in whatever aspect we consider, that would never be right because man would never have a right to take possession of something that is not his or hers. Also, this would allow man to do anything he wants, somehow introducing him to a selfish and cruel environment.

    2. Which is prior good or right?

    Right is prior to good.

    ‘Prior’ is defined as something that is earlier in time or sequence. This may also mean as something that is more important or basic. As defined in the previous essay, ‘good’ is something that is suitable and is likely to produce the right results or conditions and ‘right’ is something that is morally justified and correct and something that conforms with the law.

    Right should be prior to good. From the definition given above, ‘right’ is something that is morally justified and correct and also conforms with the law. I think that it is safe to say that ‘right’ is always ‘good’ because all right things would effect to something that is good. Also, to keep the justice system of our country, all of us should follow the laws implemented in it. It is like saying that we should always follow what is right.

    If good would be prior to right, there would be injustice among man. Man would not be able to protect his own rights as human being since man would not be following the laws which are implemented by the government.

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

    I consider myself liberal regarding the issue on the RH Bill.

    On one hand, liberals are those people who favor and permit freedom of action. They are also open-minded and free of or not bounded by traditional or conventional ideas and values. Conservatives, on the other hand, are those people who favor traditional views and values. They tend to oppose change.

    The Liberals view the RH Bill as something that is pro-life, pro-poor and pro-family. Many benefits would be available in case that the bill will be passed as a law. First of which is the dissemination of proper knowledge regarding family planning. The RH Bill tends to teach couple the right way of family planning. Health centers in different areas of the country would be funded to have lectures or sessions for couples regarding family planning. Second is prevention of unwanted pregnancy. I believe that not all couples want to have a child after their sexual intercourse. Some would want to have it just to show affection to each other. Another would be concerning the economy of our country. Based on studies, unwanted pregnancy usually involves couples who are considered poor in the society. Through this Bill, unwanted pregnancy would lessen, resulting to lesser mouths to feed. Also, there would be smaller population of people who would need the support of the government for their healthcare needs. This would give the government a chance to better its economy.

    The Conservatives view the RH Bill as something that is anti-life and immoral. Since the bill promotes the use of contraceptives, they think that the Bill would provoke teenagers to engage to pre-marital sex, which is considered immoral. They also considered the Bill as anti-life (anti-pregnancy) because it hinders the goal of the church which is to procreate. They see it as something that deprives life, thus legalizing abortion in the country.

    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 Philippine Constitution is liberal because it allows Filipinos to use their own freedom in many ways. Here are some of the sections of our constitution suggesting freedom :
    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 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 think that the Constitution should be a little conservative because too much liberalism may result to the abuse of their own rights. Also, the constitution should set the limits or boundaries of usage of freedom. It is not at all times they should exercise their freedom. Sometimes, it is better to follow the laws implemented by our government to have a well-disciplined and just community.

  32. 1. Is good always right?

    Good is not always right.
    Good is beneficial, enjoyable or pleasant while right is justice, fairness or privilege.
    Not all things perceived to be good are considered right. In fact people tend to see things in there own perspectives or own benifit way… They consider things good for them and other people practically thinking of which suits them most.

    2. Which is prior the good or the right?

    Right is prior than good.
    Prior is taking precedence or as in importance.
    In my own opinion right is prior than good. Thats why we see things as good or as bad because we have the basis which is the word right in every matters in our lives.

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

    I am a liberal person.
    A liberal person believes that people should have all the freedom and equality; they argue that right is prior than good. While conservative person believes that security is more important than freedom; they argue that good is prior than right.
    I chose to be liberal because RH bill promotes an end to life the life which is one of God given mission to us as His sons and daughters. RH bill makes the negative a positive. It gives the people a sense of freedom and pushes that to the limit.

  33. IS GOOD ALWAYS RIGHT?

    Good is not always right.

    Good is having or showing an upright and virtuous character, is also affording pleasure or comfort and is something that stands from the point of the morals. On the other hand, right is according to the truth, justice or law and is a just or legal claim.

    Something good is not always right. The end do not justifies the mean. What is right may be done in good or evil way. This is also true for wrong. Good is the end and right is the action to attain a goal. For an instance we are doing what is good for ourselves but it affect other negatively and that is wrong, like cheating, if a student cheats he will do good in an exam, it is only pleasurable for him, but it is not just for the others who work hard to study so it is not right. There is no justice, that is universal.

    By contrary, good is always right. The end justifies the means. What is good is done right and what is evil is done wrong. Man tends to chose what is favorable and pleasurable because there is an absence of pain. This makes man think with no pain he choosing or doing what is right.

    WHICH IS PRIOR THE GOOD OR THE RIGHT?

    Right is prior to good.
    Again, good is having or showing an upright and virtuous character, is also affording pleasure or comfort and is something that stands from the point of the morals. On the other hand, right is according to the truth, justice or law and is a just or legal claim.

    Prior is something more important, preceding in order.

    Right always leads good. From my understanding, right is something universal, that is, what is right to one is right for all and that right do not negatively affects others. Right is something justifiable, it according to justice and truth.

    In contrast, good is the priority. This happens when man always chose what is favorable to him but not thinking what effects (especially negative) could it possibly inflict to others. Good is not always right.

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

    Liberal.

    Liberal is free from narrowness in ideas in doctrines, advocating extension of individual freedom to all persons, and is the one who advocates progress and an extension of freedom in institutions, such as politics, religion. On the other hand, conservative is having tendency or power to preserve, careful and safe, one who opposed to hasty changes in politics, religion in a country.

    The bill in itself is liberal. It is presenting a way of development, freedom, guidance and responsibility. It aims for further growth of our country by careful decreasing population growth, not really this issue but something that is far beyond that. It aims to lessen or even better stop unwanted pregnancies, that leads to abortion, more poverty, more taxation, and even unhealthy lifestyle. It is really a pro-life and pro-health advocacy. It will guide the people, especially from the poor, on how to approach and plan his life for a far better future. People against this bill do not fully understand the merits that this will bring our country. I felt sorry about that.

    On the contrary, being conservative on this bill makes the people think that it is pro abortion, immoral, and even anti-life. It is something unacceptable because people cling to the old ways and they feel violated about it.

    ON RIGHTS, IS OUR CONSTITUTION LIBERAL OR CONSERVATIVE?
    Liberal.
    Liberal is free from narrowness in ideas in doctrines, advocating extension of individual freedom to all persons, and is the one who advocates progress and an extension of freedom in institutions, such as politics, religion. On the other hand, conservative is having tendency or power to preserve, careful and safe, one who opposed to hasty changes in politics, religion in a country.

    Regarding to rights, the Philippine constitution is indeed a liberal one.

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

    In section 1, people should be free and treated with justice and respect. In section 2, people should not be violated that is pertaining to doing what is right that is universal. Man should be treated with respect and justice. In section 4 , shows freedom. And in section 18, also shows freedom and respect. This shows that our constitution makes us free to make our decision, and equal that no person shall be disrespected and violated.
    There is no need to shift a liberal constitution to a conservative one. Our constitution gives us the liberty and equality we wanted. We would not be enjoying this freedom and equality with our constitution being conservative. Remember we are persons that should be treated free.

  34. Is good always right?
    It is not true that what is good is always right. But what is it to be right?
    Something can be considered good when it is morally excellent and virtuous while something right is when it is morally correct, and is viewed as to be morally or as appropriate.
    Not all good can be right because the good is dictated by which is right. In my belief, the “ends” doesn’t justify the “means” but the other way around. The act always dictates if something will be good or evil. Pleasure and pain isn’t the basis of something to be right but the morality of the act is much more important to be considered. You cannot say that stealing is right just because its end is that you can feed your family, which is considered to be a good reason. Although we want to believe that the result of the action is good, we cannot disregard that the act made was morally wrong. That is why I believe that something good is not always right.
    Some might say that something is good is always right because we think that what pleasures us or give us satisfaction is always something good. This way of thinking is easier but not appropriate because a lot of things are not considered in the process and thus resulting in many flaws. That is why I believe that for something to be considered good, it must always be right.
    Which is prior, the good or the right?
    The perfect society is one where the good and the right go harmoniously and can’t exist without the other. But in our world today, this situation only comes as they say, “once in a blue moon”. So weighing its differences, which is prior? I say that the right is prior than the good.
    Good is when it is considered morally excellent and is agreeable while right is something morally correct and appropriate. Freedom is the state of not being subject to determining forces.
    Right is a much more priority than that of the good. Like in the first essay I’ve written, I believe that the ends doesn’t justify the means. So if we would prioritize the good over the right, what we would have in the end is a world in chaos. Good, is only subjective and is based on the benefits that the person will receive for himself. If that will be considered first than any other thing, the world would be full of selfish people, only thinking of what “good” would an act do to them. Prioritizing right would give results that would be fair to all, because the right is not affected by any other person’s belief or personal preferences. If that was to happen, then people all around would feel equal and feel their humanity being given importance.
    But neither is a totalitarian society to be desire for. A society were rules are valued over a person limits our rights to human freedom. Rules should be made for the good of man, not man’s suffering. Thus, there should still be times of exceptions to the rule for the human value always takes precedence ever any man’s creations. What we therefore desire is a balance between the two. We want rules that ensure the goodness of every human person. We have yet to perfect this but still we must try to be good at the same time we are right.

    Are you a conservative or a liberal regarding the issue on the RH Bill?
    I take the liberals side in this issue.
    A lot of conservatives view the RH Bill as a form of “Death Sentence”, a bill not conforming to the moral laws and something that does not value human life. But I believe it is not true. The RH Bill gives freedom of choice, a choice which should be decided by the people. So therefore, they are liable to all the consequences of their action. Another thing is that RH Bill provides information about family planning, thus giving those who want to engage in sexual acts the right knowledge of the act they are about to undertake. With enough knowledge, those who wish to do the said act will be responsible to anything that might happen.
    Is our Constitution liberal or conservative?
    I believe that our constitution is a liberal one
    The constitution protects the rights of the people and thus giving them liberty. As stated in the very first section of the Bills of 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”, it is very well seen that the constitution gives importance to the rights of the people. Another section which clearly shows that our constitution is liberal is Section 18.” No person shall be detained solely by reason of his political beliefs and aspirations.” In this section, it is clearly seen that the right of the people to choose is emphasized. It is not hindered by any other rule and does not conform to what is good only to the person but what ought to be for the person.
    I think that the constitution should stay as it is, and continue being liberal. I think that the constitution should protect the rights of the people and that the government imposes these protections. The only problem that would be encountered in this attempt will be the one’s imposing these said “protection of the people”.

  35. “Is something good always right?”

    “Good” and “right” are totally different things therefore they can never be considered alike or of only one distinction. They are of different existence, one if of the end, and the latter is the means, respectively. So it could be that whatever is good or pleasurable, might have been done, or could be done right or wrong. So therefore, it is not always right, when something is good.

    Good may connote a feeling of wellness or pleasure, which could only be the result of anything, may it be right or wrong. Right, being something as necessary, or which preserves human life. This proves that good and right are not exactly of the same existence.

    The end does not, and may never, justify the means. Even if the means leads to a common good, it still won’t be necessarily right all the time. Time is the factor that creates the difference between these two objects. So it could not be that something good is right or wrong, it is just as it is.

    But the question stated creates this unclear proposition that right and good coexist on the same plane, which can never be. I believe it would be a better question if it was stated, “Does being right always lead to something good?”

    “Which is prior, the good or the right?”

    The Right most definitely precedes the Good.

    The good or bad is the outcome of any situation which could have either been right or wrong. The good or bad depends on the effect of the right, or wrong, actions, or situations, to the people or person involved. Somehow, this clarifies the notion as right, or wrong, as the means, and the good and bad as the end. If we look at this question in any way possible, the right will always be prior to the good, this with respect to the sequence of events.

    But the priority of these two may also depend on the human being’s personal preference. If the person mentioned would be someone who prefers the outcome, regardless of by what means to have been taken for this outcome to occur, then there would still be times when the good would prior the right. But this possibility would only exist in the human perception of things, where almost anything would be possible, depending on how far the person’s mind can take him or her.

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

    I am a liberal in the issue regarding the RH Bill.

    If we carefully look in the situation that the Philippines is in, we would all see that our economy is suffering, and those who are greatly affected are the poor. Being a liberal, I believe that the RH Bill is the most practical way to go in our times. Couples who want to engage in a sexual act are responsible to whatever consequences they might face, and the RH Bill helps in reducing unwanted pregnancies because of the information they offer. Having the right knowledge and thinking will greatly help in our society, which is really needed right now.

    Also, RH Bill is anti-abortion, which only says that this Bill values life. And giving value to the life of a person is giving what is due to them, even if they are still in the womb of the mother. So the RH Bill’s main goal is to promote life and help the people live a better life with their family and with those around them as well.

    Is our Constitution liberal or conservative?

    I see our constitution as a liberal one.

    Looking in 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 and 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”, it clearly shows that the constitution value the rights of the people, and their freedom to choose. Although some might say that the freedom given by our constitution isn’t fully felt, the majority of its bills promote the freedom which is ought to be to the people.

    I think that the constitution should stay as liberal. With this kind of constitution, people feel the liberty in their lives as well as the freedom included with it. Having a liberal constitution will provide the people the equal protection of their rights and have a government that will impose these rights correctly.

  36. question 3.

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

    I am a liberal ! which means I like a great Government who can control his constituents upon all sorts of behavior. While conservatives want a smaller, less intrusive government s long as it is within the law.

    I am a liberal in regards to the RH bill because of the ballooning population which causes poverty. RH bill is a real help in poverty reduction, although there are natural ways of family planning and some think that this is a fine way of planning family, but the fact is there are so many who failed with it. RH bill will control, RH bill will help people to enjoy everything.

    In opposite, I’m not a conservative in regards with the RH bill, because I care much to what is the objective of a powerful government, who wrote the RH bill. That is to help people to plan their family.

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

    Right thing is prior than good things.

    Right is the quality of being factually correct. While good pertains to the favorable characters.

    Most decisions in a person’s life are either a fundamental good things to do, whether in the interest of the decision maker or less often someone else; or it is the acceptable conclusion of what right thing to do would be being subject to widespread moral opinion . A thing becomes right when you treat a person as a human being. I prioritize a right thing because if I only prioritize good things, I might not be aware that I am now treating a person as a thing.

  38. 1. Is good always right?

    A good is not always right! Right defines as standards of correctness. While good means a favorable deeds.

    Right is not always good because good things to be considered right things it has to be under the way of correctness. If a robber robs a bank just to feed his family, in his part the crime is good because it will help a lot, but in moral law it is not right to rob a bank or get what does not belong to you.

    My opinion contradicts the statement the good is always right.

  39. First of all, my answer is No. I believe that they vary from everyone of us depending on the situation. For me, an action is right if it is conforming with justice, and moral to the humankind, while we can say that an action is good when few will benefit from that action. Good is not always right because we have different beliefs and culture. Killing to save another can be good but never right, also, asking for alms is good for beggars but not right. We have different situations in life that define whether an action is good for us or right. On the other hand, good can also be right if the action is for the common good.

    ••••
    Right is prior than good. Like what I’ve said in the previous essay, an action is right if it is conforming with justice, and moral to the humankind, while we can say that an action is good when only few will benefit from that action. But there’s a BUT, reality check, most of us consider what is “good” prior to what is “right”.

    ••••
    I can’t say that I’m a liberal nor a conservative person. It depends on factors such as place, time, situation, who and what are inluded in that situation. But for the issue about the RH Bill- I am liberal, because it is one way to reduce the number of innocent infants who were suffering because of their parents’ fault.

    ••••
    Our constitution is liberal on 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 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.

    It shouldn’t be conservative.

  40. 1. Is good always right?

    It’s kind of confusing when good and right are used in the same sentence. They are both positive terms but have a very different meaning. I believe that good is not always right. When you say something is good, it is serving its purpose well and is beneficial while right is more on the moral side, whether it is correct or according to the law. Thinking you have done something because you gain something from it does not mean you did the right thing. A good thing may not be the right when the means of doing it is not according to the law. It is not all the time that what is good is right because the cause never justifies the means. Robinhood might have done the good thing when he helped the poor but robbing the rich and evil people does not make it right. Some people do things that are only good for them which bring harm to those that surround them. Their gain is loss to someone else. If good is always right then lying to save a friend’s life is the right thing to do even though the commandment says, “Thou shall not lie”.

    2. Which is prior the good or the right?

    I think good comes first before right. When you say right, it is the very laws, statutes, commandments that are formed in the very beginning of man’s government. Good, on the other hand, existed long before laws were made. It is a key to survival for man to think of what is good for him. He does things that are beneficial for him. If it serves a good purpose for his survival then it must be done. Having this so, came the formation and creation of laws which then distinguish if what is good is right. Knowing what is right brings about an understanding that good for one person may not mean good for everyone. It is a natural instinct for man to think of himself and his needs but being driven by this idea can cause poor judgement. Knowing what is right brings balance and control. It guides man to make the right decision whether to do things or not. On the contrary, if right preceded the good then it will only mean that all things that are good are right. Man will only think that what are good for them are those that are according to the law because they will have a basis of actions.

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

    Liberal means broad-minded, tolerant of other ideals and nontraditional while conservative means favoring traditional views and values; tending to oppose change.

    I am a liberal regarding the issue on the RH bill. It gives the couple a freedom for themselves and it will help them plan their families because of the use of contraceptives. These contraceptives helps prevent unwanted pregnancies and diseases. I strongly believe that passing the bill will have a lots of benefits to our country. It will help reduce the number of people living a hard life and It will prevent the increase of population.

    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 on rights because it shows that the citizens in our country has the freedom to choose their actions. It does not state how the citizens should live but instead it pertains about the ability of man to know which is right from wrong.

    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.

    It shows

    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 doesn’t need to be conservative because from the very beginning people has the knowledge to disatinguish which is right from wrong. He knows what he should and should not do. Having the ability to choose,a good man living in a world with set of rules will always do the right thing. It does not concern with whether it is liberal or conservative. Given that he can exercise his freedom, it just shows that he does not need someone to tell him his way of life because he knows it,he just have to use his freedom properly.

  41. 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?

    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 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.

    The constitution and the government is no need to be on conservative side. As I answered the previous question I am in the liberal side. Another fact is that the Philippine constitution is liberal, from the authors, from editors and the other involved in revising the constitution are liberals in their own nature. It is made for the people’s right, that’s why it is no need to be conservative.

  42. The good is always right.

    Because we are created in the image and likeness of God. e priorness Through ages good is defined as the right thing to do. We as human beings does not have the right to question it for someone way superior than us taught us that doing the good is right.

    The good is prior to right

    It is not a question of what comes first but a question of what it is to be considered, and the good must always be considered. If one would decide to do the right thing, then it doesn’t guarantee that the action would be good or evil.

    Having a greed of doing the RIGHT thing makes an ego of you that you are superior, that you have the decision over the right and the wrong.

    The good is prior to right because had it been the vice versa then I would call it anarchy. You are not superior yourself to decide whats right and whats wrong, you are designed to do good.

    The RH bill may be seen as the right to do for the population increase, it may be also a suitable solution to poverty and hunger.
    but is it defined in the book as the good? was it the solution of our ancestors for the past years? I believe that this bill is effective as to solutions to problems however it is not for the good, it is morally wrong, and we should take into consideration the morality over the practicality..

    “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.”

    “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.”

    The constitution is liberal because it is ought to be liberal had it been conservative then people would question it. That is the human perception, the right leads to equality. but actually the right blinds us of our selfishness to always end to our benefit.

    to conclude. It may be foolish to prior the good over the right but we are just human, we are vulnerable, we are not omniscient and we are not superior. We are designed for the good then it is what we ought to do. When the reasons end for doing the good then faith begins.

  43. 1. Is good always right?

    Good, as how i defined as having desirable or positive qualities especially those suitable for a thing specified. it is something being positive or desirable in nature, while right, is something that conforms with morality or justice that is in accordance with fact, reason, or truth.

    “What is good on some people, may not be good for the others.” For me, good is not always right, for it varies through different people – having different perspectives on things or how things have been. Good lies on a thing’s purpose, whether it has that desirable effect on it. It is more on the emotional side, rather than that of what is just. While right, will always be right, for it sets a standard that “this is what or how it should be done”, whether it’ll be good for someone or something, or not.

    At some point, good can always be right. It is if, and only if the source of its goodness is God, the almighty father.

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

    Good is something being pleasurable, positive, or desirable for a suitable thing, while right is something that conforms with justice, law, or morality.

    Good only depends on something’s outcome. In an examination, when you have the right answer to a question, you will have a good result. on the other hand, a good answer cannot guarantee that it will always be right. Right sets a standard on how things are should be in every situation. It is being correct, or being proper. For something to be good, consideration of what is right should be necessary.

    Good being prior to right can turn this world upside down. For if ever it should be as such, respect and care for others’ right will be set aside and each and every one of us would just deal and do things the way we like it.

    3. Conservative or Liberal?

    I am more of a liberal. It is because us humans are made being capable of knowing whether a thing is right or wrong.

    Some might say that it is not right to use contraceptives, rather, it is more concern on someone’s discipline. Well, as for me, it is more of not being good but it is the right thing to do. Some countries, like our own, are having a hard time progressing because of our population. It’s as if Philippines is climbing the mountain of progress, having millions of people to carry on its shoulders. People might argue about it being right when it is more on depriving the chance to give life, well i might just have to say that it is actually a way of saving life, be it on countries like ours, a lot of us here are dying because of poverty, because there are too many stomachs to feed.

    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?

    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 1 is conservative because it is more taking our ability to take advantage of someone’s right to live. Life is a very big thing to be considered. It is something way too precious that nothing can replace it.

    For me, it still should be conservative because it is one sturdy way to protect and give importance to such important thing in this world. No one should be beyond this law because not one of us is worthy enough to take away what God has given us.

    Section 4 is liberal because it gives freedom to speak out our mind.

    It should still be liberal, because only in this way that a lot of us would be able to see things in different ways, in such a way that we will be capable enough to know what could be better for our country. It gives us opportunity to defend ourselves, and most especially open our eyes to see what is really out there, rather than just to wait for what is there to be presented about the things the government would only want us to see.

  44. 1. Is good always right?

    Good is not always right. Some people may say otherwise because they confuse the meaning of the two, they believe that what is good is also right. To clear things out, we must first find the distinction between the good and the right.

    What is good and what is right, anyway?

    Good is something that is pleasing or valuable or useful. We can say something is good when it served the desired purpose or end. The good varies from every person because it depends on what pleases a person, as we all know what pleases the other may not please us, thus good is subjective. It is clear that good pertains to the end or the consequence of an act.

    On the other hand, right is a freedom that is morally due to a person. We can say something is right when it is morally acceptable or correct. People has the ability to know what is right and wrong as long as they have intellect and the ability to reason, thus we can say that right is objective. The right pertains to the act itself.

    People sometimes do the wrong thing for the sake of a good outcome, like for example the act of Robin Hood. Robin steals money and he gives the money to the poor. As we all know stealing is wrong, it will never be right what ever the situation may be, but it can sometimes be good when it favors a person or people. We can never really say that good is always right.

    Some may think that good is always right because they mistake the definition of good. They think that good and right is the same thing.

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

    Neither is prior to the other. By saying prior it means preceding in importance or value. We can never really tell which of the two precedes the other. Is it the right act or the good outcome? This is a difficult choice. Good may sometimes be the outcome of a wrong act, and a right act may also lead to an evil outcome. It would be easier if both good and right is objective.
    Good and right is independent of each other but they always go hand in hand. We can never separate the one from the other. People should not always go for what is good, they must first see to it if the act is also right. It also applies to the other, before they do what is right they should also think of all the possible outcome it may produce.

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

    I’m a liberal on the RH Bill.

    A conservative conforms to what is traditional and conventional while the liberal believes that right is prior to the good and pertains to openness and freedom. The RH Bill is the reproductive health and population development act.

    I’m liberal on this bill because I believe that every person has a choice and has the freedom to choose. If a married couple wants to use contraceptives, we should not prevent them from doing so because it is their choice. I also believe that educating the youth will benefit our nation because it would promote responsible parenthood and proper family planning.

    The conservatives may argue that this bill will promote premarital sex to the youth, but I believe so otherwise. Premarital sex can still be prevented with proper education and guidance to the youth.

    4. “On rights, is our constitution conservative or liberal?”

    I believe that our constitution is liberal.

    A conservative government limits freedom in order to impose or promote good, while a liberal government advocates the freedom of every individual. Two sections from the Article III of the 1987 constitution can support my stand.

    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.

    In this section, the government gives freedom and equality in each of the citizens. It doesn’t limit the freedom of individual. I think that our government should stay like this. Government should only be there to provide welfare to the citizens and should not interfere with our right, which is freedom.

  45. 1. Is good always right?

    Good is not always right. Some people may say otherwise because they confuse the meaning of the two, they believe that what is good is also right. To clear things out, we must first find the distinction between the good and the right.

    What is good and what is right, anyway?

    Good is something that is pleasing or valuable or useful. We can say something is good when it served the desired purpose or end. The good varies from every person because it depends on what pleases a person, as we all know what pleases the other may not please us, thus good is subjective. It is clear that good pertains to the end or the consequence of an act.

    On the other hand, right is a freedom that is morally due to a person. We can say something is right when it is morally acceptable or correct. People has the ability to know what is right and wrong as long as they have intellect and the ability to reason, thus we can say that right is objective. The right pertains to the act itself.

    People sometimes do the wrong thing for the sake of a good outcome, like for example the act of Robin Hood. Robin steals money and he gives the money to the poor. As we all know stealing is wrong, it will never be right what ever the situation may be, but it can sometimes be good when it favors a person or people. We can never really say that good is always right.

    Some may think that good is always right because they mistake the definition of good. They think that good and right is the same thing.

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

    Neither is prior to the other. By saying prior it means preceding in importance or value. We can never really tell which of the two precedes the other. Is it the right act or the good outcome? This is a difficult choice. Good may sometimes be the outcome of a wrong act, and a right act may also lead to an evil outcome. It would be easier if both good and right is objective.
    Good and right is independent of each other but they always go hand in hand. We can never separate the one from the other. People should not always go for what is good, they must first see to it if the act is also right. It also applies to the other, before they do what is right they should also think of all the possible outcome it may produce.

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

    I’m a liberal on the RH Bill.

    A conservative conforms to what is traditional and conventional while the liberal believes that right is prior to the good and pertains to openness and freedom. The RH Bill is the reproductive health and population development act.

    I’m liberal on this bill because I believe that every person has a choice and has the freedom to choose. If a married couple wants to use contraceptives, we should not prevent them from doing so because it is their choice. I also believe that educating the youth will benefit our nation because it would promote responsible parenthood and proper family planning.

    The conservatives may argue that this bill will promote premarital sex to the youth, but I believe so otherwise. Premarital sex can still be prevented with proper education and guidance to the youth.

    4. “On rights, is our constitution conservative or liberal?”

    I believe that our constitution is liberal.

    A conservative government limits freedom in order to impose or promote good, while a liberal government advocates the freedom of every individual. Two sections from the Article III of the 1987 constitution can support my stand.

    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.

    In this section, the government gives freedom and equality in each of the citizens. It doesn’t limit the freedom of individual. I think that our government should stay like this. Government should only be there to provide welfare to the citizens and should not interfere with our right, which is freedom.

  46. (1) “IS GOOD ALWAYS RIGHT?”

    Not all good is right.

    “Good” is a subjective term that describes something, if it is pleasurable or preferable to oneself. It defines the happiness (temporary/material) of a person. It may refer to personal gain. It is judged by personal liking or satisfaction. On the other hand, “right” is a universal guide which sets order for the benefit of all people. It tells every person what ought to be done in different situations. It cannot be altered by any means. What is right is always right. No one can say that any action may be right for one and wrong for the other.

    Every person has his own preferences. He may judge an end/goal as a good thing depending on how this end/goal benefits him. He may also say that it is bad/evil if this end/goal is not into his liking. Every one of us can say if a certain thing is good or bad/evil. It is just according to his point of view.

    What is right is much different from what is good. Right guides any action to a desirable or undesirable effect. It looks into action from an objectively perspective. It evaluates an action according to its effect to ALL people or life forms.

    Here is an example to make my stand clear. An aspiring student had an unwanted pregnancy. She surely didn’t want to have a baby at that time. She decided to have an abortion. In this example, she made a good decision, right? It is good for her, but it is not right. It is not right because she killed what would have been another human being. She did not even given the baby the chance to have a choice.

    On the contrary, there is one who can say that good is always right, God. Only He is the perfect being who is all knowing, that His preferences are always right and beneficial for all of the creations in the universe.

    (2) “WHICH IS PRIOR, THE GOOD OR THE RIGHT?”

    Right is prior to the good.

    How do I say that the right is prior to the good?
    As defined in the first essay, “good” is all about personal preferences while “right” conforms to the common welfare of the people. “Good” pertains to the end of an action while “right” revolves around the means towards an end.

    In the definition itself, we can say that it is always the action that comes first before you achieve an end/goal. Therefore the evaluation of right or wrong comes first before the judgment of good or evil.

    We must choose among all the right choices to achieve our goal. It is the right actions that most likely lead to a true happiness or satisfaction. It is the MEANS that justifies the END.

    Consequently, good may be prior to the right, if this good is for the benefit of ALL people and if it does not violate and destroy the liberty of everyone.

    (3) “ARE YOU A CONSERVATIVE OR A LIBERAL REGARDING THE ISSUE ON THE RH BILL?”

    I am a liberal regarding this issue.

    Liberal people are those who value freedom equally as they recognize the freedom of other people. They have a strong principle and they do not just believe what everyone says. Whereas conservatives are those who value a strong government that can control their lives. They are those who are afraid that freedom can cause them harm/evil. They mostly rely on what they have lived for a long time. They do not want to leave their comfort zones. They are those who are afraid to take risks.

    I am a liberal regarding this issue because I believe that RH bill is not an anti-life bill. Not all married couples have sex to have a baby. This bill gives them choices to prevent unintended pregnancies. This is not a pro-abortion bill, seeing as the pregnancy was prevented in the first place.

    This bill may not be good to the conservatives but it is better to have prevention as early as possible before it is too late.

    On the contrary, this bill will also prevent the life that may have possibly been created.

    (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 of 1987 Philippine Constitution is more on the liberal side.

    Liberals and conservatives are defined in the third essay. Article III focused on the rights of the Filipino people to their freedom. This article suggests a free country and have the Filipino people exercise their freedom.

    Two sections to back up my stand are:
    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.

    It should remain on the liberal side for us to properly exercise and know our freedom. What is bad for the liberal side is that some irresponsible citizen may use their liberty to attack other people.

  47. 1.) Is Good always Right???

    Good is not always right.

    Good is defined as satisfaction-based principle meaning it depends on the person who perceives it.
    Right on the other hand is the value itself. It is a naturally accepted truth with regards in moralty.

    We are situated in the world so that means we have different point of views. If good is subjective that would follow that a number of concept of what is good will arise. That would be problematic because it will be limited by the community’s concept of good. Principles of right and justice bound to be local thus making it vague and indefinite. Furthermore, this will create a diversity among us people

    On the contrary, with the definition of Good as something which is absolutely and morally excellent and righteous. it follows that when a good thing is done, it is also right. For example the Lord’s commandments, they are good and that makes them right.

    2.) Which is prior the Good or the Right???

    The “Right” is prior the “Good.”

    Good is defined as satisfaction-based principle meaning it depends on the person who perceives it.
    Right on the other hand is the value itself. It is a naturally accepted truth with regards in moralty.

    If the Right is what is absolute, this follows that it must come first because the Right being absolute makes the Good just an excerpt from it. The judgement of an action is based on the means so if the mean is Right it doesn’t matter whether the end would be good or bad because what matter is you did whats right.

    On the contrary, Good can be prior to what is Right. For example the “white lies.” This is based on what is the “common greater good” in the situation. It is whats practical. If it is what it takes to save a life, then why not? Still I believe it does not apply to all.

    3.) Are you a Conservative or a Liberal regarding the RH Bill???

    In my opinion, I would consider myself a Liberal regarding the issue on the RH Bill (Reproductive Health Bill). In times like this in the Phiippines, “Practicality” is whats important if this is what will it take to save the lives of the million innocent infants conceive by negligence. This is the Philippines, and in reality the idea of family planning which they disprove is what most people are aware of. They must face the fact that not all people are of the same level with them with regards to education. Our country is severely suffering from the overpopulation. If this is all what it takes so we wont anymore see childrens sleeping in the streets and some searching the garbages for food then I say why not allow this solution for this problem.

    4.) On the Bill of Rights (Article III, 1987 Philippine Constitution), Do you think our constitution is a liberal or a conservative??? Why???

    In my opinion, I consider our constitution as a Liberal.

    A government is considered Conservative with regards to the laws that promotes “Good life” and this depends regardless of what its citizens wants but rather the outcome it will be for the country so its more of the “end” side. On the other hand, a Liberal government gives all the all the possible freedom consistent with the equality of others freedom. This two constitution proves this statement:

    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.

  48. 1. Is good always right?

    Good is not always right.

    Good is defined as something pleasurable and which suffices the human needs whether it is emotional, physical and social. Good can also pertain as what the society dictates and accepts. On the other hand, right is what corresponds with justice, law and morality. Though some people may argue where right started and who made it, no one can never tell, we only know it exists because it is innate in us. Good is based on the outcome of an action while right is the action itself.

    There are some circumstances that good becomes right depending on what a person thinks as his safest answer. What appears good to others becomes right to some. It varies with different people as how they feel to be the most practical way to escape their problems. To cite some would be stealing and killing, when people become so desperate they resort to such. But then, they can be defended by some as ”right” to an empty stomach and a vengeful mind but can never be to a person rational enough to think that they can survive without doing such crimes. Good can be compared to what is beautiful to ones sight as the cliché says that beauty is in the eye of the beholder. Good gives a negative impact to me so I stand that good is not always right.

    2. Which is prior the good or the right?

    Right would be prior to good for me. As how I defined the terms and answered the question above, that right coexists with justice, law and morality. If we make things right then its end would otherwise be considered as good and right.

    On the contrary, when good is prior to right people tend to be more egocentric because there is a possibility that one can become so indifferent that he uses people as his means to his end. The conservative can also argue the flaws of choosing the right prior the good because humans are not perfect to choose always the right things and decisions; we also make wrong moves even though it is the right thing to do. Some people feels guilt when we make such wrong decisions in the end because they are blinded and still confused by their beliefs of what is good and what is right. That is our limitations as human beings, we commit mistakes.

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

    As a liberal on this issue the RH Bill (Reproductive Health Bill), the freedom of choosing contraceptives as an answer to the fast growing population which results to poverty must be considered as an option together with family planning program of the conservatives. But I believe that this would not be an issue if information and education on related topics are disseminated properly considering the poor families in the urban area. We should not be forced on what methods we are to take when it comes to family planning but of course it is our responsibility to plan ahead if a parent has the capability to raise their children properly or not.

    In contrast with that, whether one stands as a conservative or liberal regarding this issue; one can be confused if the RH bill is not promulgated effectively if ever it would become a law.

    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?

    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 14. (1) No person shall be held to answer for a criminal offense without due process of law.

    I think the bill of rights or the constitution as a whole is created in a liberal sense. Section 1 and 14 states the explicit meaning of equality here in the Philippines. There is no need for it to be conservative as long the thing that we must promote is to improve the governance of the Philippines. Liberalism is practiced here in the Philippines for the long time as we can see that we are free to express our feelings and we are not subjected to prejudice without the government respecting all of the legal rights of a person or the so called due process of law.

    A person only experiences true freedom if he knows his limitations and responsibilities. The laws provided by the constitution can never have sense if the one enforcing in the authority breaks and even subjects himself as exempted to the law.

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

    Good refers to an act which has a positive or pleasing effect to someone while right refers to an act done for what is proper or just. Good conforms to what is desirable while right conforms to what is appropriate. Good is based on perspective and may be influenced by emotions while right is based on reason.

    Good is not always right because it may seem good to one person but bad to another. It may seem good for others to lie to their parents so that their little sister/brother won’t be punished for the wrongdoing s/he had done. It may seem good for others to let others look at their papers while having an exam so that his/her friend won’t fail. It may also seem good for the terrorists to kill people just so that the government would give them what they want. Actions may be morally wrong but rationally right. It may be right, but we just don’t see it at the time.

    2. Which is prior, the good or the right?
    I think that the good is prior to the right.

    It may look selfish to some but one’s own good is the first thing that will come to one’s mind. If it’s for his own good, no matter what the process it has undergone, as long as it’s outcome is favorable, then it will always be good for him.

    The right will always be prior to the good because we can’t deny the fact that what is right will always be good.

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

    I am liberal regarding the issue on the Reproductive Health bill.

    Conservatives are those that limit changes or traditional in style. Their argument is that the RH bill is anti-life while liberals are those that favor reforms. Their argument opposes that of the conservatives.

    I think that there’s nothing wrong using contraceptives and such because it hinders the creation therefore, it does not kill/hurt anyone so it does not promote abortion. And if this is the case, then it helps lessen the population, which results to poverty which is the root of many crimes. The only problem is that it MAY be seen that this bill promotes women as objects of lust.

    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 Philippine Constitution.
    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.

    Section 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.

    I think that the Philippine Constitution is liberal. It is liberal because it does not hinder freedom and treats each individual equally. I think it should stay as it is because people are just like puppets in a conservative constitution.

  50. 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.

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 )

w

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: