Abstract
Killing
drug lords, pushers and users is considered a moral dilemma on the part of
government. On one side, the government is not happy to kill its own people
because its conscience would tell that it has to respect human life and human
dignity, human rights and the law of God. Holding such concept would mean following
the process of solving the problem and punish those who are found guilty in
jail. But it seems the government doubts if such method could guarantee
security, peace, order and economic prosperity for the country as a result. The
nation would be in jeopardy. On the other side, adopting the consequentialism
morality does not seem to guarantee the expected result. It is only
expectation. Killing does not guarantee that it will reduce crime and restore
security, peace, order and consequently economic prosperity. So what then? Not doing anything would be immoral on the
part of the government because it is its duty to solve the problem. Apparently, choosing one
method would not make it moral but it will only be a choice of lesser evil. Now the dilemma is what stand will the government uphold?
Will it follow the opinion or the doctrine of the Catholic Church or the Absolutists or following the
opinion of the consequentialists?
Key Words: Catholic Church’s teaching, absolutism and consequentialism
Introduction
The context of this article is
Philippines’ context. I write this article to provide some understandings about
the current concern in the society, particularly in the Philippines about
killing the drug lords, pushers and users. Everyday people are bombarded by
news about killings the drug users, pushers or Drug lords, but based on my own observation;
mostly those who are killed are the poor users and pushers. While the drug
lords are just listed and called to explain and after that, they may be cleared
or the case would be filed in court. There is a due process. This article
would delve on that issue. The numbers of people who have been killed are
increasing every day and as of October, 2016) the estimated numbers of those
who have been killed are around more than 3000 people. This is just after 4 months
in the office. The President has promised people that he will kill all until
the last drug lords and when the last drug lord will be killed is not certain. The worry increases and people start thinking
that they might be included unnecessarily in the list to be killed. As early as
July, some family members of the victims came out and complained to the media
that their brothers, sisters, father or mother have not been into drugs but
they have been killed. In other words, there are innocent people who have been
killed unnecessarily, however the government’s justification is that there is
no war without collateral damage.
In the beginning of war against
drug, or killing started, people seem to support the move of the President but
as events go on, when innocent people are also killed, the sentiments of people have
become divided. People start thinking that they could be possible candidates to
be killed and such fears trigger them to oppose government’s move to kill
without due process. The society becomes
divided, many are against the killing and many also are supportive of the
killing. Their stand on the issue is definitely influenced either by their
personal values or common ethical values or their religion. Thus the issue
becomes moral issue, no longer economic and political issue. The dilemma arises
due to the fact that not all subscribe to the same concept of morality which is
either absolutism/universalism or consequentialism. Some are taking the point of
consequentialism, that killing drugs users, pushers and drug lords would bring security,
safety, and peace and as a result it would bring security, order and peace. Further, such
situation will attract more investors to invest in the country and consequently
economic prosperity as a final outcome. While some argued that no matter
whatever the consequence might be, killing people to achieve such end is still
immoral. Now the question for us to be raised:
what will be the position of the government to solve the drug problem in
the country to be accepted morally? Is it killing or due process and imprisonment?
Philippines
and the Teaching of the Catholic Church
The Philippines is the 5th
largest Catholic Country in the world, and the largest in Asia (Inquirer
Global Nation. December 21, 2011).
According to the Philippine Daily Inquirer (2011), as cited from a
US-based research center, “Pew Research” that the Philippines remains to be the bastion
of Christianity in Asia with 86.8 million Filipinos or 93 percent of a total
population of 101,498,763 million, —adhering to the teachings of Jesus Christ.
Catholic religion in the Philippines was introduced by Spanish missionaries and
colonists, who arrived in the early 16th century in Cebu. Since then the
Catholic population is always growing and now it has a number of around 86
million Filipinos from 101 498 763 people, or roughly 86.8% of the population
profess Catholicism (Pew Research, 2012 & Countrymeters, 2016). Such figure indicates that majority of
Filipinos are professing Catholic faith and adhering to the teaching of the
Catholic Church which is based in the Bible and the Catholic Church believes
that the bible is written through the inspiration of the Holy Spirit. In other
words, the bible is the Words of God; it is the voice of God.
There are Ten Commandments in
the Bible and the fifth commandment is “Thou shall not kill”. The order not to
kill is coming from God and thus there is no discussion on the order, the
Church is just implementing it and sees to it all its followers are adhering to
such command. The discussion related to the motive, means, ends and consequence
does not really give much weigh to determine the morality of such act but those
discussions can only contribute to determine the gravity of the act, not to
determine the morality of the act. The act itself is by its nature is immoral. The
Catholic Church would always say that killing is immoral.
The underlying motivation of
such commandment is that “God alone is the Lord of life: no one can under any
circumstances claim for himself the right to directly to destroy the life of an
innocent person (CCC, 2258). Since life is given by God, then only God can take
the life of a person. God is the owner of life from the beginning to the end.
However, the Old Testament specifies the prohibition contained in the fifth
commandment, “Do not kill the innocent and the righteous (Ex.23:7, CCC2261).
Catechism of the Catholic Church document of the Philippines further emphasizes
that deliberate murder of an innocent person is gravely contrary to the dignity
of the human being, to the golden rule and to the holiness of the Creator
(CCC2261). Jesus in the Sermon on the
Mount repeated such commandment, “You shall not kill” (CCC, 2262).
The Ten Commandments and
particularly the fifth commandment have been governing principle of human
conduct of the Catholics. It is their belief that killing is immoral. It is a
fundamental principle of morality. Love toward oneself remains a fundamental
principle of morality. It is the basis for someone to respect human
dignity. Each one has the right to life,
even the criminals. However the Catechism of the Catholic Church further clarifies
the case of killing as a self-defense. It argues that someone who defenses his
life is not guilty of murder. The documents further argues that legitimate self
– defense can be not only a right but a grave duty for someone responsible for
another’s life, the common good of the family or of the state (CCC, 2264,
2265).
Now the question in mind, “Is
killing drug users, pushers, and drug lords” accepted as a legitimate defense
to defend the Filipinos and the Philippines?” Before answering such question,
let us get down to the drug problem reality. We cannot deny the fact about the
danger of drugs to the life of individual people and the life of a nation. The
composition of drugs is chemicals. Different drugs, because of their chemical
structures, can affect the body in different ways. In fact, some drugs can even
change a person's body and brain in ways that last long after the person has
stopped taking drugs, maybe even permanently (Gateway Foundation, 2011). Drugs
indirectly target the brain's reward system by flooding the circuit with
dopamine. Dopamine is a neurotransmitter present in regions of the brain that
regulate movement, emotion, cognition, motivation, and feelings of pleasure.
When drugs enter the brain, they can actually change how the brain performs its
jobs. These changes are what lead to compulsive drug use, the hallmark of
addiction (Gateway Foundation, 2011). In short, drugs cause malfunction of the
brain. Besides affecting the brain working system, drugs also weaken the immune
system, abnormal heart rate to heart attacks as a result of cardiovascular
conditions, liver damage or failure, stroke and brain damage. According to US
government report as cited by Alcoholrehab.com (2009) pointed out that drug
addiction in the Philippine appears to be on the rise. According to the report,
there are believed to be as many as 6.7 million drug abusers based on the
figures from 2004, a dramatic increase from 1972 when there was only believed
to have been around 20,000 drug users in the Philippines. Drug abusers cited in
the report, include not only methamphetamine (locally known as Shabu) but also
alcohol, marijuana, heroin, cocaine, opium, ecstasy and inhalants such as
nitrates and gasoline. However, the above data may be exaggerated because the
survey conducted by DDB (Dangerous Drug Board) last October 2016, estimated
that 4.8 million Filipinos aged 10-69 years old used illegal drugs at least
once in their lives (Gavilan, 2016). Though both data seems to be varied, but
both seems to point the same direction about the increase in numbers of those
who are taking drugs. Gavilan (2016) as based on the DDB report pointed that
the current drug use prevalence among Filipinos aged 10 to 69
years old is at 2.3%, or an estimated 1.8 million users. The number
seems to be on the rise as compared to previous year 2008, 1.7 million and 1.3
million last 2012. Meanwhile, data taken from the Philippine Drug Enforcement
Agency or PDEA (2016) states that, 11,132 out of 42,036 barangays in the
country are drug-affected as of December 2015. Given those figures, if not prevented,
then we can predict that every family will be affected by drugs as pointed out
by US National Drug Intelligence Center (2006). The US National Drug
Intelligence Center pointed out that consequence of drug abuse affect not only
individuals who abuse drugs but also their families and friends, various
businesses, and government resources. Now one might wonder, will it happen to
the future generation and the future of the Philippine if the drug problem is
not addressed now? If the trend is undisrupted, then for sure, it will lead to
the bankruptcy of society, period.
The main question above now can
be answered that war against drug is accepted. The Catechism of the Catholic
Church (1994) pointed out preserving the common good of the society requires
rendering the aggressor unable to inflict harm. For this reason, the
traditional teaching of the Church has acknowledged as well-founded the right
and duty of legitimate public authority to punish malefactors by means of
penalties commensurate with the gravity of the crime, not excluding, in cases
of extreme gravity, the death penalty. For analogous reasons those holding
authority have the right to repel by armed force aggressors against the community
in their charge (CCC, 2266). Thus, here the Catholic Church talks about
punishment that those who are guilty must be punished and the primary effect of
punishment is to redress the disorder caused by the offense. When the
punishment is voluntarily accepted by the offender, it takes the value of
expiation. Moreover, punishment has the effect of preserving public order and
safety of persons. Finally punishment has a medicinal value, as far as
possible; it should contribute to the correction of the offender (CCC, 2266).
Thus from the arguments above,
we can now say that war against drug is accepted but punishment or imprisonment is the end of the process, killing is not accepted,
except in the case of extreme gravity. However, killing or dead penalty here is done after due process has been observed and found the person to be guilty beyond reasonable doubts. To determine
the level punishment, then due process is needed. I really believe that since
the Philippines is predominantly catholic, majority of the population is influenced
by the teaching of the Catholic Church and thus consequently the method used by the government is against the teaching of Catholic Church and it is expected that those who are following the teaching of the catholic Church will go against the government's war on drugs. However, many also favor government's war on drug for practical reasons. Drugs have caused insecurity and affected businesses. It is on these reasons, we have seen
diverse reaction to killing drug users, pushers and drug lords.
Absolutism
The question that we have raised above is: “Is
killing drug lords, users and pushers acceptable morally? In the Philippines’ context as a Catholic
country or Christian country, we have answered that killing is not accepted but
punishment yes. It is against the law of God, the Ten Commandments,
particularly the fifth commandment. In the context Absolutism morality, the stand
of the Catholic Church is classified as absolutism. The absolutist argues that no
matter what the consequences might be, killing is still bad. Many
religions have absolutism moral
positions, and regard such system of morality as having been set by a deity, and therefore absolute, perfect
and unchangeable. The Catholic Church
bases its teaching on the bible and the bible is seen as the Words of God. What
the bible declares as immoral, and then it cannot teach otherwise except to
follow and live such teaching in life. Further, in determining morality of
certain act, the Catholic Church pointed out sources of morality and they are
the object chosen, the intention and actual consequence (CCC, 1750). In other
words, an act is moral if the object chosen is good, the intention is good and actual
consequence is good. Though the intention is good but if the means or the
object used to carry out such intention is bad, then it is still immoral.
Killing as the means to carry out good intention is not accepted, it is still
immoral. In the Ten Commandment, killing is already forbidden, and then
naturally it is immoral for those who belong to this religion. The absolutists believe that there are
absolute standards against which
certain act can be judged, and
that certain actions are right
or wrong, regardless of the context of the act. Thus, actions are
inherently moral or immoral, regardless of the consequence
of the act.
Absolutism
is developed by Immanuel Kant particularly his teaching on categorical
imperative. According to Immanuel Kant, it is imperative that every rational
agent has to follow and cannot do otherwise. The morality of an act does not
depend on the motive or the end. “Thou shalt not steal”, “Thou should not kill”
are examples of categorical imperative. This is an order and violate this order
is immoral. It is our moral duty to follow the order. For Kant there was only
one categorical imperative, which he formulated in various ways. “Act only
according to that maxim by which you can at the same time will that it should
become a universal law”. Another formula can be said in this way: “So act as to
treat humanity, whether in your own person or in another, always as an end, and
never as only a means.” (Encyclopedia Britannica, 2016).
What
does Kant mean by his categorical imperative based on such two statements
above? It just means that certain act is moral if the person allows other
people everywhere to do the same under the same situation. Example, I was
hungry along the way going to my farm and I saw a store along the road selling
bread. The owner was not there and I have no money. What should I do? If I do not
steal the bread, I will die, and so I stole the bread because I want to live.
The question is: will you allow other people everywhere to steal when they are
hungry? Will you allow other people to steal your bread when they are hungry?
Next, imagine the whole world are stealing when they are hungry, what would
happen? If the answer of those questions is NO, then it is imperative that you
should not steal. The same case is with the second categorical imperative which
is “to treat others as an end and never as only a means”. The rationale behind
the idea is the idea that all persons are subject, not objects and have dignity
and never treats them as objects. We ourselves do not want to be treated as
objects but we want to be treated as human persons as the golden rule says:
““Do unto others as you would have them do unto you” (Internet Encyclopedia of
Philosophy, 2016).
According
to those who are against the idea argue that for morals to be truly absolute they would have to have
a universally unquestioned source,
interpretation and authority, which critics claim, is impossibility. The absolutist would argue that the source
of their morality is unquestionable because it is coming from God which is in
the bible and Kant would also argue that the source of morality is human
reason, that every rational agent is capable of knowing the good and the
bad. Based on their argument, they would
argue that killing and stealing are undoubtedly accepted as immoral by all
rational agents out there. All rational agents would argue that killing
is inherently bad in itself. Since it is inherently bad, there is other
justification that can justify killing to be good. The absolutists would defend
that morals are inherent in the laws of the universe, the nature of humanity as rational being,
the will of God or some other fundamental source. Moral Absolutism
has been favoured historically
largely because it makes the creation
of laws and the upholding of the judicial
system much simpler, and manifested itself in outdated concepts such as
the Divine Right of Kings.
The idea of human right is originated from the idea
of absolutism. Human rights have
developed over time and the right of citizens have become of the world’s
debate. Since it is already a world issue, the United Nations has instituted a
human right commission and many nations from around the globe have approved
such commission and become member. Nations have signed the declarations written
about the basic rights and committed to be guided by it. Rights have existed
through the history of man. One development of the concept of the citizen’s
right and democracies came after the debate of the monarchy’s absolute power
over a single nation. This absolute power is known as absolutism. After the
debate of the king’s power, revolution occurred and gave rise to democracies
like the United States. These democracies granted right to the individual
citizens and political power, after the rejection of the divine rights of
kings. However, these rights were limited and the population were not given the
absolute freedom. With the promotion of democracies around the globe, rights
now have become a global issue. Since then, many nations around the globe have
given attention to the human rights as part of their commitment and those
nations have established their own Commission on Human Rights (CHR). Democratic
countries have made human right as part of the government concern (Sommerville
Commission on Human Rights, n.d). The Philippines is one of the democratic
countries in the world and thus it has a commission on human rights.
The stories of human rights continue. When the
monarchies formed in Europe, after the fall of Roman Empire, there came
philosophy called divine rights and absolutism. The form of its government is
similar to dictatorship. Such kind of government did not sit well with the
people and consequently the people rebelled against it and such rebellion
produced a way of thinking. This new way of thinking produced a new kind of
government and democracies which granted individual freedom and right to
individual citizens. There are already proclaimed inalienable rights of man which
is called basic rights and these rights are attached to the human person. These
rights are not given by the constitution or by the society but it is inherently
part of the human person (Kamenka, Vii. I).
Using the absolutism view and the concept of democratic
country such as the Philippines to evaluate the morality of killing drug lords,
pushers and users becomes simpler. Killing is bad and no justification can make
it moral. Killing violates the human rights, the right to live and against the
very basic moral principle to love one another as you love yourself. Using the
categorical imperative of Immanuel Kant, still killing is bad. The question to
be raised if we want to accept that killing is moral: do you want that other
countries do the same? Next, do you want to be killed if you are a user or
pusher or drug lord? Imagine a situation that the whole world is pushers and
users; do you want to kill them all? If your answer is no, then those are
indications that you should not kill.
Consequentialism
We have been observing that not all people are
against the killing of the drug lords, pushers and users. Quiet many of them
favor the government’s method of war against the drug users, pushers and drug
lords. They have a practical reason in mind that drug addicts are causing
insecurity in the streets and at the end; people are no longer free to roam
around at night time, thus limiting their freedom. For business minded persons, they favor the
method of the government because business needs security, peace and order. When
the security, peace and order are restored, business can flourish and it may
attract more investments. When the business or economy is growing, then the
employment is guaranteed, purchasing power improve, the life of people become
better. The consequentialists would argue that there will be positive outcome
as a result of killing; it will bring prosperity to the community or the
country.
Consequentialist argues that morality is
all about producing the right kinds of overall consequences (Internet
Encyclopedia of Philosophy, 2016) “Overall consequences”
of an action means everything the action brings about, including the action
itself. The idea behind consequentialism morality is that the output of
morality is to create a happy community/society, relieve suffering, restore
freedom, and promote survival of the species. Thus, if this is the idea of their
morality, then we can understand why some people are welcoming
killing. The consequentialists would not understand the point of absolutism
because they could not understand the reason why we should be moral, why we should
respect human rights, why we should obey the Ten Commandments, why we should
love one another. For them morality is not just for the sake of morality, of
being good all the time, but why we should be good. The consequentialists would
not oppose to the due process but they would raise question if those rules will
bring the necessary positive outcome.
Rule consequentialists would argue that moral
behavior involves following certain
rules, but that those rules should be chosen based on the consequences
that those rules have. They hold the
idea that a certain set of minimal
rules are necessary to ensure appropriate actions, while some hold that
the rules are not absolute and
may be violated if strict adherence to the rule would lead to much more undesirable consequences (The
Basic of Philosophy, 2016). Based on what is going on every day, the government
seems to adopt the consequentialism morality which is opposed by those who are
holding on the teaching of their religion which is absolutism.
Conclusion
After
presenting the view of morality based on religion, absolutism and
consequentialism, now we realize that these are the reasons behind why some
people accept the method of the government solving drug problems and why
many people rejects the method. Unless we reconcile the view of morality that
we are holding, then the society continues to be polarized or divided. This is
one of the dilemmas that the government is facing. The government is torn
between killing and punishment. Those who are holding absolutism morality
prefer punishment and those who are holding consequentialism morality prefer
killing. According to them, punishment seems to bring slow output but may not
be able to eradicate drug problem but killing seems to bring immediate result
and output. However, the absolutists would argue that killing drug lords,
pushers and users has never been a guarantee to security, peace and economic
prosperity. What stand will the government uphold? Following the Catholic
Church or the Absolutists or following the consequentialists? It is a dilemma
on the part of the government.
References
1. Countrymeters. 2016. Philippines Population. http://countrymeters.info/en/Philippinesdrug
2. DARA Thailand. 2016. Alcohol or Drug Problem.
http://alcoholrehab.com/
