Popular Posts

Friday, January 25, 2019

Nepotism: A bestowed privilege or breach of professionalism


By Ronalyn R. Tagudin
Ph.D. Development Management Student


ABSTRACT
Nepotism should not be considered as a habitual management practice. It is considered illegal and immoral because it impedes the right of someone to fairness and breach the ethics in public service. Making nepotism as a relative choice could bring negative social and economic impact. In the studies of  Puiu (2004), “nepotism upsets trust and resulting in unethical management, owing to the ability of a select few to weaken control measures on account of their personal relationship with the policy-maker, and by reason of their not being easily dismissed or replaced by others”. Workforces may stop giving their best and accept a career at their current level. The favored treatment of one individual over another, without taking into account the relative merit of the respective individuals, signifies nothing but victimization of an individual. Thus one has to avoid nepotism because this is not a bestowed privilege to someone and considered as breach of professionalism, therefore it is contrary to the idea of Adam Bellow (2003) that states “nepotism works, it feels good, and is generally the right thing to do”.

Keywords:     nepotism, illegal, immoral, breach of professionalism, unethical management 

INTRODUCTION


Most often, nepotism is considered inherent in an organization. Nowadays, there is no such thing as transactions free from family connections or kin ties especially towards a certain position. Is this an act of bestowed privilege to someone closer to the management? Maybe it’s a yes! It is considered as a battle of professionalism with regards to competence and abilities or the notion that favoritism cannot be avoided. The dilemma is that is nepotism really ethical in any perspective? Should personal loyalty and intimacy outweigh competence, seniority and the merit system? This article is an avenue to cite the intricacies of nepotism and how it works in an organization.

Nepotism in History
Looking back when authors wrote bases for the existence of nepotism in times it was noted already in America in the 18th century. The war against nepotism started with the abolition of English inheritance practices. The trend continued in the nineteenth century, with the creation of a federal civil service based on merit and efficiency rather than on family connections. Therefore, this would herald the defeat of the principles of freedom, meritocracy and equal opportunity, which were the ideals for which people fought in national revolution (Makabenta, 2014).
In the Philippines, nepotism is not without historical antecedents. The barangay of early Philippine society was viewed more as a socio-economic unit composed of members with consanguinial ties and those related by affinity. Cooperation in the community was a function of personal connection than pre-determined programs and impersonal procedures (Tendero, 2000). These historical antecedents nurtured a tradition and a culture which considered public office more as a source of private gain than a public trust.

Nepotism as a Negative Thing
Simply, nepotism is favoring relatives. Nepotism in the workplace occurs when employers favor relatives in making employment decision, with little to no regard for anything but kinship. It is readily innate in person’s mind that nepotism as a practice is a negative thing. An example is hiring or promoting relatives solely because they are family members, with no consideration of the qualifications or merits of other job candidates or employees. There is also an instance wherein all the members and close relatives of the family occupy the highest managerial and supervisory positions belonging to different divisions and sections. This scenario is very common in government practices that may lead to declining the quality of public service. If one is an employee working hard for a position became complacent due to the fact that another person closed to the management comes in to a higher position, does fairness exists? Does freedom to opportunity is achieve? How can one be favored in terms of others just because of knowing the “man” of the organization? Thus, social war begins to grow.
            The negative notion on nepotism was supported by the study of Arash & Tumer (2008) which stated that nepotism occurs when relations are more significant than the qualification or competency, skills, and experience and it affects the performance of employees as well as performance of the organization. It involves in hiring and firing of employees just to give priorities to their favorite ones. In this regard, it breaches the principles of professionalism. We all know ethical values and we can identify cases in which behavior may be wrong. According to Puiu (2004), some actions are definitely good or definitely bad, but others may be in a grey zone and make it difficult for a person to make the right decision or to reject someone or something.
            In addition, nepotism is a version of graft and corruption exemplified by favors showered on relatives by appointing them to government positions regardless of qualifications. The practice may be viewed as an aid to responsive management if blood relatives do their share in achieving organizational goals with minimum time and effort expended. On the other hand, nepotism can be pernicious to society if the relatives in the employ of government use blood relationship as the key to open themselves to the opportunity of improving their lives at the expense of public good and general welfare. It can foster the growth of dictatorship and the formation of “political dynasties” which the 1987 constitution prohibits.
The prohibition against nepotism is articulated best in the statement made by the late Ferdinand Marcos in 1972:
“Let no man who claims to be friend, relative or ally presume to seek license because of the relationship. If he offends the new society, he should be punished like the rest.”
            However, despite those cited negative sides of nepotism, Adam Bellow (2003) contradicts those statements in his writing that states “Nepotism is widely condemned yet even more widely practiced…this is not necessarily a bad thing. Nepotism, likewise, is universally condemned but seems just as ineradicable.” In his interview, he was asked “How did nepotism earn its bad name?” then he said:
“People began to feel that the American business elite was too nepotistic, they had gotten rich and given out partnerships to sons and sons in law, and they allowed family interests to outweigh business rationale. It was the subtext of the Depression, and it had a powerful and lasting effect on our view of nepotism and family management in general. After WWII, American business went global. There was a boom in the economy, and a new era of corporate management and governance was introduced. Along with that came efficiency, meritocracy, etc. It was the era in which nepotism rules were instituted in big corporations and government. And that was a good thing. It's not my purpose to say that nepotism should be left alone, because what you get then is what you see in Nigeria, India and Brazil.”
Bellow (2003) further added that:
“The New Nepotism, an improved American version of the old, is voluntary, not coercive; it springs from the motives of children, not the interest of parents. You can get in the door, but once inside, you will be under close scrutiny. By such standards, one wonders how he would assess the worthiness of the most powerful man on earth, who would not be in the Oval Office without his father’s name and help.”

In the Philippine context, there is a legal basis why nepotism should not prevail and practiced, not just as an unethical issue but also as an illegal management actions. As stated in the Revised Administrative Code of 1987 on the Civil Service Commission Chapter 8, Section 59 of Executive Order No. 292:
“Nepotism – all appointments in the national, provincial, city and municipal governments or in any branch or instrumentality thereof, including government-owned or controlled corporations, made in favor of a relative of the appointing or recommending authority, or the chief of the bureau or office, or of the persons exercising immediate supervision over him, are hereby prohibited.”

            Indeed, nepotism undermines public trust because it makes government looks like a family business run not for the interest of the many, the public, but for the families in power. It is also bad for the morale of the organization because it goes far beyond hiring, thus it remains as a problem every time raises and promotions occur.

Effects of Nepotism
In heavily nepotism-oriented organizations, the human resource management practices cannot work independently. Hiring relatives is easy and can lead to greater trust (what we call “swift trust”) if the relations get along and share a common purpose. According to Ombanda (2018), under such conditions appointments based on competence and knowledge accumulation seem impossible. Moreover, based on the study of Riggio (2012) nepotism becomes problematic when non-relative employees feel that there is unfair favoritism, and when relatives are hired over more competent non-relatives. There are consequences of nepotism (Brookins, 2017) as follows:
1. Risk of Legal Action
Organizations who practice nepotism could be at risk of getting sued by employees. Nepotism could result in a lawsuit if an employee or potential employee has proof that a company is using unfair hiring practices and when an employer or manager shows favoritism when it comes to salary, benefits and promotions towards their family members and friends, neglecting the needs of their other employees.
2. Lower Employee Morale
When nepotism has a negative effect on a workplace, employee morale decreases, which affect how smoothly the company operates and whether employees are productive. Employees may feel unappreciated, and as a result, they may lose their motivation to achieve their goals and accomplish their day to day tasks.
3. Get Accused of Favoritism
When a manager or business owner has a pre-existing relationship with an employee, they often get accused of favoritism
4. Risk of Family Feuds
When family members and close friends work for the same company, issues from their personal lives can easily turn into problems within the workplace. These feuds can cause major workplace disruptions, which can reduce overall productivity and negatively impact employee morale.
5. Consider Fellow Employees Incompetent
When employees are hired at a company because of nepotism, other employees may question whether the family members or friends have the necessary knowledge, skills and attitudes to perform their jobs. If employees question their abilities to do their jobs, they may show them less respect, ignore their ideas and instructions or comment to the employees that they were only hired because of their relationships with the management.

            Furthermore, Safina (2014) stated that nepotism could lead to personnel’s demotivation, having permanent fear and negative anticipatory thinking like the fear of demoting from position being occupied. This could result to apathy, loss of self-belief and abilities of an employee. Somehow, employees could feel social alienation, the feeling of being needless in the organization. Furthermore, employees could also experience the feeling of dismissal of high-potential co-workers desperate to occupy the desired position in view of the fact that it is already occupied by a favorite. In such a case, it destructs the foundation of teamwork and it creates weak and unhealthy organizational culture characterized by intrigues.

            Stated further, these notions were even strengthened by the writing of Wechsler (2009) when he stated that nepotism includes many of the basic government ethics issues like conflict of interest, misuse of office, preferential treatment, and patronage.

As such, it was noted that nepotism has a great impact on employees and the organization as a whole. It is similar to a calm river that when there is no unethical practices, the water is steady but when you throw a stone into the water it creates waves that affects its calmness. The stone is like the practice on nepotism, the larger the stone the greater its impact to the entire organization. Then when the water gets back into its calm state, the stone settles into the bottom of the river and it will never remove unless someone intervenes to eliminate it. At a long time that it was being practiced, nepotism will be imbedded in the organization until employees are already immune of such negative state that only acceptance will lessen the injustice within it, unless someone who is strong enough to fight will lead an action to change the way it was.

Avoid Nepotism
Dealing with nepotism in the workplace can be tough, especially if you’re receiving the short end of the stick while someone else is gaining opportunities due to what you perceive as unfair favoritism. The bottom line is that the way people respond to nepotism at work depends largely on the candidate’s qualifications and self-awareness, transparency in the hiring process and other variables. But if you find yourself in a work situation where nepotism is a flagrant problem that disrupts your health, workplace satisfaction and professional growth, look to these five ways to cope (Sun, 2017).

1. Check your feelings.

Take a deep breath. So before you jump the gun and scream “nepotism,” take a step back. Focus on maintaining a professional attitude and a strong performance. The last thing an employee with a legitimate complaint against their employer wants is to not be taken seriously because of some sort of technicality.

2. Be professional - very professional.

Let’s say it’s definitely nepotism, and that person benefitting is an unqualified, obnoxious monster. You can’t control someone else’s behavior, but you can be responsible for your own. Double down on professionalism, even if you are being provoked or plan on leaving the organization. You should keep doing all the things that professional people do: be courteous, show up on time, follow through on your responsibilities and keep growing your learning and skills.

3. Document your great work at the organization.

Often in cases of nepotism, what is most frustrating is that a person feels overlooked because of opportunities given to someone perceived as less qualified. So, your best bet to get what you want (say, a raise or promotion) is to not make it about the other person. Harness data and document what amazing things you have done over time.

4. Talk it out with a carefully selected individual in the organization.

Nepotism is dangerous territory - especially depending on whom the nepotism involves. As such, employees need to proceed with caution and be careful about whom they trust with their complaints. With this in mind, if you need to report the person benefiting from nepotism, HR is almost always the wrong choice. Instead, identify a third-party ally - someone higher up than you, and thus has more power within the organization, but has no skin in the game. As with any complaint, documentation and witnesses are important.

5. Focus on what you can do for your health and happiness right now.

Dealing with nepotism at work can be stressful, and the matter won’t be resolved overnight. Patience is crucial. Some might feel compelled to act out of emotion, but it’s best to build a case with evidence and details including any information from colleagues who may be experiencing the same things you are before approaching anyone. And consider this for the bigger picture: Nepotism is everywhere. In some instances, it can hinder you professionally and be toxic. But that’s not every case. Know that people may not realize they’re acting partially. So it’s best to approach any conversation about partial behavior at work as something you’ve noticed, not something that’s been done to you.

CONCLUSION
Nepotism is not a good practice because it is against fairness, freedom, professionalism and considered illegal management practice. According to Oseña (2008), nepotism is one pernicious evil impeding the civil service and the efficiency of its personnel.
This reminds the employees and the entire organization that the basic purpose of the objective of the prohibition against nepotism strongly indicates that the prohibition was intended to be a comprehensive one. The court was unwilling to restrict and limit the scope of the prohibition which is textually very broad and comprehensive. If not within the exceptions, it is a form of corruption that must be nipped in the bud or abated whenever or wherever it raises its ugly head.
Nepotism is, not a petty offense. Its deleterious effect on government cannot be over-emphasized. And it is a stubborn evil (Oseña, 2008). The objective should be to eliminate nepotic acts, hence, erroneous decisions allowing nepotism cannot be given immunity from review, especially judicial review. Therefore nepotism must be avoided by all means, thus the idea of Bellow (2003) is being argued and rejected as there are legal basis that supports the unethical side of favoring nepotism.

REFERENCES
Arash, H., Tumer, M. (2008). Nepotism, Favoritism and Cronyism: A Study of Their Effects on Job Stress and Job Satisfaction in the Banking Industry of North Cyprus. Social Behavior and Personality. Vol. 36(9), pp. 1237-1250. Retrieved, January 20, 2019.
Bellow, Adam. (2003). In Praise of Nepotism. https://www.penguinrandomhouse.com/books/11081/in-praise-of-nepotism-by-adam-bellow/9780385493895/. Retrieved, January 22, 2019.
Brookins, Miranda. (2017). Consequences of Nepotism. https://bizfluent.com. Retrieved, January 20, 2019.
Makabenta, Yen. (2014). Of Course, It’s Nepotism. The Manila Times. Retrieved, January 20, 2019.
Ombanda, Paul Olendo. (2018). Nepotism and Job Performance in the Private and Public Organizations in Kenya. International Journal of Scientific and Research Publications, Volume 8, Issue 5 ISSN 2250-3153. http://dx.doi.org/10.29322/IJSRP.8.5.2018.p7762. Retrieved, January 20, 2019.
Oseña, Meyrick Andrew S. Ll.B. (2008). The Quickfinder Political Law
Puiu, Silvia. (2004). Ethics Management in Public Sector – Background and Tools. www.sciencedirect.com. Retrieved, January 20, 2019.
Riggio, Ronald E. Ph.D. (2012). Is Nepotism a Good Thing or Bad? https://www.psychologytoday.com. Retrieved, January 20, 2019.
Safina, Dinara. (2014). Favouritism and Nepotism in an Organization: Causes and Effects. www.sciencedirect.com. Retrieved, January 20, 2019.
Sun, Carolyn. (2017). 5 Simple Ways to Handle Nepotism in the Workplace. https://www.entrepreneur.com/slideshow/302245. Retrieved, January 22, 2019.
Tendero, Avelino P. (2000). Theory and Practice of Public Administration in the Philippines Revised Edition
The Revised Administrative Code of 1987 on the Civil Service Commission Chapter 8, Section 59 of Executive Order No. 292
Wechsler, Robert. (2009). Why Nepotism Is Relatively Unethical. www.cityethics.org. Retrieved, January 20, 2019.

Friday, January 11, 2019

Reflecting on Pope Francis' encyclical on care for our common home (LAUDATO SI)


By Fides Bernardo A. Bitanga
Saint Louis University, Baguio City

Introduction
            In this paper, I would like to summarize the main features of the Encyclical Letter “Laudato Si” of the Holy Father Francis on Care for our Common Home. I would be making comparison between its features to some documents written by thinkers. I would also be presenting my own view on the topic at hand by highlighting the dialogical character of ethics (environmental ethics) and the open, integrative and building-tendency of the human person. In doing so, it is my hope of contributing to the growing philosophical debate on ethics in general and environmental ethics in particular.
A Summary of Pope Francis’ Laudato Si
What are the main features of the Encyclical Letter?
Laudato Si is Pope Francis’ Encyclical on the environment or on the Care for Our Common Home. Laudato Si means “Praise be to you”.[1] This is the first line of a canticle by St. Francis of Asissi. The whole canticle actually shows St. Francis  praising God with all of his creation.
In Laudato Si #3, Pope Francis states the goal of the document: “In this Encyclical, I would like to enter into dialogue with all people about our common home”.[2] The pope initiates a dialogue on the environment or the oikos (home or house). And this conversation, that the pope would like to start, is to all. Normally, papal documents are addressed to the bishops or the lay faithful of the Catholic Church. But Laudato Si, like the Pacem in Terris of Pope John XXIII’s (also a saint), Pope Francis sends his message to all people.
What is the goal of this dialogue? The Holy Father said: “I urgently appeal, then, for a new dialogue about how we are shaping the future of our planet. We need a conversation that includes everyone, since the environment challenge we are undergoing, and its human roots, concern and affect us all.”[3]


[1] Laudato Si, #1.
[2] Ibid, #3.
[3] Ibid,#14.


Why there is a need to talk about the oikos or home? At the heart of the document is Pope Francis’ reading of the present situation of the people and the world, and his appeal for change or conversion. In Laudato Si #217, the pope said - “The ecological crisis is also a summons to profound interior conversion. It must be said that some committed and prayerful Christians, with the excuse of realism and pragmatism, tend to ridicule expressions of concern for the environment. Others are passive; they choose not to change their habits and thus become inconsistent. So what they all need is an ‘ecological conversion’, whereby the effects of their encounter with Jesus Christ become evident in their relationship with the world around them. Living our vocation to be protectors of God’s handiwork is essential to a life of virtue; it is not an optional or a secondary aspect of our Christian experience.”[4]

The​ Laudato Si ​ covers vast intellectual territory and a multitude of themes in its 40,000 words. In an outline form, its six chapters are arranged in the following:
CHAPTER ONE – WHAT IS HAPPENING TO OUR COMMON HOME
CHAPTER TWO – THE GOSPEL OF CREATION
CHAPTER THREE – THE HUMAN ROOTS OF THE ECOLOGICAL CRISIS
CHAPTER FOUR – INTEGRAL ECOLOGY
CHAPTER FIVE – LINES OF APPROACH AND ACTION
CHAPTER SIX – ECOLOGICAL EDUCATION AND SPIRITUALITY.

Some of the most important issues or problems discussed in the encyclical are the following: on the effects of the market on the environment[5], on the false belief in technology[6], on global warming[7], on science and technology as a belief system[8], on the environment and the poor[9], on the right balance with the respect of the environment and humanity[10], and on consumerism[11).
There are also some other topics, issues and problems mentioned in the encyclical, like: duty of the individual, water as fundamental right, social media’s effect on culture, transgender issue, overpopulation, abortion, genetically modified food, and dirty politics.
Like any other encyclical, the pope gives hope on this kind of situation. He said - “Yet all is not lost. Human beings, while capable of the worst, are also capable of rising


[4] Ibid, #217.
[5] Ibid, #190.
[6] Ibid, #105.
[7) Ibid, #24-26.
[8] Ibid, #106.
[9] Ibid, #48.
[10] Ibid, #118.
[11] Ibid, #204.

above themselves, choosing again what is good, and making a new start, despite their mental and social conditioning. We are able to take an honest look at ourselves, to acknowledge our deep dissatisfaction, and to embark on new paths to authentic freedom. No system can completely suppress our openness to what is good, true and beautiful, or our God-given ability to respond to his grace at work deep in our hearts. I appeal to everyone throughout the world not to forget this dignity which is ours. No one has the right to take it from us.”[12]

Arguments against Laudato Si by some thinkers
Capaldi versus Pope Francis. In “A Critique of Pope Francis’s Laudato Si”, Nicolas Capaldi said – “Environmental degradation is not the product of technology but the result of not enough technology; poverty is not the product of market economies but the lack of a viable market economy; social dysfunction is not the product of individual autonomy but the failure of traditional communities to adapt to the challenges and promises of modern individualism; political short-sightedness is not a reflection of limited national governments but a product of political economy hubris as well as the absence of the rule of law.”[13] In this statement, Capaldi summarizes five (5) arguments. For the purposes of this paper, however, only three (3) arguments of Capaldi will be accommodated to give room for another thinker.
The first argument is against the pope’s limited concept of environment or ecology. Capaldi states that – “In his endeavor to sacralize the earth, the Pope presumes that the only relevant frame of reference is planet Earth. We do not just live on planet Earth; planet Earth is a part of a larger solar system which in turn is part of a larger, perhaps infinite, universe. To assume that what we think we know now is true of the entire universe is the fallacy of composition (i.e., what is true of the part is true of the whole).”[14] Today’ ecology is of bigger issue and larger questions, like: “Are we destined to occupy only the earth? Are there habitable planets elsewhere in the universe? What happens to humanity when the sun, our star, begins to cool and finally burns out? Are we limited just to the resources on earth or can resources from elsewhere be obtained?”[15]
The second argument is against the pope’s lack of confidence to science, market and technology. Capaldi said – “The Pope has also dismissed the idea that future technology can rectify these issues. He eschews “blind confidence in technical


[12] Ibid, #205.
[13] Nicholas Capaldi, “A Critique of Pope Francis’s Laudato si” in Seattle University Law Review Vol. 40 (Seattle: Seattle University, 2017), 1261.
[14] Ibid, 1271.
[15] Ibid. 

solutions,” as well as “irrational confidence in progress and human abilities” or “the myth of progress.” He asserts, without qualification or support, the claim that “it is not possible to sustain the present level of consumption in developed countries.” He is opposed to “buying the organs of the poor for resale” but does not explain how we can obtain enough of those organs to save lives without a market or without advances in medical technology.”[16] Furthermore, on the advancement of science and technology, Capaldi asked – “why assume that the only purpose of the Technological Project is to improve the material condition of humanity? Starting with Locke, and as highlighted by Hegel, the Technological Project can be viewed as a spiritual quest, one in which the transformation of the world becomes an expression of human freedom and creativity, not domination.”[17]
The third argument is against the pope’s inaccurate reading of poverty, and against the pope’s preference of Rousseau’s Equality Narrative (with Aristotle and Thomas Aquinas) over Locke’s Liberty Narrative. Capaldi asked - How are we to understand ‘poverty’?[18] According to him latest studies on world poverty show that: (1) poverty exists precisely in those countries which fail to incorporate the Lockean narrative of the Technological Project, market economies, limited government, the rule of law, and the culture of personal autonomy, (2) the non-Catholic countries of China and India, which used to be the poster children of poverty, have become prosperous to the extent that they have adopted the Technological Project and market economies, and (3) the more countries adopt additional features of the Lockean narrative, the more they become increasingly politically free, increasingly responsible, and less corrupt.[19]
MacDonald versus Pope Francis. Eric MacDonald, in his article A Short Critique of Laudato Si in 2015, he argued that Pope Francis was not saying everything, choosing not to engage on resolving overpopulation by way of reproductive health law although there are clear scientific grounds in favour of the said law, and this is the cause of some inconsistencies in his encyclical. In Laudato Si #50, for instance, the pope said - “Instead of resolving the problems of the poor and thinking of how the world can be different, some can only propose a reduction in the birth rate. At times, developing countries face forms of international pressure which make economic assistance contingent on certain policies of ‘reproductive health’….  To blame population growth instead of extreme and selective consumerism on the part of some, is one way of refusing to face the issues.”[20]


[16] Ibid, 1272.
[17] Ibid, 1275.
[18] Ibid, 1277.
[19] Ibid.
[20] Laudato Si, #50. 

A good example is the relationship of population to global warming. Researches and studies tell that - With the increase of population, global warming gas emissions have also increased. They have not increased in direct proportion to population growth, for developed nations are the largest users of carbon based fuels, as well as the largest consumers of methane producing livestock. It is estimated that one portion of methane produces 100 times more global warming effect than one equal portion of CO2, so the relatively small amount of methane (compared with CO2 emissions, even though, unlike CO2, methane does dissipate into the atmosphere and is eventually lost in space) has very serious global warming potential, and as the permafrost melts in the North, significantly large amounts of methane are released into the atmosphere, with the possibility of disastrous consequences for the life world, which is already under threat from increasing encroachment of human settlement and land use on the habitat of huge numbers of animal and plant species, and the rate of extinction has increased significantly.”[21] Hence, there is no doubt, increase in population translates into increased global warming and its follow on effects.
An increased population, therefore, cannot be ignored. It is a problem, and it is a reasonable assumption that at present growth rates, the number of people will soon exceed the carrying capacity of the earth. It is time to think of a sustained development (that is development that provides for stable or growing economies and sound ecological management, and equitable income for all).[22]

A reflection on Laudato Si
            In this section, I wish to present my personal views on the topic at hand. Despite some heavy arguments from a lawyer-ecologist and from a scientist-environmentalist, the pope’s encyclical is not totally destroyed. There can still be some valid points to be re-told.
            Argument Number 1. The encyclical speaks not only to all people, but to the very nature of the human person. The ecological consciousness that Pope Francis wants to be possessed by people is very possible. It is because the human person’s existence is openness to others and the world.
            With human existence as openness, one can easily embrace ecological consciousness, be ecologically concern, make some things necessary for human development, and readily and openly accept the challenge for ecological conversion. In other words, it is but natural for the person to be ecological. This is how it is explained


[21] Eric MacDonald, “A Short Critique of Laudato Si” posted on July 24, 2015 by Veronica Abbass.
[22] Ibid.
What is existence?
Existence refers to what is specific to the human person as human person. The human person is characterized by existence by which he or she is distinguished from all other beings that inhabit the universe. What is its unique character? Such is to be understood in its literal sense – that the term comes from ex (out) and stare (to stand). The human person is therefore a being who stands out of himself (or herself). He or she is a being with an ecstatic nature, for he or she goes out of himself or herself by relating with the objects in the world.[23] 
According to John Zwaenepoel, the human person is not simply a thing among other things, nor a pure interiority turned inward upon itself, shut up in its own immanent representations.[24]  The human person realizes himself or herself as an interiority with consciousness and freedom only by going outside himself or herself. He or she sees as his or her responsibility to get near to things by way of a contact with the world and with other people. The human person’s consciousness or thinking is essentially and from the very beginning an openness towards what is other than itself. Hence, in his or her reflection upon his or her very being or very existence, he sees the need to be in harmony with others and to be in harmony with the world.
In like manner, Merleau-Ponty, Sartre and Heidegger may also have something to say along this line of thinking. First, Merleau-Ponty said the human person is open as a “subject bound to the world”.[25]  The human person is never conceived in isolation or separation from the world and the world is also never conceived without the human person.  Hence, for Merleau-Ponty, the human person is always of service to the world and vice versa.[26]
Second, Sartre, in his magnum opus, also said this is a ‘summoning of being’. [27] The human person is made open to be aware of being called. The human person is being called to be with the world and others. It is in being with the world and others that he or she experiences his or her best.


[23] Martin Heidegger, “The way Back into the Grounds of Metaphysics,” Existentialism from Dostoevsky to Sartre, Walter Kaufmann, editor (New York: Meridian Books, 1956), 214.
[24] John P. Zwaenepoel, Phenemenological Psychology (Makati: San Carlos Major Seminary, 1963), 51. This book was not intended to be for sale. It was in fact labelled as ‘for private use only’.
[25]   Adrian van Kaam, Existential Foundations of Psychology (Garden City: Doubleday & Company, Inc., 1966), 15.
[26] Gary Brent Madison, The Phenomenology of Merleau-Ponty, (Athens: Ohio University Press, 1981), 34-37.
[27] Thody, Philip (1964) Jean-Paul Sartre. London: Hamish Hamilton.

Third, and for Heidegger, the human person as being-in-the-world (most especially that part - being-in[28]) expresses a relationship of being actively concerned with the objects in the world, like: having to do with something, producing something, attending to something or looking after it, and etc.  The human person cares about others and about the world. He or she strives to be in a harmonious relationship with others and the world.
            Argument Number 2. The human person as open to others and the world is moving for integration. He or she integrates himself and herself not just to others and the world, but particularly to the different dimensions of existence: social, psychological, cultural, biological, and metaphysical. This integration is likened to ecological balance and management. It is therefore by nature that the human person calls for harmony, unity, balance, goodness and beauty.
The human person, by nature, is integral. He or she seeks, in his or her quest for authenticity, for integration. According to John Zwaenepoel in his Phenomenological Psychology in 1963, the human person integrates himself or herself into the biological world and the social world, without being absorbed by such.[29]  He or she also integrates himself or herself into the metaphysical. 
In order to realize himself/herself, the human person has to open up to two realities, namely: (1) to the whole of reality and (2) to the Absolute, who is the foundation of all reality. According to Zwaenepoel, this opening up is likened to a ‘vocation’.[30] Zwaenepoel used ‘vocation’ to describe this phenomenon, a term of Gabriel Marcel. The term ‘vocation’ is Marcel’s expression of the metaphysical experience.  In other words, without denying, the human person is but ‘naturally’ exposed to reality (the world, the society, the environment, all that is in it and all activities attached to it) and the Absolute (God, faith, and religion).[31]
By embracing these, he or she makes himself or herself available and ‘of service’ to the Absolute, makes himself or herself authentic, and the realities (the world, the society, environment, etc.) shine.
Argument Number 3. The human person as open and integral is a world-builder. Embracing the world and making it part of life is not enough, it is changing it, improving it, preserving it, caring for it, and more.


[28] Dreyfus, H. L., 1990, Being-in-the-World: A Commentary on Heidegger's Being and Time, Division I, Cambridge, Mass.: MIT Press.
[29] Zwaenepoel, 22.
[30] Ibid.
[31] Ibid.

Albert Dondeyne, in his work in 1963, spoke about the human person and the human world relationship. He said “I am influenced by the world in which I dwell and I influence this world ; I dwell, inhabit, sojourn and others in the world; I cultivate, transform, humanize, and personalize the world by my simple human presence.”[32]
These words of Dondeyne point to the possibility of the metaphysical to be viewed as ecological. The human person relates to the world, and the world relating to the human person. There is interaction and harmony between the two.
In a more or less similar thought, Gabriel Marcel considers the primitive relation between the self and the world to be one of exchange, involvement, and participation.[33]  This is either by taking part in and of being a part of that in which one takes part. Furthermore, Marcel spoke of a world as ‘my’ world, a world in which I feel ‘at home’.[34]
Marcel underlines the value of participation, involvement, and exchange. All these ideas make one feel at home. Because of the rejuvenating power of always being ‘at home’, one comes home, one participates in clean-ups, one leads movements to eradicate all elements that would destroy ‘home’.
Heidegger spoke of being as someone who realizes itself in the world, associates the world with its project and sees the world in the light of these projects.[35]  The human person is a world-builder. He or she arranges the world around him or her. With these thoughts, it is possible to speak of the farmer, the world of the teachers, the world of drivers, and others.  These different worlds are so many different ways of arranging the world in general.
Argument Number 4. Pope Francis wants to have a dialogue to all people of the world. This is the kind of ethics the pope is proposing. His reading of the whole ecological situation may be very limited and his suggestions in resolving the ecological crisis may not be satisfying or holistic, but the supreme pontiff is not closed. He is open for dialogue.
What is the connotation of this ethics of dialogue? There is a common effort for the common home. People would come together for one purpose. There can be a unified effort in addressing the crisis. Solutions are open for corrections, revisions, development and improvement. There is cooperation, unity and solidarity.


[32] Albert Dondeyne, Contemporary European Thought and Christian Faith (Pittsburgh: Duquesne University Press, 1963), 15.
[33] Kaam, 23.
[34] Ibid.
[35] Ibid.

It tells also that this kind of ethics is a process. It is an open methodology. It may take time as people would find better ways to address the issue. It attempts to consider all sides. It will be difficult but this time there is a direction to what people will be doing. 

Some concrete steps towards ecological consciousness and conversion
            This dialogue is inclusive and action-oriented or a solution-oriented activity. And the actions that people can start doing in the first place is - becoming more aware of everyone’s connectedness. The care for one another and creation includes the understanding that “everything is connected,”[36] and that the economy, politics, community involvement, and technology all affect the future of the planet and humankind.
How can we become more aware of our connectedness?
There should be changes to lifestyle and consumption habits. These can make a big difference. For example, get a re-usable water bottle, take shorter showers, walk, ride on a bike or take public transportation instead of driving, recycle, compost food waste, and buy energy efficient appliances.
One should make changes institutionally. It could be at your parish, school, or workplace. For example, start recycling and composting, use washable dinnerware in cafeterias, share electronically instead of printing, do an energy audit, and install solar panels.
One should support local efforts to solve environmental problems. Community groups around the country are working to make city, county, and state-wide changes that can make a big difference. One should find out what is going on locally and get involved.
Finally, a difficult move yet it is possible, one should contact your members of Congress (or representatives) to share Pope Francis’ message and urge action or enact laws to address climate change.


[36] Laudato Si, #91.

References
Adrian van Kaam, Existential Foundations of Psychology (Garden City: Doubleday &
            Company, Inc., 1966).

 Albert Dondeyne, Contemporary European Thought and Christian Faith (Pittsburgh:

Duquesne University Press, 1963).

Dreyfus, H. L., 1990, Being-in-the-World: A Commentary on Heidegger's Being and
            Time, Division I, Cambridge, Mass.: MIT Press.

Gary Brent Madison, The Phenomenology of Merleau-Ponty, (Athens: Ohio University
 Press, 1981), 34-37.

John P. Zwaenepoel, Phenemenological Psychology (Makati: San Carlos Major
 Seminary,     1963.

Laudato Si

Martin Heidegger, “The way Back into the Grounds of Metaphysics,” Existentialism from
Dostoevsky to Sartre, Walter Kaufmann, editor (New York: Meridian Books, 1956), 214.

Thody, Philip (1964) Jean-Paul Sartre. London: Hamish Hamilton..



Ethical management in tourism and hospitality industry

  MARK KELVIN C. VILLANUEVA Divine Word College of Laoag, Ilocos Norte, Philippines Abstract   This paper discusses the importance of bu...