CHAPTER 3

MAN AND HIS ENDS

 SOME ULTIMATE GOALS IN LIFE
• Not all men have the same ultimate goals in
life. They vary in their ethical views. As a
result, their supreme goods differ from one
another.
• Common to them, however, is that all their
ultimate ends are to be attained in this world.
• Mundane in nature, such life’s highest goals
are NOT PERMANENT.
 Di Napoli generally classify them:
1. Materialistic Ethics – SUPREME GOOD OF
HUMAN LIFE ARE HUMAN PLEASURES AND
SATISFACTION (MGA KALAYAWAN)

Examples: Sexual desire, love of money, doing

vices (drugs, gambling etc)
 MATERIALISTIC
ETHICS

2 TYPES

HEDONISM UTILITARIANISM

HIGHEST END OF ULTIMATE END IS THE

HUMAN LIFE IS IN
SENSUAL PLEASURES
(MGA KALAYAWAN)
PROPONENTS: ARISTIPPUS
AMONG THE GREEKS AND
HELVETIUS
POSSESSION OF POLITICAL
POWER (PAGKAKAROON
NG MALAKING
KAPANGYARIHAN SA
LAHAT NG MGA BANSA)
PROPONENTS: EPICURUS
AND HIS FOLLOWERS
(LUCRETIUS AND HORACE)
Social Utilitarianism teaches that:
- The greatest value of man consists of the
MAXIMUM WELFARE OF THE ENTIRE
SOCIETY. (PARA SA KAPAKANAN NG MGA
TAO SA LIPUNAN)

Proponents are BENTHAM AND STUART-MILL.

It is the same as Russia’s communism of Karl

Marx.
2. Ultra-spiritualism – ULTIMATE END OF MAN IS
MORE ON SPIRITUAL MATTERS AND VIRTUES.
(MGA BAGAY PANG-ESPIRITWAL)
ULTRA-SPIRITUALISM

GRECO-ROMAN HUMANISTIC
STOICISM PERSONALISM

ABSTINENCE OF HUMAN PERFECTION

SENSUAL PLEASURE THROUGH
(PAGPIGIL SA MGA KNOWLEDGE, VIRTUE
KALAYAWAN) AND HONOR.

PROPONENTS: ZENO, OF PROPONENT:

CITIUS, CHRYSIPPUS CHRISTIAN WOLF
AND SENECA (1679-1754)
3. Progressive Ethics – it takes INDEFINITE
PROGRESS, MATERIAL OR SPIRITUAL, AS THE
ULTIMATE END OF MAN.

Aristotle, a Greek proponent states that the:

- Final goal of man is the continuous acquisition
of all temporal goods, which may be socio-
economic-political, or cultural and moral
progress, taken as a whole, as a general or
individual well-being in society. (PAG-UNLAD SA
ASPETONG PULITIKAL, PANLIPUNAN AT
KAGANDAHANG-ASAL)
PROGRESSIVE ETHICS LEADERS:
• Immanuel Kant
• Georg Wilhelm Friedrich Hegel
• Auguste Comte
• Herbert Spencer and;
• Henri Bergson
All of these life goals by certain proponents as their end fall short
of the ABSOLUTE AND PERMANENT AND EVERLASTING but
CANNOT be accepted as the ULTIMATE END OR SUMMUM
BONUM.

WHY?

Because they are good and satisfying to man ONLY FOR A CERTAIN
PERIOD OF TIME AND SPACE. (Ang mga bagay na ito ay
PANANDALIAN LAMANG. Nakaukol lamang sa takdang oras lamang
sa mundo)

Those do not fully satisfy the ultimate need of man for eternal
HAPPINESS. They do not satiate man’s eternal quest for lasting
happiness. (HINDI ITO MAGDUDULOT NG WALANG KATUMBAS NA
KALIGAYAHAN)
These ultimate values ignited the following
remarks:
1. Temporal happiness (PANANDALIANG
KALIGAYAHAN) – egoistic (self-interest), limited
to temporal values and lack of foundation for
moral imperative. It ignores divine values and it
does not give meaning to human suffering.
(HINDI NAKATUON SA MGA PAGPAPAHALAGA SA
TAO, ANG GUSTO NILA’Y MAKAMTAN ANG
KUNG ANO ANG GUSTO NILA.)
2. Self-perfection and well being – individualistic
hence egoistic: lacking superior values like love
and concern for others, limited in the naturalist
sense, denying religious and divine values.
(NAKATUON LANG SA PANSARILING
PAGBABAGO NGUNIT WALANG
PAGMAMALASAKIT SA KAPWA. ANG GUSTO
LANG AY MAIAYOS LANG ANG SARILI AT HINDI
ANG KAPWA.)