(CBCP News) In the heat and passion of our political exchanges, as in the many other fields like in sports, entertainment, social issues, etc., we should try our best to be sober enough to keep a firm grip on what would constitute as moral and immoral views and to resist the strong temptation to fall into all kinds of rationalizations to justify certain positions that we hold, either individually or as a group.
Nowadays, especially in the political field, a lot of rationalizations are made. Many people are of the view that because of a certain problem that is widely considered as raging and harmful to a large sector of the populace, certain drastic measures can be made.
In theory, of course, these measures can and even ought to be done. Serious problems that affect the lives of many have to be met with forceful, vigorous and hopefully effective solutions.
But for all this theoretical practicality of this radical and even extreme approach to such problems, morality should never be sacrificed. We don’t do evil so that a certain good may be achieved.
That the end never justifies the means is a classic moral principle that will never go obsolete. Violating this principle can only trigger a vicious cycle of hatred and revenge that would divide people into unfair and inhuman categories and would perpetuate the law of Talion, a tit-for-tat kind of culture where mercy has no place in the pursuit for justice. Violating this principle violates the very nature and the law of our freedom itself.
Nowadays, many people, including our leaders, appear to be unclear about what is moral and what would make a human act, personal or collective, immoral. In the case of the extrajudicial killings, for example, many would justify it because the intention is supposed to be good, or it has lowered down the rate of criminality, or it is supposed to be an expression of a strong and relevant political will, or that there were more EJKs in the past, etc.
These are pure rationalizations. Forgotten is the objective evaluation of the morality of the act itself. It seems that even our leaders do not know anymore where the sources of morality have to be taken. That one has to consider the object of the act, the intention and the circumstances is not anymore done.
Things now seem to depend only on a certain idea of political effectiveness based on some statistics, popularity and acceptance of at least a simple majority of the people, or profitability. It seems morality is now measured by these criteria.
Aside from EJK, other immoral acts are now being justified. Detraction is one, as shaming by exposing the hidden faults of some public figures is made. The Catechism says that especially in the media, “the information must be communicated honestly and properly with scrupulous respect for moral laws and the legitimate rights and dignity of the person.” (Compendium 525)
Vengeance is another. And all forms of insults and personal derision are hurled. Fallacies are now the new logic. There are now all sorts of misinformation and disinformation glutting the media.
This is the new challenge we have.