How to be good?
Note the question mark: it is the most important part of the title. This is a column pocked with question marks; I do not have the answers, nor do I trust those who claim to have them. I am especially wary of people and groups who issue prescriptions about how we should live—too many of those become the stars of tabloid exposés.
We think our moral compasses are so finely-tuned that in moments of crisis we will always, automatically, do the right thing. We want to believe that when we are tested we will know exactly how to answer, and that answer will be firmly on the side of truth and justice. How do we know this? Where does our absolute certainty come from?
For most of us it springs from the fact that we have never been tested. I don’t mean the daily choices like, “Will I ignore that red light since there’s no traffic cop and everyone’s doing it?” Those split-second decisions we make every day may be an indicator of how we will behave at the “big” exams, but as Shakespeare frequently notes, humans have the amazing capacity to surprise themselves. The usurper, having murdered his way to the throne, discovers in his final battle that he does possess a king’s courage.
The only war most of us will fight is with ourselves. Lucky for us, though less conducive to Shakespearean character development.
What do I mean by the “big” exam? One day last week I woke up to the news that the former Armed Forces Chief of Staff and later Defense Secretary Angelo Reyes, one of the most powerful figures in the previous administration, had shot himself in the heart as he stood before his mother’s grave. As this apparent suicide followed Reyes’s appearance at the House investigation on military corruption, we all assumed that the two events were connected.
Immediately my mind went off in two tangents. The first was the cynical observer of Philippine politics tangent: He was probably guilty; suicide as a means of escape. The second was the literature major tangent, which tends to view suicide as a romantic gesture. As romantic gestures go it was huge, and we’re not even going into the cinematic nature of the act, a single gunshot shattering the morning air (Did birds fly up at the disturbance?), the bloodstain spreading over the tombstone. . .
How do you reconcile such disparate viewpoints? Can one be both cowardly and brave?
Practically the only value of a liberal arts education is this: For every situation, you know which writer to turn to for edification. This looked like a job for Albert Camus and The Myth of Sisyphus. And Dostoevsky, though technically every day is a Dostoevsky day. Until I had consulted my authorities the circumspect answer seemed to be: Without restitution (of the money) the gesture, though large and appealing to the romantic sense, is empty.
Shortly afterwards I got this reaction from Jon, an NGO worker (and member of the Philippine rugby team). “I find it fairly difficult to have any sympathy for Angelo Reyes as well,” Jon began, “but it is worthwhile to ask ourselves if in the same situation we have done any differently.
“In a situation where corruption has become so institutionalized that literally just about everyone is on the take, staying quiet but not taking any money presents a risk to your career, to your life, to your family. In a group where everyone is dirty, anyone who stays ‘clean’ is automatically suspect. How many of us have the strength to be say, a Heidi Mendoza, with your young son asking why, if you love them, you do this to them?
“And trade your life, whether literally or metaphorically, for what again, exactly? A country that will move on and forget you after the initial wave of media celebration? For an incremental decrease of evil in a country so shot through with a systematic effort to corrupt and compromise every single institution? Your children can go with much much less, your career can hit a roadblock, you can suffer the resentful stares of your wife because you love your dignity and integrity so much that you refuse to participate in a system that has been in place for 5, 10, 100, 400 years? The effort, while noble, seems rather quixotic and insane.
“To be good in an evil system requires exerting a conscious effort of self-sacrifice, possibly an amount of self-sacrifice that may be too much to ask of a reasonable person. To do the right thing in such a situation requires a certain insane level of disregard for one’s own well-being. While the country needs many, many more Heidi Mendozas, we may all be too quick to point and say we are definitely not Angelo Reyeses. When the test comes and you weigh each side, it’s pretty difficult to definitively say on which side you will come out.”
That’s the big exam I’m talking about, the one where someone you know comes to you with 100 million pesos and says, “Take this, it’s yours, you don’t have to do or say anything, this is the way it is and has always been.” If you take it there may be consequences—may be, for others have gotten away with it. If you don’t take it there will definitely be consequences.
How can we be good when the system is. . .not? Until our own test comes our certainty is nothing more than smug self-righteousness. For now we can only write ponderous essays.
Answers to questions you might be asking, unless you wandered onto this site purely by accident >>>
February 20th, 2011 at 05:37
I love this entry. It so happened I just updated my facebook status with a realization this morning: “I usually wait for the right time to do something, only to realize that when I finally do it, I say that I should have done it a long time ago. I realize that the “right time” usually appears as an hour of desperation. There is no right time pala. There is only now. :)”
There is so much tension in toeing the line between right and wrong. Now, I understand my philosophy teachers back in college when they said that freedom was a commitment. It is much more stress-free and liberating to commit yourself to something and do it, rather than play the game of wrong or right. This is probably why Heidi is so empowered and Reyes just crashed.
February 20th, 2011 at 08:41
A problem I see with ‘morals’ and ‘good’ is that they are subscribed to, and not created from the self. If you subscribe to morals and good, you have to acknowledge their polar opposites, immorality and bad.
If you don’t subscribe to good/bad, right/wrong, black/white, etc., you then live on personal principle. Principles are created from the self and would hopefully not weigh heavily on the conscience. You are a lot more free and liberated this way.
February 20th, 2011 at 09:21
if we were Angelo Reyes (Harvard alumni, AFP topman etc.) back when we recvd a P50M retirement sendoff, wud we accept it? i would.
February 20th, 2011 at 09:55
from leonardo da vinci : he who does not punish evil commands it to be done.
February 20th, 2011 at 11:00
Leonardo who made weapons for brutal regimes.
February 20th, 2011 at 17:57
I had a minor exam once. It was done in the very hallways of one of the satellite offices of where I currently work. I was so taken aback when the offer was casually made to me. I did not ask how much. I politely declined and smiled my way out of the awkward situation. I felt like a large pail of mud was poured on me. So far, no test has been made on me after that but I do dread the day when a bright smile and manners are not enough to evade what will be asked of me.
February 20th, 2011 at 19:19
@chronicler – Me too, this happened to me last month. Our HR over credited my leave encashment and paid me 12 extra vacation leaves to my surprise. I was taken aback and thought, gosh, it was their mistake, why should I be the one to do their check and balance. However, my conscience kept bugging me for the next 5 seconds so I emailed the HR lead saying they overpaid me and asked how I can “return” the money. He said that he will just deduct in on my March pay. I agreed. At the back of my mind, I figured, better settle this now than receive a million emails from my manager and HR later.
February 20th, 2011 at 19:35
Well, I did receive an email from my team lead, thanking me for my honesty and fixing the matter immediately.
But then again, I thought about the exam and if I was offered that ridiculous amount of money. It’s making me nauseous just thinking about it, ugh.
February 20th, 2011 at 21:00
I have mulled with that question you posed for quite some time. What if these choices were presented to us? Would we be sure to make the “clean and right” choice, even when no one is looking?
One (im)practical way to avoid having the choice presented to us is to avoid the situation altogether. In the Reyes example, that would probably mean NOT getting a job in the Armed Forces since “everyone” knows it is a corrupt institution. I don’t know how feasible that is in real life, since a job is a job and millions are looking for one.
I guess we’ll never know until we are IN that situation itself.
But I have to agree with your observation (I actually made it myself in my Facebook page the day Reyes killed himself): Without revealing all he knows about the money stolen, it’s hard to see his death as meaningful or heroic.
February 20th, 2011 at 21:22
“Until our own test comes our certainty is nothing more than smug self-righteousness.”
Very well said. I often say the same thing to people who are quick to criticize these corrupt people in the government. If you were in their shoes, would you have fared better?
February 21st, 2011 at 01:12
It is hard to resist temptation, especially if it’s a 100 million pesos. I think some people, if not most, do what is right not out of moral conviction, but out of fear of getting caught. Doing what is right in a corrupt society requires an extra strength of character and I don’t think it’s easy to find men who possess such. Thus, it becomes our responsibility to guard each other’s actions since we cannot expect paople to do what is right all the time; as Madison put it: “men are not angels.” So, it is still best to condemn any wrongdoing, whether it actually is hypocritical, because it places a stigma on the wrongdoer which helps to curb the tendencies to do what is wrong.
February 21st, 2011 at 02:39
@bek “I think some people, if not most, do what is right not out of moral conviction, but out of fear of getting caught.”
hear,hear! fear of shame not guilt.
February 21st, 2011 at 02:48
Your essay is almost spot on, except for one thing: you forget Angelo Reyes was in a position of power – and a very good position, at that. He had the power as head of AFP, he had the chance to withdraw his support from GMA, etc etc. Yes, you might be in a tight position if you were one of the minor players, but could effect a change when your one of the biggies.
You mentioned Heidi Mendoza, and doesn’t she make Angelo Reyes’ weakness even more stark? Here’s someone who’s Nobody trying to make something happen, and then there’s the one who’s Somebody who let things happen as they always did.
And that’s the wall I can’t overcome to make me feel for the man.
February 21st, 2011 at 09:00
I was one of the people professing their anger by the sidelines when news of this corruption scandal broke out.
But when Mr. Reyes took his life, I must admit I did a complete 360. I had a dear friend who left this world of his own accord and let me tell you, I think it is the most terrible way possible to lose someone. Far from ending the quest, it leaves more questions than answers.
I read once that a person is a product of all sorts of historical, societal, personal and genetic factors. And I guess, even if you choose differently when faced with the question as Mr. Reyes was confronted with (to dip or not to dip into public coffers), you can not say that you faced the exact same sets of things and conquered.
February 21st, 2011 at 11:53
@kuyakoy yes but heidi mendoza merely counted the money, would she have had a change of heart or mind or similarly struggled if she actually also received tons and tuh-hons of money?
February 21st, 2011 at 14:21
If we were reduced to beings with no moral compass to guide us on what is right and what is wrong, should we go after those who get more than their share of the lot? Our basic instinct tells us that we should, because they diminish our capacity to survive or live a better existence.
February 21st, 2011 at 16:23
@Kuyakoy Well, it doesn’t really matter if you’re one of the big players and in a position of power when it comes to fighting against the temptations presented by a corrupt system. If you choose to keep your honor and reject the money presented to you, you’re not in on the conspiracy and thus paint yourself as a target (by you already knowing that such a conspiracy exists). So, you know, even if you’re a general, it doesn’t really give you and your loved ones superpowers against bombs, car bombs, kidnappings, sniper bullets, etc. Practically all that’s needed is the several thousand pesos to pay some hired gun.
February 22nd, 2011 at 02:30
We are what we repeatedly do. – Aristotle
Before the big exam, there are hundreds of quizzes. We decide which quizzes are okay to flunk because they don’t matter in the big scheme of things. Except they all matter, don’t they? After a lifetime of flunking, it’s highly unlikely we’ll pass the big exam.
There might not even be a ‘big’ exam, just quiz after quiz after quiz. It can get tedious, not very Shakepearean at all.