Wednesday, December 10, 2008


In simple language and in its plain understanding, morality in general is the rightness or wrongness of an action, a system of values in terms of what is good or evil. In more precise terms, morality in the order of nature is basically the principle based on rational judgment that says what is upright or iniquitous and distinguishes between what is virtuous or vicious. In its more technical appreciation, morality is the objective body of norms of the acceptable and accepted human behavior that is pursuant with the dictates of truth, justice and peace, as duly remanded by human relationships.

On the other hand, there are many categories of immorality—the antithesis of morality—and all of them are nevertheless fundamentally premised on the baseness of lie and or the malevolence of iniquity and or the disorder of society. In other words, while morality uplifts, dignifies and unifies the human community, immorality precisely causes the opposite effects—such as it dehumanizes human persons, depraves human dignity and or divides human society. This is why it is said with good reason, that if everybody were truly observant of objective moral norms, there would be no need for policemen or prisons.

It is worth noting how few institutions, agencies and entities in the Country have repeatedly said so many liabilities of the present government and have expressed different lamentations about the ruling administration. Said in brief and in substance, the national drawbacks and popular outcries are well captured in the now often said and heard pronouncements that the Chief Governor with the latter’s well rewarded and wherefore ever loyal minions, constitute a “morally bankrupt” government. While such categorical denigrating qualification is not only painful but also shameful, this reality however would be hard to seriously contest or disprove.

Just for the record, what are the more distinct and significant features of moral bankruptcy? One of them is pervasive indifference to what is good or evil, and the pursuant intensive preference of what is profitable, advantageous and or convenient. Another is marked callousness to what is brutal, vicious and or treacherous, and the consequent choice of what is self-serving, self-pleasing and or self-aggrandizement—the composite of all is egoism par excellence. There is thus open and gross shamelessness.

As such, morally bankrupt people become the more dangerous when they get leadership positions such as precisely the exercise of national governance. Their victims are always the same, viz., the common tao, the ordinary people who as a matter of course are made, first as their stepping stones, and thereafter as their footrests. History is the best witness to this pitiful socio-political reality that is infallibly rooted in the moral bankruptcy of public leadership and consequent governance.

+OVCruz, DD
December 10, 2008