LA TRINIDAD INTEGRATED SECONDARY

SHOOL
BONBON, BUTUAN CITY

INTRODUCTION
THE PHILOSPHY OF THE HUMAN PERSON
PORTFOLIO

Karren Joy A. Nacar

Student
Minda B. Olaer
Teacher
 Vision

We dream of Filipinos who passionately love their

country in whose competencies and values enabled
them to realize their full potential and contribute
meaningfully to building the nation.
We are learner-centered public institution, the
Department of Education continuously improves it self
to better serve its stakeholders.
 Mission

To protect and promote the right of every Filipino to quality,

equitable, culture-based and complete basic education where
students learn in a child-friendly, gender sensitive and safe
and motivating environment.
Teachers facilitate learning and constantly nurture every
learner. Administrators and staff, as stewards of the
institution, ensure an enabling and supportive environment
for effective learning to happen.
Family, community and other stakeholders are actively
engaged and share responsibility for developing life-long
learners.
 Core Values

Maka-diyos
Maka-tao
Makakalikasan
Makabansa
LA TRINIDAD INTEGRATED SECONDARY SCHOOL
ORGANIZATIONAL STRUCTURE
 I. Doing Philosophy

Here you can find out what it is to start doing philosophy in a practical way. Doing philosophy will help you think about
things philosophical—thoughts we have that at the time we think them leave us confused or without an acceptable
answer. We can do philosophy by ourselves (by reflecting or meditating on the question that concerns us), with one
other person (taking to a friend to try and work out a particular question of concern) or in a group (perhaps as part of
a Cafe Philo).

Philosophy can be practical. It has always been concerned with matters of utility: science, ethics, religion, psychology;
but it has also been concerned with abstract ideas: what we know and how we come to know it, the logic of argument,
whether or not the world we live in is truly real. For me modern Practical philosophy is concerned with things that effect
us as human beings in our everyday lives: our happiness, our fulfillment, our sense of right and wrong, our feelings of
fellowship with others, our fears and anxieties, how we view ourselves. Modern Practical Philosophy has a number of
strands: Philosophical Counseling, Socratic Dialogue, Philosophy with Children, Personal Reflective Practice. Here you
will find something on all of these topics and links to help you pursue any of them further. For me practical philosophy
has a particular rationale, it demands that we have an understanding of life itself—what it is to ‘be’?, that we know how
we can alter our own lives—how we can change ourselves, that we know what has meaning to us, that we know what
freedom to choose is, what action is and how we should act in relation to it, and ultimately how we can come to
understand a philosophical life. I believe an understanding of these can be had by personal Reflective Practice and that
out lives can be enhanced and indeed fulfilled by an understanding of what I call Practical Metaphysics.

We can all do philosophy and our lives can be enhanced by it. It is not difficult
and there are a set of tools which philosophers use that are readily available. The main tools are logical ones. There is
nothing mysterious about logic, it is part of our nature to act logically and to know when something is illogical.
Philosophers also understand that in order to work out questions they must test their ideas against the ideas of others.
This method is used throughout science and the humanities. That is why students and academics write essays and
books and go to conferences. When we philosophize we must not be afraid to say what we think. But we must think
carefully, we must consider what it is we are thinking about and respect the ideas of others in the same way. When we
do philosophy we must not think of ourselves but of the general case, we must move from the particular to the universal.

A good way to start is to expose your ideas to the ideas of others.

If you want to experiment with thinking about things go here.
My ideas for how to do philosophy are found in my book Doing Philosophy.
If you want to find out how I think we can attain a good life for ourselves by self reliance look at my essay Self reliance
not counseling--a contemporary perspective on practical philosophy and its relationship to the individual.
If you are interest in or have been affected by grief try my two books Goodbye: grief from beginning to end and Goodbye
II: later reflections and a conclusion. Details of my other wrk including fiction can be found in the Select bibliography.
I give a bibliography of all references cited as well as an annotated booklist suggesting further reading. For interest I
also include a picture gallery of some of the more well known philosophers and thinkers in history. If you want an
impression of what a philosophical idea can look like as an image, in this case my idea of what is both beyond and
within, go here.

II. Methods of Philosophizing

 Philosophizing is a way to reveal the truth about the various stages of life and
everything associated with it and to reveal the fulfillment of the purpose for each
stage of the life and to express the way for the realization of these things are in a
relevant way, inORDER to obtain the best compromise of all that we face. Through
philosophizing should not merely deepening our understanding about something,
but that we are more aware about how something can be beneficial to us or not with a
certain way peculiar to ourselves personally. Whether we are using logical thinking,
spirituality or any other means to understand something, but eventually, it must
guide us to an essential (deeper) understanding about ourselves and place where we
live and that can be used by us to make a better adjustment in all that we face.
Otherwise maybe it’s just theoretical and meaningless. That’s love of wisdom, not
just theoretical or an euphoria, but to put us closer to a better life relevantly for us
personally. Because philosophizing doesn’t depend on just logical thinking and stop
right there. This understanding about how do we do philosophizing” can be used as a
reminder that “love of wisdom” shouldn’t be narrowed to a condition which put us to
use rational argument only. It has to do with “to be open minded” and for our better
life (not just emotional debate, not giving clear decision for what should we do).
Because if we love qualities, then we must have it appropriately, otherwise it’s not the
kind of loving. That’s the consequences of love. Essentially, philosophizing should
make us know things as it is, and implement it appropriately, gradually, become
better and better constantly. In other words: To Be Open Minded To Know
Something As It Is And Act Upon It As It Should Be Relevantly Within Priorities
(Seremonia, 2013)

The practice of talking or thinking aboutIMPORTANT subjects imprecisely or

boringly, sometimes instead of doing something practical.

For this entry I would like to take a look at several types of philosophical methods
which are typically employed by philosophers. As I go through my list of methods I
will share with you my experiences with, and opinions of each. In the process it will
be assumed that the reader is themselves familiar with philosophical methods, as this
is not an attempt to provide education on methods so much as to provide my
thoughts on their usefulness and application.

1. Logical Analysis—this method is incredibly typical of analytic philosophy, and as

someone who tends toward that style, I employ this method all the time. I think that
the benefit of this approach is multifaceted. First, it allows the reader of an argument
to get practice at identifying solid arguments, and therefore serves the purpose not
only of aiding refutation, but also makes one less prone to making flawed arguments
 themselves. Second, this is a very systemized approach to philosophy, which relies on
methods of deduction and one’s ability to master said methods. As a result, I feel
gives the arguer a relatively high level of confidence in their work, so long as they
have reason to presume their premises to be true. I frequently employ this method in
almost every single course, but most commonly when I encounter well laid out,
deductive arguments because of the easy accessibility. I do not employ this method
when responding to inductive arguments, since I do not find these particularly
persuasive or complex enough to require in depth analysis (Nesche, 2014).
2. Analytic Philosophy (or sometimes Analytical Philosophy) is a 20th Century
movement in philosophy which holds that philosophy should apply logical
techniques in order to attain conceptual clarity, and that philosophy should be
consistent with the success of modern science. For many Analytic Philosophers,
language is the principal (perhaps the only) tool, and philosophy consists in
clarifying how language can be used.Analytic Philosophy is also used as a catch-all
phrase to include all (mainly Anglophone) branches of contemporary philosophy not
included under the label Continental Philosophy, such as Logical Positivism,
Logicism and Ordinary Language Philosophy. To some extent, these various schools
all derive from pioneering work at Cambridge University in the early 20th Century
and then at Oxford University after World War II, although many contributors were
in fact originally from Continental Europe.Analytic Philosophy as a specific
movement was led by Bertrand Russell, Alfred North Whitehead, G. E. Moore and
Ludwig Wittgenstein. Turning away from then-dominant forms of Hegelianism,
(particularly objecting to its Idealism and its almost deliberate obscurity), they began
to develop a new sort of conceptual analysis based on new developments in Logic,
and succeeded in making substantial contributions to philosophical Logic over the
first half of the 20th Century (Mastin, 2008).
3. Phenomenology is a broad discipline and method of inquiry in philosophy, developed
largely by the German philosophers Edmund Husserl and Martin Heidegger, which
is based on the premise that reality consists of objects and events (“phenomena”) as
they are perceived or understood in the human consciousness, and not of anything
independent of human consciousness. It can be considered a branch of Metaphysics
and of Philosophy of Mind, although many of it proponents claim that it is related to,
but distinct from, the other key disciplines in philosophy (Metaphysics,
Epistemology, Logic and Ethics), and that it represents more a distinct way of
looking at philosophy which has repercussions on all of these other fields. It has been
argued that it differs from other branches of philosophy in that it tends to be more
descriptive than prescriptive. It is only distantly related to the epistemological
doctrine of Phenomenalism (the theory that physical objects do not exist as things in
themselves but only as perceptual phenomena or bundles of sense-data situated in
time and in space). Phenomenology is the study of experience and how we
experience. It studies structures of conscious experience as experienced from a
subjective or first-person point of view, along with its “intentionality” (the way an
experience is directed toward a certain object in the world). It then leads to analyses
of conditions of the possibility of intentionality, conditions involving motor skills and
habits, background social practices and, often, language. Experience, in a
phenomenological sense, includes not only the relatively passive experiences of
sensory perception, but also imagination, thought, emotion, desire, volition and
action. In short, it includes everything that we live through or perform. Thus, we may
observe and engage with other things in the world, but we do not actually experience
them in a first-person manner. What makes an experience conscious is a certain
awareness one has of the experience while living through or performing it. However,
 as Heidegger has pointed out, we are often not explicitly conscious of our habitual
patterns of action, and the domain of Phenomenology may spread out into semi-
conscious and even unconscious mental activity (Mastin, 2008).
4. Existentialism is a philosophy that emphasizes individual existence, freedom and
choice. It is the view that humans define their own meaning in life, and try to make
rational decisions despite existing in an irrational universe. It focuses on the
question of human existence, and the feeling that there is no purpose or explanation
at the core of existence. It holds that, as there is no God or any other transcendent
force, the only way to counter this nothingness (and hence to find meaning in life) is
by embracing existence. Thus, Existentialism believes that individuals are entirely
free and must take personal responsibility for themselves (although with this
responsibility comes angst, a profound anguish or dread). It therefore emphasizes
action, freedom and decision as fundamental, and holds that the only way to rise
above the essentially absurd condition of humanity (which is characterized by
suffering and inevitable death) is by exercising our personal freedom and choice (a
complete rejection of Determinism). Often, Existentialism as a movement is used to
describe those who refuse to belong to any school of thought, repudiating of the
adequacy of any body of beliefs or systems, claiming them to be superficial, academic
and remote from life. Although it has much in common with Nihilism, Existentialism
is more a reaction against traditional philosophies, such as Rationalism, Empiricism
and Positivism, that seek to discover an ultimate order and universal meaning in
metaphysical principles or in the structure of the observed world. It asserts that
people actually make decisions based on what has meaning to them, rather than what
is rational. Existentialism originated with the 19th Century philosophers Søren
Kierkegaard and Friedrich Nietzsche, although neither used the term in their work.
In the 1940s and 1950s, French existentialists such as Jean-Paul Sartre, Albert
Camus (1913 – 1960), and Simone de Beauvoir (1908 – 1986) wrote scholarly and
fictional works that popularized existential themes, such as dread, boredom,
alienation, the absurd, freedom, commitment and nothingness (Mastin, 2008).
 III. The human person as an embodied Spirit

What is Embodied Spirit?

 Embodied Spirit is the living animating core within each of us, the driving
force behind all that we think, say and do

“Every embodied person spirit is doomed to suffer and enjoy in sotitude”

 Sensations, feeling, insights, fancies – all these are private and, except through
symbols and at second hand, incommunicable. We can pool information about
experiences, but never the experiences themselves. From family to nation,
every human group in a society of island univers.

What is Human Being?

Embodied spirit is the living animating core within each of us, the driving force behind all that
wethink, say and do.Sensations, feelings, insights, fancies -- all these are private and,
except through symbols and atsecond hand, incommunicable. We can pool information
about experiences, but never theexperiences themselves. From family to nation, every
human group is a society of island universes.

Human Being as an Embodied Spirit

What is Embodied Spirit?

"Every embodied spirit is doomed to suffer and enjoy in solitude"The human being is a
complex matter and many believe that just trying to understand life and whatit means to
be human is a futile undertaking.--by Aldous HuxleyA human person is an embodied spirit (a
"soul") whose nature has numerous bodily, affective,cognitive, volitional and gender
capacities, the expression of which may lead by freedom toflourishing in a harmony with
one's nature or dysfunction against one's nature, ultimately shaped byand finding their
relational telos in the love of neighbor and union with God, relationships madepossibly by
our nature but realized only by the ministry of the indwelling Spirit of God.for St. Thomas:his
own total vision of man would be"embodied spirit".A human being is by nature a finite
embodied spirit, in search of the Infinite, in social solidarity withits fellow human beings, on
an historical journey through this material cosmos towards its final trans-worldly goal, a
loving union with God as the infinite fullness of all goodness.for Aristotle:A human person is
a personal being possessing its intellectual nature as joined in a natural unity witha material
body.this unity called "man" as "a rational animal."
Conclusion
The Human Being as an Embodied Spirit is one which is expressed fully, shining for all the
world tosee. It is our right and responsibility to give our Spirit its fullest expression in this
body. Theopportunity to become embodied and whole begins at birth and continues
throughout life.A human being is a biosocial being and represents the highest level of
development of all livingorganisms on earth, the subject of labour, of the social forms of
life, communication andconsciousness.
Spirit VS Soul
Spirit
it consist of our mind, will and emotions.it is our personality, thoughts, attitudes, and what
makes us unique.immaterial part of a human being or animal, regarded as immortal.soul is
mortal, meaning it dies.
 IV. for friends of liberty, the early 21st century has been a confusing time. We are living

through a period of rapid and perhaps unprecedented social and economic change, and our

established ways of thinking about public questions have not been serving us well. Regaining

our balance will require us to open our eyes to the simultaneously disturbing and

encouraging trends before us. But perhaps more than that, we are both required and have

the opportunity to reflect anew on who we are as free and relational persons. We can and

must think more deeply about the contents of a fully human life, as knowing who we are is an

indispensable prelude to figuring out what to do to sustain the future of personal and

political liberty.

Some of our most familiar political and intellectual categories, adapted to suit 20th-century debates, now

cause us to fall into a simpleminded individualism that we cannot really believe. Too many conservatives,

for instance, persist in the tired distinction between individual freedom and collectivism. That unrealistic

bifurcation helped discredit the communist or fascist reduction of the particular person to nothing but an

expendable cog in a machine, plugging away in pursuit of some glorious paradise to come at the end of

History. But today that distinction too often ends up placing in the same repulsive category any

understanding of the person as a relational part of a larger whole — of a country, family, church, or even

nature. It thus causes conservatives to dismiss what students of humanity from Aristotle to today's

evolutionary psychologists know to be true: that we social animals are "hardwired" by instinct to find

meaning in serving personal causes greater than ourselves, and that reconciling freedom with personal

significance is only possible in a relational context that is less about rights than about duties.

The same simpleminded individualism leaves us unsure about how to approach the difficulties of the

modern American economy. Given the complicated challenges posed by globalization, the fading away of

the middle class, the breakdown of the family among the poor, the growing economic distance separating

our "cognitive elite" from the decreasingly "marginally productive" ordinary American, and the

indisputable need to trim our entitlements in order to save them (for a while), our ways of speaking about

responsibility, work, mobility, and opportunity seem increasingly out of touch.

 Everyone knows that success in the marketplace requires skills and habits that are usually acquired

through good schools, strong families, active citizenship, and even solicitous and judgmental churches.

Those relational institutions, however, are threatened, in different ways, by the unmediated effects of

both the market and big, impersonal government. We also know that most people find that worthy lives

are shaped by both love and work, and that the flourishing of love and work are interdependent. We even

know that love and work are both limits on government, even as we know that middle-class Americans

who have good jobs, strong families, and "church homes" are also our best citizens.

What we really know should point our political life in rather definite directions. Does our familiar

political vocabulary provide us what we need to articulate those directions? Or does it confuse us more in

this already confusing time? We have every reason to wonder whether even conservative Americans have

access to a plausible account of the reality of our personhood, an account that could serve as the

foundation of a public philosophy that would properly limit and direct a sustainable political life for free

persons. What we lack most is an authentically empirical theory adequate to the complexities of

American life in our time.

The natural inclination of any conservative is to seek out such a theory in our deep and diverse tradition

of liberty, rather than invent one out of whole cloth. And if our search is guided by a sense of how our

changing circumstances require us to reflect on the relational character of the human person, our

tradition will not disappoint. But we have no choice but to look beyond the most familiar fixtures of that

tradition toward some neglected American theorists of liberty who have highlighted the shortcomings of

an overly individualistic understanding of American life. Complacently excessive individualism is the

opiate of the American "public intellectuals" of our time.

One neglected resource in correcting for that excess is America's most original and deepest 19th-century

thinker: Orestes Brownson. Author of The American Republic(published in 1865) and of much more,

Brownson explained that our country's "providential constitution" is deeper and more comprehensively

compelling than the Lockean theorizing of Jefferson and other leading founders and framers. Our
framers, who built for the ages as great statesmen do, drew from all the sources that history, philosophy,

political precedent, religion, and the rest of our civilized tradition had given them. It is because they built

as statesmen, and not as abstract theorists, that they builtbetter than they knew.

For Brownson, to think clearly about both our Constitution and about particular human beings means

avoiding the excesses of thinking too universally (or abstractly) or too particularly (or selfishly). It

requires finding a mean between the two extremes of American political thought. On one side, Americans

properly appropriate the truthful dogma of human equality, and remembering that all

persons equally possess rights is what directs us away from the excessive concern for particularity that

characterized aristocratic Southerners in Brownson's time, with all their secessionist, racist, and even

pagan impulses. But at the opposite extreme, humanitarians and their abstract egalitarianism — like

some transcendentalist, pantheist Northerners in Brownson's time — have divorced the theory of equality

from its properly personal theological context. What remains is an empty universalism that overvalues

the possibilities for redemption in political reform and denies the truth about personal being, and

therefore about personal rights. As the Yankee Brownson acknowledged, despite their many faults, the

Southerners were right to defend the particularity of relational individuality; they claimed to know and

love real persons and so to have no need for any interest in abstract "humanitarianism."

The American, constitutional mean between abstract universalism and tribal secessionism, according to

Brownson, is a limited political unity of citizens who know they are also more than and less than citizens.

All of us equally are shaped by natural, personal imperatives having to do with flourishing as material,

political, and spiritual beings. When we forget any of the three, we fall into trouble. The material being is

concerned with the personal subsistence of himself and his family. The political being is concerned with

the common good shared by citizens in a "territorial democracy" in a particular part of the world. The

spiritual being is concerned with discovering his relational duties to his loving personal Creator and

sharing that personal news with his fellow creatures through the church.
The fully human being attends to all three parts of who he is as a free and relational person born to know,

love, and die. He doesn't regard himself as less than he really is by thinking of himself as only a producer

and consumer or only a citizen, and he doesn't think of himself as more than he is by confusing his limited

and dutiful freedom with the unlimited freedom of God.

This full account of who each of us is means that the economy, the family, and the church aren't to be

politicized. True theology is "catholic" in the sense of not being the exclusive preserve of a particular

political community or merely "civil theology." This full account of the person's relational responsibilities

also means that the political community is for more than serving the selfish needs of particular persons;

politics doesn't exist for the sake of economics. Thus loyalty to your country is a real and indispensable

virtue — one, Brownson says, particularly lacking in any country too obsessed with rights. What raises

the country above the tribe is that this loyalty is to a genuinely common good, a real conception of justice.

The American Constitution, Brownson explains, reconciles "liberty with law, and law with liberty"

through the devoted affirmation of mediating constitutional principles such as self-government,

federalism, the separation of powers, and religious freedom.

Rightly understood, we can see in Brownson's idea of law and liberty a theoretical justification for an

enduring practice of American liberty that affirms a constitutional order that "secures at once the

authority of the public and the freedom of the individual — the sovereignty of the people without social

despotism, and individual freedom without anarchy. In other words, its mission is to bring out in its life

the dialectic union of authority and liberty, of the natural rights of man and those of society."

Brownson, at the very least, can help today's Americans to think seriously about the complex interplay

between political and economic liberties and the relational life of creatures and citizens. It is that kind of

thinking that the friends of liberty require if they are to overcome the confusion that defines our time .
 V.

Contemporarily, intersubjectivity is a major topic in both the analytic and

the continental traditions of philosophy. Intersubjectivity is considered
crucial not only at the relational level but also at the epistemological and even
metaphysical levels. For example, intersubjectivity is postulated as playing a
role in establishing the truth of propositions, and constituting the so-called
objectivity of objects.
A central concern in consciousness studies of the past 50 years is the so-called problem
of other minds, which asks how we can justify our belief that people have minds much
like our own and predict others' mind-states and behavior, as our experience shows we
often can.[5] Contemporary philosophical theories of intersubjectivity need to address
the problem of other minds.
In the debate between cognitive individualism and cognitive universalism, some aspects
of thinking are neither solely personal nor fully universal. Cognitive sociology
proponents argue for intersubjectivity—an intermediate perspective of social cognition
that provides a balanced view between personal and universal views of our social
cognition. This approach suggests that, instead of being individual or universal
thinkers, human beings subscribe to "thought communities"—communities of differing
beliefs. Thought community examples include churches, professions, scientific beliefs,
generations, nations, and political movements.[6] This perspective explains why each
individual thinks differently from each another (individualism): person A may choose to
adhere to expiry dates on foods, but person B may believe that expiry dates are only
guidelines and it is still safe to eat the food days past the expiry date. But not all human
beings think the same way (universalism).
Intersubjectivity argues that each thought community shares social experiences that are
different from the social experiences of other thought communities, creating differing
beliefs among people who subscribe to different thought communities. These
experiences transcend our subjectivity, which explains why they can be shared by the
entire thought community.[6] Proponents of intersubjectivity support the view that
individual beliefs are often the result of thought community beliefs, not just personal
experiences or universal and objective human beliefs. Beliefs are recast in terms of
standards, which are set by thought communities.
 VI. The Person and Society

From the Catechism of the Catholic Church, Simplified

Life in Society (1878-1881)

The communion of the three Divine Persons and the fraternity among men bear a definite
resemblance. Love of neighbor is inseparable from love of God.

Living in society is a requirement for the human person. In society, he develops his potential in
mutual exchange and service of others.

Society groups persons together organically. It is an assembly (visible and spiritual). Within society,
man can use his talents and develop their fruits. Man is an "heir" of society and he must be loyal to his
community and to authority.

Although each community has its own goal, man must be the "subject and the goal of all social
institutions" (Pope John XXIII).

Family and State Communities (1882)

The family and the state are unique communities. The state must encourage voluntary associations
which relate to social and economic goals. Human beings naturally experience "socialization," the
associating with one another to gain goals beyond the individual's capacity.

The State and Subsidiarity (1883-1885)

Socialization presents the danger of excessive intervention by the state. States must practice
subsidiarity, not interfering in a community's inner life, but supporting its activities.

God entrusts certain functions to his creatures and governs the world with great regard for human
freedom. Government, therefore, should imitate God and behave as ministers of divine providence.

This principle of subsidiarity opposes all forms of collectivism, limits state interventions, aims at
harmonious relationships between persons and societies, and establishes international order.

Hierarchy of Value (1886-1887)

Society must have a just hierarchy of values, subordinating the physical dimensions to the spiritual
aspects. "Human society must primarily be considered something spiritual, in which men eagerly
strive to make their own the spiritual achievements of others" (Pope John XXIII).

A false inversion takes place when society "sees a person only as a ‘means' and creates unjust
structures which make Christian living almost impossible" (Pope Pius XII).

Man - Called to Conversion (1888-1889)

Society must appeal to man's inner conversion to obtain needed social changes. This call for
conversion imposes the obligation to bring needed remedies to those living conditions which are
inducements to sin.

Man, by God's grace, can learn to avoid both the cowardice which gives in to evil and the violence
which would make the evil even worse.

Need for Authority (1897-1898)

"A well-ordered society needs people who have legitimate authority to preserve society's institutions
and to care for the good of all" (Pope John XXIII).

Authority means the power to make laws, give order, and expect obedience. Foundations for authority
lie in human nature itself because the state is necessary for unity and for the common good.
Subject to Authority (1899-1900)
"Let every person be subject to the governing authorities for there is no authority except from God.
Those that exist have been instituted by God and those who resist authority will incur judgment"
(Rom 13:1-2).

Obedience requires that respect and due honor be given to those in authority. Pope St. Clement asked
God's favor upon authority so "they may exercise without offense the sovereignty that you have given
them."

Diverse Political Structures (1901)

Authority comes from God but the choice of political structures and leaders come from the "free
decision of the citizens" (Second Vatican Council). A diversity of governmental regimes is morally
acceptable. However, governments which act contrary to the natural law, the public order, or the
fundamental rights of persons cannot achieve the common good.

Legitimate Authority (1902-1904)

Because authority does not contain its own moral legitimacy, governments must not be despotic.
"Every human law has the character of law if it accords with right reason . If it falls short of right
reason, it is an unjust law and thus a "kind of violence" (St. Thomas Aquinas).

Authority acts legitimately when it seeks the common good and uses moral means. Unjust laws and
immoral means do not bind in conscience. In these cases "authority breaks down and results in
shameful abuse" (Pope John XXIII).

Each power should be balanced by other powers. By this "rule of law," the will of any man will not be
sovereign.

Good of Person and Society (1905)

The good of the person and the good of the society (always defined in reference to the human person)
are necessarily related. "Do not live entirely isolated but gather together to seek the common good"
(Letter of Barnabas).

Three Elements of Common Good (1906-1910)

The common good is the sum total of those social conditions which allow groups and persons to gain
their goals more easily. The common good requires three elements:

1. Respect for the person - Public authorities must respect the fundamental and inalienable rights
of the human person. Government must guarantee the right of persons to act in accordance
with their conscience.
2. Social well-being - Authority must promote the development of the person and of the group.
Authority must arbitrate between various particular interests and make the necessities for
human life (food, clothing, establishing a family, etc.) accessible to all.
3. Peace - Authority must establish the peace of a just order by morally acceptable means. This
is the basis for legitimate personal and collective defense.

In the political community the common good is best realized. The state must promote the good of its
citizens and of intermediate bodies.

Community of Nations (1911-1912)

Increasing human interdependence is bringing about a unity of the human family. This implies a
universal common good. Therefore, the community of nations must organize so that the basic needs of
all (food, education, etc.) can be met and special situations (such as refugees and immigrants) can be
alleviated. The common good must always focus on persons. "The order of things must be
subordinate to the order of persons" (Second Vatican Council).