Moral dissonance

Rhona Canoy

SO… I’ve been reviewing the required DepEd curriculum for the Values subject. To be honest, I have always had a negative bias against our esteemed gods of academe because my perversely “arrogant” nature has never seen fit to put my trust in them. In this continuing struggle to educate, I’m having to come to terms with some harsh truths that gives me pause to reconsider that all may not be DepEd’s fault, though I still think they don’t know what they’re doing.

Every school I’ve ever come across (mine included) has, as part of its mission/vision statement, some claim to develop the morals and character of its students to become upstanding members of our society and of the world in general. Lofty claims, I must say. And surely well-intentioned. God forbid that these claims are just an advertising ploy to entice parents to enrol their children. So today’s lesson is an attempt at critical analysis of whether these values programs have any hope of succeeding.

I don’t suppose there is any need to explore what is supposed to be taught. Generic humanistic value standards such as found in the biblical 10 Commandments, similarly phrased in the Qur’an and other religious texts. The common themes being: don’t take anybody’s life, don’t take anybody’s things without their permission (and that includes their spouse), don’t consciously do things with evil intent. Basically, these are what is at the core, related lessons and topics included. Sometimes, questions arise that lead to questioning what it is we’re trying to teach.

Personally, I have a problem with the “Thou shalt not kill” premise. I mean, I agree with it but its application and implementation is dissonant. How do we justify judicial killing? Thou shalt not kill in general because it is a sin. But if you get sent to Marawi City to kill terrorists, it’s okay because they started it. Or if you’re a policeman “tokhanging” a drug suspect, it’s okay because they shot first, and besides they are bringing evil into our society. And because you are army or police and are allowed to have and to use weapons of destruction. Exempted.

Huh?

Talk to me, someone… anyone. This religious moral premise which is tattooed into the very core of our faith only causes me confusion. Tell me how to explain the logic of it to a seven-year-old Muslim evacuee who saw her 15-year-old brother gunned down in the crossfire. Tell me how to explain it to a 10-year-old student who hears his father rant about how all Muslims should be killed because they are terrorists. Tell me how to answer a nursery child who asks why people do bad things. Dissonance.

To stand up and defend one’s faith and ethics assumes absolute acceptance and submission to its tenets. At least, that’s what I have been led to believe. But the real world in which we live says otherwise. If we are to stand up for “Thou shalt not kill,” then we must be prepared to die for it without question and without desire for retribution or “justice”. Kind of goes against our instinct to survive. Doesn’t the morality of killing imply unconditionality? Under no conditions should we kill. And if we espouse it, then are we prepared to pay the ultimate price, when push comes to shove? The question of moral commitment and moral dissonance goes a lot deeper than we think. And it doesn’t become obvious unless we think.

Next lesson shall be on stealing. Please have your position papers ready!