[1953]

Introduction

In this paper I will argue that cutting people off is not the best response to

Marcos Jr. supporters who have morally objectionable political views as it promotes

the spread of mis/disinformation and widens the gap of Filipinos. I will begin by

explaining what Kantian Deontology is, while emphasizing its right maker and

decision process. Then, I will discuss why cutting people off is not encouraged under

Kantian Deontology, and what should be prioritized instead. Lastly, I will present my

conclusion on the argument.

Kantian Deontology

One of the most essential concepts in Kantian Deontology is “good will.”

Immanuel Kant, the proponent of the theory, believes that good will is the only

unconditionally good thing in the world. Knowledge can be good, but what if it is used

for the wrong reason? Having a positive outcome is good, but what if it is done out of

a wrong intention? For Kant, once we become persons of good will, these instances

would not be a problem because we will do the right thing for the right reason.

Another central idea in Kantian Deontology is autonomy or being free to live

by our own personal laws and reasons. Critics argue that with this as the theory’s

core value, people would just do whatever they want. But for Kant, individual

autonomy makes decision-making much more important. When we make poor

decisions, we sacrifice our autonomy. With this, we must recognize how our choices
affect us and learn to use our autonomy carefully to protect it.

Moreover, Kantian Deontology established a clear right maker. In this theory,

an act is considered right if and only if it follows a maxim than can be a universal law.

But first, what is a maxim? It is a rule of conduct that presents an action and a

reason. However, not all maxims are out of good will so some can be right, and

some can be wrong. Then, how would we know if a maxim should be followed? If a

maxim can be universalized or done by almost everyone in the world without

creating problems and contradictions, it can be considered right under Kantian

Deontology.

To fully comprehend the theory’s right maker, let’s take an example from

Korsgaard (1995) where false promising to get money is a proposed maxim. Even

though he knows he can never repay it, a man borrows money and promises to pay

it back. Due to the value of his promise, he was given money. If this maxim will be

universalized, people will no longer value promises. Trust will not exist anymore.

Without these two, it would be unlikely that someone would lend money to anyone.

This shows that when a maxim promotes a problematic action and/or motive, it

cannot be universalized.

This formula of universal law is an example of a formulation of the Categorical

Imperative. From the phrase itself, the Categorical Imperative implies that as human

beings, there are things that we must do and/or follow as part of our duty. To prepare

for Kantian Deontology’s decision procedure, let us tackle these three formulations of

the Categorical Imperative.

First is practical contradiction. Based on Korsgaard (1995), this formula shows

that universalizing an immoral maxim is a self-sabotage. For instance, let’s use the

maxim of doping to win an athletic competition. When this maxim is normalized, it will
be practiced by most, if not all, athletes which hinders the proponent to achieve his

purpose which is to win. Doping to win an athletic competition may have worked

while others were playing fair, but when it is done collectively, all athletes are back to

square one, so it only becomes unreasonable. Also, this can lead to health problems

or addiction that will damage the physical and mental state of a person. Thus,

practical contradiction does not happen with acts of good will.

The next Categorical Imperative is the humanity formula. The core of this

formula is respecting people’s autonomy and humanity. We should recognize that

other people are human beings like us. They have autonomy and should not be

treated as mere means or objects. According to O’Neill (1993), we use people as

mere means if what we do involves them in a maxim to which they could not in

principle consent. Manipulating, withholding information, threatening, and using

violence to get what we want are also examples of treating people as mere means

and disrespecting their humanity. The main goal of this formula is to simply live in a

society where everyone respects autonomy and humanity.

This goal agrees with the third formula, the kingdom of ends. In this formula,

all people are treated with respect of autonomy and humanity. No one is ever treated

as mere means. In the kingdom of ends, the fully rational members of the community

have the freedom to draft and implement their own policies. Their feedback,

comments, and ideas are directly and indirectly used in the legislative process. Not

only does the kingdom of ends respect autonomy, and humanity, these are also

developed in this formula.

All these concepts are used in Kantian Deontology’s step-by-step decision

process. To do this, we must first formulate a maxim (s). Then, we must do a twin

earth thought experiment by imagining an alternate planet where this maxim(s) is

is none, the maxim is universalizable. If there is, we have to formulate another

maxim. We also have to assess if the humanity formula and the kingdom of ends are

addressed, and in what way. This decision process guided me in applying Kantian

Deontology to the given case.

Discussion of the Case

Autonomy and humanity – these two are essential principles in Kantian

Deontology. Considering this, I believe that cutting off people, may it be friends or

family members, who we think hold morally objectionable political views is not the

best way to deal with the aftermath of the latest national elections. For this case, I

will focus on president-elect Ferdinand “Bongbong” Marcos Jr and his supporters.

Starting with the theory’s core value, respecting autonomy is one of the main

reasons why Kantians would not approve of completely cutting off Marcos Jr.

supporters. As human beings, we have the autonomy to vote for who we believe is

the right candidate for the job. As supporters, we also have the autonomy have and

share reasons on why we are voting for certain candidates. Like all of us, Marcos Jr.

supporters have this autonomy, and we must respect that. However, I believe that

there is a fine line between respecting autonomy and tolerating the spread of

mis/disinformation and historical distortion.

According to Peel (2022), Marcos Jr.’s win is fueled by the “sea of

misinformation.” For instance, most of his supporters voted for him with the belief

that Martial Law was the golden era of the Philippines. Even though reasons should

be respected as part of autonomy, the spread of false information like this must not
be accepted as it is dangerous for the society. Victims of mis/disinformation do not

always know that they are victims so we must call them out without implying that our

opinions are better than theirs. We must remember the importance of respecting

humanity.

With this, we must also recognize that Marcos Jr. supporters have valid hopes

and aspirations that influenced their support for him. When they think of Marcos Jr.,

Filipinos in Taiwan do not see widespread disinformation campaigns, but the

bayanihan spirit that they practice as well (Lopez, 2022). Although this thinking is still

influenced by misinformation, it shows that his supporters rely on information handed

to them (knowing that Marcos Jr. campaigned in Taiwan) so there is a chance that

they would continue deliberating when presented with more reliable information

rather than being completely close-minded.

On the downside, not all supporters accept other opinions. From experience,

some even refuse to recognize historical facts such as the number of Martial Law

victims. As someone who had cut off some friends, this was where the urge of

cutting off came from. Constantly sharing facts in a respectful manner to misinformed

supporters, then being smart-shamed or answered in a disrespectful manner gets

exhausting to the point that choosing peace means cutting them off.

However, upon applying the Kantian Deontology decision process, I have

realized that if proposed as a maxim, cutting people off for peace has a practical

contradiction. In a world where everyone will cut off people who believe and share

mis/disinformation or those who refuse to believe facts, mis/disinformation will only

continue to spread. In this same world, cutting off those who have morally objectional

political views will divide people and turn them against each other. In a world like

this, peace will not be possible.

should also consider why we are engaging in social discourse, why we want to fight

against mis/disinformation, and why we don’t want people to support morally

objectional political views – these are all because we want what is best for the

country. If cutting people off results to a wider gap and further spread of

mis/disinformation, then we are doing the exact opposite of our motive.

If cutting off Marcos Jr supporters is not a universalizable maxim, what should

we do? We should go back to the core principles of Kantian Deontology: good will,

autonomy, and humanity. Our good will tells us that we must continue fighting the

spread of mis/disinformation because it is what is good for the country. Our respect

for autonomy leads us to accepting that Marcos Jr. supporters are free to use their

autonomy while being aware of the consequences. Also, respect for humanity shows

that we cannot dictate Marcos Jr. supporters to decide, feel, or behave a certain

way.

All in all, fighting mis/disinformation should be prioritized. Agreeing to a single

political view is close to impossible, but once we have established respect for one

another, we can collectively agree that mis/disinformation should not be tolerated.

Also, through this battle with mis/disinformation, we can shed a light to Marcos Jr.

supporters whose reasons are grounded on false information even without directly

addressing them.

Thus, school groups and organizations’ initiatives like fact-checking and

webinars on mis/disinformation are a big help and a great start in combating false

information. Programs encouraging Marcos Jr. supporters to speak up are also a

good way of facilitating helpful engagement. Through this, we can show our respect

to their freedom of being heard, while also having a chance to analyze how we can
help them effectively.

We may have stood on opposite sides during the campaign, but now we

should remember that we are not against each other. Even in times of struggle, let

us let good will, and respect for autonomy and humanity win.

Concluding paragraph

In all, Kantian Deontology emphasizes the importance of applying the formula

of universal law to maxims while considering good will, autonomy, and humanity.

With this perspective, I have concluded that cutting off people who we think have

morally objectionable political views (in this case, Marcos Jr. supporters) is not an

appropriate response to the past Philippine elections. We engage in social discourse

because we want what is good for the country but cutting people off widens the gap

between Filipinos and worsens the spread of mis/disinformation. The divide of

people and spread of mis/disinformation will most likely hinder us from achieving

peace, so we cannot argue that cutting people off will bring us peace. Instead of

fighting over political views, we must get together and fight the spread of

mis/disinformation which becomes the root of misinformed principles.

References

Korsgaard, C. (1985). Kant's Formula of Universal Law.

Lopez, G. (2022, May 19). [New school] why majority of overseas Filipinos in

Taiwan support marcos. RAPPLER. https://www.rappler.com/voices/new-

school/opinion-why-majority-overseas-filipinos-taiwan-support-marcos/?
 fbclid=IwAR07okgydCSxUArm4x0d0a-

94t9jzEnZx1Mk8p2dwO0ODwObOThbjcnloZY

O'Neill, O. (1993). Kantian Approaches to Some Famine Problems.

Peel, M. (2022, May 20). Marcos' Philippine election win is lesson in democracies'

failures. Nikkei Asia. https://asia.nikkei.com/Spotlight/Comment/Marcos-

Philippine-election-win-is-lesson-in-democracies-failures

[Giron, Jaslynne Rose B.]