Lesson 4

THE HUMAN PERSON FLOURISHING IN TERMS OF SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY

Briefly, happiness can be defined as the profound positive emotional experience

brought out by triumphs and accomplishments in life and the chance to use one’s talents,
abilities, and virtues. A collection of happiness or happy moments constitute the person’s
meaning of human flourishing. Human flourishing establishes a properly led life, emotional
stability, self-esteem, optimism, optimal range of productivity, development, resilience, etc.,
that gives a person a great sense of purpose. World Health Organization (2004) defined
human flourishing as “a state of well- being in which the individual realizes his or her own
abilities, copes with the normal stressors of life, works productively and fruitfully, and makes
contributions to his or her community.” This pinnacle of happiness, stimulated by the pursuit
to flourish, brings you to a state of eudaimonia, which literally means “good spirited.” It
should be emphasized that eudaimonia is not a matter of one or two or three moments of
bliss. It is a result of successful life episodes, well-spread over a person’s lifetime. It is the
greatest sense a person feels once he has already flourished.

Learning Outcomes:
After completing this chapter, the students should have developed the ability to:
1) Critique various concepts in human flourishing.
2) Analyze the different conditions where science and technology shape and destroy
human flourishing; and
3) Describe personal criteria of well-being.

Eudaimonia and Aristotle

Aristotle (384-322 BC), a Greek philosopher, once collated

different opinions about happiness in his book, Nicomachean
Ethics. Diverse views on how to attain the pinnacle of happiness
emanated from the people during his time. One of the assumptions
from the Ancient Greek society considered happiness as a
complete, good state. It is the state of security, the absence of
emptiness, or being full of something good. Happiness also meant
living a divine or godly life. Another opinion stated that happiness
requires good external circumstances. That, in order to be happy,
one should have a good set of friends, family, peaceful
surroundings, enough money, etc. From this pool of ideas, Aristotle
then came up with his own theory about happiness.

Aristotle
(384-322 BC)

According to his psychological assumption, “Happiness is the chief ultimate good we

are always aiming at.” It is believed that people’s decisions in life are always anchored in an
end-goal of happiness, and this gives a man a sense of telos or purpose. For better
understanding, the following illustration shows how people still end up with one ultimate goal
after having several complex decisions.

This pursuit of happiness was coined by Aristotle as eudaimonia. The eudaimonistic

notion of happiness centers on oneself more than responsibility for a common good.
Eudaimonia is directed by intrinsic (deep, subjective) views on what is valuable to human
life. Alasdair MacIntyre (1981) briefly defined eudaimonia as “the state of being well and
doing well in being well.” Eventually, the concept of human flourishing emerged wherein

38
humans were likened to a flower blossoming at a certain period of time. Like a flower in its
full bloom, a human prioritizes living well for full personal development.

James Griffin (1986) proposed this list of items that constitute happiness or well-
being:
1) Understanding.
2) Accomplishments.
3) Freedom– the ability to act freely.
4) Enjoyment and perception of beauty; and
5) Deep personal relationship.

Martin Seligman, a psychologist, proposed the following five distinct factors

associated to human flourishing that leads to happiness:
1) Natural or trained positive emotions
2) Successes and triumphs.
3) Purpose and meaning-driven life.
4) Engagement in challenges that match a person’s highest strengths; and
5) Relationships.

The Idea of a Common Good

Another facet of Aristotelian view of happiness is contained in a life of relationships.
Human flourishing, which denotes the happiness of oneself, also seeks mutual flourishing.
This happiness “with” others is embedded in the concept of common good. David
Hollenbach, a Jesuit, defined common good as the sense of flourishing in the mutual
relationships, which will truly define a person’s well-being or happiness. For example, in the
movie, The Pursuit of Happiness (Appendix A), the happiness of a father is largely influenced
by the happiness of his child and his society. This implies that while human flourishing is
attained on a personal level, it can be affected by the kind of relationships a person has with
others.

Human beings have a deep interpersonal nature. Studies have shown that social
engagement makes people happy. In fact, the satisfying impact of having a sense of
belongingness to community has the same satisfying effect as having a salary increase at
work. The concept of the common good is expanded into a vision of a good society, called
the summum bonum. Summum bonum is a Latin expression, which means “the highest good.”
It is generally thought of as being an end in itself containing all other goods. Arguably,
summum bonum is typically observed in the eastern countries more than in the western.

Human Flourishing in The Modern Age of Science and Technology

It was discussed in this chapter that human flourishing or the pursuit of personal
happiness is interlinked to the mutual flourishing or a common good. It further implied that
what is good to the personal level is equal to the good we hold in common until the advent
of modernity when the definition of human flourishing became more complex and altered.

Technological Advancement
Modern technologies pledge people comfort, amplified health, security, reduced
labor, increased productivity, luxury, pleasure, happiness. What is even more appealing
about technology is its capacity to adjust to people’s likes, dislikes, behavior, habits,
demands, preferences, and environment. Automated machines have been already widely
used in almost all types of society since the18th century. These machines use various control
systems for equipment that operate processes in factories, telephone networks, stabilization
of automobiles, etc. They minimize or reduce human efforts. Furthermore, technology has
become more effective in shaping the behavior of society when different mediums of
communication were produced and made available to every household. Television and radio

39
have been very influential in shaping people’s attitudes, behaviors, and habits. Some other
powerful inventions include wireless communication, developed by Guglielmo Marconi in
1985; Braun tube in 1987; antenna, invented by Yagi-Uda in 1925; and the transmission of
electronic image, established by Kenjiro Takayanagi in 1926.At the present time, most
societies cannot anymore imagine a world without these technological inventions.
Smartphone, for example, has embedded itself in the lives of every consumer. Almost
everyone cannot forget their Smartphone for at least a week, or even a day. From chatting
with friends via social media platforms to checking emails, to purchasing items, to ordering
foods, Smartphone have already maneuvered the happiness of a person.

On the upswing of the cyber world, people have started lurking in the realm of virtual
realities. This innovation situates humans within a computer-generated world. It promotes a
great sense of pleasure in the form of entertainment and scientific and social modernizations.
As to entertainment industries, for example, movies seek to give people real senses of fear,
thrill, joy, sorrow, excitement, etc., through realistic cinematography. It aims to disintegrate
the borders between fictional and factual to maximize human experience.

Modern technologies have even come to the point that manual labor (human) groups
are being replaced by artificial intelligent devices, which are multifunctional,
reprogrammable, and based on their name, intelligent. Artificial intelligent devices are
tailored and programmed with senses and the sensory feedback enables these devices to
make decisions for a desirable output. Hence, society has started using “smart” inventions,
like Smartphone, smart cars, smart weapons, and even smart undergarments, unstoppably.
In the future, these smart inventions are even expected to replace factory workers, a nation’s
army, hospice care givers, etc., and they will work alongside humans as independent beings.
Just imagine a workplace with humans and robots all together working independently.

Modern Science
Science is ever evolving, and in every turn, it takes, the views of society about life,
existence, humanity, and nature also change. Here are some of the remarkable scientists in
the field of astronomy that have changed the landscape of human minds:

Johannes Kepler and Galileo Galilei. At different time intervals, Kepler and Galilei
reinforced and refined the theory of Nicolaus Copernicus about the universe. Their reports
challenged Europe’s medieval sense of values.

Albert Einstein. In 1905, Einstein presented his Photon Theory, Brownian Motion
Theory, and Special Theory of Relativity in rapid succession within a year to the scientific
world. That year was considered “Miracle Year” as Einstein overthrew the then-prevailing
views of physics.

Edwin Hubble. In 1929, Hubble theorized that the universe is expanding.

George Gamow. Hubble’s theory led to the Big Bang Theory proposed by Gamow in
1946. With the detections of cosmic background radiation, Big Bang Theory was intensified.
These discoveries gave people a “new sense of outer space.” It even developed into a dream
of possible relative human activities outside the earth.

Sherwood Rowland and Mario Molina. Rowland and Molina revealed in 1974 that
chlorofluorocarbon gases were causing ozone layer depletion. When the discovery of the
ozone hole was reported in 1985, people started putting efforts into protecting the global
environment.

40
 In Life Science, Charles Robert Darwin (19th century) changed people’s views on
nature, humanity, and society through his Theory of Evolution. Several other discoveries that
have affected the way people think include the discoveries of the following scientists:

James Watson and Francis Crick. Watson and Crick discovered the double helix
structure of DNA in 1953. This has led to the emergence of a new field of molecular biology.

Richard Feynman. He launched nanotechnology during his lecture in 1959 with the
title “There’s Plenty of Room at the Bottom.” Nanotechnology elucidated matter at the
atomic and molecular level that was considered impossible in the past.

Stanley Cohen and Herbert Boyer. Cohen and Boyer established gene recombinant
technology in 1973. This has opened insurmountable possibilities in elucidating the structure
of living things at the molecular level.

Keith Campbell and Ian Wilmut. They successfully cloned a mammal (domestic ship)
in 1996 using the process of nuclear transfer, which involved removing the DNA from an
unfertilized egg and injecting it into the nucleus which contains the DNA to be cloned. The
ship was called “Dolly,” and Dolly turned out to be a center of debates and discussions on
the moral and ethical standards in science.

In 2003, another leap of scientific discoveries was accomplished when the

International Human Genome Sequencing Consortium completed their project of sequencing
the entire human genome (gene structure). These modern approaches in life sciences have
extended the frontiers of human health and medical sciences. It has a great impact on how
people view the essence of life, healthy and happy living, ethical life, acceptable well-being,
sense of values, and more.

The Concept of “Human Flourishing” in the Modern World

The list of inventions and discoveries in this lesson is just a very slight glimpse of
endless scientific and technological progress. While technology responds to the endless
human need of convenience and prosperity, science, on the other hand, responds to limitless
human intellectual curiosity. Science and technology are at the forefront of our society today.
They are not necessarily the same entity, but they are instrumental in the advancement of
each other. In some cases, scientific research is being done to improve a certain
technological invention, but in some other cases, technology is developed to pursue more
advanced scientific research. In many ways, science and technology solve social problems,
and it advances society.

Human Flourishing in Terms of Science and Technology

For us to be able to determine and criticize how humans flourished in terms of science
and technology, let us first define what flourishing is.

FLOURISHING - a state where people experience positive emotion, positive

psychological Functioning, and positive social functioning, most of the time living within an
optimal range of human functioning Edward W. Younkins in his article Aristotle, Human
Flourishing, and the Limited State (2003) defined Human flourishing (also known as personal
flourishing) as something that involves the rational use of one's individual human
potentialities, including talents, abilities, and virtues in the pursuit of his freely and rationally
chosen values and goals. Flourishing is the highest good of human endeavors and that toward
which all actions aim. It is success as a human being. The best life is one of excellent human
activity.

To be able to fully understand how humans have flourished in terms of science and
Technology let us identify some VIEWS ON TECHNOLOGY. It has been said they there are

41
many views or ways as to how technology is understood. These philosophies contributed to
how technology is understood and utilized by society.

1. Aristotelianism. This views technology as basically a means to an end. To Aristotle,

technology is the organizing of techniques in order to meet the demand that is being
posed by humans. This may seem that technology is primarily concerned with the
product. Technology will be judged as either good or bad based on the value given to
the product based on its use and effect on society.
2. Technological pessimism. This view is extremely supported by French philosopher
Jacques Ellul (1912-1994). Technological Pessimism holds that technology is
progressive and beneficial in many ways, it is also doubtful in many ways. It is said that
technology is a means to end but, in these views, technology has become a way of life.
Technique has become a framework which humans cannot escape. It introduced ways
on how to make things easy. Ellul's pessimistic arguments are:
(1) Technological progress has a price.
(2) Technological progress creates more problems.
(3) Technological progress creates damaging effects; and
(4) technological progress creates unpredictable devastating effects

3. Technological optimism. This view is strongly supported by technologists and

engineers and also by ordinary people who believe that technology can alleviate all the
difficulties and provide solutions for problems that may come. It holds that even
though technological problems may arise; technology will still be the solution to them.
The extreme version of this philosophy is technocratism which holds technology as
the supreme authority on everything.
4. Existentialism. The main concern of this view is the existence or the mode of being of
someone or something which is governed by the norm of authenticity. This view
basically investigates the meaning of existence or being and is always faced with the
selection must make with which existence will commit himself to.

Martin Heidegger, German philosopher, one of the most known supporters of this
philosophy. He did not stop defining what technology is but has dealt with its essence. To
Heidegger, the real essence of technology lies in enframing, the gathering of the setting upon
which challenges man to bring the unconcealed to unconcealment and this is a continuous
revealing. Combining these thoughts, we can now discuss the Human Person as both the
bearer and the beneficiary of Science and Technology and how human flourishes and finds
meaning in the world that he/she builds.
Humans may unconsciously acquire. Consume or destroy what the world has to offer.
And Science and technology as part of human life needs reflective and meditative thinking.
Science and technology must be examined for their greater impact on humanity as a whole.

Martin Heidegger on science and technology

Martin Heidegger (1889-1996), a well-known German philosopher, examined the two
usual definitions of technology:
a. means to an end and
b. a human activity,
These two definitions cannot be separated from each other. He called it the
instrumental and anthropological definition of technology or simply means by which the
human ends are realized. To Heidegger, this may not be a false definition, but it is a
misleading one because this limits our thinking.

The instrumental definition of technology

According to Heidegger, the instrumental definition of technology encourages us to
view technology from different periods of time as not having fundamental differences. But
he claimed that this does not show the true essence of technology. He explained that while

42
technology is geared towards meeting human needs, still there is a difference between older
handicraft technologies with modern technology. As it is, "a sawmill in a secluded valley of
the Black Forest is a primitive means compared with the hydroelectric plant on the Rhine
River " (Heidegger,1977, p.I). Heidegger also argued that " technology is by no means
technological" and should not be seen as merely neutral. The problem begins when humans
see it only as a means to an end and disregard the fact that there is good technology and bad
technology.
Another problem Heidegger saw in the instrumental definition of technology is that it
only invites man to a continual desire to master it which unconsciously may be making
technology go out of hand. Heidegger said, "Everything depends on our manipulating
technology in the proper manner as a means. We will, as we say, 'get' technology 'spiritually
in hand'. We will master it. The will to mastery becomes the more urgent the more
technology threatens to slip from human control." (Heidegger, 1977, p.I) with this, he argued
that the problem does not fall on making technology better but on how man sets upon
technology, his thoughts that makes him blind to the real essence of technology.

For Heidegger, this correct definition of technology is insufficient as it does not bring
out its real essence. He said, "In order that we may arrive at this, or at least come close to it,
we must seek the truth by way of the correct. We must ask what is the instrument itself?
Within what do such things as means and end belong? (1977, p.2) In answering this question,
Heidegger arrived at a discussion of causality which to him in reality initially involves four
ways that leads for something to exist or to be "caused’. Heidegger further studied Aristotle's
Four causes and illustrated it using a silver chalice which he said owes it make up from the
four causes.
1. Causa Materialis or the material cause - The material by which the silver chalice
was made of: silver.
2. Causa Formalis or the formal cause - The form of the shape that gave the silver
chalice its image.
3. Causa Finalis or the final cause - The purpose or the primary use by which the
silver chalice was made for: to be used during the Holy Communion as a vessel
for the wine that represent the blood of Christ.
4. Causa Efficiens or the efficient Cause - The agent that has caused the silver chalice
to come about: the silversmith.

The four causes are all deemed responsible for the bringing forth of the silver chalice.
This bringing forth of something is termed as poiesis and this is characterized by an external
force. It brings something concealed to unconcealment which then makes technology as not
only means to an end but also a mode of revealing.
The silver chalice was bought fourth by the silver, by its form, for its purpose, by the
silversmith. External factors have caused the silver chalice to be brought forth. On the other
hand, something that came about without any external forced, like a flower blooming in the
field or a tree bearing its fruit is termed physics. The flower blossomed and the tree bore fruit
even without external help.

Heidegger’s technology as a way of revealing.

Heidegger believed that the genuine substance or the real essence of technology is
found in enframing. This is the continuous bringing forth into unconcealment that which is
concealed. This is a non-stop revealing. Heidegger saw technology as a way of revealing and
continues to demand for something to be bought out into the open. This bringing forth into
the open is a two-way relationship: the concealed is calling out for someone to set upon it
and bring it to unconcealment and the one who receives the call sets upon and acts upon to
unconceal the concealed. To further illustrate this, he gave some examples through
contrasting ancient and modern technology. First, he talked about the ancient windmill
which only relies on the wind blowing and does not store energy which can be for immediate

43
use and can also be stored up for future use. Second, was about the peasant planting seeds
who only waits for the bringing forth of the planted seed because there is no challenge set
upon soil. Modern technology of cultivation on the other hand, challenged the field that has
caused agriculture to be revolutionized. Now, food is not only produced for immediate use
but can be stored as well for future use and could cater for more population. Third, is about
the wooden bridge that is built to join river for banks for hundreds of years without challenges
being set upon the river. While on the other hand, the hydroelectric plant that was set on
Rhine River dammed the river into the hydroelectric plant so that electrical energy can be
stored and distributed.
Because of this continuous revealing, Heidegger also pointed out the danger that
comes with technology. The call to unconcealed that which is concealed is also causing
something to be concealed even more. And as one tries to understand something, there is
the tendency to be close to the counterpart of which is being opened to him. There is also
tendency for man to misunderstand the thing that is being unconcealed before him. Here,
Heidegger calls for man to be more discerning and considerate of the things that is being
unconcealed before him and those that have relationship with that thing being unconcealed.

The mode of revealing in modern technology

Heidegger explained that technology as a mode of revealing does not stop and
continues to be seen in modern technology but not in the bringing-forth sense. This is
nonstop revealing. Modern technology is revealed by challenging nature, instead of bringing
forth, it is setting upon challenges or demands on nature in order to:
a. Unlock and expose. It carries the idea that nature will not reveal itself unless a challenge
is set upon it. This is true with the hydroelectric plant set upon the Rhine River which
unlocked the electricity concealed in it.
b. Stockpiles for future use. As technology is a means to an end, it aims to meet future
demands, the electricity produced by the hydroelectric plant set upon the Rhine River
is being stored for future use in the community. Modern technologies are now able to
get more from nature by challenging it. As Heidegger (1997) said," Such challenge
happens in that energy concealed in nature in unblocked is transformed, what is
transformed is stored up, what is stored up is distributed, and what is distributed is
switched about ever new."

The danger of the nonstop revealing

As said earlier, the mode of revealing does not stop in modern technology. It
continually calls man to respond to what is presented to him or to the demand for a better
and efficient means to an end. With this comes the continuous challenging forth for the
unconcealed to be unconcealed even more. Here lies the danger that Heidegger talked about.
Revealing opens up a relationship between man and the word but an opening up of
something means a closing down of something which means as something is revealed,
another is concealed. An example given by Heidegger on this "the rise of a cause-effect
understanding of reality closes "off an understanding of God as something mysterious and
holy: God is reduced to 'the god of the philosophers"(Cerbone,2008).
Another danger is when man falls into a misinterpretation of that which is presented
to him. That is when he sees himself in the object before him rather than seeing the object
itself. There is also the tendency for man to be fully engrossed with the enframing that he
fails to weigh the results and consequences of his setting upon an object which maybe
destructive not only to himself but even to the surroundings and other people. This happens
when he starts to believe that everything in the human condition can be answered by
technology and that even man's happiness is dependent on the continuous modernization of
technology.

44
 The relationship between science, technology, and society
Society should also be instrumental in eliciting a happy life. Some of the examples of
how science and technology promote human flourishing and, therefore, leads to a well-being,
include the following:
a. Scientific research outcomes are linked to the developments of new utilizable
products, which augment the quality of life. A society or a country, for example,
that exerts efforts in upholding external or physical beauty will promote better
confidence among the people in the society.
b. Advanced technologies that detect various illnesses will give security to the people
in society in terms of social, medical, and health services.
c. Modern equipment and facilities available at the common social and civic services
will boost an individual’s independence and contentment.
d. A fast and reliable communication and transportation system within a society
gives ease and comfort to its people. This, in turn, makes people productive and
zealous in life.

Two types of societal interpretations on human flourishing:

1. Nominalist Revolution – This started in the 14th century. Nominalism denies the
reality of universal. It believes that reality is seen as an individual or particular thing. It is
rooted in the concept of The Enlightenment, which is governed by two tenets: (a) the use of
science to control and gain understanding of the physical and the natural world; and (b) the
use of knowledge for personal progress and betterment in life. This displaces summum
bonum or the concept of the common good.
2. Teleological Framework – It also has two concepts: (a) to understand the natural
world, one should exercise moral and intellectual virtues; and (b) a person is required to gain
divine assistance through theological or spiritual virtues.

The conflict between science and technology and the eudaimonistic view on
happiness or human flourishing can, therefore, be attributed to the questions on morality.
Based on the teleological framework, both the scientific and the technological achievements
of a society have, no doubt, brought massive progress to human health and well-being, but
they slowed down our sense of universal rights. This sense of universal rights, according to
the teleological framework, is essential in attaining a eudaimonistic concept of happiness or
human flourishing. That without considering divine rules, science and technology will only
serve the needs of the people for pleasurable experience, desire, and empty satisfaction,
which are not the main ideals of Aristotle’s concept of eudaimonia. Then, how can science
and technology constitute human flourishing? And how can science and technology break
it?

Science and technology constitute human flourishing if:

a. It has a value of safety.
b. It promotes health.
c. It maintains privacy.
d. It protects social and divine justice.
e. It is responsible to nature.
f. It is environmentally friendly.

As Tony Judt mentioned in his book, I’ll Fares the Land, people at the present time
are enjoying their lives so much that they fail to question the satisfaction brought about by
the products of science and technology. “Is it good? Is it fair? Is it just? Is it right? Will it help
to bring about a better society or a better world?”
An example of scientific innovation that clearly separates nominalists from the
teleological concept of human flourishing and the science and technology is animal cloning.
The first successful cloning of mammals occurred in 1996 for a domestic sheep called Dolly.
Today animal cloning is almost common. Scientists have already successfully cloned some

45
other animal groups, including rabbits, chickens, cats, horses, pigs, cows, deer, goats, and
rats. Nominalists may highlight the importance of animal cloning, including the efforts to save
endangered species and the great contribution it gives to the medical, pharmaceutical, and
agricultural sectors of modern society. For nominalists, the justification of science is enough
to consider it right. The benefits it provides, like giving a cure to a disease or a better gain of
agricultural crops, can secure the society that, in turn, makes it happy.
The teleological framework, on the other hand, will highlight the ethical issues of this
scientific advancement. Scientific discussions posed two moral problems of animal cloning:
(a) it has negative consequences to animals, human beings, and the environment; and (b) it
may violate moral prohibitions or ideologies.

TEST YOUR UNDERSTANDING

A. Read each question and answer briefly.
1. How do you personally define human flourishing?
2. Which concept do you find more agreeable, Nominalist Revolution or Teleological
Framework? Why?
3. Rate yourself from 1 (lowest) to 10 (highest) in terms of your personal state of
eudaimonia.