John Locke uses natural law to ground his philosophy. For him, “natural law holds that human beings are subject to a moral law”. It emphasizes duty.  Morality or goodness is fundamentally about duty, and this duty of each individual has to abide by the natural law. On the other hand, Thomas Hobbes created a new approach when he based morality not on duty but on natural right. It is the right of each individual to preserve himself, to pursue his own good essentially, to do as he wishes. Natural law and natural right may be combined, but if they are, one must take precedence over the other. Either the individual’s right, or his duty to moral law, must come first. What is the great difference of the two? One characteristic of the natural right is that it takes man to be by nature a private and independent creature. For Hobbes men are free and independent, having a right to pursue their own self-interest with no limitations, and no duties to one another. The priority of individuals’ right reflects their separateness, their lack of moral ties to one another. They had no duty to respect the rights of others. Locke speaks that men are free, equal, independent and at liberty to do as they wish but with limitations. Individuals have a duty to respect the rights of others. Obviously, this limitation separates Locke from Hobbes.

The seminary formation offers us the opportunity to form and develop ourselves to become efficient and effective leaders. We have given the chances, tasks, responsibility, initiative and freedom to lead the community based on our capacities, power, means and capabilities.  Reality speaks and shows that there are some of us seminarians take the position and responsibility not to lead the community aiming for unity, peace and harmony but only for their advantage, selfish desire and personal motives. Some would take the chance to be recognized by the formators. Some would use their authority to harshly control and command others. Some would abuse their power up to the extent of making decisions and rules which are out already of the context and not thinking of its communal effect. They focus more on their privileges or rights and not on their duties which are more important. It seems that there are no limitations already. This is very true because I was once a lower year, a follower and of course now a member of the council. There are times that I was being blinded, deceived and controlled by my human tendencies, particularly by the authority I have. It seems that the reason of the mind is higher than the reason of the heart. I become so rational. However, there are times that I cannot deny the fact that I really and badly need to use my power and right as a leader to give sanctions, to be strict, to be firm, to be harsh and sometimes to act or pretend badly because others are becoming abusive and tolerant. I also need to preserve my rights as a leader, to preserve myself as a person, of being good. They become stubborn, intolerant, hard-headed, lack of respect, degrading my dignity as a leader, insulting me, threatening me, and really show bad actions in the community; I would like to believe that, this unnecessary actions of seminarians should not be tolerated. And as human beings, I believe that in this kind of situation, we have the tendency to become impulsive with regards to our response. In this moment, we don’t even think to respect them anymore because they don’t also respect my rights. I need also to defend myself.

Having a task, or special assignment, could be either good or bad for an individual. Well, it will depend on the situation. It could be good if the task being given suits on the personality of the individual – it will be heaven for him. Plus, if the given task is also the same thing that he is wishing for; he is just waiting for the right time where he can grab it, or he is just waiting that somebody will appoint it to him. But if the given task doesn’t fit on the personality of the individual, it will surely be hell for him. His options will be: first, to take it and consider as an opportunity to grow and to widen more his perspective about life, and secondly, he is going to take it by the virtue of no choice and won’t totally commit himself from the attached responsibilities- just to stay good before others and in the eyes of his superiors.

Duty or responsibility is a common thing in life. We can never escape it as long as we live our lives, or as long as we are living in this world. In fact, it is our very existence, we have to work in order for us to survive, we have to work so that we can also relate to others, and we have to work so that we can also contribute to the growth of our community or society, as a whole.

Here in the seminary, wherein we, seminarians, are formed to become integrated persons, are given the chance to handle big responsibilities, not only our personal responsibility to ourselves but also the responsibility to others. As what our mentors are usually saying, “Responsibilities are not meant to burden you, but it is an opportunity given to you so that you can realize your own strengths and weaknesses. Thus, it can help you to become more mature persons with a good sense and background in dealing with your responsibilities later on. It is an early training for all of you to make you well prepared when you are priests already, wherein more and even bigger responsibilities will be assigned to you.”

In m y personal experience, I’d like to admit that having responsibility, sometimes, is very difficult. It really challenges my person, testing my patience and endurance in the formation. There were times that I’m about to cry, because I don’t know what to do first and I’m losing focus. It sometimes left me hanging in the middle line, crushing my brain by thinking what’s the best way to kill these two birds (my duties - sometimes it is not only two, but also three, four, five, and even more) in just one stone (one process). I’m sure that I can do all my tasks well and there’s no question about it, but my usual problem is “time.” We are given so many tasks but we don’t have enough time. I’m not telling that I don’t know how to manage my time, but the only thing is, sometimes, I am given so many tasks which are really time-suppressing. Plus, there are also surprise tasks that are really surprising me most of the time, wherein somebody will just simply say to me, “Please do this and that… go to this person and tell him/her that… inform the community that… check them… etc.” Often times, in secret, I’m also complaining, but the funny thing is, I’m still doing what is asked me to do and afetrwards it creates a certain feeling that makes me feel so good whenever I accomplished my duties. Sometimes I came to the point that I’m asking myself, “Why me? Kadamo sa amom ngaa ako lang haw? I’m not the only one who is capable of doing these things. For sure, there are others who are better than me.” But answer also sprouted after asking it to myself, it was then that I totally realized that I was so privileged because I’m being chosen to do such tasks. I’m doing it not only for myself but for the community. That it would already be my chance to serve my brothers and sisters in the very best that I can do.

To be a leader is a privilege and becoming a good leader is never easy. You have to be a good model for everybody. You must live the laws of the institution you are in and never dare to violate any of them, because everybody is watching you- you have to set yourself as good example towards others. In short, you are the eye of everything; you have to maintain the orderliness of the community and discipline your members and motivate them so that they can function well in their tasks and responsibilities. But to be a leader doesn’t only mean that you will be burdened with the responsibilities given to you. There are also things that make you happy as a leader, especially when you see that you are helping others by being with them in their struggles, working with them so that they can survive it. It’s good to see that others are improving because you help them motivate their selves. And most especially, it’s nice to hear when others say their sweet “thank you!” after serving them. It draws the heart to smile and make it even stronger. Duties are not meant to burden us in life. It could be also a great privilege for us to serve others and to become part of their lives.

Leaders are important part of the society. Every society or institution needs a leader. Leaders are the ones to see to it that everything goes right and the structure is working well. Of course, we cannot deny the fact that there will always be defects in every society, but as much as possible, leaders should give their best in making and implementing solutions to these defects. If they can see that the structure is not working, then they must change the structure. Leaders have to be moderate in their “being leaders.” What I mean is that, leaders must not be in the two extremes: the “commanding-leader” and the “industrious-leader.” To be a leader is not only about commanding and commanding to ones members. It is also important that as leader, one has to do some dirty works (hands on) with his/her members. Another thing is that, to be a leader is not necessarily that one has to do all the works needed to be done. A leader also has to divide the tasks to his/her members and push them to do their assigned works. Leaders are not above/superior than its members. They are just the representative or the voice of the people.

John Locke, one of the influential political philosophers, is known in his emphasis on the natural laws of man more than the natural rights. Natural laws refer to the laws that are understood to be given. Because of their being given, these laws need no more definition or further explanation. If they are defined or explained, their definition and explanation are loose. These laws are considered as absolute. They are known by the natural reason. Hobbes on the other hand, emphasized man’s natural rights more than the natural laws. Natural rights refer to the rights of man. It focuses on man’s privileges. In relation to leadership, there are two kinds of leaders: the “servant-leader” and the “served-leader.” “Servant-leaders” are the leaders who focus in the natural laws of man. Because they focus in the natural laws, their very concern is their duties. They would always consider first their responsibilities, their duties to the society and the people living there. Their very priority is to do their duties and serve the people. That is why, they are called servant-leaders because doing their duty (connected to their being a leader) is in itself a service (service to the people). On the other hand, “served-leaders” are those leaders who focus on their natural rights as leaders. Because they focus on their rights, their very concern is the privileges they can get from their position/title. Their focus is not anymore in their work, but in the rewards given to them by their “being-leaders.” If they focus in the rewards/privileges and not in their duties, there is a big possibility that their power will eat and corrupt them.

Being a leader always comes with duties and privileges (Duties and Privileges). They always coexist with each other. It is in the matter of what the leader would prioritize between the two (Duties or Privileges). Good leaders usually focus their self in their duties and not in the privileges they can get from their position. Prioritizing their duties is not self-serving. It is always for the good of all. Duty is equal to service. True leaders are those leaders that really serve the people. On the other hand, bad leaders (usually the corrupt ones) are those leaders who focus their self in the privileges and benefits they can get from their position. Because of their focus to privileges, they are not sincere in their “being leaders” because the truth is, they are after the benefits of being a leader which is self-serving.

The Challenge- In relation to the Seminary…

The St. Vincent Ferrer Seminary is an institution that produces leaders of the church, state and even different (small/big) organizations. It has produced the likes of Jaime Cardinal Sin, Graciano Lopez-Jaena, Martin Delgado, Quintin Salas and large number of priests and bishops. It also produced people with mastery in different kinds of art. There are also a number of ex-seminarians who are now successful in their chosen fields. In other words, the St. Vincent Ferrer Seminary is not only a formation house for those who aspire to become priests, but also a training ground for the future leaders both of the church and the state. The seminary teaches not only how to lead, but also the morals to consider in leading. Being a seminarian is in itself a challenge. It is a challenge to prove that the seminary produces good leaders of the church and state.

As a living being, by nature, we are being governed by our duties which the natural emphasized. As Christian, it is our duty already to live according to the commandment of our Lord Jesus Christ; (1) Love for God and (2) Love for our neighbour as ourselves. This two emphasizes love as the primary duty of all Christians. Imagine a life without duties. Do you think we can go on living if there is no duty? Duties give order in human life. Through duties that we are able to come up with our rights and later on it will become privilege already for all of us because we are being satisfied and fulfilled our needs.

“Rights exist to insure that we are able to fulfil our duties.” Rights protect duties yet without duties there can be no rights. In other world duties and rights are fundamental need of human life. Duties are always good because it comes from natural law. Duties will always make a person happy. And the rights protect the choice of man to be happy. And to be happy is already a privilege to a person. Although all of us have given a chance to be happy, there are always some that reject happiness, thus rejects also his rights and duties as well.

Duties as I said gives a person a chance to be happy. The only problem along the way is the rights which the person makes or the choice which the person makes. If the rights do not fit with the duties then doing duties would not make us happy anymore. This duty is not anymore a duty but an obligation which a person is being forced to do a certain act. Like for example, I was chosen to be a leader of a group and by nature of being a leader I must take the lead in the group. The fact that a person was chosen is because he has the potential to be a leader. In contrary, being chosen as a leader was a force and not voluntarily made makes his duty as a leader as an obligation already. I don’t want to be leader but because I was chosen, I am obliged to do what should be done. It is not anymore the duty that govern the leader but the obligation itself. But as a matter of fact, we can also gain privilege out of our obligation. For there are times that I am forced to do this job and as I finished doing it, although along the way I felt bad, I felt happy and for me happiness is already a privilege for a person.

 To experience happiness is a sign that we are able to fulfil our duties. And the fulfilment of our duties gives us a privilege to be happy. At this moment, as I am nearly finishing my paper, I can feel happiness already because my duty as a student of making a reflection paper is coming to an end. And at the end I know I will gain privileges because it was already finish. I can have a good rest, I will not anymore think about my paper in Political Philosophy, and I can start already making paper in Contemporary Philosophy. And I know that the same thing will again happen when I finished making my paper in Contemporary Philosophy. To be able to accommodate my duty is to be able to gain my privileges.

Thomas Hobbes was the first modern philosopher to articulate a detailed social contract theory. He wrote an influential book titled Leviathan. In this book, he detailed the idea of the social contract which states that men originally formed governments because of their need for protection. People gave up their rights to the rulers including their right to revolt in exchange for their safety; because for him, life would be chaotic and disordered without leadership. Thomas Hobbes termed the “state of nature” as the starting point for most social contract theories. He said that in a “state of nature” human life would be “solitary, poor, nasty, brutish, and short”. If there are no laws and political orders, people and the society would have unlimited natural freedom. Meaning, to plunder, to rape, to cheat, to murder, to mine, to steal, and to have illegal loggings are just tolerable and acceptable in the society. And without political orders and laws, there would be an endless war and chaos. Thus, for Hobbes, in order to avoid these extreme conditions and chaos, men must contract or agree with each other to establish political community   in which they can all gain security in return for subjecting themselves to ruler. People must surrender some of their freedoms and submit to the authority of the ruler, in exchange for their protection. The big question is why a person or citizen would voluntarily give up his or her freedom to obtain the benefits of political order? For Hobbes, men consent to give up their rights in favor of the absolute authority of government. It is because of men’s need and even selfish desire why he joined in the social contract. Both people and the government leaders benefit and gain from this agreement. Even though the law of the rulers may be illogical and oppressive, Hobbes believes that government is the only solution or alternative to solve the terrifying disorder and turmoil in the society. In the presence of political laws people are afraid to commit crimes and disorder in the society because of the possible punishments and consequences that the rulers might give to them. The bad thing about social contract is that it is possible for the government leaders to abuse their power and authority. They may take advantage from their positions, for them to get and attain their personal desires.

In the context of seminary formation, social contract is really visible and existing. Here in the seminary there are various rules, regulations, programs and systems are being implemented by the administration and must be strictly observed and faithfully followed by everyone especially by seminarians. All of these must be put into practice and faithfully observed by everybody in order to maintain a harmonious and peaceful community. We have to obey and respect policies and systems in the seminary in order to avoid problems, misunderstanding, turmoil, and disorder. Thus, we put our trust to our seminary formators, that by their capabilities and willingness to serve us, they will be able to nurture and form us all to become good priests someday. For my almost four years of stay here in the seminary, I have many observations on how the administration leads and governs or rules the entire community, and this is the reality and we cannot deny that. There were times that they misuse their authority as formators. They thought that what they believe, say, and command is always true. I am in doubt whether what they do is really for everyone because there is always favoritism. Sometimes, they fail and refuse to listen to us. They let us enter into their own perception, insight and ideas which I thought sometimes these are already becoming meaningless and out-of-the-way. There are really misunderstanding and division among them in terms of decision making and communication. I think, they have a misconception of what really a formator must be. However, we cannot simply blame and judge them, they are not perfect priests, and nobody is perfect, and that is the point. They have also weaknesses and lapses as leaders or formators. Sad thing is that, if they will continue to remain in their own perspectives and will. As seminarians, we have the great responsibility to move and act out what must be the right thing to happen in the community. We gave ourselves for them for us to be formed, so we must also give our part and contribution. We are meant to help each other. We have to do faithfully our part. We have to obey and respect seminary rules, systems and regulations in order for us to have a comfortable, harmonious and peaceful community. We have to avoid doing bad habits and unnecessary actions in order for us not to be given sanctions and punishments. Of course we must not commit or do any grievous acts so that we will not be expelled. We have to do good things and behave well for us to be rewarded like having free afternoon. We have to be honest in our examination because there is a reward, ice cream. These are some of the conditions, reminders, and policy that the seminary administration strictly observed. However, we have to widen and sharpen our awareness and perspectives. We have to think and reflect deeply. We have to be involved in every situations and happenings here in the seminary. We should not depend only and be controlled by their own perspectives. We must assert what should be the best and right thing for all of us. We have to speak out. To be “sipsip” is not needed in order to be praised, but we have to stand for the truth.  We have to be “risk taker and and never be safe player”, kung tani.

As I imagine myself living during the time of the primitive man, I might ask myself does the primitive man or our ancestors ask theirselves what is the purpose why they live. What is the purpose of their existence? Having the mind of the primitive I, strongly, believe that their only desire is for survival. The drive force of their lives why they continue existing is to survive whatever it takes.

For Hobbes the state of nature of man before are equally the same. There is no such word as distinctions and ranks before, all are equally. Hobbes further discusses that equality means a man is capable of hurting each other with a thought in mind that they need to survive. We might equate man here as a selfish being but actually that is their way of in order to survive. As far as of now this kind of attitude continually exists in the rank of both poor and rich, there is always selfish desire against another. And for Hobbes, this equality also means a war against all. Every man draws the meaning of good and evil according to their drive to survive. This can also be mean that a man is egocentric. Egocentric means the I give the meaning to an object in relation to others. Once the object will do well for the I, it will be considered as good and vice versa. A person will be attracted to what he think will help him to survive and hate and withdraw to what he think as a treat for his survival.

Moreover Hobbes added that there is also in the state of nature of a man that they know about the natural law which is, of course, a drive to survival yet this natural law "is a precepts or general rule, found out by reason" that aims to people's safety. Because of this natural law people interacts to another and by this the social contract theory was originated. The first law of nature, "man is ought to seek peace and follow it". In order to seek peace we must first interact to other human beings. Peace is impossible if people before do not interact to one another. War to all will always prevail. But because one characteristic in order to survive is to see peace people interact. And the second law of nature,  "a man be willing, when others are so too,  as far forth as for peace, and defense of himself, and defense of himself he shall think it necessary, to lay down his right to all things; and be contented with so much liberty against other men, as he would allow other men against himself."

People, in order to survive, seek for peace and this seeking for peace is to interact to other people. By this interaction both parties engage into a contract, where both of them should agree in relation for the peace and for their survival. This is why the need of a leader is essential in both parties because the leader will be the one who will judge them.

Social contract theory is one way for the people to avoid the state of nature and enter into a new realm in which agreement between people was made. And as result of this agreement people should choose a leader someone who is also like them yet someone who is capable of this position. The position of a leader becomes only possible because of the contract between people and their expectations that someone will rule over them and surrender their self to the leader yet in return a leader must do what people agreed before a leader was chosen.

At the end the leader, in order to maintain the contract, should act as absolute in his order in maintaining the order, peace and the law which they have agreed beforehand. By state of nature, people wanted to survive by doing "good" but through the natural law people survive through peace which was a result of the contract between people.

They said that the best way to know a person is to give him “power” or put him on a “higher position.” Why? It is because power serves as a secret tool that slowly reveals the being of the person or the individual. Power can be either good or bad. If power is used in a good way, surely, the product if it is also good. But if it is used in bad way, surely, evil will rule. Power is actually meant to do what is good. In fact, you will not be given the power if you don’t propose first your good intention of having it, or power will not be given to you if others don’t see you as a good person having good traits in life. But the sad reality is, a person is dynamic, not static. We change in some course of time, given the chance and opportunities that will surely answer our needs and will fulfill our dreams.

Let’s take the example of our government- the Politicians. To be honest, we voted them (our government leaders now) because we thought all the while that they are really true about their propagandas that they are presenting or promising to us. We thought that when they won in the election, our lives will be less difficult because they will serve as our answers in all problems that we have in our society. But then again, a person is dynamic, not static. We can never hold their intentions. It is their own will and choice if they will really fulfill their promises or will forego them. That is our natural tendency as humans. We can say that it is easy to rule if we have the power, but what happens usually is that, it is difficult to rule our “self” if we have already the power. Power or possessions can easily change us. Sometimes we can’t see anymore our true self because it is veiled by our own abuses of power.

This might be also the reason why Thomas Hobbes was able to come up with his very own, the Social Contract Theory. This theory of him speaks that we must be “fair” always. This theory was made so that we can control the sleeping monster within us (Greed- the LEVIATHAN). That we should be concerned about others, the way we are concerned about ourselves. Thus, we shouldn’t think of overpowering them or to take advantage their weaknesses. The Social Contract Theory is made so that we can develop good kind of leadership, a leadership that is always concerned about the common good of all. It is also meant to erase the idea of, “Dapat damo ang akon sa imo, dapat may ginansyahon gid ko, dapat mas taas ako sa imo.” If Social Contrast is being followed, it can promote good kind of relationship or partnership, because it will delete the idea of rivalry to one another. For both can benefit and it is always fair. For example in sports, “kun pirme ka lang daog, wala na sang may gusto pa nga mag kontra sa imo, kay ma man-an nila nga it will be useless nga magkontra pa sila sa imo kung at the end of the game, they will surely be defeated.” I’m not saying that winning is bad, but what I’m trying to say is that losing sometimes is also necessary. We also give space to others so that they will also be motivated and can have the chance to prove themselves.

That’s why here in the seminary Fr. Marvin would always give us, seminarians, a treat after examinations (he  will usually buy us ice cream or cake), so as to serve as our consolation after being pressured by them (Priest-Formators) to study hard in all of our subjects. This is to, somehow, motivate us to always study well in all our subjects so that we can achieve high grades and also for us to avoid cheating. For me, this is one good example of Social Contract Theory, when our Priest-Formators would sometimes spend something just to motivate us in our formation. If we just follow the rules and regulations of the seminary and we will be safe, because if we will perform well in our formation, it is not only us who will benefit from it, but it is also our Priest-Formators. So, Social Contract Theory is just like a give and take relationship wherein nobody loses, but only improving and gaining, because we became good partners (with our Priest-Formators) and not rivals. Thus, we can establish a good relationship which is very good foundation in making our formation a fruitful one.

“There is a circle here that links us to one another: we each want to be happy; the social feeling of love is one of our greatest sources of happiness; and love entails that we be concerned for the happiness of others. We discover that we can be selfish together.”-

Sam Harris

Man is the masterpiece of God’s creation. We are the best among his creations here on earth because of our being rational and free.  Animals cannot reason out and can never make their choices. They are determined by their instincts. We humans on the other hand can control our life, can choose what to do, and can make decisions on our own because of our freedom and our being rational beings. Man is in nature, selfish. We have the tendency to think of our self alone, of what can make us happy, of what can satisfy us. Our being “ego-centered” is natural in our being human. We want to secure our very self first before we think and care for others. Our being selfish as a tendency comes from our desire to survive in life. Survival is the most basic act of man. We will do everything in order to survive. The selfishness and the greediness we humans have, comes from our desire and will to survive. If all of us become greedy, conflict happens in each one of us. That is why, life is a war of all wars. Because of this, Social Contract is applied to solve the problem.

Social Contract Theory refers to the contract or agreement applied in us humans, limiting our actions to what is ought to be, in order for us to achieve peace and order in the society or in the place where we are.  In that way, man will not abuse his/her freedom, doing only what is proper and moral. It is applied from small matters to bigger matters. It existed long time ago but Thomas Hobbes was the first to make it famous in the language of philosophy through his book entitled “Leviathan.” Social Contract is presently universal and global trending. It is applied wherever we are in today’s world. It is also applied even in the uncivilized places and in the tribal groups.

Here in the seminary, social contract is also applied. It is applied in the seminary rules and regulations written in the “Student Manual.” They are written there for us to review anytime the rules and regulations and be aware of them. The writing of the rules and regulations in the Student Manual made it a contract which obligates us, the seminarians to follow them. Following the rules, makes the seminary a place of peace and order. Not following or disobedience to what is written in the manual creates conflict and disorder. Any disobedience done by a seminarian merits punishment. In that way, seminarians will avoid any misdemeanours and will follow the rules that are written in the Student Manual.

In summary, Social Contract refers to the contract or agreement applied in us humans, limiting our actions to what is ought to be, in order for us to achieve peace and order in the society or in the place where we are. It is presently global trending and applied wherever we go. Social Contract brings order and peace to a place, organization, community, small groups of people and society. It is applied because of the reality that man will abuse his/her freedom in order to achieve what he/she wants in order to survive. Man is selfish in nature. We have the tendency of thinking and saving our very self alone. In order to avoid this, social contract is applied through rules and regulations, do’s and don’t’s, through laws. It avoids conflict and brings order. One of the best examples of the social contract in the seminary is the Student Manual, wherein the rules and regulations of the seminary are written. Writing the rules and regulations in the manual makes it as a contract or an agreement of the seminarians to the seminary.