PUZZLING THE RELATIONSHIP

You are unaware that your partner is currently pressured by his or her previous relationship. His or her past is so obsessed with him or her. Just like with common stories and films, you were able to see the text messages of the two about their meetings. Your partner's past threatened him/her (e.g. your wife/girlfriend or husband/boyfriend) as a result of the latter's obsession and possible insanity. You felt like your partner cheated on you and never trust you since he regularly stops visiting you and even sends a single message/ greeting a day. You even concluded that the reason why he or she doesn't want to introduce you in public as his or her partner because he/she has another lover. However, from the perspective of your partner, he or she does not want only to expose you to possible problems like terrible confrontation with his or her past. But still, you pursue your decision to have a cool-off for a moment and you stop communicating with him and you even decided to have a vacation to unwind and escape reality. On the one hand, your partner was very much worried about you and he decided to visit you personally. Due to some form of coincidence, your condominium is currently on fire and your partner worriedly messaged you if you are inside. After a long time of non-communication, you texted him, even though you are on a vacation and don't have any intention to lie (it just that you don't want anyone to disturb you that moment), by saying: "Yes but I don't want to see you". Unfortunately, he/she (your partner) goes inside your condominium to save you from fire. Consequently, he/ she faced a third-degree burn and in critical condition. After three days, he/she died. Upon knowing the situation, a mix of emotions filled up your entire system. Following the concepts of intention and conscience, are you guilty of the situation? Explain.

PRAYER AND CONFLICTING NATURE

Filipinos are known to be prayerful or "madasalin". A common example of this kind of religious activity is petitionary prayers like asking God for a positive outcome of a national exam or asking God for more blessings and even for miracles. It was discussed from the previous discussions that scholars held God to be omnipotent (all-powerful), omniscient (all-knowing), and omnibenevolent (all-good). If God is all-powerful (a Being with a maximal degree of authority and ability), all-knowing (a Being with full knowledge about the past, present, and future), and all-good (a Being who only promotes the goodness of mankind), do you think your prayer could change and even influence the mind and decision of a personal God considering the three major attributes of God? Does it still make sense as a Filipino to continue this kind of value being "madasalin"? If so, according to some thinkers, then God is not that powerful, all-knowing, and all-good because some form of external factors (like your prayers) could shape His very own decision. Explain.

SELF-ANNIHILATION?

Imagine the colonial era of the 15^th until the 19^th century. Consider that a colonizer such as Spain decided to impose an ethnic/racialational cleansing. Moreover, some of the leaders (e.g. Philippine president and government officials) of that colonial country or ethnic or racial group participated and cooperated with the colonizer's plan. The members or citizens of the said ethnic/racialational community knowingly, willfully, and voluntarily follow the orders of their leaders. Unfortunately, such actions of the ethnic/racialational community led to their own destruction. Applying the concepts of the three essential attributes of human action - knowledge, freedom, willingness, do you think that the victims, members, and citizens of that ethnic/racialational community should be perceived to the sole reference of their terrible experience since they openly follow the orders of their leaders who evidently participated with the colonizer's project? Would the situation be different from the real one if the people or citizens were leaderless? Explain.

NORMAL AND MEMORY PILL

Aristotle Albert Francis is a renowned recipient of the Nobel Prize and famous in the fields of physics, chemistry, and medicine. He has a friend named Jean-Franquios Lambert, a very popular psychologist and psychiatrist both at the national and international level. As an expert in understanding the mind, brain, and psychological processes that affect one's behavior, Lambert personally living a terrible life with his wife who has an "immature personality disorder". He loves his wife but the latter always causes several problems and always asks for some impossible demands. He always tries to enlighten the mind of his partner but they always end up fighting each other. One day on his way to a forum, your friend's wife suddenly got into an accident, and fortunately, she was able to survive. But after the operation, her emotions and relation to your friend changed partly due to memory loss and emotional alteration. The doctor informed that your friend's wife's condition and recovery are difficult to predict and it could maximally last for thirty years. Additionally, she seems to be happy and considerate now. As you revisit the procedures and experimental process of your medical achievement about Alzheimer, you were able to hypothesize the possibility of recovering the memory of someone by taking a tablet made out of chemical elements from your study. You spend night after night in your laboratory to confirm your medical and scientific hypothesis. After two months of experimentation, a positive and 100% confirmation came out. You could now help your friend's wife to recover or remember her memories. But wait, are you really going to do that given the fact that she has now a good relationship with your friend? Would that be a violation of her own free will since she is not completely aware of the entire situation including the memories before the accident? If you proceed, are you ready to see again your friend be in great disagreement with his wife? But if not, would you tolerate the situation and use your friend's wife's new condition as a means to satisfy the need of your friend to have a normal relationship. Explain your position.

GODLESS OR GOD FULL SOCIETY

Imagine a world without religious ethics and morality. Could science really give us our idea of right and wrong? Lawrence Krauss consistently says that since science tells us facts and with the consequences of our actions, therefore, we could know whether the probable consequences of our actions are bad or good. From this, give a futuristic and realistic account (with a rational basis) about the possible rejection of mankind about the existence of a Big Being (or God). Do you agree with Dostoveysky's assertion: "If there is no God, everything is permitted."

SURVIVAL OR CONSCIENCE CONFLICT

Imagine that you are on a voyage (in an old and past version of a ship) and sailing in the middle of the Atlantic Ocean when suddenly the base of the ship catches fire and started to sink onto the deepest part of the ocean. You jump overboard as a result of automatic response and thankfully that you can swim. You witnessed that most of the passengers are drowning and you see another person, one hundred meters away from you, to be lucky in escaping the fire and immediate death. Similar to you, the person can also swim, however, both of you can only take such a situation for about twenty minutes. Beyond that time, death is waiting for the two of you. From this, both of you look for the remains of the ship that would help you survive the possible death. Unluckily, there's only one piece of plank. Based on your calculation the plank can only support one person and eventually your fellow passenger was able to get first into the plank before you do. But because of the internal force within you, you knocked the person upon reaching the plank of the ship. After ten hours of waiting for help, you are rescued. Alas, upon arriving at your intended place destination you face a criminal charge from authorities based on your personal testimony. During the trial, you defended by saying that you just acted out of self-defense (defense against the negative circumstances (e.g. man. vs. situation)) because doing otherwise you would have died. If you were the judge of the case, what would be your decision? Does the end justify the means? Explain. Remember that the natural law suggests that we have this inclination to avoid death or any kind of danger and preserve, protect, and secure our lives.

Coherence Less Subject to Flavvsrr lllogicaiity lContent Reminder: Do not diverge in answering the situation, just focus on the question. As much as possible, avoid saying: \"It depends on the situation". Focus on the problem. Some important words were highlighted to better comprehend the queinon. The lowest score for each part of ne criteria is one point dapite how long your answer is if it's vague and oonfusmg. The citation is limited only to four to seven references. Information oru the internet should only be used to support your claim or idea, not as your main argument or point. Sharing of answers is prohibited. This is an opinionated type of exam. Again, paraphrase the information oor the internet. A direct quotation would automaiically receive ve pointdeduction for that item. Lastly, do not think supercially. Cri1ically think about the question before typing your answers. In checking your paper, I'll look for the aws and defects, not on the positive terms. The less - oblenlalic our answer is the u .* er our oint also is. This is the notion of falsication