GOT FLOWERS TODAY…

I got flowers today.

It wasn’t my birthday or any other special day.
We had our first argument last night,
and he said a lot of cruel thing that really hurt me.
I know he is sorry and didn’t mean the things he said,
because he sent me flowers today.

I got flowers today.

It wasn’t our anniversary or any other special day.
Last night, he throw me into a wall and started to choke me.
It seemed like a nightmare.
I couldn’t believe it was real.
I woke up this morning sore and bruised all over
I know he must be sorry, because he sent me flowers today.

I got flowers today. It wasn’t Mother’s Day or any special day.

Last night, he beat me up again.
It was worse than all the other times.
If I leave him, what will I do?
How will I take care of my kids?
What about money?
I’m afraid of him and scared to leave.
But I know he must be sorry because he sent me flowers today.

I got flowers today.

Today was a very special day.
It was the day of my funeral.
Last night, he finally killed me.
He beat me to death.
If only I had gathered enough courage and strength to leave him,
I would not have gotten flowers today.
Kantian Categorical Imperative on “Got Flowers Today”

A Paper
Presented to
Department of Philosophy
College of Social Sciences and Humanities
Mindanao State University
Marawi City

In Partial Fulfillment
For the Course Requirement in
Philosophy 54 (Modern Philosophy)
1st Semester, 2010
 Kant initiated his concept of categorical imperativism to make it a principle that is
applicable to all people and commands. It commands certain conduct without having any
purpose as a condition. Categorical imperative commands a law that shapes the ground of certain
actions. It is called categorical because it automatically applies to all rational beings, and it is
imperative because it is something that individuals ought to act. If it is a condition that one ought
to act, Kant formulated a principle that goes like this: Act only on that maxim whereby you can at
the same time will that it should be a universal law. Kant also asserted that everything in nature
acts according to laws, and humans having rational capacities act to the conception of laws. Kant
wants to show that his categorical imperative will be our conception of the law of nature as it
would pertain to human behavior and such. Thus he formulated an alternate principle namely:
Act as if the maxim of your action were to become a universal law of nature.

It is clear then that Kantian Categorical Imperative does not give specific conduct, it
appears to be a formula for humans to use as a guideline.

The poem Flower portrays a martyr recipient. It is ironic that something so beautiful,
tranquil and shows the wonders of life would emblem a negative aura, such as suffering. The
recipient of the flower is also the recipient of that negativity. The recipient restricted her actions,
choices, and her life, where in fact she holds every bit of her life. She is the master of her life, she
makes her options to every situation rather than the situation makes the limited options. She
was just afraid of what the future might unveil, but it’s an irony that she wasn’t afraid at all of
the things that happened and might happen to her within his husband’s grip. Further, she always
thinks of the horrible “what-ifs” situation that finally dictated her own end.

Does the recipient’s action then fits to the first and second principle of Kantian Categorical
Imperative? Is her decision can become a universal law? Is her decision and action portrays a
rational being?

The woman in the poem is coward in such a way that she is not brave enough to cross the
line and move forward. Also, she is fearful because she dreads the things outside her husband’s
fortress. She fears of living alone to the point that she became a battered wife. She is a beautiful
flower that withers inside. Her kind heart always forgives but forgiving does not do her any good.

The recipient’s action cannot be a form of categorical imperative. If I were a recipient of

such flowers I would be delighted, but if it means having to suffer first before possessing those
lovely flowers then it’s the other way around. I will not tolerate such behavior. Sure, I can forgive
but not be blinded. Just because I don’t have a clue to the unknown, it does not follow that I
would be a blind fool who for a reason is afraid to leave a heartless husband because of her
worries for her kids. If it would be a universal law, the recipient’s action is unacceptable because
women of all ages should be respected and not be tortured inside her own home. She has the
right to use her reason, to let the world know that she is a wife, a friend, and a mother. She is not
a toy to be played at; she is far more beyond any precious gems in the world. She is SHE, and this
she should be respected above all. If I were she, take it or leave it. In the case of the recipient, it
should have been the latter. Her branching out of negative “what-ifs” makes her choose a tragic
end. What if, instead, she thought that her kids would be much happier and will finally have a
home conducive for growing, and that she could always find and earn some living. There are
many ways if she has her firm will. The thing is, she was pre-occupied with things she thought
she can’t do without her husband. Very pathetic.

The recipient’s action is not done by a rational being. To accept such principle is to act on
it. The agent uses reason. In the poem, the agent uses cowardice and fear. When following this
principle, you do it for the good of others. She should have left her husband for the goodness of
her and kid’s life, if only she has the gut to do it. A harsh environment is an unwanted factor for
growing kids because it could affect their personality. It is said that our rationality proceeded
from being free and freedom takes responsibility. The recipient is just so scared to accept
changes. If it would be a universal law, one should avoid being blinded by incentives to the point
that one let awful things come to its worst end like the recipient of those pretty flowers. This is
not only for the recipient of the flower, it’s for all recipients of any form out there!

According to Kant, there is something about human beings that makes each one of us
resist being mistreated or being treated mainly as things instead of persons. What makes our
being human is our rationality. A rational being means being an end to oneself than just by a
mean. An individual becomes a mean when one let others use him/herself for some other end.
Like in the poem, the husband clearly uses his wife for his own intended interest. The
wife/recipient let her husband used her as his mean which is very disturbing and inhuman.

Each one of us wants to be considered as persons instead of things. If I am a wife, child,

or beggar then I should be treated as an existent being. No one has the right to mistreat me for I
am the same as each person I’ve seen and met in this world. If my action would follow the Kantian
Categorical Imperative, then it should be the purpose for the respect of each life, physical or not.
It should be the freedom to say NO to any form of misconducts. It should be the courage to take
risks, make reasons and use it for real circumstances. I believe, life isn't all about stumbling down
and falling, it’s about standing firm after you have stumbled and fell.

“Fool you once, shame on them. Fool you twice and more, shame on YOU”