Lesson 6- Introduction of Filipino Values

What is a value?

A value is something desirable, worth having, worth possessing, worth keeping, and
worth doing. Insofar as a value is desirable, it is something good for the latter is always
desirable (Aristotle). If only for this reason, one axiological school of thought claims that
value is identical with the good; hence, what is good is valuable and what is valuable is also
good, i.e., a valued object is good.

The value of health, for example, is good precisely because health is desirable. It is
something we desire, want to have and enjoy. By the same token, inasmuch as marriage is
good, it is desirable, hence a value which is the object of interest. It is thus clear that the
desirability of a thing, goal, place, person, plan, code of behavior, or conduct makes it
valuable; it renders a thing good. Contrariwise, what is undesirable is neither valuable nor
likable, for we neither value nor like what we do not like or desire. Insofar as both goodness
and value connote the quality of desirability and likability, they are therefore identical.

It must be pointed out, however, that what is desirable is not always suitable and proper for
human nature. To have sex with someone else (other than one's own spouse), for example, is
desirable (and even pleasurable), precisely because sex is the object of desire; hence, Sex is a
value. But the propriety of satisfying one's sexual desire in this particular situation is
undermined; that is, the suit- ability of attaining or meeting the condition by which to satisfy
one's sexual desire is wrong and not proper for a rational being. Here we can discern that
there is a distinction between what is good and what is valuable. For while it is true that what
is good is always valuable, insofar as both value and the good are desirable, what is valuable,
under certain circumstances, need not always be good.

This is so precisely because the desirability of a thing or an act is not always suitable
and proper for the nature of human beings. Desirability does not always connote propriety
and suitability, for what is desirable is not always suitable and proper. Hindi laging
karapatdapat ang kanais-nais. In other words, desirability (or desirableness) does not
perforce mean "oughtness." The sense of desirability differs from the sense of oughtness,
insofar as what is desirable need not be morally right. To give a concrete example,
fornication is pleasurable and desirable, but not morally good.

The significant distinction given above has prompted John Stuart Mill (1861) to say
that "it is better to be a human being dissatisfied than a pig satisfied; better to be a Socrates
dissatisfied than a fool satisfied". A human being has a sense of propriety, or a sense of
morality, which a pig does not have. A fool enjoys being foolish and asinine while a Socrates
exalts a decent life that is worth living. The big difference makes a person rational and moral.

Why is there a need for values?

The crucial answer is for the sake of survival, sanity, and peace of mind; and this explains
why values are parable from life. In fact, without value there can be no life, insofar as life
itself is a value. Human life is a disturbing problem rather than an answer in itself. Every
individual is born without his knowledge and then he is going to die against his will, No
person has ever been consulted beforehand whether or not he wanted to be born. And now
that he is born, he suffers until he dies. In short, in one's unasked-for existence, whether one
likes it or not, everyone is subject to the onslaught of disease, suffering, old age, senility, and
death.

For this reason, man wonders: Why does man still have to be born if only to suffer and,
finally, to die? What really is the meaning of life? The answer to these questions may be for
the better or for the worse, but even the worst answer is better than none at all. And so people
have gradually formulated and conceptualized their own explanations and interpretations that
have taken the forms of their own philosophy of life and values. These have now become
their mental frames of reference which satisfy their need for an explanation and their search
for meaning. Values thus make people feel at home in the world insofar as they become
systems of thought and action which give them a frame of orientation and a feeling of
certainty and belonging.

Can values be taught?

In every culture the family is the primary carrier of values. Parents, the father and the
mother, and other elders bear the culture and values of their society or community. As
pointed out earlier, we are what or who we are because of our values, insofar as we act,
behave, think, and make decisions according to our value system. In other words, man is his
own values. I am my own values and you are your own values, precisely because my
selfhood and your selfhood are the embodiment of our system of values. I am I and you are
you through our own values. Thus, as we act, so we are.

Now, besides being value carriers, parents and elders, inasmuch as they are the
embodiments of the values passed on to them by their own parents and elders, they are also
the transmitters and transferrers of values. Here we can discern the very significant role
being played by parents and elders in the transmission and inculcation of values into their As
the child grows, he is being molded offspring. by the values of those who nurture his growth
and upbringing. Thus, the great responsibility of the value carriers and transmitters cannot be
underestimated.

Whether or not parents are aware of it, the growing child imitates every actuation,
speech, mannerism, disposition, expression, habit, and behavior of those around him,
including the baby sitter. In short, he imbodies their values and their culture. For this reason,
the most effective way to transmit and inculcate values is by example. This means that we
ourselves should practice and live the values we would like to instill into our children. A
child may be able to understand whatever value or counsel that is being taught him. But
unless he can see and observe for himself that this same value is performed by those he
interacts with, he may not do it himself.
 For and it is sees easier that for people a child to imitate whatever he hears and sees
that people around him are saying and doing than for him to do what is being taught to him
but he sees no one else doing it. Inculcating values by example is far more effective than by
reward and punishment. In a different context, it may be beneficial and useful to give
rewards, but this may not be good in the transmission of values. A child that is inured to
receiving rewards for doing what one wants him to do and achieve may possibly learn how
to bribe and buy off his way to get things done. For rewarding an individual for doing what
we would like him to do is, to some extent, a form of bribery.

Moreover, a child may be habituated and trained to do good only because of the
rewards that he can get and not because of the value of doing something good. The
concomitant result of doing good would be superficial insofar as the child's interest is
focused only on the premium to be received. In the process, the foundation of the values that
one has learned by way of reward is weak and it is likely that one cannot live by them.

Teaching values by punishment, on the other hand, is not only unacceptable but
inhuman as well. A child that is accustomed to doing good things through force and coercion
may learn to become violent and ruthless as he grows old. As the Filipinos would put it,
"Kung ano ang kinamulatan ay siyang pagkakantandaan" (The way one has been brought up
will determine how one would become later in life). And a person would perhaps do to
his/her own children the very same treatment by which he/she has been brought up by his
parents.

Most of all, teaching values by punition is not authentic precisely because of the use of
threat, intimidation, or violence, for one may sanctimoniously practice these values only
because se of fear and not because of the value of doing what is good. Once the threat or the
one being feared is absent, one may no longer do it for having been always trained or taught
of doing good alongside force and punishment. In this way, one has not personally imbibed
or embodied the value of doing good.

Whereas the values which are personally caught and imitated by the growing child by
way of good examples by value transmitters/ carriers themselves will become part of the
child's character structure which he/she bears until he grows old. This explains why an
individual is his own values, insofar as his personality or selfhood is the totality of his
values.

To further illustrate the point: All my valuations, acts, works or performances, choices,
lifestyle fashion, decisions (like the choice of degree, marriage, and profession), and other
concerns and in tersest in life are defined by my sense of value, my value system. I became a
teacher of philosophy and engaged in philosophical research and in the intellectualization of
Filipino philosophy in accordance with my personal values. Thus I am now known by my
acquaintances and friends through my values. This is my pagkatao, my personhood, the
embodiment of my values.
Are values subjective or objective?

With regard to the ontological status of values, philosophers of value speak of three schools
of thought: subjectivism, objectivism, and relationism or moderate realism.

Subjectivism claims that value is purely subjective insofar as value lies and arises
exclusively in human subjects and there is no value apart from people. Things do not contain
or possess value in themselves. Whatever value things or ideas may be said to have is
conferred on them by persons who happen to hold them in esteem. Without men, there would
be nothing in the world that is or can be called a value.

Aesthetic value, Luna's Spoliarium, for example, lies not in the work of art itself but in
the eyes and mind of the beholder who appreciates or contemplates this work of art.
Likewise, moral value is nothing but what thinking makes it so, since no act is right or wrong
in itself.

Values, then, have no meaning in themselves without people. Men invest or clothe values
with meaning. We confer meaning on things and hold them valuable. It goes without saying
that values do not and cannot exist by themselves without man discovering them. We
discover values and objectify and institutionalize them through our culture.

The subjectivist argues that the "observed fact of disagreements" (Singgson 1979:22-
24)) in value judgments among people validates and confirms that value is exclusively
located in the subjects. Value judgment, for instance, varies from one person to another
according to temperament, age, education, cultural background, need, condition, and
experience; and so people project value into the object in different ways. It is no surprise
then why a thing may be valuable to one individual but may not be of any value to another.
What is valuable to me may not be valuable to you, and vice versa.

On the other hand, the objectivist in general contends that values exist out there in the
world of things, in the things, objects, or actions themselves exclusively. Value is an
existential category in the outer world of things, for things are by their very nature
independent carriers and revealers of value. Certain things are valuable in themselves,
whether or not people perceive or think of them. That is to say, value is already in certain
things as their objective quality even prior to encounter with appreciating individuals.

Values lie in wait to be merely discovered or created or projected by persons or

subjects. And so we take interest in some things, acts, behavior, aspirations, etc., because
they are valuable in themselves. For instance, moral value implies the existence of a moral
code that is absolutely binding and universally valid for all times and places. Even if all
human subjects would perish in a world catastrophe, certain objects would still remain
valuable in themselves.

The objectivist argues that "the observed fact of universal or nearly universal agreements"
(Singson 1979:24-25) in value judgments confirms that values are objective. There exists, for
instance, a universal liking or interest in certain masterpieces of classical music or
architectural edifices, e.g., the eight wonders of the world. This observed fact of universal
unanimity in value judgment is the basis for the absolutist city and objectivity of values.

The universal or almost universal claim for the charmer of the musical piece, Silent Night
shows that its beauty or aesthetic value lies in itself; likewise, saving a child in distress is
immediately perceived that all men at all times and places are good and worthwhile This is
an example of a universal value.

The conciliatory view is relationism or compromise insofar as it offers a compromise

between the two extreme and opposite views. As a middle stance, it avoids the exaggerations
of either subjectivism or objectivism and incorporates the best features of each. Values, it is
contended, do not lie exclusively in the valuing subject nor entirely in the valued objects.
Value sort of hovers between the subject and the object, inasmuch as value is a creation from
elements both from the subject and the object" (Singson 1979:26). Value emerges out of a
dynamic relationship or encounter between a person capable of appreciation and an object
inherently endowed with the capacity to activate the potential appreciation of an appropriate
subject.

In a way, value is a polarization between two opposite forces, with the suitable subject
and the object standing and acting as opposite poles, like an electric or magnetic field. Just as
the magnetic force or field does not lie exclusively in the positive pole nor in the negative
pole alone, so actual value does not lie exclusively in the valuing person taken independently
of the object, nor exclusively in the valued object considered apart from its actual encounter
or relationship with a certain object.

The observed fact that people do disagree sometimes in value judgments leads the
relationist to conclude that value must lie partly in the subjects themselves. And the observed
fact of agreement among different individuals about one and the same object induces the
relationist to assume that value must lie partly in the object. People sometimes agree despite
subjective differences because value is not entirely subjective but also partly objective.
Sometimes persons disagree about one and the same object despite the sameness of the
object because value is not exclusively objective but partly subjective as

In other words, a thing of value possesses essential elements which constitute its value
or desirability; and these characteristics are the ones being perceived and seen by the subject,
in virtue of which he/she recognizes the value of a particular thing or act. Now, the essential
qualities of a thing or work of art need a subject to appreciate them so that their value would
be noticed and known. For this reason, a subject is necessary for the disclosure of value.
Value as such cannot exist by itself; there should be a subject to acknowledge its likability
and desirability.

Value, therefore, is both subjective and objective. It is partly subjective and partly
objective:
subjective, precisely because there should be a subject to notice, disclose, and recognize its
being a value; objective, insofar as there should be essential features inherent in a thing of
value that allure and appeal to a subject who, in turn, acknowledges it as likable and
desirable; hence, it is something wort having, worth keeping, or worth doing.

Are values permanent or changeable?

Corollary to the problematic of subjectivity or objectivity of values is the problem

whether values are permanent or changeable. Two axiological views may be cited. One view
claims that values do change from individual to individual, from family to family, and from
generation to generation. What is valuable to one person may not be so to another. What one
family values differs from what another family holds dear or valuable. Much more so with
the values that do vary from one generation to another, insofar as the value preferences of
one generation are triggered and affected by the influx of social transformations and
scientific progress.

The advocates of this view may also be called Subjectivist, insofar as values change
together with the people who change their values. Values are inherently private, subjective,
and personal experiences precisely because they reside in persons. They have their being
solely in living experiences of the subject, so that whenever the subject changes his ways or
lifestyle, his values also change. One's exposure to new living conditions, environment, and
new social influences may precipitate value changes and new value formations. A Filipino
immigrant, for example, may assimilate western values at the expense of Filipino values.
One may lose the Filipino value of kissing the hands of parents and elders in exchange for
the value of equality and independence in American culture. Apparently, values are
impermanent; they are changeable subject to the everchanging life situations and
circumstances. As society changes, so values do change.

On the other hand, the other view maintains that values as qualities do not change;
they are permanent and unchangeable. They are unchangeable insofar as they are objectified
in the things, acts, or principles being valued. It is in this sense that values are perceived to
be objective. This is Max Scheler's (1974, 1960) axiological position. It is maintained,
though, that value carriers like persons, goods, situations, and conditions do change. For
example, the value of friendship remains as a value, even if an individual ceases to be a
friend to another or becomes his adversary (Dy, Jr. 1998)

Similarly, the value of marriage endures despite the infidelity of many spouses to their
conjugal partners. The value of honesty lasts despite the dis- honesty of corrupt people, in the
same way that the Filipino value of respect for elders abides in spite often rudeness,
disrespect, and impoliteness of juvenile delinquents. People as carriers of values, however,
are subject to change whenever social situations change. For instance, an individual as a
carrier, transmitter, or conveyor of values may change as a result of his exposure to socio-
cultural influences and factors. It is true that when one transfers from one culture to another,
or migrates from one country to another, one is subject to many cultural changes. One may
also change one's values which are pertinent to the culture that one has adopted. But values
as they are, as qualities, stay and endure. As mentioned above, despite the philandering
exploits of a husband or the infidelity of a wife, the value of marriage remains. That is,
although people change their values, values themselves do not change.

By the same token, the value of justice stays no matter how many infractions are
committed by the criminals. It is clear then that values as such are permanent, objective and
unchangeable; whereas the carriers and transmitters of values are relative, subjective, and
changeable. The valuing subject changes but the thing of value lingers on. Values are
objectified through carriers and goods, thereby becoming elements of the real world. Thus
the value of beauty becomes objectified in the Manila Bay Sunset and the value of marriage
becomes real in the harmony and success of the family.

What are Filipino values?

They are what the people desire, want to have, to own or possess, to do, to keep, to
attain, or to become. Filipino values are the objects of the people's interest, desire,
preference, and aspiration. They are the things Filipinos consider good, important, proper,
suitable, worthy, right, acceptable, and desirable in life. Whatever they actually like, prize,
esteem, approve of, desire or enjoy constitute the people's values. And there are as many
Filipino values as there are s0 many things valued.

As mentioned above, a value may be a thing, idea, person, goal, principle or rule,
standard, convention, or a vision. In this regard, Filipino values take the form or an ideal,
philosophy of life, personal honor, human relations, principle, or a precept by which the
people live, act, think, reason, evaluate, decide, and behave. These values are desirable
patterns and traits of good behavior or conduct, the suitable and proper ways of doing things
which are acceptable to the people who are supposed to practice and live by them. Filipino
values also consist of the moral, intellectual, and spiritual principles and beliefs being held
dear and significant by the people themselves.

In this book we shall disclose Filipino values which are found in our cultural heritage.
Through these values our forefathers speak to us. We shall listen to them and benefit from
their inspiring wisdom: aphorisms, maxims, proverbs, songs, poems, parables, and moral
precepts-the vehicles in which they have laid down their thoughts and values that may make
us sensitive to the wealth of meanings which they themselves had experienced.

In our determined efforts to unfold fragments of Filipino values, it is the mark of

conscientious scholarship to disregard preconceptions about the study. There is a need to go
back to the people's world of original encounter with reality and the wealth of meanings
concealed therein. For the world of meanings lies hidden in the un-reflected dimension of
Filipino original experience.

Going back to the people's world of meanings requires a phenomenological attitude to

help dis- close the values and insights for the benefits of the Filipinos themselves. This
phenomenological dis- closure of values is the scholar-researcher's laudable, worthwhile-
though laborious and painstakingtask, but at the same time a remarkable contribution to the
articulation and formalization of a Filipino philosophy of value.
 A Filipino philosophy of value can be sourced from the various strands of the people's
literature and oral tradition, insofar as Filipino life-experiences are contained in the literature
which reflects their cultural heritage, the Filipino way of life, their world-views, aspirations,
values, convictions, beliefs, and their way of doing things together, In a way, Filipino
literature Dears the stamp of the past and is the life of the present.

It is the arduous task of the present author researcher to assemble into a coherent
whole significant fragments of the people's philosophy of value which are found in scattered
fabrics of Filipino cultural heritage. In the process of collating and compiling scattered
aphorisms and wise sayings of the people, the author has to give them interpretations,
explanations, and new perspectives based on his own moral concepts, views, and
experiences. Furthermore, this discerning study of the people's proverbs, poems, and songs is
an analytical exploitation, rethinking, reinterpretation, recasting, and a reevaluation in the
light of present day situations and experiences.

Filipino Value
▪ Refers to the set of values or the value system that a majority of the Filipino have
historically held important in their lives.
▪ The Philippine values system includes their own unique assemblage of consistent
ideologies, moral codes, ethical practices. Etiquette and cultural and personal values
that are promoted by their society. As with any society though, the values that an
individual holds sacred can differ on the bases of religion, upbringing and other factor.
▪ As a general description, the distinct value system of Filipinos is rooted primarily in
personal alliance systems, especially those based in kinship, obligation, friendship,
religion (particularly Christianity) and commercial relationships.
Models of Filipino Values
F. Landa Jocano identified two models of the Filipino value system.

• The first is the exogenous model or the foreign model - The foreign model is described
to be a "legal and formal" model.
The foreign model was inherited by Filipinos from Western cultures, particularly from
the Spaniards and the Americans. An example of a foreign or exogenous influence is
bureaucracy exhibited in the government of the Philippines.

• Second is the indigenous model or the traditional model. The indigenous model is
described as a "traditional and non-formal" model or guide but is deeply embedded in
the subconscious of the Filipinos.
Elements and Composition of Filipino Values
Based on studies, surveys, opinions, anecdotes, and other literatures made by experts and
researchers in relation to Filipino social values or Filipino core values, along with the
Filipino character or Filipino identity of a person or an individual known as the Filipino, the
Filipino value system are found to possess inherent key elements.

• Hiya (propriety/dignity) - translates roughly into English as ‘shame’ or

‘embarrassment’, on a deeper level it refers to one’s sense of self, propriety and
respect. Filipinos may be more motivated to succeed by a fear of shame rather than
fear of failing the task at hand. To avoid experiencing shame, they may try to give face
to those around them through complimenting them and avoiding direct criticism.

• Pakikisama(companionship/esteem) - is a typical trait of a Filipino, in its simplest

sense meaning “getting along with others” 1. Pakikisama entails a genuine intrinsic
appreciation of togetherness. Group harmony and unity is valued 2. People want to get
along rather than stand out. If progress is achieved, it is for the entire group and no one
should be left behind.
• Utang na loob(gratitude/solidarity) – cultural trait may means debt of gratitude and
reciprocity. We keep to heart the good deed we receive from someone, especially when
we need help. It is as if we say we are indebted to the persons for life.

Surface Values- readily seen and observed values exhibited and esteemed by many
Filipinos. These three values are considered branches from a single origin- the actual Core
Value of the Filipino Personality.
1. Kapwa It means 'togetherness', and refers to community, or not doing things alone.
Kapwa has two categories
• Ibang Tao (other people) and Hindi Ibang Tao (not other people). The Surface
Values spin off of the Core Value through the Pivotal Aspect of Pakikiramdam, or
shared inner perception ("Feeling for another").

2. Other notable key elements or motivations are optimism about the future, pessimism
with regards to present situations and events, the concern and care for other people, the
existence of friendship and friendliness, the habit of being hospitable, religious nature,
respectfulness to self and others, respect for the female members of society, the fear of
God, and abhorrence of acts of cheating and thievery.
3. "Loob" or "kalooban"- The values of Filipinos specifically upholds the following
items: solidarity of the family unit, security of the Philippine economy, orientation to
small-groups, personalism, the concepts of "loob" or "kalooban" (meaning "what’s
inside the self", the "inner-self", or the "actual personal feelings of the self"), existence
and maintenance of smooth interpersonal relationships, and the sensing of the
 feelings or needs of others (known as pakikiramdam). In a larger picture, these values
are grouped into general clusters or "macroclusters": namely, the relationship cluster,
the social cluster, the livelihood cluster, the inwardness cluster, and the optimism
cluster.
Enumeration of Filipino Values
• Pagkakabuklod-buklod - The Filipinos recognize their family as an important
social structure that one must take care of. They give importance to the safety and
unity of one’s family. It is also common to find the whole clan living in the same
area and have extended family structure.
• Utang na loob- It is a technique of reciprocity of debt of gratitude to others within
the family circle or primary group , sometimes unlimited in nature , emotional
rather than financial or rational.
• Galang- Filipinos are taught to become respectful individuals. This is mainly due to
the influence of Christianity that tells us to honor both our parents and our elders.
The use of ‘’po’’ and ‘’’opo’’ in conversation and “mano”.
• Pagkarelihiyoso - Filipinos are religious. They believe so much in supernatural
powers and taught them to trust prayers rather than hard work in the realization of
their dreams. Success is considered a blessing from above.
• Damayan/Balikatan - Denotes a good relationship among the people in the family
or within the group or community and connotes helping one another in time of
need. Filipinos engage themselves in mutual cooperation.
• Malasakit- In Filipino Family each of the member have the adherence or the
willingness to help the other member who is in need more than they do , emotional
or financial needs. They have this care to their family member and this is the way
they show their love to each other.
• Hospitality- Foreigners who come to visit the Philippines speak of Filipinos going
out of their way to help them when lost, or the heartwarming generosity of a
Filipino family hosting a visitor in their poverty-stricken home. Meanwhile, most
foreigners who attend Filipino gatherings abroad (which are frequently organized
for hundreds of reasons) testify to the warmth and friendliness of Filipinos as they
experience that feeling of “belongingness.” Indeed, the legendary Filipino
hospitality is not limited to the Philippines. It is everywhere wherever there are
Filipinos
• Gender-specific Values- In relation to parenthood, bearing male and female
children depends on the preferences of the parents based on the expected roles that
each gender would assume once grown up. Both genders are expected to become
responsible members of the family and their society. Women in the Philippines are
expected to become caring and nurturing mothers for their own children.
Female Filipinos are also expected to lend a hand in household work. They are
even anticipated to offer assistance after being married. On the other hand,
Filipino men are expected to assume the role of becoming the primary source of
income and financial support of his family.
Social Stratification in the Philippines
Filipinos believe in the need for social acceptance and feel that education can provide
upward mobility.

• Color of skin, beauty, and money are the criteria that determine a person's social
position. Light coloring is correlated with intelligence and a light-skinned attractive
person will receive advancement before his or her colleagues.
• Family position and patron-client associations are useful in achieving success.
Government officials, wealthy friends, and community leaders are sponsors at
hundreds of weddings and baptisms each year. Those connections are of great
importance.
There are three social classes in the country based on income and national wealth.

• The members of the rich class represent about 10 percent of the population but own or
earn about 90 percent of the wealth of the country. They are composed of wealthy
industrialists with big corporations and owners of large haciendas or plantations.
• The members of the middle class represent about 20 percent of the population. They
are composed of professionals (doctors, lawyers, etc.).
• The members of the lower or poor class comprise about 70 percent of the population
but they only earn or share 10 percent of the wealth. They often cannot earn enough to
be able to buy necessities in life, save for emergencies or for future needs. The poor
could become rich by education and by hard work.
The extremely affluent and politically powerful elite still controls most of Filipino economy,
business and political activities. The middle class is small and the lower middle class much
larger. Its members live in urban areas and, typically, can only meet some of their extend
family needs with no social safety net to fall back on. There are large numbers of urban poor
who live in substandard dwellings on land they rarely have formal rights to use, who face
food security problems and have serious deficiencies in meeting basic human needs.
Four Underlying Principle underlie social stratification.

• First, social stratification is socially defined as a property of a society rather than

individuals in that society.
• Second, social stratification is reproduced from generation to generation.
• Third, social stratification is universal (found in every society) but variable (differs
across time and place).
• Fourth, social stratification involves not just quantitative inequality but qualitative
beliefs and attitudes about social status.
Communal society, cooperative group formed on the basis of shared interests (e.g., religious
or political) and emphasizing the needs of the community above those of the individual.