WEST VISAYAS STATE UNIVERSITY- JANIUAY CAMPUS

Handouts in ETHICS

PATRIA MARIE L. LADIGOHON, MAN

9/9/2020
 INSTRUCTIONS TO STUDENT:
Please study and understand all the concepts related to our topic.
Make sure that you have absorbed all the contents in the handouts. I have
prepared quizzes and activities at the end of every unit. Please provide a
quiz notebook for you to answer. Do not answer on the module
itself.
Don’t hesitate to ask questions on certain terms and topics that you
find hard to understand. I’m very willing to help you and respond to your
concerns. All you have to do is drop me a message on your group chat during
our class hours. Any concerns will not be entertained after class hours.
For more information please not limit your knowledge in this material.
You can research other relevant and updated information online.

UNIT I: ETHICS: AN INTRODUCTION

DIFFERENCES BETWEEN MORAL AND NON- MORAL STANDARDS

What is Ethics?

How do we distinguish morality from ethics? By explaining the meaning nature and
dynamics of morality. We will briefly address the question what is morality? It must
be noted however that the difference between ethics and morality is not that
significant in fact the former is essentially synonymous with the latter.

Etymologically speaking ethics comes from the Greek word “ethos” while
morality is from the latin word “mos” or “mortis” if used in its plural form and both
words are referring to customary behavior. For this reason we may use the word
immoral in lieu of the word unethical or we may
use the word moral instead of the word ethical this is the reason why we say that a
moral person or ethical person is one who is good and does the right thing and an
immoral person or an ethical person is one who is bad and does what is wrong.

As we can see the terms ethics and morality can be used interchangeably
however there is a fine line that divides the two in other words we can distinguish
one from the other in some respects the first idea that came to our mind when we
asked the difference between ethics and morality is that:
ethics generally refers to the systematic study of the rightness or wrongness of a
human action while
morality is generally understood as the rightness or wrongness of a human action
in this
way we can say that :
Ethics is the specific branch of philosophy that studies the morality
that is the rightness or wrongness of a human action with this we may
initially conclude that ethics is the science of morals while morality is the
practice of ethics .

Based on this initial discussion on the difference between the two terms we
can now draw the idea that ethics attempts to provide systems of moral principles
and the reasons why these principles are valid hence ethics is more concerned with
the theories that can be used to explain why a particular moral principle is valid or
not right or wrong it is for this reason
that ethicists have come up with some of the basic ethical principles that may help
determine the rightness or wrongness of a human action some of these basic
ethical principles are:
 1. respect for persons truthfulness and
2. confidentiality autonomy
3. informed consent
4. beneficence non-maleficence and
5. justice

Now as already mentioned morality refers to the principles of right and wrong
behavior or rightness and wrongness that is goodness and badness of human
actions and more importantly in determining the rightness or wrongness of human
actions the moral agent (person) is guided by the broader rules of principles of
ethics.

For instance the person's moral belief that killing is wrong may stem from the
basic ethical principle of respect for persons or non-maleficence indeed this
example further explains the basic difference between ethics and morality if ethics
says that killing is wrong because it violates the basic ethical principles of respect
for persons or non-maleficence morality on the other hand says do not kill because
it is wrong again this is the reason why ethics is understood as the science of
morals while morality is the practice of the basic principles of ethics.

Moral Standards

 Originally comes from the Latin word moralitas (manner, character, proper
behavior)

 is a set of standards/principles derived from how you behave, following a

particular philosophy, (but also possibly could be from a religion or culture),
and it can derive from a standard that a person believes should be universal.

 The quality of conforming to the principles of good conduct.

 Moral Standards

Includes ;

1. NORMS- these are the kinds of actions we believe are morally right and wrong.
These norms are usually expressed as general rules or statements.

2. VALUES- These are the judgments, in terms of good and bad, we put on objects.

 Sources of Moral Standards

Where do Moral Standards come from?

We learn about these standards through the socialization process as we grow up

from childhood to adulthood.

When we become adults, experience, learning, and intellectual development may

lead us to revise these standards. We may even discard some moral standards and
adopt new ones as we mature.

 Notice that we do not always live up to the moral standards we hold. In other
words, we do not always do what we believe is morally right. Also, we do not
always pursue what we believe is morally good.

 Characteristics of Moral Standards

 deals with matters that can seriously injure or benefit human

beings.
Example:

A drug company does not tell the side effects of its medications

 Moral standards are not established or changed by the decisions of particular

authoritative bodies.

 preferred to other values, particularly self-interest.

Example:

Consider a business firm (a drug company) that lies about the side effects of
one of its medical drug.

 Moral standards are based on impartial

This means one should not be biased or prejudiced when making a

decision. For example, A judge should not judge on the basis of friendship. He does,
then his judgment will be partial, not impartial.

Non Moral Standards

Standards about behavior or practices with no serious or immediate effects

upon human well-being

Characteristics of Non Moral Standards

Govern individual life, aspirations and desires and may decide a person’s
place in his group.

the standards by which we judge what is good or bad or right or wrong in a

non moral way.

Examples of Nonmoral Standards include:

Standards of etiquette by which we judge manners as good or bad.

Standards we call the law by which we judge legal right and wrong.

Standards of aesthetics – good or bad art.

The athletic standards – how well a game is being played.

Moral Standards

 deals with matters that can seriously injure or benefit human beings.

 not established or changed by the decisions of particular authoritative

bodies.

 preferred to other values, particularly self-interest.

 based on impartiality

 Moral Standards are associated with special emotions and vocabulary

 Non Moral Standards

 govern individual life, aspirations and desires and may decide a person’s
place in his group.
  the standards by which we judge what is good or bad or right or wrong in a
non moral way.

ACTIVITY:

Identification:

Identify whether the given situation is a Moral or a Non-Moral Standard. Why do you
think so?

1. You pass someone in the street who is in severe need and you are able to
help them at little cost to yourself.

2. Stop talking when your mouth is full.

3. Someone you have never met needs a kidney transplant. You are one of the
few people who can provide the kidney.

Culture and Moral Behavior

The overarching aim of this paper is “to explain the influence of Filipino culture on
the way students look at moral experiences and solve moral dilemmas”
(Commission on Higher Education). In particular, at the end of this paper, students
should be able to articulate the importance of culture in moral behavior, making
decisions, judgments, and understanding social norms. This paper will also help
them understand how Filipino culture influences the way they think about
themselves and the actions they take as moral agents. Moreover, through
discussions on the different aspects and features of a culture, students should also
be able to recognize and appreciate the differences in moral behavior among
different cultures. In so doing, they will be able to evaluate, at the same time, the
issue of cultural relativism.

Introduction: The Question of Culture

Moral values, judgment, behavior as well as moral dilemmas and how we perceive
them are largely shaped and influenced by history (i.e., historical
contingencies), power dynamics (i.e., competing ideas and interests), and
the religion of a society. The way we appreciate and assess things are not created
out of nothing (ex nihilo) or simply out of our imagination. They are conditioned by
external and material elements around us that, in turn, provide the basis for
principles that orient our judgment and valuation of things. Combined as one
structure or phenomena, these external and material elements make up culture. In
other words, culture is what shapes and influences social and personal values,
decisions, behavior, and practice. Thus, to understand how culture works and its
features is to also grasp the reason why things are done in a particular way and why
we do these things the way we do them.

In the field of anthropology, sociology, and cultural studies, scholars have

demonstrated why culture is the best site for consideration as the material
condition that shapes the way we judge and value things, and how through culture
these things come into concrete expression. That is to say, culture can tell us a
great deal about one particular society. Let us think about this idea concretely in
and through our very own context, the Philippines.

To understand Filipino values is to understand Filipino culture.[1] However, in order

to understand Filipino culture one must recognize that it has been profoundly
Christianized.[2] After hundreds of years of colonization by Western Christian
empires, the Filipinos’ moral and ethical imagination cannot be understood outside
Christian values and morality. Christianity is pervasive in our culture so that the way
we judge and value things and how things ought to be follows the doctrinal grid of
Christian theology. An example of this pervasiveness and influence of Christianity to
Filipino culture is how Filipinos value more neighborliness (i.e., “bayanihan” or
“pakikipagkapwa tao” or “pakikisama”) more than, say, the filial piety (of
Confucianism). Filipino moral universe is framed through the ethos of the Judeo-
Christian tradition. In this particular case, the way we relate to others is greatly
affirmed and influenced by what the Hebrew-Christian scripture teaches us to do,
that is, to love our neighbors as much as we love ourselves. Christianity reinforces
the neighborliness of the Filipino bayanihan system. In other words, within Filipino
culture, biblical teachings found their way as foundational principles for a social
norm. Put differently, the intertwining of Christianity and culture in the Filipino
context is the base upon which we can understand why Filipinos do the things the
way they do or why Filipino believe things as they are.

ACTIVITY

Essay: Discuss the following in your quiz notebook.

1. What is culture? How does it define our moral behavior?

2. How do you think your community influences your behavior?

3.. How does culture shape moral behavior?

4. Why should culture not be the ultimate determinant of values?

5. Is there a Filipino understanding of right and wrong? What are its influences?
Explain each.

6. What is a moral standard? And how do they differ from other rules of lives?

MORAL DILEMMAS

First of all, let us define the term dilemma before we discuss the nature and
dynamics of moral dilemmas.

A dilemma is a situation where a person is forced to choose between two or more

conflicting options, neither of which is acceptable. As we can see, the key here is
that the person has choices to make that will all have results she does not want. For
example, a town mayor faces a dilemma about how to protect and preserve a virgin
forest and at the same time allow miners and loggers for economic development in
the town.

It must be noted, however, that if a person is in a difficult situation but is not

forced to choose between two or more options, then that person is not in a
dilemma. The least that we can say is that that person is just experiencing a
problematic or distressful situation. Thus, the most logical thing to do for that
person is to look for alternatives or solutions to address the problem.

When dilemmas involve human actions which have moral implications, they
are called ethical or moral dilemmas.

Moral dilemmas, therefore, are situations where persons, who are called “moral
agents” in ethics, are forced to choose between two or more conflicting options,
neither of which resolves the situation in a morally acceptable manner. Consider the
following example:

Lindsay is a deeply religious person; hence, she considers killing humans absolutely
wrong. Unfortunately, it is found out that Lindsay is having an ectopic pregnancy. As
is well known, an ectopic pregnancy is a type of pregnancy that occurs outside the
uterus, most commonly in the fallopian tubes. In other words, in ectopic pregnancy,
the fetus does not develop in the uterus. Now, if this happens, the development of
the fetus will definitely endanger the mother. Thus, if Lindsay continues with her
pregnancy, then there is a big possibility that she will die. According to experts, the
best way to save Lindsay’s life is to abort the fetus, which necessarily implies killing
the fetus. If we do not abort the fetus, then Lindsay, as well as the fetus, will die.

In the above example of a moral dilemma, Lindsay is faced with two conflicting
options, namely, either she resorts to abortion, which will save her life but at the
same time jeopardizes her moral integrity or does not resort to abortion but
endangers her life as well as the fetus. Indeed, Lindsay is faced with a huge moral
dilemma.

According to Karen Allen, there are three conditions that must be present for
situations to be considered moral dilemmas. First, the person or the agent of a
moral action is obliged to make a decision about which course of action is best.
Here, the moral agent must choose the best option and act accordingly. In the case
of the example of above, Lindsay may opt to abort the fetus as the best course of
action. Second, there must be different courses of action to choose from. Hence, as
already pointed out above, there must be two or more conflicting options to choose
from for moral dilemmas to occur. And third, no matter what course of action is
taken, some moral principles are always compromised. This means that, according
to Allen, there is no perfect solution to the problem. And for this reason, according
to Benjiemen Labastin, in moral dilemmas, the moral agent “seems fated to commit
something wrong which implies that she is bound to morally fail because in one way
or another she will fail to do something which she ought to do. In other words, by
choosing one of the possible moral requirements, the person also fails on others.”

THREE LEVELS OF MORAL DILEMMA

Personal Dilemma

Those experienced and resolved on a personal level. Since many ethical

decisions are personally made, many, if not most of, moral dilemmas fall under, or
boil down to this level

If a person makes conflicting promises, he faces moral conflict.

When an individual has to chose between life of a child who is about to

delivered and the child’s mother, he faces moral dilemma.

Organizational Dilemmas

Organizational dilemmas refers to ethical cases encountered and resolved by

social organizations

Includes moral dilemmas in business, medical fields, and public sector

Example:

A medical institution which believes that human life should not be

deliberately shortened and that unpreventable pain shoul not be tolerated
encounters a conflict in resolving whether to withdraw life support from a dying
patient.

Structural Dilemmas

Cases involving network of institutions and operative theoretical paradigms.

As they always encompass multi-sectoral institutions and organizations, larger in
scope and extent than organizational dilemmas.
Example:

Regarding prices of medicine here in the Philippines compared to other

countries in Asia and countries in similar economic status. Instititions concerned
may want to lower the cost of medicine, thereby benefitting the Filipino public, but
such move may ruin the interest or legal rights of the involve researchers, investors
and etc.

Note: Only human beings can;

1. Be rational, autonomous, and self-concious

2. Act morally or immorally
3. Are part of the moral community

ACTIVITY:

Analyze each moral dilemmas presented. Each scene is characterized by the

need to make a difficult decision. As with all moral dilemmas, there is no right or
wrong answer. Think carefully before responding. And remember, you may think of
a better choice than those presented. Give you solutions in each dilemma and
explain why you choose the solution.

1. You are at your best friend's wedding just an hour before the ceremony is to
start. Earlier that day, you came across definitive proof that your best friend's
spouse-to-be is having an affair with the best man/maid of honor, and you
catch them sneaking out of a room together looking disheveled. If you tell
your friend about the affair, their day will be ruined, but you don't want them
to marry a cheater. What do you do?
2. You are an eyewitness to a crime: A man has robbed a bank, but instead of
keeping the money for himself, he donates it to a poor orphanage that can
now afford to feed, clothe, and care for its children. You know who committed
the crime. If you go to the authorities with the information, there's a good
chance the money will be returned to the bank, but the poor kids will not get
the chance to feed and be well taken care of leaving a lot of kids in need.
What do you do?
3. Your friend tells you that they committed a crime. They explain that they are
having trouble sleeping at night and feel you are the only one they can trust
with their confession. A few days later, you read in the paper that someone
has been arrested for your friend’s crime. What will you do?
4. You are on a cruise and the ship encounters an unexpected storm. The storm
continues to rage and eventually you and the other passengers are told you
must head to the lifeboats and abandon ship. As people begin to line up, you
realize some lines have fewer people, some have families, and some seem to
have younger, single people. You know you are strong and capable. Do you
 choose to help a group composed of three families with a few young children,
a group of seniors who obviously could use your help, or go with the young,
strong people? Explain your answer.
5. Late one night you are driving home in a bad rainstorm. A drunk reels out in
front of your car and you try to stop, but hit him. Nobody sees you. The guy
looks and smells as if he is homeless. You check to see how badly he is hurt
and realize he is dead. You have never even had a speeding ticket and are an
upright, professional, with a family and are well-known and respected in your
community. Do you make a report anonymously, confess your crime, or drive
on home and forget about it, knowing no one is going to pursue the death of
a homeless drunk?

Write at least one example of your own moral dilemma based on the three
levels of dilemma that you have experienced as a student. And write your solutions
in every dilemmas.

1. My individual moral dilemma-

2. My organizational moral dilemma-

3. My structural moral dilemma-

FREEDOM AS FOUNDATION OF MORAL ACTS

Morality requires and allows choice. The right to choose even differently from our
fellows.

People make the choice to give to charities, donate time and money to schools,
mentor children, open business, or protest against animal cruelty

Key ideas:

 True freedom is not doing whatever you want but doing what you ought to
do.

 Freedom of indifference is choosing between contraries, usually good and

evil. Freedom of excellence is the power to act freely in the pursuit of human
perfection and everlasting joy.

 Love and fear of consequences are respectively perfect and imperfect valid
motivations for obeying the moral law.

 Good moral actions make us freer; bad moral actions make us a slave to our
sin.

We begin our phenomenological description of freedom by using epoche, bracketing

two extreme positions on freedom; absolute determinism and absolute freedom.

The behaviorist psychologist B.F. Skinner holds that man is absolutely

determined.
Man’s behavior is shaped and determined (caused) by external forces and stimuli:

a) Genetic, biological and physical structures

b) Environmental structures: culture, national and ecclesiastical (church)
c) External forces and demands

Our behavior being conditioned by these factors, is manipulable: man can be

programmed like a machine. Example governmental, educational, and
propagandisitic techniques.

Against Skinner, we hold that there are other levels of experience which cannot be
explained by or reduced to external factors and stimuli such as

a) I can make myself aware of my biological and physical limitations

b) I can question my own environmental structrures, revolt or validate them
c) I can achieve distance from external demands and forces: hesitate, reflect,
deliberate and challeng them

There are difficulties with absolute determinism:

Explaining away self-questioning and self-reflection is doing self-questioning and

self-reflection.

Not all casual motives are necessitating causes because the goods that we face and
the motives we use are limited, conditioned, and mixed.

If the feeling of freedom is rejected, then no basic experience is trustworthy, which

would lead to total skepticism and inaction.

If the statement, “man is absolutely determined” is true, thn the statement is also
determined , and the opposite “man is absolutely free” would also be determined,
and also there would be no truth value anymore to the statement.

If human beings are manipulable like machines, there would be no problem in

making a society just.

SARTRE: ABSOLUTE FREEDOM

Jean Paul Sartre, in his early stage, holds that man is absolutely free. In his essay
“Existentialism is a Humanism” Sartre discusses his position by stating that eit man,
“existence precedes essence.” (He develops absolute freedom in metaphysical
terms in his book “Being and Nothingness”.)

Man first exist then create his own essence

There is no pre-existing essence that man has to conform when he exists.

There is no God, because if there is a God, He would be a creator,and essence

would exist first before existence; tus man would be determined.

“Man is what he is not (yet), and he is not what he is” because he can be what he
wants to be.

Man cannot be free in some things only and not free in others; he is absolutely free
or not at all. There is no middle position: Man is absolutely free.

Objection 1 to Sartre: how can you say I am absolutely free when I am not free to be
born in such and such a place, of parents so and so, on such and such a day?
Answer of Sartre: You can always live as if you were not born in such and such a
place, of parents so and so, on such and such a day.

Objction 2 to Sartre: How can you say I am absolutely free when I cannot climb a big
rock or pass through it? So I am limited.

Answer of Sartre: The rock is n obstacle to your freedom only because you freely
want to climb or pass through it.

For Sartre, freedom is a negation, a negating power of consciousness.

In interpersonal relationship, this means reducing the other person to an object,

described as the Sertrean stare.

The other person, because he is also free, also reduces me to an object. So for
Sartre, “Hell is other people!” (from the play “No Exit”)

MERLEAU- PONTY: SITUATED FREEDOM

Maurice Merleau-Ponty in his last chapter of the Phenomnology of Perception,

criticizes Sartrean absolute freedom and holds the middle position structured
freedom.

For Merleau-Ponty, criticizing Sartre, if freedom is absolute, always and everywhere

present, then freedom is impossible and nowhere.

There would be no destinction between freedom and unfreedom. Example: The

slave in chains is just then as free as the one who revolts and breaks his chains. We
are free when we control our situation as well as when we are powerless.

Such freedom as Sartre’s cannot embody itself in any form of existence,

becauseonce freedom has realized something, we have to say at once that it lies
outside its so-called embodiments.

In such kind of freedom, it is difficult to speak of choice, because choice implies

value, and seeing values is impossible from the standpoint of a freedom which
transcends all situations.

For Merleau-Ponty, our freedom is situated freedom.

Freedom is interwoven with a field of existence. Our choices are not made from
absolute zero, but from this field of meaning.

Outside myself there is no limit to my freedom, but in myself, there are limits.

We have to make a destinction between:

Explicit intention: I plan to climb the mountain

General intention: Whether I plan to climb the mountain or not, it appears high to
me.

Underneath me is a natural “I” which does not give up his earthly situation and from
which is based my plans.

Insofar as I have hands, feet, body, I bear intentions which do not depend on my
freedom but which I find myself in.

I find myself already in a world of meaning. Example I cannot structure data of

perception in arbitrary fashion. E.g. habit, tiredness, e.g. historical situation
It is true I can change habits or I transcend facticity, but I can only do so from these
standpoints.

A good example of situated freedom is revolution: it is neither purely determined

nor completely free.

In contrast to Sartre’s subject who is distance from the world. Merleau-Ponty’s

subject is dialogue with the world.

MARCEL: FREEDOM AND THE PERSON

Gabriel Marcel understands freedom in relation to the person.

The person is characterized by disponsibilite, availability in contrast to the ego

which is closed.

We start out in existence as an ego having freedom and grow to being a person.

Marcel’s philosophy can be systematized in terms of having and being (as what
Roger Troisfontaine, S.J. did in his book De l’existence a l’ etre)Having and Being
are two realms of life.

Having pertains to things, external to me, and therefore autonomous (independent

of me).

Things do not commune with me are not capable of participation, closed and
opaque, quantifiable and exhaustible.

The life of having therefore is a life of instrumental relationship.

Having is the realm of the problem. A problem is something to be solved but apart
from me, the subject.

Having is also applicable not only to things but also to ideas, fellowman, faith. I can
have my ideas, posess other people, have my religion. Here I treat my ideas, other
people, religion as my possessions, not open for sharing with others.

Being, on the other hand, pertains to persons, open to others, able to participate,
creative, non-conceptualizable, plenitude.

The life of being is the life of communion.

The realm of being is the realm of mystery. A mystery is a problem that encroaches
on the subject, that is part of me, the subject.

Being is also applicable not only to persons but also to things (art), ideas, faith. I
am painting; I am my ideas; I am my faith. Here my art, ideas, religio are part of me
which I can share to others.

Freedom for Marcel belongs to the realm of being, because freedom is not distinct
from us, not a possession. Freedom is a mystery not a problem.

A thing possessed maybe used or neglected by the owner without losing its
character, but with freedom, when I deny or abuse it, betray it (it loses its character
as freedom)

Man is gifted with freedom (freedom s a fact), and that is why he experiences a
lack, but which is really an exigency of Being.

In answer to this appeal of Being, man either fulfills or betrays his freedom.
To fulfill freedom is to affirm, to be in communion with others, with Being.

Therefore, freedom as a fact points to freedom as value. I am free in order to

become free (freedom as achievement), to become fully a person.

TWO KINDS OF FREEDOM

There are therefore two types of freedom:

Freedom of choice (horizontal freedom) and Fundamental option (vertical

freedom)

Our first and commonly understood experience of freedom is the ability to choose
goods. Example: I choose to study instead of playing mahjong; I choose to buy a
cheap pair of shoes instead of an expensive pair of shoes because I am supporting
my sibling’s education.

But we reflect deeper, our choice implies a prior or may lead to a preference of
values. When I choose to study instead of playing mahjong, I value learning more
than pleasure. When I choose the cheap pair of shoes I value helping my
sister/brother more than my comfort.

This freedom is called fundamental option because it is our general direction or

orientation in life.

It is called vertical freedom because values from a hierarchy; some values are
higher than others.

For the German Phenomenologist, Max Scheler, preferring and realizing higher
values is love, and preferring and realizing lower values is hatred and egoism.

In the ultimate analysis, there are only two fundamental options: love and egoism.

It is love which makes me a person, which makes me truly free.

Freedom of choice and fundamental option are interrelated: our choices shape our
fundamental option, and fundamental option is exercised and concretized in our
particular choices.

FREEDOM AND RESPOSNIBILITY

These two types of freedom can be seen in the corollary of freedom which is
responsibility. Responsibility is the other side of freedom.

Just as there are two kinds of freedom, there are also two meanings of
responsibility.

The first meaning of responsibility corresponds to the first type of freedom, free
choice, namely accountability.

I am accountable for an action that is free, whose source is the “I”: I acted on my
own, I decided on my own. I am free from external constraints.

A person is morally responsible for an injury or a wrong if:

a) The person caused or help caused it, or failed to prevent it when he or she
could have and should have; and
b) The person did so knowing what he or she was doing; and
 c) The person did so of his or her own free will.

Being responsible, accountable, for my action, however, does not necessarily make
me a responsible person. Here we encounter a second meaning of responsibility
corresponding to the second type of freedom- response- ability.

Response-ability means the ability to give an account, the ability to justify my

action as truly responsive to the objective demands of the situation.

A response that meets the objective demands of a situation, is a response that

meets the demands of justice.

A responsible action then from a responsible able person requires putting the other
in the forefront in place of myself: I am free from internal constraints like egoism
and whims.

Greater freedom then is not just being able to do what I want to do but being able
to do and wanting to do what the situation objectively (versus subjectively) obliged
me to do.

FREEDOM AND JUSTICE

The relationship between freedom and justice can be seen when we take into
consideration the network of relationships with fellow human beings and the goods
intended by freedom.

Justice is giving to other what is due.

When we choose goods( things, money, political power etc) we must consider that
they are finite and exhaustible, and that the other also needs them.

Absolute love for finite goods leads to corruption, in the object and in the subject.

If the human being is to keep his freedom, he must assess his real needs with
respect to what is available around his world and the equally real needs of his
fellowman.

This requires an objective order of values, like balancing measurement, a libra

What is due to the other is all that he needs to preserve and enhance his dignity as
a human being.

We are obligated to give to the other what the other needs to enhance his dignity.

His dignity includes his being and becoming free.

But we are obligd to give only what we can give within the limited matrix of
possibilities.

Freedom then conditions justice, and justice is a condition of freedom.

Freedom conditions justice because giving what is due to the other means allowing
him to use his talents to fulfill his humanity, giving him freedom. So, to violate the
freedom of the other is to deny him justice.

Justice is the condition of freedom, because I can only use my freedom for the
promotion of justice, of what is due to the human being. In the exercise of my
freedom I must observe justice so that the resources of fellow human beings and
the world of nature are not exhausted and totally lost, otherwise there will be no
more goods to choose from.

This relationship of freedom and justice is applicable to society.

In a society, there must be a balance of freedom and justice.

This means that there must be structural order in society such that higher values
are not subordinated to lower values.

The social structure must be such that exchange of economic goods and distribution
of political power is geared towards enhancement of the human being.

The practical norm to follow for that ideal is “to each according to his needs (Acts
2:45) from each according to his means (Acts 11:29)”

In cases of conflict between freedom and justice, the use of violence must be
avoided. Instead, structures for deliberation are needed. People must be able to
participate in dialogue to settle their differences.

ACTIVITY:

1. Make a matrix and compare and summarize the three positions of freedom
based on your own understanding according to Skinner (Man as absolutely
determined), Sartre ( man as absolutely free) and from Merleau-Ponty
(phenomenology of freedom). Site similarities and differences.

Man as Absolutely Man as Absolutely Free Phnomenology of Freedom

Determined

2. What is the relationship between moral action and freedom?

3. What for you is true freedom?

4. Based on the concepts of freedom, which position of freedom do you agree?

Explain your answer.

5. Which form of freedom do you think is more attractive to most people: the
freedom to do whatever you want or the freedom to do what you ought to do?

 Which one do you think is ultimately more fulfilling? Explain.

CULTURAL RELATIVISM

Cultural relativism refers to the idea that the values, knowledge, and behavior of
people must be understood within their own cultural context. This is one of the most
fundamental concepts in sociology, as it recognizes and affirms the connections
between the greater social structure and trends and the everyday lives of individual
people.

Origins and Overview

The concept of cultural relativism as we know and use it today was established as
an analytic tool by German-American anthropologist Franz Boas in the early 20th
century. In the context of early social science, cultural relativism became an
important tool for pushing back on the ethnocentrism that often tarnished research
at that time, which was mostly conducted by white, wealthy, Western men, and
often focused on people of color, foreign indigenous populations, and persons of
lower economic class than the researcher.
Ethnocentrism is the practice of viewing and judging someone else's culture based
on the values and beliefs of one's own. From this standpoint, we might frame other
cultures as weird, exotic, intriguing, and even as problems to be solved. In contrast,
when we recognize that the many cultures of the world have their own beliefs,
values, and practices that have developed in particular historical, political, social,
material, and ecological contexts and that it makes sense that they would differ
from our own and that none are necessarily right or wrong or good or bad, then we
are engaging the concept of cultural relativism.
Examples

Cultural relativism explains why, for

example, what constitutes breakfast
varies widely from place to place. What is
considered a typical breakfast in Turkey,
as illustrated in the above image, is quite
different from what is considered a typical
breakfast in the U.S. or Japan. While it
might seem strange to eat fish soup or
stewed vegetables for breakfast in the
U.S., in other places, this is perfectly
normal. Conversely, our tendency toward
sugary cereals and milk or preference for
egg sandwiches loaded with bacon and
cheese would seem quite bizarre to other
cultures.

Similarly, but perhaps of more consequence, rules that regulate nudity in public
vary widely around the world. In the U.S., we tend to frame nudity in general as an
inherently sexual thing, and so when people are nude in public, people may
interpret this as a sexual signal. But in many other places around the world, being
nude or partially nude in public is a normal part of life, be it at swimming pools,
beaches, in parks, or even throughout the course of daily life (see many indigenous
cultures around the world).

In these cases, being nude or partially nude is not framed as sexual but as the
appropriate bodily state for engaging in a given activity. In other cases, like many
cultures where Islam is the predominant faith, a more thorough coverage of the
body is expected than in other cultures. Due in large part to ethnocentrism, this has
become a highly politicized and volatile practice in today's world.

Why Recognizing Cultural Relativism Matters

By acknowledging cultural relativism, we can recognize that our culture shapes
what we consider to be beautiful, ugly, appealing, disgusting, virtuous, funny, and
abhorrent. It shapes what we consider to be good and bad art, music, and film, as
well as what we consider to be tasteful or tacky consumer goods. The work of
sociologist Pierre Bourdieu features ample discussion of these phenomena, and the
consequences of them. This varies not just in terms of national cultures but within a
large society like the U.S. and also by cultures and subcultures organized by class,
race, sexuality, region, religion, and ethnicity, among others.

ACTIVITY:

1. Why can’t all cultural practices be always correct in cultural relativism?

2. Research about one specific culture (example: Chinese culture, American culture)
try to note their customs and traditions and way of living. Compare their culture to
the Filipino culture and note the differences.

FILIPINO MORAL IDENTITY

UNDERSTANDING FILIPINO VALUES AND CULTURE

The Filipino society is composed of a mixture of different races and cultures,

many of which influenced the lifestyle and values being practiced in the Philippine
community. Among those who influenced the Filipino culture and values are our
ancestors – the Malays and Indians, our colonists – the Spaniards and the
Americans, and nationals of other countries who have dealt with the Philippine
society through trade – the Chinese and the Indians. The resulting blend of this
mixture of influences, which are sometimes conflicting, is uniquely Filipino in
character.

Most of the prominent Filipino values are the result of a blend of the rich
Christian values of Europe, the pragmatic and democratic values of America, and
the spiritual values of Asia.

The basic social unit in the Philippine society is the family. It is here where
values and principles are nurtured and imbibed in each and every member of the
family. The tradition of close family ties has long been practiced and considered as
the foundation of the Philippine society. So much is the effect of this tradition that
the members of the constitutional commission of the 1987 Philippine Constitution
deemed it proper to include it as a State Policy and a chapter of the fundamental
law of the land. Thus, Article XV, Section 1 of the said constitution provides that
“The State recognizes the Filipino family as the foundation of the nation.”

It is in the family that the Filipino individual is introduced to the concept of

structure and hierarchy of power. He is always reminded to submit to the
authoritarian familial set-up, where roles are prescribed especially for younger
members of the family. The Filipino family is structured in a way that autocratic
leadership rests on the elder members, where the young submit themselves to the
decision of family elders. He is indoctrinated of the tradition of primacy of the
extended family over that of the individual and that the only source of emotional,
economic, and moral support is the family.

The Filipino individual identifies himself with his family. Right from childhood
he is made to believe that he belongs to the family. The Filipino individual is always
encouraged to get advice from his parents and submit to his parents‟ direction,
counsel and advice. He is admonished to be good because any disgrace that he
commits is a disgrace to the family. In times of misfortune, he is assured of his
family’s support, sympathy and love.

Thus, Filipino society, in contrast with Western societies, prefers a rather

"structured" way of life, and not where he can be assertive of his own individuality.

However, modern era is catching up with the Filipino society. Changes must
occur if the Filipino society is to survive in a changing world. The Filipino society will
have to keep up with the changes brought about by modernization. The society
must prepare itself for a serious reevaluation of its values. In most instances, it will
have to break away from its past and adjust itself towards the future.
FILIPINO CHARACTERISTICS

The characteristic that makes a Filipino vary from different society is his
uniquely blended culture and values from different influences. Filipino values, for
reason of several influences that shaped its identity, are bipolar like a coin that has
two sides. They may either be positive or negative in polarity. Let us take for
example the value of utang na loob, or debt of gratitude. The value of utang na
loob, the altruistic drawing of interior goodness of a person by returning a debt of
gratitude, is by itself positive. However, when one is coerced to honor a debt of
gratitude and return the favor, then it becomes negative.

Due to this ambivalence of Filipino values, they have the potential of being
used for good or evil. They may either help or hinder personal and national
development, depending on how they are understood or practiced or lived.

In order to shape the Filipino society into a successful and progressive nation, there
is a need to reevaluate the different values that influence every Filipino individual’s
action to a set of circumstances. We need to identify the positive side of every
Filipino value and develop them in order to yield a more successful and developed
society.

According to factsanddetails.com and Philippines Australia Business Council,

there are three (3) main traits that underlie the Filipino values and value-orientation
These traits have a strong influence in the behavior and mentality of the Filipinos.
These also have an effect in the Filipinos’ personal beliefs, cultural traditions and
practices.

1. Personalism is a Filipino trait wherein they give importance to interpersonal

relations or face-to-face encounters. Filipinos usually extends their work or services
through “personal touch” or handles problem solving through good personal
relations.

2. Familialism focuses on the welfare and interest of the family over those of the
community. The family is the basis of group action and almost all community
activity centers on the family. In decision making, it is the family that decides rather
than the individual on important matters. It takes into consideration the welfare of
the family and not the individual. The family’s honor, not the personal image, that is
at stake when a family member makes a mistake.

3. Particularism relates to the strong family influence on the individual or group

behavior. This is shown when an individual strive to promote their own and their
family’s interest over the community’s interest. Popularity among peers is prevalent
and observable. Thus, Filipinos make special efforts to entertain friends and
relatives. Pakikisama is very important. Conformity to proper codes of conduct
yields rewards of cooperation while non-conformity results to withdrawal of support.

It is also important to know that there are three (3) main obligations that
underlie the Filipino value orientation namely – relational (pakikipagkapwa),
emotional (damdamin) and moral (karangalan). One or all of these may have
influence in Filipinos’ lives and social relationships.

Let us then try to discuss some of the values in the Filipino society and re-evaluate
them to develop a more positive value for the Filipino individual.
 A. UTANG NA LOOB There is no specific translation that can approximate the
meaning of this Filipino value of utang na loob. Debt of gratitude is a lean excuse of
a translation because it does not even approximate the fertile concept of the
Filipino loob.

Utang na loob is a situation where an individual is required to return a favor

or service received. However, the return of such service or favor cannot be
translated into monetary equivalent, and may reciprocated in a month of service or
even a lifetime.

For example, a congressman proudly gives a town a new chapel, a bridge, or

a waiting shed (no matter whether the money came from his pocket or from the
government), this makes the people indebted to him. And when elections come, he
recites the litany of his projects and people “ought” to repay these through their
votes. Not to repay this form of debt means that those who were benefited are
walang utang na loob. After having been elected, the people would approach this
congressman for return of the favor by seeking employment for them. Thus, this
would end into a vicious cycle, where the person na pinagkakautangan ng loob
becomes the giver and the giver becomes the person na may utang na loob.

However, utang na loob may be interpreted in a positive outlook. If it is used

with the concept of justice, truth and human dignity, it would reflect the beautiful
aspect of the Filipino character. Thus, this altruistic feeling must voluntarily come
from within the person himself, kusang loob; and should not be demanded by
coercing the person who has utang na loob, so as blind his sense of judgment.

Furthermore, this value should be used discriminately. The pagtatanaw ng

utang na loob should emerge from within the self of an individual with sense of
justice so as to repay the person for the favor or services rendered. We should
always remember that in demanding for the return of indebtedness, the golden rule
“Do unto other as you would want them to do unto you.” By demanding the return
of the favor, would you wish to become indebted in return? And when indebted,
would you want that person to act the same way when they are demanding the
return of the favor?

B. BAHALA NA Filipinos, by nature, are a religious group of people. They firmly

believe in the supernatural and in all kinds of spirit dwelling in individual persons,
places or things. They believe in a Supreme Being who will take care of things for
them. The Filipino is very religious who has a saint to pray to each day of the week.

The term bahala na comes from the words Bathala na. It reflects the Filipino's
dependence on the supernatural being and on fate. This tends to move toward the
commonly conceived procrastination character of the Filipino.

C. MAÑANA HABIT Mañana Habit can be traced back in the Spanish colonization
era. The term “Mañana” is a Spanish word that means “tomorrow”. This is a Filipino
trait that enforces procrastination - practice of putting off work to be done in the
near future or in the last minute. This habit is exemplified through the “Mamaya na”
or “Bukas na”.

D. NINGAS KUGON The term Ningas Kugon translates to “burning of cogon grass”.
As a Filipino trait, it means that Filipinos tend to have a strong enthusiasm in the
beginning of each work or endeavor but gradually slows down and lose their drive
to work and finish the job. It is said that in work Filipinos tend to do their job
halfbaked or leave it unfinished.
E. AMOR PROPIO As a reinforcement to the Philippine trait of “Hiya” or shame,
Filipinos are akin to the traditional attitude of saving “face”. Amor propio is another
Spanish term that means a sense of self-esteem or self-respect that prevents a
person from swallowing his pride. It also means ego defensiveness or maintaining
one’s dignity and personal pride. According to the Philippines Australia Business
Council, amor propio often implies a vindictive reaction to questioning an
individual’s action, integrity, or honor.

F. BAYANIHAN In an article entitled “Filipino Culture: Bayanihan: The Filipino Value

that Must be Retained”, it describe bayanihan as: “Bayanihan is a core essence of
the Filipino culture. It is helping out one’s neighbor as a community, and doing a
task together, thus lessening the workload and making the job easier. It is also
called the ‘community spirit’. It is best exhibited when people wish to move
locations in the rural area. The traditional Filipino house, the ‘bahay-kubo’, can be
moved using wooden poles which are carried from the old place to the new one.
This requires a group of people to lift and carry the house on their shoulders. Able-
bodied men usually participated in such feats, while women stood and watched,
casually chatting and cheering the men on. Afterwards, there will be a small
gathering as a form of celebration and socialization.” [SOURCE: https://everything-
filipino.com/filipino-culture-bayanihanthe-filipino-value-that-must-be-retained/]

STRENGTHS OF THE FILIPINO CHARACTER

Filipino Character Results

Pakikipagkapwa-tao Camaraderie and feeling of closeness to one
another; foundation for unity as well as sense of
social justice
Family Oriented Feeling of belongingness and rootedness and a
basic sense of security
Joy and Humor Emotional balance, optimism, a healthy disrespect
for power and office and the capacity to survive
Flexibility and Adaptability Productivity, innovation, entrepreneurship,
equanimity and survival
Hardwork and Industry Productivity and entrepreneurship for some and
survival despite poverty for others
Faith and Religiosity Courage, daring, optimism, inner peace, as well as
the capacity to genuinely accept tragedy and
death
Ability to Survive Bravely live through the harshest economic and
social circumstances

WEAKNESS OF THE FILIPINO CHARACTER

Filipino Character Results

Extreme Personalism Leads to graft and corruption
Extreme Family Centeredness Lack of concern for the common good and acts as
the block to national consciousness
Lack of Discipline Inefficient and wasteful work systems, violation of
rules leading to more serious transgressions and a
casual work ethics leading to carelessness and lack
of follow- through
 Passivity and Lack of Initiative Easily resigned to one’s fate and thus easily
oppressed and exploited
Colonial Mentality Basic feeling of national inferiority that makes it
difficult for them to relate as equal to Westerners
Kanya-kanya Syndrome Dampening of cooperative and community spirit
and in the trampling upon of the rights of others
Lack of Self- Analysis and Self – Reflection Emphasis on form more than substance

ACTIVITIY

Essay:

1. How does a Filipino culture shaped it’s identity over the years? Who are our
influncers?

2. We are colonized by the Spaniards for over 100 years. Research about the
Filipino traits that we derived from them and classify them as either a strength or a
weakness. Explain your answers.

3. Problems in our society nowadays arise from negative Filipino qualities. Explain
how these qualities can affect our morality as Filipinos. Site some examples from
your own experiences. Recommend how we could do things the right way.

4. Research about universal values. Give their types and discuss each.