Republic of the Philippines

Bicol University
COLLEGE OF SOCIAL SCIENCES & PHILOSOPHY
Philosophy Department
Daraga, Albay
ISO 9001:2015
TUV Rheinland ID 910863351

ETHICS AND CULTURE

PREPARED BY

MARK M. GATUS, LPT

MARCK ZALDY O. CAMBA, LPT
 Page |2

Introduction

As discussed from the previous module, ethics is about systematizing and

recommending notions of what is right and wrong behavior, acceptable and
unacceptable in human behavior which may involve obligations that we are expected
to fulfill, prohibitions that we are required to respect, and ideals that we are encouraged
to meet. In line with that, society and culture definitely plays a major role in shaping
our moral thinking and behavior. That is why in this module, the crucial influence of
society and culture to ethical thinking shall be discussed. Moreover, we will also
assess the position of cultural relativism. We will also reflect on the fundamental
qualities of the Filipino moral identity.

What Will You Learn?

After completing the module, you will be able to:

1. Evaluate the strengths and weakness of cultural relativism

2. Recognize and appreciate differences in the moral behavior of different
cultures and generations
3. Reflect on the fundamental qualities of the Filipino moral identity in their
own moral experiences.

Activities

Let’s try this!

Before you read on, try and answer the following questions below. Write your answer
on the space provided.

1. Is morality absolute? Or Is morality relative?

________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________

Prepared by:
Mark M. Gatus & Marck Zaldy O. Camba
Faculty Members, Philosophy Department
 Page |3

________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________
_______________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________

2. Are all moral behavior the same among all cultures? How about among different
generations?

________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________

Let’s Read!

 .

Topic 1: Ethics and Culture

“Darius, a king of ancient Persia, was intrigued by the variety of cultures he met
in his travels. He had found, for example, that the Callatians, who lived in India, ate
the bodies of their dead fathers. The Greeks, of course, did not do that—the Greeks
practiced cremation and regarded the funeral pyre as the natural and fitting way to
dispose of the dead. Darius thought that a sophisticated outlook should appreciate the
differences between cultures. One day, to teach this lesson, he summoned some
Greeks who happened to be at his court and asked what it would take for them to eat
the bodies of their dead fathers. They were shocked, as Darius knew they would be,
and replied that no amount of money could persuade them to do such a thing. Then
Darius called in some Callatians and, while the Greeks listened, asked them what it
would take for them to burn their dead fathers’ bodies. The Callatians were horrified
and told Darius not to speak of such things. This story, recounted by Herodotus in his
History, illustrates a recurring theme in the literature of social science” (Rachels &
Rachels 2019). Should you eat the bodies of the dead or burn them? Which cultural
practice do you think is correct?

Prepared by:
Mark M. Gatus & Marck Zaldy O. Camba
Faculty Members, Philosophy Department
 Page |4

Cultural Relativism
Cultural relativism is a view that good
and bad are relative to culture. Different
cultures have different moral codes. What is
thought right within one group may horrify
the members of another group and vice
versa. What is “good” is what is “socially
approved” in a given culture. Our moral
principles describe social conventions and
must be based on the norms of our society.
Perhaps the most appealing of its claims is
that that it emphasizes that no culture is
superior to any other culture when
comparing systems of morality, law, politics,
etc. as a result, resulting in moral tolerance.
Cultural beliefs are equally valid and that
truth itself is relative, depending on the
cultural environment. Thus, those who hold
to cultural relativism hold that all religious,
ethical, aesthetic, and political beliefs are
completely relative to the individual within a
cultural identity.
The following claims by cultural relativist:
1. Different societies have different moral
codes.
2. The moral code of a society
determines what is right within that
society; that is, if the moral code of a
society says that a certain action is
right, then that action is right, at least
within that society.
3. There is no objective standard that
can be used to judge one society’s
code as better than another’s. There
are no moral truths that hold for all
people at all times.
4. The moral code of our own society has
no special status; it is but one among
many.
5. It is arrogant for us to judge other
cultures. We should always be tolerant
of them.

Perhaps it is undeniable that different cultures have different moral codes. What
is thought right within one group may horrify the members of another group and vice
versa. To raise questions from the story, we can ask this following. First, should
individuals eat the bodies of the dead or burn them? Second, can they judge the
culture of others? The answer to the first question is that, if you were a Greek, to burn
the bodies of the dead would seem correct; but if you were a Callatian, to eat the
bodies of the dead would seem equally certain. For the second question, to call a
custom “correct” or “incorrect” would imply that we can judge that custom by some
independent standard of right and wrong. But according to Rachels (2019), no such
standard exists; every standard is culture-bound. Culture plays a major part in our
perception of what is moral, and because of that, it could also pose some issues since
each culture has a unique feature that other culture doesn’t have. With this regard,
cultural relativism challenges our belief in the objectivity and universality of moral truth.

Watch! Online video lecture by Gregory B. Sadler titled, James Rachels’ Five Claims of
Cultural Relativism. Available online: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HAwIjx5Ms2A

Ima Relativist
(from Harry Gensler 2011, pp. 8-9)

My name is Ima Relativist. I’ve embraced cultural relativism as I’ve come to

appreciate the deeply cultural basis for morality. I was brought up to believe that
morality is about objective facts. Just as snow is white, so also infanticide is wrong.

Prepared by:
Mark M. Gatus & Marck Zaldy O. Camba
Faculty Members, Philosophy Department
 Page |5

But attitudes vary with time and place. The norms that I was taught are the norms of
my own society; other societies have different ones. Morality is a cultural construct.
Just as societies create different styles of food and clothing, so too they create different
moral codes. I’ve learned about these in my anthropology class and experienced them
as an exchange student in Mexico.

Consider my belief that infanticide is wrong. I was taught this as if it were an

objective standard. But it isn’t; it’s just what my society holds. When I say “Infanticide
is wrong,” this just means that my society disapproves of it. For the ancient Romans,
on the other hand, infanticide was all right. There’s no sense in asking which side here
is “correct.” Their view is true relative to their culture, and our view is true relative to
ours. There are no objective truths about right or wrong. When we claim otherwise,
we’re just imposing our culturally taught attitudes as the “objective truth.”

“Wrong” is a relative term, and thus needs a further reference to complete its
sense. Let me explain what this means. Something isn’t “to the left” absolutely, but
only “to the left of” this or that. So “to the left” is a relative term. Similarly, something
isn’t “wrong” absolutely, but only “wrong in” this or that society. Infanticide might be
wrong in one society but right in another.

We can express cultural relativism most clearly as a definition: “X is good”

means “The majority (of the society in question) approves of X.” Other moral terms,
like “bad” and “right,” can be defined in a similar way. Note the reference to a specific
society. Unless otherwise specified, the society in question is that of the person
making the judgment. When I say “Hitler acted wrongly,” I mean “according to the
standards of my society.”

The myth of objectivity says that things can be good or bad “absolutely”— not
relative to this or that culture. But how can we know what is good or bad absolutely?
And how can we argue about this without just presupposing the standards of our own
society? People who speak of good or bad absolutely are absolutizing the norms of
their own society. They take the norms that they were taught to be objective facts.
Such people need to study anthropology, or to live for a time in another culture.

As I’ve come to believe in cultural relativism, I’ve grown in my acceptance of

other cultures. Like many exchange students, I used to have this “we’re right and
they’re wrong” attitude. I struggled against this. I came to realize that the other side
isn’t “wrong” but just “different.” We have to see others from their point of view; if we
criticize them, we’re just imposing the standards of our own society. We cultural
relativists are more tolerant.

Through cultural relativism I’ve also come to be more accepting of the norms of
my own society. cultural relativism gives a basis for a common morality within a
culture—a democratic basis that pools everyone’s ideas and insures that the norms
have wide support. So I can feel solidarity with my own people, even though other
groups have different values.

Prepared by:
Mark M. Gatus & Marck Zaldy O. Camba
Faculty Members, Philosophy Department
 Page |6

Reflect on Ima’s position on cultural relativism. Are we in a position to morally judge a

particular cultural practice? Write your answer in the space provided.

________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________

Let’s Read!

Topic 2: Filipino Culture

Given the diversity of the Philippines,
the unifying element of Filipino culture is a
Core concepts in Filipino Culture complex matter. It comprises a diverse set of
landscapes, languages, and cultures. As
Hospitality
Hiya
Evason (2016) discussed, “the long history
Modesty of contact with Spain and the United States
Courtesy continues to have a significant impact on the
Warmth Filipino identity. One example is the
Respect influence of American standards of beauty,
Kapwa which are often measured in the Philippines
Fatalism by the possession of Western physical traits
– such as fair skin and curly hair. Another
example is the prominence of Christian
ideology since the introduction of Christianity
by the Spanish. Indeed, when compared to other countries on the Asian continent, the
Philippines has one of the highest Christian populations.” Nonetheless, a sense of
national identity emerged out of the long-standing struggle for independence. In the
contemporary Philippines, many Filipinos are very aware of the colonial history of their
country. For example, Jose Rizal who is a national hero who fought for Philippine

Prepared by:
Mark M. Gatus & Marck Zaldy O. Camba
Faculty Members, Philosophy Department
 Page |7

independence is being looked up by many of as an exemplar of a virtuous person. The

sense of national identity is however fragile, with loyalty resides first to their kin, group,
or community. That is why the Philippines is a collectivist society thus Filipinos see
themselves as part of a collective group where the interest of the collectives overrides
the interest of the individual (Evason 2016). With this regard, let us survey the core
concepts of Filipino culture which contributes not only to their national identity but also
their moral identity.

Social Hierarchy and “Hiya”

Social hierarchy in the Philippines is very vital. All Filipinos at a very early age
are being taught of the importance of social hierarchy. One obvious example of this is
the gestures, terms of address, and communication styles which depend on the person
they interact with as well as the position in the social hierarchy. To give a more specific
example, it is expected if you are referring to someone who is older than you but within
the same generation, we use the terms Kuya for males and Ate for females, while for
family members or even to close family friend, not within the same generation, we use
the terms tito or tita. Failing to do so is considered highly disrespectful and a lack of
acknowledgment of the established hierarchy.

The term Kapwa, on the other hand, refers to “shared self”, “shared identity”, or
“self-in-the-other” (Reyes 2015). Thus, it generally refers to an identity that is shared
and whereby people connect despite differences in social status or wealth. Moreover,
kapwa is related to the collectivistic nature of Filipino society. It is believed that what
is good for one person will be good for the collective and ought to be is shared with
fellow people. Being branded as not having any kapwa is an insult as it implies that
the person does not belong to a community (Evason 2016).

The concept of ‘hiya’ is also one of the important factors influencing how
Filipinos behave and interact with others. According to Evason (2016) hiya 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. Individuals will often try to be generous and hospitable to
avoid hiya and to maintain kapwa.

Warmth and Acceptance

It is an undeniable fact that Filipinos are very welcoming and friendly. They love
the presence of other individuals around them, and it is common to find strangers
engaging in conversation or sharing stories to family, friends or foreigners. Also, are
often expressive and sentimental while maintaining a light-hearted character. For
example, the word ‘hugot’ (‘to pull out’) is often used to describe someone drawing out
deep sentimental memories or experiences Evason (2016). They are often willing to
share stories of their past that may be considered personal.

Prepared by:
Mark M. Gatus & Marck Zaldy O. Camba
Faculty Members, Philosophy Department
 Page |8

Moreover, Filipinos have the general approach to life is of acceptance. ‘Bahala

na’ (come what may) captures the strong belief among many Filipinos that whatever
may happen is a part of God’s will. Evason (2016) explains that any individual or
group's success is often attributed to fate or God rather than efforts. This indicates
a fatalistic attitude throughout society whereby Filipinos are generally accepting of
theirs and other circumstances. However, this does not mean Filipinos are passive.
Rather, they are hardworking and will often do their best to help themselves and their
family.

Loób and Kapwa: An Introduction to a Filipino Virtue Ethics

by Jeremiah Reyes (2015)

In contrast with the popular scheme of Filipino ‘values’ inherited from twentieth
century American scholarship, this introduction presents a revised interpretation of
those ‘values’ through a dialogue with Aristotelian-Thomistic virtue ethics. Filipino
virtue ethics is the result of the mixing of two traditions—the Southeast Asian tribal
and animist tradition and the Spanish Catholic tradition—for over 300 years. It has two
main concepts: loób and kapwa, which serve as pillars that support a special collection
of virtues dedicated to strengthening and preserving human relationships. The
glossary below is a survey of Filipino virtue ethics.

1. Kagandahang-Loob - this word is literally translated as “beauty-of-will”. The

beauty of the will in this context is determined by one’s relationship towards
the kapwa. Someone who has an affective concern for others and the
willingness to help them in times of need is a person with kagandahang-loob.
It is best understood through the paradigmatic example of a mother’s love and
concern for her child, most especially during the child’s weakness in infancy.

2. Utang-na-Loob—This word is literally translated as ‘debt-of-will’. It is the

natural response to kagandahang-loób. It is the self-imposed obligation to
give back the same kind of kagandahang-loob to the person who has shown it
to you. When utang-na-loob is returned with interest, that is more than what is
due, it can bring about a circular dynamic between two persons where the one
who previously showed kagandahang-loób is now the one with utang-na-loób,
and then vice versa; it continues to alternate and strengthen the relationship
in the process.

3. Pakikiramdam—The closest translation might be relational sensitivity or

empath’. It is about being skilled in reading the other person’s feelings and
correctly guessing his inner state. It requires receptivity to many non-verbal
cues, such as subtle facial expressions, tones of voice and bodily gestures.
This indirect communication, though it might seem tedious or frustrating to the
foreigner, is a way of practicing a kind of emotional intelligence, a way of
evaluating and deepening the relationship with the other person.

4. Hiya—Hiya has been variously translated as embarrassment or shame. It has

often been negatively criticized when studied in isolation, especially for the
Filipino tendency to be roundabout and not direct to the point. But it is a virtue

Prepared by:
Mark M. Gatus & Marck Zaldy O. Camba
Faculty Members, Philosophy Department
 Page |9

when it controls and restrains selfish desires for the welfare of the other. One
of the most common manifestations is withholding a direct verbal
confrontation that could embarrass the other, especially in public.

5. Lakas-ng-Loob/Bahala na—Lakas-ng-loob is literally translated as courage,

bahala na is sometimes translated as ‘fatalism’ or ‘resignation’, but it is
translated more positively as courage to face uncertainty’. The unique history
of the Philippines must also be taken into account in order to see that this is
not just any kind of courage, but a courage for self-sacrifice for the kinship
group.

Let’s Read!

Topic 3: Generational Values

Moral behavior doesn’t just vary by culture but also by generations. We
commonly hear the terms silent generations, baby boomers, generation x, generation
y or millennials, and generation z, which most of the times differentiated by social
behaviors and values. But what do these different labels mean, and do any of the
stereotypes attached to them contain any grains of truth? Dr. Alexis Abramson, an
expert in what is known as “generational cohorts”, says we define generations
because “when you are born affects your attitudes, your perceptions, your values, your
behaviors.” This means that each of them has its characteristics (BBC 2020). Below
is a survey from the BBC regarding each generation's characteristics and their values.

The Silent Generation

This is the first defined generational group. It refers to those born between 1926
and 1945, so these are people who lived through World War Two. The name comes
from an article in Time magazine from the 1950s and alludes to the fact that the
children of this generation were taught to be seen and not heard. According to Dr.
Abramson, this group is:

 Disciplined
 value-oriented and loyal
 interested in direct communication, so enjoy speaking in
person as opposed to via technology

Prepared by:
Mark M. Gatus & Marck Zaldy O. Camba
Faculty Members, Philosophy Department
 P a g e | 10

Baby Boomers

This is the only generation that’s been defined by an official government body:
The US Census Bureau (which is part of the country’s Department for Commerce and
is responsible for collecting data from across the US). They’re so named because of
the huge surge of births after World War Two. The group starts in 1946 and ends with
those born around 1964 when the birthrate began to decline again. Dr. Abramson says
boomers are:

 committed
 self-sufficient
 competitive (she thinks this may have something to do with
how many of them there were)

Generation X

The Resolution Foundation think tank defines Gen X as those born between
1966 and 1980. They grew up in a time when technology was advancing fast, but it
wasn’t nearly as readily available as it is today. Because of this, this generation
straddles both the digital and non-digital world and understands the importance of
both. Dr. Abramson says these people are:

 resourceful
 logical
 good problem-solvers

Millennials (Generation Y)

This is the cohort you’ve probably heard the most about. It’s not entirely certain
where the generation starts and ends, but it’s approximately those born from 1980 to
1995. They’re often described as ‘lazy’ in the media and that they spend all the money
they should be saving for a house on avocado toast, but they’re also the first
generation to be “digital natives”, as Dr. Abramson describes them. She thinks this
makes them extremely self-sufficient, as they no longer have to rely on others to solve
their problems or teach them things - they have the internet for that. Other defining
characteristics include:

Prepared by:
Mark M. Gatus & Marck Zaldy O. Camba
Faculty Members, Philosophy Department
 P a g e | 11

 confident
 curious
 questioning authority - Dr Abramson thinks that this can be
perceived quite badly by some of the older generations, who
would be less likely to do so

Generation Z

There are a few conflicting ideas about where this generation starts. Pew
Statistics says 1997, Statistics Canada says 1993, and the Resolution Foundation
says 2000. Wherever it begins though, we can safely say this group is young and has
never known a life without tech. That might be why their alternative name (coined by
American psychologist Dr. Jean Twenge) is iGen. Some of their characteristics
include:

 ambitious
 digital-natives
 confident

Bridging the Generation Gap

The important thing to note according to Dr. Abramson is that while these
separations can be useful, at the end of the day we are individuals. It’s like with
horoscopes: you may identify with one or two characteristics of being a Sagittarius or
a Leo, but you won’t ever fit your star sign’s description exactly. The same goes for
cohorts, although as the stereotypes are given more prominence in the media, she
notes that people in the different groups can “pigeon hole themselves into aligning
themselves with those characteristics”. What they can help us with, as Dr. Abramson
explains: is "so that we know how and when to work differently with a group.” In other
words, you wouldn’t treat a 60-year-old the same way would a teenager, so having
these cohorts gives us a rough idea of what different age groups might want and need
(BBC 2020). Moreover, in terms of communication, Dr. Abramson says the key
difference between all of these cohorts are the different methods of communication
they use. Where the silent generation and baby boomers had to rely on face-to-face
relationships and are as a result more “engaged” in their real-life communities, the
younger generations have social media for that and create their communities online
instead. Nonetheless, the key to overcoming these differences, according to Dr.
Abramson, is that “the younger folks can teach the older folks something and the older
folks can teach the younger folks something”. Thus, she suggests “mentor-mentee
relationships, downward and upward”. Historically it’s usually the older person holding
the position of being a mentor. So for example, in a workplace, an older person might
take a young newbie under their wing to teach them what they know and give them a
leg up in the organization (BBC 2020).

Prepared by:
Mark M. Gatus & Marck Zaldy O. Camba
Faculty Members, Philosophy Department
 P a g e | 12

Values differ not only by culture but also by generations. There are notable
characteristics among generations. Each is unique and needs to be openly understood
and ultimately, be respected.

Watch! Gen X, Y, and Z: Which One Are You by Bright Side. Available online:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TtIojDWOsgg&t=31s

How would respond to the generational differences in terms of both social and
moral behavior? Cite an example to further substantiate your answer. Write
your answers in the space provided.
________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________

How Much Have You Learned?

To find out more how much you have learned from this lesson, try
and answer the question below. Write your answer on the space
provided.

1. What is Cultural Relativism? For you, is morality absolute or is it relative?

________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________

Prepared by:
Mark M. Gatus & Marck Zaldy O. Camba
Faculty Members, Philosophy Department
 P a g e | 13

2. Are all moral behavior the same among all cultures? How about per
generation?

________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________

LEARNING OUTPUT

 Note: Please accomplish this with your assigned group. You can use platforms
such as Google Meet or Facebook Messenger to facilitate your discussion. Each
member should submit the same group answer/paper individually. Please follow
this format:

Group Members:

i. GM1: Full name, Course & Block

ii. GM2: Full name, Course & Block
iii. GM3: Full name, Course & Block

(O2) Essay Paper.

 Note: Please accomplish this with your assigned group. Please answer each
item in exactly one (1) paragraph with at least fifteen (15) sentences.

1. Discuss with your groupmates the central idea of cultural relativism and
evaluate its strength and weakness. Collaborate with your groupmates and
compose an answer for the following questions What are the advantages of
cultural relativism, what are its disadvantages? Are you for or against it?

Prepared by:
Mark M. Gatus & Marck Zaldy O. Camba
Faculty Members, Philosophy Department
 P a g e | 14

2. Reflect and share with your classmates your personal experiences of

Filipino Culture. Collaborate with your groupmates and compose an answer
for the following questions. What are your personal experiences of Filipino
Culture? What are its strengths and weaknesses? Cite at least 2 problems
rooted in Filipino qualities you’ve encountered, and recommend how you
would address the problem. What are your insight on the so called
“generation gap”? What reflections or realizations may be derived from
these experiences?

References

Bulaong, O. G., Calano, M. J., Lagliva, A. M., Mariano, M. N., & Principe, J. D.
(2018). Ethics: Foundations of moral valuation. Quezon City, Philippines: Rex
Book Store.

Mabaquiao, N., Jr., & Evangelista, F. (2020). Ethics: Theories and Applications.
Manila: Anvil Publishing.

Evason, N. (2016) Filipino Culture - Core Concepts. Retrieved July 06, 2020, from
https://culturalatlas.sbs.com.au/filipino-culture/filipino-culture-core-concepts

Fieser, J. (2020). Ethics. Retrieved July 02, 2020, from

https://www.iep.utm.edu/ethics/

Gensler, H. J. (2011). Ethics: A contemporary introduction. London: Routledge.

Gert, B., & Gert, J. (2020, September 08). The Definition of Morality. Retrieved July
11, 2020, from https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/morality-definition/

Kvalnes, Ø. (2019). Moral Reasoning at Work. doi:10.1007/978-3-030-15191-1

Mañebog, J. (2013). Moral Standards vs. Non-Moral Standards. Retrieved July 15,
2020, from https://ourhappyschool.com/node/824

Millennials, baby boomers or Gen Z: Which one are you and what does it mean?
(2020, January 13). Retrieved January 06, 2021, from
https://www.bbc.co.uk/bitesize/articles/zf8j92p

Rachels, S., & Rachels, J. (2019). The elements of moral philosophy. New
York, NY: McGraw-Hill Education.

Prepared by:
Mark M. Gatus & Marck Zaldy O. Camba
Faculty Members, Philosophy Department
 P a g e | 15

Reyes, J. (2015). LoóbandKapwa: An Introduction to a Filipino Virtue Ethics. Asian

Philosophy, 25(2), 148-171. doi:10.1080/09552367.2015.1043173

Prepared by:
Mark M. Gatus & Marck Zaldy O. Camba
Faculty Members, Philosophy Department