GE-8 Ethics |Module 3 |Morality, | Meaning, | Comparative

Analysis, | Moral dilemmas, | Three levels. | Culture |

Definitions | Cultural relativism | Consequences |
Reminder: Please be reminded that the distribution of modules in this subject is through the
CEAS office, made to be available for copying only maybe by a xerographic copier. This shall
be available only on the first (1st) and third (3rd) Monday of the month during the entire period
of the semester.

I. Warm-up:
For 2-5 minutes ponder on these questions: (you may write on a sheet of paper)
1. Recall a moral experience?
2. Recognize a moral experience?

II. Introduction:

Lets us begin by making a point of clarification on the use of “ethics” and “morals”. This
discussion of ethics and morals would include cognates such as ethical, unethical,
immoral, amoral, morality, and so on. As we proceed, we should be careful particularly
on the use of the world “not” when applied to the words moral or ethical as this can be
ambiguous. One might say that cooking is not ethical, that is the act of cooking does not
belong to a discussion on ethics. On the other hand, one might say that lying is not
ethical, but the meaning here is that the act of lying would be an unethical act.

Let us consider those two words further. The term “morals” may be used to refer to
specific beliefs or attitudes that people have or to describe acts that people perform.
Thus, it is sometimes said that an individual’s personal conduct is referred to his morals,
and if falls short of behaving properly, this can be described as immoral. However, we
can also have terms such as “moral judgement or moral reasoning” which suggest a
more rational aspect.

The term ethics can be spoken of as the discipline of studying and understanding ideal
human behavior and ideal ways of thinking. Thus, ethics is acknowledged as the
intellectual disciplined belonging to philosophy. However, acceptable or unacceptable
behaviors are also generally described as “ethical or unethical”, respectively.

Various thinkers and writers posit a distinction between the term “ethics” and
“morality”. Here are some of the notable distinctions, to wit;

1.) Morality, is the practice of conduct in living that is found and grounded in culture,
norms, or in traditions overtime. While, ethics defined, understood, and provides
practiced ingredients on morality.

2.) Morality, are those that which we inherit from our parents, from families, from
societies or communities which tells us what is “dos” that are right and “don’ts” that
are wrong. Morality is grounded on traditions. On the other hand, ethics is a
discipline in philosophy or a discipline in scientific thought that are grounded on
reasons for an activity especially of doing the right and avoiding the odd or bad.

3.) Morality often does not have a reason or justification because it is the way of life of a
people and it comprises those that were taught to us in doing so. While, Ethics are
grounded mainly on reason and deals with the questions of what ought to do.
 4.) And lastly, what is ethical most normally are moral. However, there are moral
principles in areas that are not ethical.

III. Input
 ETYMOLOGICAL AND TECHNICAL DEFINITIONS OF MORALITY.
According to Merriam Webster dictionary, Morality is a principle concerning the
distinction between right and wrong or good and bad behavior.
Morality (from Latin: moralitas, lit. 'manner, character, proper behavior') can be a body
of standards or principles derived from a code of conduct from a
particular philosophy, religion or culture, or it can derive from a standard that a person
believes should be universal. Morality may also be
specifically synonymous with "goodness" or "rightness".

 WHAT ARE MORAL DILEMMAS?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jwOQ7ZqDWN4

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.”

THE THREE LEVELS OF MORAL DILEMMA

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-S6y9gJ9Wss

1.) Individual

2.) Organizational

3.) Systemic or Structural

1. Individual moral dilemma – when your decision in a situation where there is

moral conflict is the cause of either your own; that another person; or a group
of people’s potential harm.

2. Organizational Moral Dilemma – is when a member or members of the

organization is in a situation where there is moral conflict, and the decision
will potentially harm either some member of the group or the entire
organization itself.

3. Systemic or Structural Moral Dilemma -n is when a person or group of

person who holds high-level positions in the society faces a morally
conflicting situation wherein the entire social system is affected.

 CULTURE

There are serious moral disagreements between people— can hardly be denied.
Nor is this just a matter of individual disagreement; from ancient times it has been
noted that such differences are to be found between entire cultures. First, let us try
to identify the various meaning of the word.

cul·ture - the customary beliefs, social forms, and material traits of a racial,
religious, or social group. This is according to Merriam Webster dictionary.

o Wikipedia however explicitly defines it as an umbrella term which

encompasses the social behavior and norms found in human societies, as
well as the knowledge, beliefs, arts, laws, customs, capabilities, and habits of
the individuals in these groups.
Humans acquire culture through the learning processes
of enculturation and socialization, which is shown by the diversity of cultures
across societies.

Verily, there are many different societies and every society has a different
experience, way of life, practices, and own way of survival that become the
starting point of our reflection. We may have the same experience but we are
different in our reflection on it. It may happen that our reactions to different
practices are the result of the reflection of our society. Reflection is very
essential in living a moral life because through that we can have moral
appraisal of our action.

Every society has a different interpretation of their value system, for instance
"Consider a culture in which people believe it is wrong- to eat cows. This may even
be a poor culture, in which there is not enough food; still, the cows are not to be
touched." (Rachels & Rachels, 2012). It may happen that those practices are the
result of their interpretation that that the soul of their deceased love ones may inhabit
the bodies of animals. The system of education is an interpretation on how we are
going to rear a child. The set of beliefs that we inherited from our parents becomes
our standard in interpreting an action to be right or wrong.

It is also within the bounds of human relationship that different moral codes exist.
Our relationship with our parents, our upbringing, our association with our peers, our
relationship with our teachers further escalates the level of differences among
individuals and groups.

Reflection, interpretation and relations are some of the reasons why different moral
codes exist. These three may comprises the philosophy from which different moral
codes originated.

It is the view of the relativists that values depend on the group's value system.
"According to cultural relativist, what is good and right is what a particular culture
says it is." (Honer et.al, 2002). What the culture believes to be good is good based
on the culture criterion of what is right or wrong. There is no universal standard that
is binding to all culture that could serve as moral measure in judging what is right and
what is wrong but only the culture judging it. As a consequence, morality is now
derived from the norms that are prevalent in a culture. The notion of what is good
and evil becomes culture dependent. It is the culture that dictates what is good. Let's
take a look at this example.

There are different cultural practices that may somehow support the claims of
cultural relativism. "Consider the Eskimos of the early and mid—20th century. The
Eskimos are the native people of Alaska, northern Canada, Greenland, and
northeastern Siberia, in Asiatic Russia. Today, none of these groups call themselves
"Eskimos" but the term has historically referred to that scattered Arctic population.
Prior to the 20th century, the outside world knew little about them. Then explorers
began to bring back strange tales.

The Eskimos lived in small settlements, separated by great distances, and their
customs turned out to be very different from ours. The men often had more than one
wife, and they would share their wives with guests, lending them out for the night as
a sign of hospitality. Moreover, within a community a dominant male might demand—
and get—regular sexual access to other men’s wives. The women however, were
free to break these arrangements simply by leaving their husbands and taking up
new partners that is, so long as their former husbands chose not to make too much
trouble. All in all, the Eskimo custom of marriage was a volatile practice that bore
little resemblance to our custom. "[1M CHEL Elements of Moral Philosophy, p15]

From the given example of the practices of the Eskimos, we may realize how
different our culture from them is because for us Filipinos it is a huge insult to our
 manhood that our wife would engage in sexual intercourse with other man. We
neither give consent nor tolerate these practices. If we try to reflect on our culture
when we see our wife talking to another man, we sometimes feel like killing that man.
We can offer food to our visitors as a sign of hospitality but we do not offer our wives
for them to have sex with. They may sleep in our house but they cannot sleep with
our wives. We Filipinos are protective of the members of our family because of the
high value we give to "family."

But it was not only in their marriage and sexual practices do we differ. The Eskimos
also seemed to care less about human life. Infanticide, for example, was common.
Knud Rasmussen, an early explorer, reported meeting one woman who had borne
20 children but had killed 10 of them at birth. Female babies, he found, were
especially likely to be killed, and this was permitted at the parents' discretion, with no
social stigma attached. Moreover, when elderly family members became too feeble,
they were left out in the snow to die. In Eskimo society, there seemed to be
remarkably little respect for life.

In the Filipino culture, however, parents bring up their children to the best of their
ability and protect them with all their might. For instance, when a child who had been
disciplined by his teacher squealed to his parents about what his teacher did to him,
his parents most likely, would go to school, confront the teacher and tell him that he
has no right to hurt the child because it was not he, the teacher, who gave life to and
brought up the child.

On the other hand, when it comes to supporting our children, we Filipinos try to
provide their needs even at the expense of our necessity to provide for ourselves.

The way of life of the Eskimos and the way of life of the Filipinos are different and it
is noticeable that we differ on what we consider valuable. Since one culture is
different from theirs, it is reasonable to look at their practices based on their own
horizon and moral evaluation.

 Consequences of Cultural Relativism

Accepting the core principle of cultural relativism is tantamount to accepting that we

can no longer have moral agreement on some issues affecting the life of an
individual wherein consensus is imperative. How can we advocate the peace
agreement that is vital for the existence of society if moral agreement is ignored? We
cannot set aside our cultural differences but we also cannot set aside moral
agreement just because of cultural differences. If we look at it carefully, the chaos
prevalent in our society emanates not from political disagreement but from our
incapability to push a moral agreement. If hoarding a notorious criminal is morally
acceptable for a given culture and they believe that there is nothing wrong with it,
then peace and truth are superficial concepts.

1.) ''We could no longer say that the custom of other societies is morally inferior to
our own. We should never condemn a society merely because it is '"different"
(Rachels & Rachels, 2012). One culture cannot insist its moral standard to
another culture even if the people of that culture firmly believe that their standard
of what is right and wrong are actually right. We are barred from criticizing other
cultural practices even though they are extremely different. Though cultural
relativism may prohibit us from imposing our culture's moral standards to
another culture, but it must not bar us from criticizing and condemning cultural
practices.
 2.) We could no longer criticize the code of our own society. Cultural suggest a
simple test for determining what is right and what is wrong: All we need to
do is ask whether the action is in line with the code of the society in
question." (Rachels & Rachels, 2012). How can we question a culture that
teaches us what is right and what is wrong? It is as much as saying,
"Don't argue anymore. Just follow the rules and you will never stumble." It
blocks the door to improving our which can be achieved by looking into
and learning from other culture. Learning from other culture can make a
difference but adopting it is different. "If right and wrong are relative to
culture, this must be for our own culture." (Rachels & Rachels, 2012). If
that is so, cultural relativism is universal even if it is relative for them.

3.) The idea of moral progress is called into doubt." Culture is the measure
that evaluates progress. It is the culture that determines if there is
something to change. "The society's ideals are the standards by which
reform is assessed." Cultural relativism is not open to standards that may
contribute to the progress of an individual and the society at large and
that may give its people an opportunity to make themselves and their lives
more humane. How can we give progress to our lives if the norms of our
culture are the sole basis of how we conduct our lives? What if the culture
preserves its norms but deprives it people the opportunity to live well?

IV. KEY POINTS

 Culture defines the identity of an individual and a community

 Varying perspectives are reflections of cultural persuasions in conflict.
 The diversity of cultures may pose a problem in ethics but it is
necessary in enhancing ethical consciousness.
 Moral education is essential in helping ethical agents understand and
resolve ethical conflicts.
 Dialogue is a key tool in resolving conflicts involving ethics and culture.

V. Reflection
Please answer in a yellow pad to be submitted as you get the new
copy of the module in the CAS office.
1. What is culture? How does culture narrow or widen a person’s ethical
reasoning?

2. What makes norm a fundamental norm of ethical reasoning?

3. Could you name a social group or community where culture and ethics are
closely linked?

4. In your own experience have you already encountered a moral dilemma? If so,
can you give an example?
VI. Readings

1. Buenaflor, Lionel, et.al, UNRAVELING THE ABSOLUTE MORAL PRINCIPLE:

Ethics for Filipino Students, Books Atbp., Corp. Manila. 2018
2. Evangelista, Francis Julius and Mabaquiao, Napoleon Jr., ETHICS: Theories
and Applications, Anvil Publishing, Inc. Manila. 2020
3. Pasco, Marc Oliver, et.al. ETHICS, C & E Publishing House, Inc.Manila.2020
4. Rachels, James and Rachels, Stuart. THE ELEMENTS OF MORAL
PHILOSOPHY. McGraw Hill Publishing. New York. 2010
5. Reynaldo A. Padilla, ETHICS, A Textbook for the New General Education
Curriculum, Books atbp, Publishing Corp. Manila 2019
6. Bulaong, Calano, et.al, ETHICS, Foundation of Moral Valuation, Rex Book
Store. Manila. 2018

FREDDIE R. COLLADA
INSTRUCTOR 1