LESSON 2 The Monat AgentCultus and Moral Behavion How does culture shape moral behaviour? 2. Why should culture not be the ultimate determinant of values? Is there a Filipino understanding of right or wrong? Why this interpretations? What are its influences? We have to make students aware of the fact that we are embedded in our culture, This does not mean that all creatures are correct.Different cultures have different moral codes (Rachels) King Darius of 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 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 todo 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: different cultures have different moral codes. What is thought within one group may horrify the members of another group, and vice versa. Should we eat the bodies of the dead or burn them? If you were 2 Greek one answer would seem obviously correct; but if you were a Callatian, the other answer would seem certain.There are many such examples. Consider the Eskimos of the early and mid 20" century. The Eskimos are the native people of ‘Alaska. Today, none of these groups call themselves “Eskimos,” but the term has historically referred to that scattered Arctic population. Prior to the 20" 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 with new partners—free, that is, so long as their former husbands chose not to make too much trouble. Itwas not only their marriages and sexual practices that were different. The Eskimos also seemed to have less regard for human life. Infanticide, for example, was common.knud Rasmussen, an early explorer, reported that he met 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. When elderly family members became feeble, they were left out in the snow to die. In Eskimo society, there seemed to be remarkably little respect for life,Most of us would find these Eskimos customs completely immoral. But to anthropologists, the Eskimos did not seem unusual. Since the time of Herodotus, enlightened observers have known that conceptions of right and wrong differ from culture to culture.+ The basis of morality are sometimes based on the questios + Isit moral? + Ist right? * Isit good? + Isitlegal? * Paul Ricoeur: “Is it really the good that we are aspiring for?”Protagoras of Abdera + He was known primarily for 3 claims: 1. That man is the measure of all things; 2. That he could make the worse argument appear better or the weaker appear to be stronger; and 3. That one could not tell if gods existed or not. + There is no standard for testing whether one person's perceptions is right and another person’s perception is wrong. + Knowledge is relative to each person.* In ethics, the idea of universal truth is a myth. + Tosay that a custom is correct or incorrect would imply that wwe can judge that custom by some independent standard of right and wrong. But no such standard exists. Every standard is culture-bound. * Cultural relativism challenges our belief in the objectivity and universality of moral truth, + “There are no universal or absolute moral principle. Standards of right or wrong are always relative to a particular culture or society.”* The following claims have all be made by cultural relativists: 1. 2. 3. 4, Different societies have different moral codes; The moral code of a society determines what is right within that society. There is no objective standards that can be used to judge one society's code as better than another's. The moral code of our own society has no special status; it is but one among many. itis arrogant for us to judge other cultures. We should always be tolerant of them.+ These 5 propositions may seem to go together, but they are independent of one another. Some may be true while others are false. + The second and fifth proposition may be inconsistent with one another. E.g,, the case of the West Philippine Sea. * Given that cultural relativists take pride in their tolerance, it would be ironic if their history actually supported the intolerance of warlike societies.The Cobtecrel Differences Argument Rachels) + Cultural relativists often employ a certain form of argument: 1. The Greeks believed it was wrong to eat the dead, whereas the Callatians believed it was right to eat the dead. 2. Therefore, eating the dead is neither objectively right nor objectively wrong. It is merely a matter of opinion, which varies from culture to culture.+ Or: 1. The Eskimos saw nothing wrong with infanticide, whereas we believe infanticide is immoral. Therefore, infanticide is neither objectively right nor objectively wrong. It is merely a matter of opinion, which varies from culture to culture.* Clearly, these arguments are variations of one fundamental idea. They are both examples of a more general argument, which says: 1. Different cultures have different moral codes. 2. Therefore, there is no objective “truth” in morality. Right and wrong are only matters of opinion, and opinions vary from culture to culture. * Is this cultural differences argument a sound argument?* Itis not sound. For an argument to be sound, its premises must all be true, and the conclusion must follow logically from them. * Here, the conclusion does not follow from the premises— i.e,, even if the premise is true, the conclusion might still be false. * The premise concerns what people believe. The conclusion concerns what really is the case.* Consider again the example of the Greeks and Callatians: Does it follow from the fact that they disagreed, that there is no objective truth in the matter? * No, it does not follow; it could be that the practice was objectively right (or wrong) and that one of them was simply mistaken. * Consider a different matter: believed the earth is fiat. In other societies, people believe that the earth is spherical. Does it follow that there is no objective truth in geography?Wet follows rom Cultural Relativizm (Rachels) oY * Even if Cultural Differences Argument is unsound, Cultural Relativism might still be true. What would follow if it were true? * According to William Graham Sumner, there is no measure of right and wrong other than the standards of one’s Val society. + If this argument is true, what will be some of the B consequences?. We would no longer say that the customs of other societies are morally inferior to our own. + We would have to stop condemning other societies merely because they are “different.” + However, we would also be barred from criticizing other, less benign practices. + For example, the Chinese government has a long history of repressing political dissent within its own borders. + The failure to condemn these practices does not seem enlightened; on the contrary, political oppression seems wrong, wherever it occurs. + Nevertheless, if we accept Cultural Relativism, we have to regard such social practices as immune from criticism.2. We could no longer criticize the code of our own society. * Cultural relativism suggests a simple test for determining what is right or wrong. All we need to do is ask whether itis in line with the code of the society in question. * Consider the castes system of India. An Indian may ask: does it conform to their society's moral code? * Few of us think that our society's code is perfect. However, we can think of ways in which we might learn from other cultures. * If right and wrong are relative to culture, this must be true for our culture, just as it is for other cultures.3. The idea of moral progress is called into doubt. * Some social changes are for the better. In the early Western history, the place of women in society was narrowly defined. ‘+ But this has changed and most people think of itas, progress. * If cultural relativism is correct, can we consider this as progress? + If the old ways conformed to the standards of their time, then Cultural Relativism would not judge them by our standards.Some velues ans shared by all cultures Rachels) * Any culture that continues to exist must have cared for its young. Infants who are not cared for must be the exception rather than the rule. * Every society must have valued truthfulness. flying commonplace, communication would be extremely difficult. * Could a society exist in which there was no prohibition against murder? * The general point is: there are some moral rules that all societies must embrace, because those rules are necessary for society to exist. The rules against lying and murder are two examples.eying « Calter Practice ts be Undine Rachels In 1996, a 17-year old Fauziya Kassindja arrived in New Jersey and asked for asylum. She had fled her native country of Togo in West Africa to escape what people there call “excision.” Excision is a permanently disfiguring procedure. It is sometimes called “female circumcision,” but it bears little resemblance to male circumcision. In the Western media, it is often referred to as “female genital mutilation.” ‘According to the World Health Organization, excision is practiced in 28 African nations, and about 120 million females have been painfully excised.Sometimes, excision is part of an elaborate tribal ritual, performed in small villages, and girls look forward to it because it signals their acceptance into the adult world. Other times, the practice is carried out in cities on young women who desperately resist. Faiziya Kassindja was the youngest of five daughters. Her father, ‘who owned a successful trucking business, was opposed to excision, and he was able to defy the tradition because of his, wealth, His first four daughters were married without being mutilated.But when Fauziya was 16, he suddenly died. She then came under the authority of her aunt, who arranged a marriage for her and prepared to have her excised. Fauziya was terrified, and her mother and oldest sister helped her escape. In America, Fauziya was imprisoned for nearly 18 months while the authorities decided what to do with her. During this time, she was subjected to humiliating strip searches, denied medical treatment of her asthma, and generally treated like a criminal.Finally, she was granted asylum, but not before her case aroused a great controversy. The controversy was not about her treatment in America, but about how we should regard the cultural practices of other peoples. A series of articles in The New York Times encouraged the idea that excision is barbaric and should be condemned. Other observers were reluctant to be so judgmental. Live and let live, they said; after all, our culture probably seems just as strange to other peoples.Is there a culture-independent standard of right and wrong? (Rachels) Excisior bad in many ways. Itis painful and results in the permanent loss of sexual pleasure. Its short-term effects can include haemorrhage, tetanus, and septicaemia. Sometimes the woman dies. In long-term effects can include chronic infection, scars that hinder-walking, and continuing pain. Why, then, has it become a widespread social practice? The practice has no obvious social benefits. However, a number of reasons are given in its defense.‘Women who are incapable of sexual pleasure are less likely to be promiscuous; thus, there will be fewer unwanted pregnancies in unmarried women. Moreover, wives for whom sex is only a duty are less likely to cheat on their husbands; and because they are not thinking about sex, they will be more attentive to the needs of their husbands and children. Husbands, for their part, are said to enjoy sex more with wives who have been excised. The men feel that a woman who is not excised is unclean and immature.It would be easy to ridicule these arguments. But notice an important feature of them: ‘They try to justify excision by showing that excision is beneficial—men, women, and their families are said to be better off when women are excised. Is this true? Is excision helpful or harmful? Does the practice promote or hinder the welfare of the people affected by it? The problem is: all culture value human happiness.ite all hen, be ubvctawt to 2? Wy dhl a nd etn Many people who are horrified by excision are nevertheless reluctant to condemn it, for three reasons: 7 1, There is an understandable nervousness about interfering in the social customs of other peoples. Europeans and their cultural descendants in America have a shameful history of destroying native cultures in the name of Christianity and enlightenment.t i 2. People may feel, rightly enough, that they should be ‘tolerant of other cultures. Tolerance is a virtue—a tolerant person can live in peace with those who see things differently. But nothing about tolerance requires us to say that all beliefs, all religions, and all social practices are equally admirable. On the contrary, if we did not think that some things were better than the others, there would be nothing for us to tolerate.3, People may be reluctant to judge because they do not want to express contempt for the society being criticised. ‘Again, this is misguided. To condemn a particular practices is not to say that the culture on the whole is contemptible or is inferior to any other culture. The culture could have many admirable features. ‘Any human society is a mixture of good and bad practices. Excision happens to be one of the bad ones. ai ee /‘The opposite of relativism is Ethnocentrism. Itis a belief that there is one correct culture. ‘The common ground between the ethical/cultural relativism and ethnocentrism is the shared values, i.e., the values common to one another. Does culture play a role?AMORAL RECOVERY PROGRAM + The events at EDSA not only ousted a dictator but also demonstrated to the world and to ourselves, our great strengths as a people. * Today, we realize that most of our problems as a nation still remain, + Ousting a dictator is an easy part. The difficult part is the task of building a nation. + Self-interests and disregarding of common good are becoming too ordinary.A MORAL RECOVERY PROGRAM + Weare confronted with the lack of discipline and rigor, our colonial mentality, and our emphasis on porma. + Despite our display of people’s power, we are now passive once more, expecting our leaders to take all respon: for solving our many problems. + Tobuild a nation, there is a need for economic recovery. There is a need to re-establish democratic institutions and to achieve the goals of peace and genuine social justice.Building a people means eliminating our weaknesses and developing our strengths and this starts with analysis, understanding, and appreciation of these strengths and weaknesses. The first step to change is understanding ourselves.‘THE PHILIPPINES: A NATION OF MISGUIDED MORALS Edmund Burke: “The only thing necessary for the triumph of evil is for good men to do nothing.” + Many Filipinos don’t only condition themselves to NOT act against evil but to also NOT care about it when it is staring at them in the face. + How cana once proud and honourable people, once lauded as one of the most progressive nations of Southeast Asia become the laughing stock that itis today?‘THE PHILIPPINES: A NATION OF MISGUIDED MORALS First Question: What is evil to begin with? How do you define evil? What, for you, is bad and what is good? For religious people, being good is about following the standards put forth by God, Allah, Brahma or any other deity. For us Abrahamanics, there are the 10 commandments. For the atheists, there is the idea of Humanism.‘THE PHILIPPINES: A NATION OF MISGUIDED MORALS * Philippines is home to both religious people, non- religious people and everyone else in between. However, do a lot of them know the difference between good and evil and are they willing to take a stand in such matters. * The answer is NO! Why? Because the media has essentially corrupted the idea of what is good and what is evil. * Alot of Filipinos do not like having their fun ruined. Policeman, even the good ones who are just trying to maintain law and order in their respective communities, are used to scare children,For many Filipinos: Discipline = Strict Rules = Evil. That is why it has become quite popular to demonize the Marcos administration and whatever projects he put ‘together for the country. What matters to most Filipinos is not what you are doing but how they figure in what you are doing. Are you stealing funds from the community? | won't say anything unless you steal from me.Are you sharing the funds you have stolen with me? Even better! This is not the only thing that is wrong with the morals of the Filipino people. The other is how they misinterpret the idea of “good.” Everyone admires the poor but hardworking type of person. Unfortunately, through the use of the media, many of our less-informed countrymen are duped into thinking that the poor are always good.‘The media seems to openly demonize the rich and the intellectuals and depict anyone criticizing the poor and their activities as “evil” even if what many poor people in real life are doing (i.e., drinking, gambling, or committing incest) can be considered “evil” in and of themselves. In more progressives shows like in Filipino indie films, the occasional thought-out TV show and most foreign media, there is often a grayness in protagonists, no matter who they are.+ For instance, Oskar Schindler was a rampant womanizer and George Washington was still a slave owner, But even this concept flies way over the head of most Filipnos. + Not all conflicts are pure black and white or a good vs. evil. + The bottom line is that anyone who is being criticized or persecuted by the rich are almost automatically labelled as “evil” even when they might actually have a point.Doubly so for intellectuals who are depicted as ignorant to the plight of the poor or utterly emotionless. If this is how we classify the difference between good and evil in the Philippines, is it any real surprise that terrorists are allowed to run free and are even considered allies by our government. Second Question: What do we do now? Taking action is important if we want to put a decisive end to evil and corruption.Unfortunately, this kind of work can get really messy and when not taken seriously, can have serious consequences. In our society alone, itis probably tough to find anyone with any strong opinions and a well thought-out reason for it. Consider how our brand of democracy works: instead of choosing a leader who will guide us to progress and prosperity, we only choose people who will shoulder the burden of leadership alone.+ We have countless irresponsible people who throw their garbage all over the countryside or the cityscape and then, when it floods, blames the government for all their troubles. + Third Question: What are we going to do about it?‘STRENGTHS OF FILIPINO CHARACTER + Pakikipagkapwa-tao (regard for others). This is manifested in a basic sense of justice and fairness, and in concern for others. This is demonstrated in pakikiramay and in the practice of bayanihan (mutual assistance) and in the famous hospitality. + Family Orientation. To the Filipinos, one’s family is the source of personal identity, the source of emotional and material support, and the person's main commitment and responsibilty + Joy and Humor. Filipinos have a cheerful and fun-loving approach tolife and its ups and downs. Laughing at ourselves and our trouble is an important coping mechanism.STRENGTHS OF FILIPINO CHARACTER + Flexibility, adaptability and creativity. Filipinos have a great, - capacity to adjust, and to adapt to circumstances and to the surrounding environment, both physical and social. * Hard work and industry. The desire to raise one’s standard of living and to possess the essentials of a decent life for one’s family, combined with the right opportunities and incentives, stimulate the Filipino to work very hard.‘STRENGTHS OF FILIPINO CHARACTER + Faith and religiosity. Innate religiosity enables Filipinos to e ‘comprehend and genuinely accept reality in the context of God's will and plan. Thus, tragedy and bad fortune are accepted and some optimism characterizes even the poorest lives. This faith is related to bahala na. + Ability to survive. Filipinos make do with what is available in the environmentWEAKNESSES OF THE FILIPINO CHARACTER + Extreme Personalism. Filipinos have a tendency to give personal = interpretations to actions, i.e., to “take things personally.” Because of this personalistic world view, Filipinos have difficulty dealing with all forms of impersonal stimuli. Hence, one is uncomfortable with bureaucracy, with rules and regulations, and with standard procedures—all of which tend to be impersonal. Personal contacts are involved in any transaction and are difficult to turn down. Preference is usually given to family and friends in hiring, delivery of services, and even in voting.WEAKNESSES OF THE FILIPINO CHARACTER + Extreme Family-Centeredness. Excessive concern for the family e creates an in-group to which the Filipino is fiercely loyal, to the detriment of concern for the larger community or the common good. + Lack of Discipline. We have a casual and relaxed attitude towards time and space which manifests itself in lack of precision and compulsiveness, in poor time management and in procrastination. Our lack of discipline often results in inefficient and wasteful work systems, the violation of rules leading to more serious transgressions, and a casual work ethic leading to carelessness and lack of follow-through.WEAKNESSES OF THE FILIPINO CHARACTER + Passivity and Lack of Initiative. One waits to be told what has to be done. There is a strong reliance on others. This is related to = the attitude towards authority. Filipinos have a need for a strong authority figure and feel safer and more secure in the presence of such an authority. There is a high tolerance for inefficiency, poor service, and even violations of one’s basic rights. + Colonial Mentality. This is made up of two dimensions: (1) lack of patriotism or an active awareness, appreciation, and love of the Philippines; (2) an actual preferences for things foreign.WEAKNESSES OF THE FILIPINO CHARACTER Kanya-kanya Syndrome. Filipinos have a selfish, self-serving attitude that generates a feeling of envy and competitiveness towards others, particularly one’s peers, who seem to have gained some status or prestige. Towards them, Filipinos demonstrated the “crab mentality” This syndrome results in the dampening of cooperative and community spirit and in the denial of the rights of others.Filipine Moretity WEAKNESSES OF THE FILIPINO CHARACTER io Lack of Self-Analysis and Self-Reflection. Joking about the most serious matters prevents us from looking deeply into the problem. The Filipino lack of self-analysis and our emphasis upon form is reinforced by an educational system that is often more form than substance and a legal system that tends to substitute law for reality.ROOTS OF THE FILIPINO CHARACTER + The strengths and weaknesses of the Filipino have their roots in many factors such as: 1. The home environment. Childbearing in the Filipino family is characterized by high nurturance, low independence training, and low discipline. The Filipino child grows up in an atmosphere of affection and over protection, where one learns security and ‘rust, on the one hand, and dependence, on the other. In the family, children are taught to value family and to give it primary importance.ROOTS OF THE FILIPINO CHARACTER 2. Social environment. This is characterized by a feudal structure with great gaps between the rich minority and the poor majority. These gaps are not merely economic but cultural as well, with the elite being highly westernized and alienated from the masses. Filipinos are raised in an environment where one must depend on relationships with others in order to survive.ROOTS OF THE FILIPINO CHARACTER 3. Culture and language. Aside from emphasizing interpersonal values, Filipino culture is also characterized by an openness to the outside which easily incorporates foreign elements without a basic consciousness of our cultural core. This is related to cour colonial mentality and to the use of English as the medium of instruction in schools, which de-Filipinized the youth and taught them to regard American culture as superior. Ata very early age, we find that our self- esteem depends on the mastery of something foreign.ROOTS OF THE FILIPINO CHARACTER History. Colonialism developed a mind-set in the Filipino which encouraged us to think of the colonial power as superior and more powerful. Asa second-class citizen beneath the Spanish and then the Americans, we developed a dependence on foreign powers that makes us believe we are not responsible for our country's fate. The colonizers eventually became our savior; hence, we considered our ‘own government as foreign and apart from us. We became distrustful and cooperative towards our leaders. Much time and energy is spent trying to outsmart the government.ROOTS OF THE FILIPINO CHARACTER 5. Educational system. The lack of suitable local textbooks and dependence on foreign textbooks, particularly in the higher school levels, force Filipino students as well as their teachers to use school materials that are irrelevant to the Philippine setting. Teachers reward well-behaved and obedient students and are uncomfortable with those who ask questions and express a different viewpoint. Critical thinking is not learned in the school.ROOTS OF THE FILIPINO CHARACTER on. The root of Filipino optimism and its capacity to accept life’s hardships. However, religion also instills in the Filipino attitudes of resignation and a preoccupation with the afterlife. We become vulnerable also to being a victim of opportunism, oppression, exploitation, and superstition. 7. Economic environment. Many Filipino traits are rooted in the poverty and hard life that is the lot of most Filipinos. Our difficulties drive us to take risks, impels us to work very hard, and develop in us the ability to survive.ROOTS OF THE FILIPINO CHARACTER 8. Political environment. This is characterized by a centralization of power. Basic services from the government are concentrated in Manila an outlying towns and provinces. A great majority of Filipinos are not reached by such basic services as water, electricity, roads and health services. Since the government often is not there to offer basic services, we depend on our family, kin, and neighbours for our everyday needs. The inefficiency of government structures and systems also leads to a lack of integrity and accountability in our public servants.ROOTS OF THE FILIPINO CHARACTER 9. Mass media. This reinforces our colonial mentality. Advertisements using Caucasian models and emphasizing a product’s similarity with imported brands are part of our daily lives. Rather than confront our poverty and oppression, we fantasize instead.ROOTS OF THE FILIPINO CHARACTER 10, Leadership and role models. Filipinos look up to their leaders as role models. When our leaders violate the law or show themselves to be self-serving and driven by personal interest—when there is a lack of public accountability—there is a negative impact on the Filipino,Credits to: DR, LIONEL E. BUENAFLOR Head-Social and Behavioural Sciences Department Head- Batangas Heritage Center University of Batangas