CHAPTER 11

Filipino Citizen Values

1. Discuss the Filipino Citizens Values

2. Identify the Elements of Filipino Values

Introduction:
The Filipino value system or Filipino values refers to the set of values that a
majority of the Filipino have historically held important in their lives. This
Philippine values system includes their own unique assemblage of
consistent ideologies, moral codes, ethical practices, etiquette and cultural and
personal values that are promoted by their society. As with any society though,
the values that an individual holds sacred can differ on the basis of religion,
upbringing and other factors.
As a general description, the distinct value system of Filipinos is rooted primarily
in personal alliance systems, especially those based in kinship, obligation,
friendship, religion (particularly Christianity) and commercial relationships
contents.

The Value of Respect for

life: Almost all abortions are caused by unwanted
conceptions. Methods of preventing these
conceptions are numerous, and although few contraceptive methods are 100% effective,
their availability and use would greatly reduce the number of abortions performed. It’s
not possible to end the need for abortions entirely, but our united efforts will prevent
the unwanted pregnancies causing most of them. The choice every woman getting an
abortion would prefer is the choice to not need one in the first place.

We have been artificially divided into two opposing sides, though we share a large
common ground. All of us who have respect for life are on the same side. Together we
will help end the mindless violence and unnecessary pain.
Statement of Purpose
Respect for Life exists to promote an increased respect for human life, primarily in
the following directions:

Promote reproductive freedom and responsibility

Freedom to reproduce is well established, but the option to choose non-

motherhood or non-fatherhood remains restricted. Coerced conceptions
and mandatory motherhood harm the mother, the unwanted child,
society, and the Earth. Although reproductive freedom is considered to
be primarily a women’s issue, men who wish to take responsibility for
their fertility are often denied vasectomies.

Many births today are not wanted by the couple responsible. In most cases worldwide,
the desire to limit family size is more than just a personal preference, it’s a matter of
life and death.

Instead of limiting the definition of reproductive freedom to a woman’s right to legal

access to contraception and safe abortions, our goal should be advanced to include
freedom from needing abortions, and freedom from the harmful side-effects of female-
based contraception.

As more men take responsibility for their sexual activities, by using condoms and
getting vasectomies, progress will advance towards this goal. Financial and ageist
restrictions on men’s choice to become sterile denies their right to reproductive
freedom.

Freedom to use contraceptives is only the first step. Everyone at risk of starting a human
life should accept the responsibility that comes with that risk, and take appropriate
precautions.

Increase value of human life

As human population becomes denser, the value of human life is diminished.

Therefore, lower birth rates are desirable. As human life increases in value, death rates
will also drop.
Encourage non-biological family formation

Encouraging positive alternatives to procreation will lower birth rates. Adoption, foster
and step parenting, and co-operative child caring all respect existing children who need
adult interaction.

Society has created artificial obstacles to forming non-biological and non-traditional

families. Encouraging and enabling people to live together as families is a more
respectful role for society to play.

Foster parent and adoption qualifications are necessary to protect children from
potentially abusive situations, however, some current qualifications are based more on
society’s prejudices than on the best interests of the child.

Provide common ground for divided energies

People who are respectful of human life have been divided into two opposing groups:
anti-abortion and pro-choice. We are all anti-abortion: no one is in favor of unwanted
pregnancies, fetal deformities, or complications in pregnancy which endanger a
woman’s life. The vast majority of us are also pro-choice, though the label is often
not accepted. Our common ground already exists, we just need to combine our efforts
to reduce the need for abortions.

Statement of Values
Respect for Life adheres to values the vast majority of us could agree to
support:

Moderate position

Respect for life takes a moderate position in the controversy over abortion. There
are extremes at either end of the spectrum.

Some would abort because it wasn’t the gender they wanted, and some don’t
think an abortion is ever right, even when the fetus is defective and threatens
the life of its carrier. Paradoxically, some extremists want to criminalize abortion,
and at the same time oppose efforts to prevent the need for abortions.

People who respect human life will respect others’ choices, while encouraging
and enabling choices which demonstrate a respect for life. There are situations
where terminating a pregnancy expresses more respect for life than would
continuing it to birth.
Pro-choice

Given the choice, virtually every woman having an abortion would choose to not
need one. And, nearly every man who causes an unwanted pregnancy would
choose to have prevented it in the first place. When the means for preventing
conceptions are not conveniently available, or access to them is outlawed, the
freedom to choose to not need an abortion is denied.

Anti-abortion

In a perfect world, no one would ever need an abortion. When everyone has
access to contraception, accidental conceptions will be minimal, and abortions
will be too.

Pro-child

An outrageous number of children are dying of malnutrition, or are considered

“throwaways” by industrial societies. This inhuman suffering of the innocents
could be greatly reduced, if not eliminated, by enabling everyone to avoid
unwanted conceptions. Caring for existing children is pro-child—sentencing
more of them to life in a world that isn’t willing to care for them is not.

Pro-life

Respect for Life is an advocate for human life. All life deserves respect, and
should not be created if it won’t be respected.

Pro-family values

We are all members of the same family the human family. Respect for Life honors
everyone’s choices in defining their families, regardless of their personal
orientations.

Right to life

All of us have a right to live until we die. Millions of people have been born and
are not yet living they are dying. Until all who are alive today are truly living, we
have no right to create more lives.
Respect for non-human life

Just as we respect others only after we respect ourselves, we as a species will

give more respect to life other than our own as we gain more respect for human
life

The Value of Justice

"Theory of Justice" redirects here. For the book, see A Theory of Justice. For
other uses, see Justice (disambiguation).

Justinian by Maarten van Heemskerk, 1556. Justinian carries symbolic items

such as: a sword, scales and a blindfold

Justice, one of the four cardinal virtues, by Vitruvio Alberi, 1589–1590. Fresco,
corner of the vault, studio of the Madonna of Mercy, Palazzo Attempts, Rome

Justice, in its broadest context, includes both the attainment of that which is
just and the philosophical discussion of that which is just. The concept of justice
is based on numerous fields, and many differing viewpoints and perspectives
including the concepts of moral correctness based on ethics, rationality, law,
religion, equity and fairness. Often, the general discussion of justice is divided
into the realm of social justice as found in philosophy, theology and religion, and,
procedural justice as found in the study and application of the law.

Harmony

Justice by Luca Giordano

In his dialogue Republic, Plato uses Socrates to argue for justice that covers both
the just person and the just City State. Justice is a proper, harmonious
relationship between the warring parts of the person or city. Hence, Plato's
definition of justice is that justice is the having and doing of what is one's own.
A just man is a man in just the right place, doing his best and giving the precise
equivalent of what he has received. This applies both at the individual level and
at the universal level. A person's soul has three parts – reason, spirit and desire.
Similarly, a city has three parts – Socrates uses the parable of the chariot to
illustrate his point: a chariot works as a whole because the two horses' power is
directed by the charioteer.
Lovers of wisdom – philosophers, in one sense of the term – should rule because
only they understand what is good who knows how to get the ship to port. For
Socrates, the only way the ship will reach its destination – the good – is if the
navigator takes charge

Divine command

Allegorical fresco cycle (cardinal virtues) by

Renaissance painter Dominica di Pace Beccafumi from the Palazzo Pubblico in
Siena, scene: ’'Justinian'’

Advocates of divine command theory argue that justice, and indeed the whole of
morality, is the authoritative command of God. Murder is wrong and must be
punished, for instance, because God says it so. Some versions of the theory
assert that God must be obeyed because of the nature of his relationship with
humanity, others assert that God must be obeyed because he is goodness itself,
and thus doing what he says would be best for everyone.

Natural law
For advocates of the theory that justice is part of natural
law (e.g., John Locke), it involves the system of consequences that naturally
derives from any action or choice. In this, it is similar to the laws of physics: in
the same way as the Third of Newton's laws of Motion requires that for every
action there must be an equal and opposite reaction, justice requires according
individuals or groups what they actually deserve, merit, or are entitled
to.[citation needed] Justice, on this account, is a universal and absolute concept:
laws, principles, religions, etc., are merely attempts to codify that concept,
sometimes with results that entirely contradict the true nature of justice.

Despotism and skepticism

In Republic by Plato, the character

Thrasymachus argues that justice is the interest of the strong – merely a name
for what the powerful or cunning ruler has imposed on the people.

Mutual agreement Advocates of the social contract agree that justice

is derived from the mutual agreement of everyone
concerned; or, in many versions, from what they would agree to under
hypothetical conditions including equality and absence of bias.
Subordinate value

This account is considered further below, under 'Justice as fairness'. The

absence of bias refers to an equal ground for all people concerned in a
disagreement (or trial in some cases.

According to utilitarian thinkers including John Stuart Mill, justice is not as

fundamental as we often think. Rather, it is derived from the more basic
standard of rightness, consequentialism: what is right is what has the best
consequences (usually measured by the
Theories of distributive justice total or average welfare caused). So, the
proper principles of justice are those
that tend to have the best consequences.
These rules may turn out to be familiar ones such as keeping contracts; but
equally, they may not, depending on the facts about real consequences. Either
way, what is important is those consequences, and justice is important, if at all,
only as derived from that fundamental standard. Mill tries to explain our
mistaken belief that justice is overwhelmingly important by arguing that it
derives from two natural human tendencies: our desire to retaliate against those
who hurt us, or the feeling of self-defense and our ability to put ourselves
imaginatively in another's place, sympathy. So, when we see someone harmed,
we project ourselves into their situation and feel a desire to retaliate on their
behalf. If this process is the source of our feelings about justice that ought to
undermine our confidence in t

What goods are to be distributed? Is it to be wealth, power, respect, opportunities

or some combination of these things?

Between what entities are they to be distributed? Humans (dead, living, future),
sentient beings, the members of a single society, nations?

What is the proper distribution? Equal, meritocratic, according to social status,

according to need, based on property rights and non-aggression?
Distributive justice theorists generally do not answer questions of who has the
right to enforce a particular favored distribution. On the other hand, property
rights theorists argue that there is no "favored distribution." Rather, distribution
should be based simply on whatever distribution results from lawful interactions
or transactions (that is, transactions which are not
illicit).
Social justice
Social justice is concerned with the just
relationship between individuals and their society, often considering how
privileges, opportunities, and wealth ought to be distributed among individuals
Social justice is also associated with social mobility, especially the ease with
which individuals and families may move between social strata Social justice is
distinct from cosmopolitanism, which is the idea that all people belong to a single
global community with a shared morality Social justice is also distinct from
egalitarianism, which is the idea that all people are equal in terms of status,
value, or rights, as social justice theories do not all require.

In his A Theory of Justice, John Rawls used a social

Fairness
contract argument to show that justice, and
especially distributive justice, is a form of fairness:
an impartial distribution of goods. Rawls asks us to imagine ourselves behind a
veil of ignorance that denies us all knowledge of our personalities, social
statuses, moral characters, wealth, talents and life plans, and then asks what
theory of justice we would choose to govern our society when the veil is lifted, if
we wanted to do the best that we could for ourselves. We don't know who in
particular we are, and therefore can't bias the decision in our own favor. So, the
decision-in-ignorance models fairness, because it excludes selfish bias. Rawls
argues that each of us would reject the utilitarian theory of justice that we should
maximize welfare (see below) because of the risk that we might turn out to be
someone whose own good is sacrificed for greater benefits for others. Instead, we
would endorse Rawls's two principles of justice:

Each person is to have an equal right to the most extensive total system of
equal basic liberties compatible with a similar system of liberty for all.
Social and economic inequalities are to be arranged so that they are both

Property rights In Anarchy, State, and Utopia, Robert Nozick argues

that distributive justice is not a matter of the whole
distribution matching an ideal pattern, but of each individual entitlement having
the right kind of history. It is just that a person has some good (especially, some
property right) if and only if they came to have it by a history made up entirely
of events of two kinds:
Just acquisition, especially by working on unwonted things; andJust transfer
that is free gift, sale or other agreement, but not theft (i.e. by force or fraud).If
the chain of events leading up to the person having something meets this
criterion, they are entitled to it: that they possess it is just, and what anyone else
does or doesn't have or need is irrelevant.On the basis of this theory of
distributive justice, Nozick argues that all attempts to redistribute goods
according to an ideal pattern, without the consent of their owners, are theft. In
particular, redistributive taxation is theft.

Some property rights theorists (like Nozick) also take a consequentialist view of
distributive justice and argue that property rights based justice also has the
effect of maximizing the overall wealth of an economic system. They explain that
voluntary (non-coerced) transactions always have a property called Pareto
efficiency. The result is that the world is better off in an absolute sense and no
one is worse off. Such consequentialist property rights theorists argue that
respecting property rights maximizes the number of Pareto efficient transactions
in the world and minimized the number of non-Pareto efficient transactions in
the world (i.e. transactions where someone is made worse off).

Welfare-maximization According to the utilitarian, justice requires the

maximization of the total or average welfare across
all relevant individuals] This may require sacrifice of some for the good of others,
so long as everyone's good is taken impartially into account. Utilitarianism, in
general, argues that the standard of
Theories of retributive justice justification for actions, institutions, or the
whole world, is impartial welfare
consequentialism, and only indirectly, if at all, to do with rights, property, need,
or any other non-utilitarian criterion. These other criteria might be indirectly
important, to the extent that human welfare involves them. But even then, such
demands as human rights would only be elements in the calculation of overall
welfare, not uncross able barriers to action.

Theories of retributive justice are concerned with punishment for wrongdoing,

and need to answer three questions:

Why punish?
Who should be punished?

What punishment should they receive?

This section considers the two major accounts of retributive justice, and their
answers to these questions. Utilitarian theories look forward to the future
consequences of punishment, while retributive theories look back to particular
acts of wrongdoing, and attempt to balance them with deserved punishment.

Utilitarianism According to the utilitarian, justice requires the

maximization of the total or average welfare
across all relevant individuals. Punishment fights crime in three ways:

1. Deterrence. The credible threat of punishment might lead people to make

different choices; well-designed threats might lead people to make choices
that maximize welfare. This matches some strong intuitions about just
punishment: that it should generally be proportional to the crime.
2. Rehabilitation. Punishment might make bad people into better ones. For
the utilitarian, all that 'bad person' can mean is 'person who's likely to
cause bad things (like suffering)'. So, utilitarianism could recommend
punishment that changes someone such that they are less likely to cause
bad things.
3. Security/Incapacitation. Perhaps there are people who are irredeemable
causers of bad things. If so, imprisoning them might maximize welfare by
limiting their opportunities to cause harm and therefore the benefit lies
within protecting society.
Retributivism The retributivist will think consequentialism is
mistaken. If someone does something wrong we must
respond by punishing for the committed action itself, regardless of what
outcomes punishment produces. Wrongdoing must be balanced or made good in
some way, and so the criminal deserves to be punished. It says that all guilty
people, and only guilty people, deserve appropriate punishment. This matches
some strong intuitions about just punishment: that it should be proportional to
the crime, and that it should be of only and all of the guilty] However, it is
sometimes argued that retributivism is merely revenge in disguise. However,
there are differences between retribution and revenge: the former is impartial
and has a scale of appropriateness, whereas the latter is personal and potentially
unlimited in scale.
Restorative justice Restorative justice (also sometimes called
"reparative justice") is an approach to justice that
focuses on the needs of victims and offenders, instead of satisfying abstract legal
principles or punishing the offender. Victims take an active role in the process,
while offenders are encouraged to take responsibility for their actions, "to repair
the harm they've done – by apologizing, returning stolen money, or community
service". It is based on a theory of justice that considers crime and wrongdoing
to be an offense against an individual or community rather than the state.
Restorative justice that fosters dialogue between victim and offender shows the
highest rates of victim satisfaction and offender accountability

Mixed theories Some modern philosophers have argued that Utilitarian

and Retributive theories are not mutually exclusive. For
example, Andrew von Hirsch, in his 1976 book Doing Justice, suggested that we have a moral
obligation to punish greater crimes more than lesser ones. However, so long as we adhere
to that constraint then utilitarian
ideals would play a significant
The Value Promotion of the common good secondary role.
In philosophy, economics, and
political science, the common good (also commonwealth, common weal, general
welfare, or public benefit) refers to either what is shared and beneficial for all or
most members of a given community, or alternatively, what is achieved by
citizenship, collective action, and active participation in the realm of politics and
public service. The concept of the common good differs significantly among
philosophical doctrines] Early conceptions of the common good were set out by
Ancient Greek philosophers, including Aristotle and Plato. One understanding of
the common good rooted in Aristotle's philosophy remains in common usage
today, referring to what one contemporary scholar calls the "good proper to, and
attainable only by, the community, yet individually shared by its members The
concept of common good developed through the work of political theorists, moral
philosophers, and public economists, including Thomas Aquinas, Niccolò
Machiavelli, John Locke, Jean-Jacques Rousseau, James Madison, Adam Smith,
Karl Marx, John Stuart Mill, John Maynard Keynes, John Rawls, and many other
thinkers. In contemporary economic theory, a common good is any good which
is rivalries yet non-excludable, while the common good, by contrast, arises in the
subfield of welfare economics and refers to the outcome of a social welfare
function
 Definition of common good
.
The term "common good" has been used in
many disparate ways and escapes a single
definition. Most philosophical conceptions of the common good fall into one of
two families: substantive and procedural. According to substantive conceptions,
the common good is that which is shared by and beneficial to all or most
members of a given community: particular substantive conceptions will specify
precisely what factors or values are beneficial and shared. According to
procedural formulations, by contrast, the common good consists of the outcome
that is achieved through collective participation in the formation of a shared will.

In the history of moral and political Under one name or another,

the common good has been a
recurring theme throughout the history of political philosophy As one
contemporary scholar observes, Aristotle used the idea of "the common interest"
(to koinei sympheron, in Greek) as the basis for his distinction between "right"
constitutions, which are in the common interest, and "wrong" constitutions,
which are in the interest of rulers] Saint Thomas Aquinas held "the common
good" (bone commune, in Latin) to be the end of law and government Locke
declared that "the peace, safety, and public good of the people" are the ends of
political society, and further argued that "the wellbeing of the people shall be the
supreme law”; David Hume contended that "social conventions" are adopted and
given moral support in virtue of the fact that they serve the "public" or "common"
interest James Madison wrote of the "public," "common," or "general" good as
closely tied with justice and declared that justice is the end of government and
civil society;[8] and Jean-Jacques Rousseau understood "the common good" (le
been common, in French) to be the object of a society's general will and the
highest end pursued by government

Ancient Greeks Though the phrase "common good" does not appear
in texts of Plato, the Ancient Greek philosopher
indicates repeatedly that a particular common goal exists in politics and society]
For Plato, the best political order is the one which best promotes social harmony
and an environment of cooperation and friendship among different social groups,
each benefiting from and adding to the common good. In The Republic, Plato's
character Socrates contends that the greatest social good is the "cohesion and
unity" that "result[s] from the common feelings of pleasure and pain which you
get when all members of a society are glad or sorry for the same successes and
failures
Plato's student Aristotle, considered by many to be the father of the idea of a
common good, uses the concept of "the common interest" (to koinei sympheron,
in Greek) as the basis for his distinction between "right" constitutions, which are
in the common interest, and "wrong" constitutions, which are in the interest of
rulers For Aristotle, the common good is constituted in the good of individuals.
Individual good, in turn, consists in human
Renaissance Florence flourishing the fulfillment of the human's
purpose—which is the right and natural thing for
humans to do
During the 15th and 16th centuries, the common good was one of several
important themes of political thought in Renaissance Florence. The thought goes
back to Thomas Aquinas theory of common good being virulent in whole premier
Europe] In a later work, Niccolo Machiavelli speaks of the bean commune
(common good) or commune utilità (common utility), which refers to the general
well-being of a community as a whole, however he mentions this term only 19
times throughout his works] In key passages of the Discourses on Livy, he
indicates that "the common good (commune utilità) . . . is drawn from a free way
of life (vivere libero)" but is not identical with it] Elsewhere in the Discourses,
freedom, safety and dignity are explicitly stated to be elements of the common
good and some form of property and family life are also implied Furthermore, the
common good brought by freedom includes wealth, economic prosperity,
security, enjoyment and good life It is important to note, however, that though
Machiavelli speaks of an instrumental relationship between freedom and
common good, the general well-being is not precisely identical with political
freedom: elsewhere in the Discourses, Machiavelli argues that an impressive
level of common good can be achieved by sufficiently autocratic rulers
Nevertheless,

Jean-Jacques Rousseau In Jean-Jacques Rousseau's The Social

Contract, composed in the mid-18th century,
Rousseau argues that society can function only to the extent that individuals
have interests in common, and that the end goal of any state is the realization of
the common good. He further posits that the common good can be identified and
implemented only by heeding the general will of a political community,
specifically as expressed by that community's sovereign. Rousseau maintains
that the general will always tends toward the common good, though he concedes
that democratic deliberations of individuals will not always express the general
will. Furthermore, Rousseau distinguished between the general will and the will
of all, stressing that while the latter is simply the sum total of each individual's
desires, the former is the "one will which is directed towards their common
preservation and general well-being] Political authority, to Rousseau, should be
understood as legitimate only if it exists according to the general will and toward
the common good. The pursuit of the common good, then, enables the state to
act as a moral community

Adam Smith he 18th-century Scottish moral philosopher and political

economist Adam Smith famously argues in his Wealth of
Nations what has become known as the First Fundamental Theorem of Welfare
Economics: that the invisible hand of market competition automatically
transforms individual self-interest into the common good] Smith's thesis is that
in a "system of natural liberty," an economic system that allows individuals to
pursue their own self-interest under conditions of free competition and common
law, would result in a self-regulating and highly prosperous economy, generating
the most welfare for the most number Thus, he argues, eliminating restrictions
on prices, labor, and trade will result in advancing the common good through
"universal opulence which extends itself to the lowest ranks of the people," via
lower prices, higher wages, better products, and so on.

John Rawls's Theory of Justice John Rawls defines the common good as
"certain general conditions that
are...equally to everyone's advantage". In
his Theory of Justice, Rawls argues for a principled reconciliation of liberty and
equality, applied to the basic structure of a well-ordered society, which will
specify exactly such general conditions. Starting with an artificial device he calls
the original position, Rawls defends two particular principles of justice by
arguing that these are the positions reasonable persons would choose were they
to choose principles from behind a veil of ignorance. Such a "veil" is one that
essentially blinds people to all facts about themselves so they cannot tailor
principles to their own advantage. According to Rawls, ignorance of these details
about oneself will lead to principles that are fair to all. If an individual does not
know how he will end up in his own conceived society, he is likely not going to
privilege any one class of people, but rather develop a scheme of justice that
treats all fairly. In particular, Rawls claims that those in the original position
would all adopt a "maxim in" strategy which would maximize the prospects of
the least well-off individual or group. In this sense, Rawls's understanding of the
common good is intimately tied with the well-being of the least advantaged.
Rawls claims that the parties in the original position would adopt two governing
principles, which would then regulate the assignment of rights and duties and
regulate the distribution of social and economic advantages across society.
 Based on studies,
Elements and composition of Filipino values surveys, opinions,
anecdotes, and other
literatures made by experts and researchers in relation to Filipino social
values or Filipino core values, along with the Filipino character or Filipino
identity of a person or an individual known as the Filipino, the Filipino value
system are found to possess inherent key elements.
One can note
how Hiya (propriety/dignity), Pakikisama(companionship/esteem), and Utang na
loob(gratitude/solidarity), are merely Surface Values—readily seen and observed
values exhibited and esteemed by many Filipinos. These three values are
considered branches from a single origin—the actual Core Value of the Filipino
Personality—Kapwa. It means 'togetherness', and refers to community, or not
doing things alone. Kapwa has two categories, Ibang Tao (other people) and Hindi
Ibang Tao (no other people). The Surface Values spin off of the Core Value
through the Pivotal Aspect of Pakikiramdam, or shared inner perception ("Feeling
for another").
The values of Filipinos specifically upholds the following items: solidarity of the
family unit, security of the Philippine economy, orientation to small-groups,
personalism, the concepts of "loob" or "kalooban" (meaning "what’s inside the
self", the "inner-self", or the "actual personal feelings of the self"), existence and
maintenance of smooth interpersonal relationships, and the sensing of the
feelings or needs of others (known as pakikiramdam). In a larger picture, these
values are grouped into general clusters or "macroclusters": namely, the
relationship cluster, the social cluster, the livelihood cluster, the inwardness
cluster, and the optimism cluster.

The basic and most

Enumeration of Filipino values important unit of a
Filipino's life is the
family. Unlike in Western countries, young Filipinos who turn 18 are not
expected to move out of their parents' home. When a Filipino's parents are old
and cannot take care of themselves, they are cared for in their children's homes
and are very rarely brought by their children to Homes for the Aged. The practice
of separating the elderly from the rest of the family, while common in Western
countries, is often looked down upon in Filipino society. Family lunches with the
whole clan with up to 50 people, extending until the line of second cousins, are
not unusual. The Filipino puts a great
Joy and humor emphasis on the value of family and being close
to one's family members.
This famous trait is the ability of Filipinos to find humor in everything. It sheds
light on the optimism and positivity of Filipinos in whatever situation they are in
so as to remain determined in going through struggles or challenges. It serves as
a coping technique, the same way a child who has fallen laughs at
himself/herself to hide his/her embarrassment.

Flexibility, adaptability and creativity

Filipinos often have an aversion to
a set of standardized rules or procedures; they are known to follow a "natural
clock" or organic sense of time—doing things in the time they feel is right. They
are present-oriented: which means that one attends to a task or requirement at
the time it is needed and does not worry much about future engagements. This
allows the Filipino to adapt and be flexible in doing the tasks at times not bound
to a particular schedule or timeframe. This allows them think on their feet and
be creative in facing whatever challenge or task they have even when it is already
right in front of them.

Faith and religiosity The Philippines is approximately 85

percent Christians (mostly Roman
Catholics), 10 percent Muslim, and
5 percent 'other' religions, including the Taoist-Buddhist religious beliefs of
Chinese and the 'indigenous' Animism belief of peoples in upland areas that
resisted 300 years of Spanish colonial rule This is a reflection of the Filipinos'
strong faith in God as seen in their various practices. This includes the
numerous church holidays they observe, the customary (and obligatory) Sunday
Mass, the individual's basis of their moral standpoints, the influence of the
Church on the minds, actions, and opinions of the majority, importance of the
Sacraments, praying at almost any possible time of the day, the extreme
practices during Holy Week.
Ability to survive The Filipinos as a people who have been
constantly under the rule of numerous
powerful countries has over time, developed a sense of resourcefulness or the
ability to survive with whatever they have. They have the extraordinary ability to
make something out of almost nothing. If a Filipino was given just a screwdriver,
plastic basset, and some tape, he would still be able to build a bird tree,
especially for the sake of survival, and provided that he be allowed to hunt for
some needed surrounding material
Hard work and industriousness With resourcefulness comes hard
work. Filipinos are very determined
and persevering in accomplishing whatever they set their minds to.
Filipinos over the years have proven time and time again that they are a people
with an industrious attitude. Sadly, this is seen by others as Filipinos being only
useful as domestic helpers, working abroad to help their families in the country.
This is also present in the country’s workforce particularly the farmers. Even
with little support, technological weaknesses and the country’s seasonal
typhoons, the Filipino farmer still strives to earn their daily meal.

Hospitality
Foreigners who come to visit the Philippines speak of
Filipinos going out of their way to help them when lost, or the heartwarming
generosity of a Filipino family hosting a visitor in their poverty-stricken home.
Meanwhile, most foreigners who attend Filipino gatherings abroad (which are
frequently organized for hundreds of reasons) testify to the warmth and
friendliness of Filipinos as they experience that feeling of “belongingness.”
Indeed, the legendary Filipino hospitality is not limited to the Philippines. It is
everywhere wherever there are Filipinos.
In relation to parenthood, bearing male and female
Gender-specific children depends on the preferences of the parents
values based on the expected roles that each gender would
assume once grown up. Both genders are expected to become responsible
members of the family and their society. Women in the Philippines are expected
to become caring and nurturing mothers for their own children.
Female Filipinos are also expected to lend a hand in household work. They are
even anticipated to offer assistance after being married. On the other
hand, Filipino men are expected to assume the role of becoming the primary
source of income and financial support of his
family.
Truth
Is most often used to mean being in accord
with fact or reality, or fidelity to an original or standard? Truth is also sometimes
defined in modern contexts as an idea of "truth to self", or authenticity.
Truth is usually held to be opposite to falsehood, which, correspondingly, can
also suggest a logical, factual, or ethical meaning. The concept of truth is
discussed and debated in several contexts, including philosophy, art, theology,
and science. Most human activities depend upon the concept, where its nature
as a concept is assumed rather than being a subject of discussion; these include
most of the sciences, law, journalism, and everyday life.
In its broadest context, includes both the attainment of that which is just and
the philosophical discussion of that which is just. The concept of justice is based
on numerous fields, and many differing viewpoints and perspectives including
the concepts of moral correctness based
on ethics, rationality, law, religion, equity and fairness. Often, the general
discussion of justice is divided into the realm of social justice as found in
philosophy, theology and religion, and, procedural justice as found in the study
and application of the law.
 CHAPTER WEB
VIDEO LINK

1. https://youtu.be/SRTJ4s2hXl0
2. https://youtu.be/79xsa9zfA_U
3. https://youtu.be/2IN-9tt-hSU

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Filipino_values