The Importance of Rules to Social Beings

(Excerpted from De Guzman, J.M., et.al. Ethics, 2018)

Used for class study and reflection purposes only-not for circulation

1. Rules protect social beings by regulating behavior. Rules build boundaries

that pace limits on behavior. Rules are usually coupled with means to impose
consequences on those who violate them, one of the reasons people follow
accepted rules is to avoid negative consequences.

2. Rules help to guarantee each person certain rights and freedom. Rules from
frameworks for society. Nations are generally nations of laws and the governing
principles are outlined in what is called constitution. Because the majority has
agreed to follow and consent to be governed by such constitution, the freedoms
outlined exist. One of the advantages of such a system is that each person is
guaranteed certain rights as the government is limited in its power to ensure that
it does not become powerful enough to suppress liberty (freedom).

3. Rules produce a sense of justice among social beings. Rules are needed in
order to keep the strong from dominating the weak, that is, to prevent exploitation
and domination. Without rules, schemes in which those with power control the
system, would take over. In effect, rules generate a stable system that provides
justice, in which even the richest and most powerful have limitations on what they
can do. If they transgress rules such as laws and ordinances and take advantage
of people, there are consequences both socially and criminally.

4. Rules are essential for a healthy economic system. Without rules regulating
business, power would centralize around monopolies and threaten the strength
and competitiveness of the system. Rules are needed to ensure product safety,
employee safety, and product quality. Copyright and patents help protect
people’s intellectual property. Rules and regulations also keep the banking
system stable so as to avoid depression and the like.

In short, society could not soundly function without rules and regulations. Rules
are necessary to protect the greater good. Even the freest societies ought to have rules
in order to avoid exploitations and tyranny while upholding the common welfare. (De
Guzman, 2018)
 Moral Standards versus Non-moral Ones
Why the need to distinguish moral standards from non-moral ones?
(Retrieved from: https://philonotes.com/index.php/2018/06/08/moral-standards/)
Used for class study and reflection purposes only-not for circulation

It is important to note that different societies have different moral beliefs and that our beliefs are
deeply influenced by our own culture and context. For this reason, some values do have moral
implications, while others don’t. Let us consider, for example, the wearing of hijab. For sure, in
traditional Muslim communities, the wearing of hijab is the most appropriate act that women have
to do in terms of dressing up. In fact, for some Muslims, showing parts of the woman’s body, such
as the face and legs, is despicable. However, in many parts of the world, especially in Western
societies, most people don’t mind if women barely cover their bodies. As a matter of fact, the
Hollywood canon of beauty glorifies a sexy and slim body and the wearing of extremely daring
dress. The point here is that people in the West may have pitied the Muslim women who wear
hijab, while some Muslims may find women who dress up daringly despicable.

Again, this clearly shows that different cultures have different moral standards. What is a matter
of moral indifference, that is, a matter of taste (hence, non-moral value) in one culture may be a
matter of moral significance in another.

Now, the danger here is that one culture may impose its own cultural standard on others, which
may result in a clash in cultural values and beliefs. When this happens, as we may already know,
violence and crime may ensue, such as religious violence and ethnic cleansing.

How can we address this cultural conundrum?

This is where the importance of understanding the difference between moral standards (that is,
of what is a moral issue) and non-moral ones (that is, of what is a non-moral issue―thus, a matter
of taste) comes in. This issue may be too obvious and insignificant for some people, but
understanding the difference between the two may have far-reaching implications. For one, once
we have distinguished moral standards from non-moral ones, of course, through the aid of the
principles and theories in ethics, we will be able to identify fundamental ethical values that may
guide our actions. Indeed, once we know that particular values and beliefs are non-moral, we will
be able to avoid running the risk of falling into the pit of cultural reductionism (that is, taking
complex cultural issues as simple and homogenous ones) and the unnecessary imposition of
one’s own cultural standard on others. The point here is that if such standards are non-moral (that
is, a matter of taste), then we don’t have the right to impose them on others. But if such standards
are moral ones, such as not killing or harming people, then we may have the right to force others
to act accordingly. In this way, we may be able to find a common moral ground, such as agreeing
not to steal, lie, cheat, kill, harm, and deceive our fellow human beings.

Now, what are moral standards, and how do they differ from non-moral ones?

Moral Standards and their Characteristics

Moral standards are norms that individuals or groups have about the kinds of actions believed to
be morally right or wrong, as well as the values placed on what we believed to be morally good
or morally bad. Moral standards normally promote “the good”, that is, the welfare and well-being
of humans as well as animals and the environment. Moral standards, therefore, prescribe what
humans ought to do in terms of rights and obligations.

According to some scholars, moral standards are the sum of combined norms and values. In other
words, norms plus values equal moral standards. On the one hand, norms are understood as
general rules about our actions or behaviors. For example, we may say “We are always under
the obligation to fulfill our promises” or “It is always believed that killing innocent people is
absolutely wrong”. On the other hand, values are understood as enduring beliefs or statements
about what is good and desirable or not. For example, we may say “Helping the poor is good” or
“Cheating during exams is bad”.

According to many scholars, moral standards have the following characteristics, namely: 1) moral
standards deal with matters we think can seriously injure or benefit humans, animals, and the
environment, such as child abuse, rape, and murder; 2) moral standards are not established or
changed by the decisions of authoritative individuals or bodies. Indeed, moral standards rest on
the adequacy of the reasons that are taken to support and justify them. For sure, we don’t need
a law to back up our moral conviction that killing innocent people is absolutely wrong; 3) moral
standards are overriding, that is, they take precedence over other standards and considerations,
especially of self-interest; 4) moral standards are based on impartial considerations. Hence, moral
standards are fair and just; and 5) moral standards are associated with special emotions (such
as guilt and shame) and vocabulary (such as right, wrong, good, and bad).

Non-moral Standards

Non-moral standards refer to standards by which we judge what is good or bad and right or wrong
in a non-moral way. Examples of non-moral standards are standards of etiquette by which we
judge manners as good or bad, standards we call the law by which we judge something as legal
or illegal, and standards of aesthetics by which we judge art as good or rubbish. Hence, we should
not confuse morality with etiquette, law, aesthetics or even with religion.

As we can see, non-moral standards are matters of taste or preference. Hence, a scrupulous
observance of these types of standards does not make one a moral person. Violation of said
standards also does not pose any threat to human well-being.

Finally, as a way of distinguishing moral standards from non-moral ones, if a moral standard says
“Do not harm innocent people” or “Don’t steal”, a non-moral standard says “Don’t text while
driving” or “Don’t talk while the mouth is full”.
 What are Moral Dilemmas?
(Retrieved from: https://philonotes.com/index.php/2018/06/10/moral-dilemmas/)
Used for class study and reflection purposes only-not for circulation

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.”
 Freedom
(Excerpted from Ethics by Gallinero, W.B., et.al. 2018)
Used for class study and reflection purposes only-not for circulation

“Why Only Human Beings can be Ethical?

There has been some claim that morality is not unique to human beings. For example,
Dame Jane Morris Goodall DBE, a British primatologist, ethologist, anthropologist, and UN
Messenger of peace reported that sometimes chimpanzees show a truly selfless concern for the
well-being of others (Goodall, 1990). However, other thinkers such as Immanuel Kant, Rene
Descartes, Thomas Aquinas, Peter Carruthers, and various religious theories believed that only
human beings can be ethical (Wilson, 2017). According to Saint Thomas Aquinas, the
fundamental difference between animal ethics and human ethics is that animals behave
instinctively while human behavior is rational (BBC, 2014).
Instinctive behavior is a hard-wired, inborn, characteristic response to specific
environmental stimuli; an example is the altruistic behavior of social animals (Spink, 2010).
However, researchers found that the animal's intent of self-sacrifice is more on ensuring
reproductive success (kin selection) rather than out of true selfless motive (Encyclopedia
Britannica, 2009). An example of this would be the suicide attacks of worker honeybees in defense
of their colony against intruders. There is also reciprocal altruism where the animal will provide
for another animal’s need because it expects the similar act in a similar manner at a later time
period. Chimpanzees scratching each other's back are an example of reciprocal altruism (Trivers,
1971).
Rational behavior is a decision-making process where the person acts in ways the best
achieved his or her needs in accordance with his or her set preferences, priorities, and principles
(Information Resources Management Association, 2015). Rational behavior is tide to moral
standards. Additionally, the human person in his or her decision-making process is free to decide
what to do and free to act on his or her decisions. Thus, only human beings can be ethical because
only humans have the capacity for free moral judgment.

The Foundation of Morality

C. S. Lewis, A novelist, poet, academic, literary critic essayist, lay theologian, broadcaster,
lecturer, and Christian apologist used an interesting metaphor to explain morality. He likened
morality to a fleet of ships. According to Lewis, though each ship must sail well on its own, each
must also coordinate with the other ships at all times to stay in formation and avoid collisions.
Finally, the fleet must have a destination or purpose for the journey (Lewis, 2012) because if the
ship was just aimlessly sailing then it has failed its ultimate purpose that of getting from one point
to the next.
This is a very helpful way to think about morality in relation to self, to others, and your
ultimate end. However, there is one crucial difference between a ship and a person (aside, of
course, from the obvious) - a ship is under the command of a ship captain. However, a person is
someone who is free to decide his or her course.

Why is Freedom Crucial in your Ability to Make Moral Decisions?

The personal aspect of morality is about developing virtue so that thinking morally,
performing moral acts, and choosing to do what is good becomes a habit. The Stanford
encyclopedia of philosophy open and close (2016) explain that virtue is your thought or behavior
guided by, and displays, high moral standards. Virtues are habits developed through learning and
practice period once you have it, your virtues become your characteristic. Moreover, a virtuous
person characteristically acts in ways consistent with his or her moral principles. Thus, a virtuous
person goes beyond moral behavior. A virtuous person not only does what is right but his or her
behavior also becomes a standard for everyone to follow.
An efficiently run ship is like a virtuous person: both have internalized the practices that
make them weather storms. However, a ship is under the control of a captain while a virtuous
person is free to cultivate his or her values. At the same time, he or she is also free to abandon
it. Hence, there is no virtue in self-restraint if, in the 1st place, you are prohibited from indulging.
And there is no virtue in giving if someone is forcing you to give up your possessions. Although
cultural traditions and social institutions can guide virtues, it cannot be coerced. Freedom, then,
is the foundation of moral acts. For a person to be virtuous, he or she must also be free.

The Human Person as a Free Being

First, what does “human person” mean? In philosophy, a human being is more than its
biological components. The human being is a person endowed with characteristics that are
material, spiritual, rational, and free. A human person is a being (the Aristotelian idea of being
connotes actuality; Existence; An actual condition or circumstance) we had inborn properties that
he or she uses to direct his or her own development toward self-fulfillment. One of the inborn
properties of the human person is freedom.

Freedom Demands Responsibility

Jean Paul Sartre said “you are free” because he believed a person always has a choice.
Thus, according to Sartre, you must choose. His idea was that freedom is the capacity to choose,
that even not choosing is a choice (Gallinero, 2014). It is important to note however, that he also
added the concept of responsibility to freedom. According to Sartre, even though individuals
must make their own choices because they are free, these choices (though freely made) also
have consequences to it. These consequences to freedom are something that the person must
endure. Therefore, it can be said that‘s concept, responsibility follows freedom (Gallinero, 2014).
Chinese philosopher Lao Tzu also discussed freedom and responsibility. Lao Tzu
advocated that a person can and should choose to act, but his or her actions should be that which
would result in harmony. Lao Tzu’s idea was that in any society, the exercise of one’s freedom is
not absolute. The person is free to do anything; but it is not without consequences of one's actions
(Gallinero, 2014). Responsibility, as a moral quality serves as a voluntary check and balance of
one's freedom. Without proper balance limitless freedom is as dangerous as an extremely
controlling social group. Great social injustices have resulted from such radical mindsets.”
 Summary of Patricia Licuanan’s
STRENGTHS AND WEAKNESSES OF THE FILIPINO MORAL CHARACTER
(Excerpted from “A Moral Recovery Program: Building a People, Building a Nation”)
Used for class study and reflection purposes only-not for circulation

STRENGTHS

1. Pakikipagkapwa-tao : Opening yourself to others and feel one with others with dignity and -
Respect life as fellow human beings
- Sense of fairness and justice
- Concern for others
- Ability to empathize with others
- Helpfulness and generosity
- Practice of hospitality
- Sensitive to other feelings and trust
2. Family Orientation : A genuine and deep love for family.
- Commitment and responsibility
- Honor and Respect
- Generosity and Sacrifice
- Sense of trust and Security
3. Joy and Humor : Filipinos have a cheerful and fun-loving approach to life and its up and
down, Pleasant Disposition, a Sense of Humor and Propensity for happiness that contribute not
only to the Filipino charm but also to the Filipino Spirit.
- Laughing or smiling at those we love and hate.
- Tend to make joke about our good and even bad fortune
- Smiling and heads up even in the most trying of times
- Emotional balance and optimism
- Healthy disrespect for power and office.
4. Flexibility, Adaptability and Creativity
- Easy to adapt, blend to other culture, practice other tradition, speak and study other languages
and even diff. environment or climate)
5. Hard Work and Industry : Capacity for hard work given to raise one's standard living of a
decent life for one's family.
6. Faith and Religiosity : Faith in God - accepting reality to comprehend as a human created
by God. "Pampalakas-loob"
7. Ability to Survive

WEAKNESS

1. Extreme Personalism
- always trying to give personal interpretation to actions (Cow fave or Mahilig sa "baka' ")
- thank you with "but" (compliment-criticism-compliment)
2. Extreme Family Centeredness
- Very strong family protection whether it is in good or bad condition and situation (consentidor)
(overprotective)
3. Lack of Discipline:
- Very relaxed attitude but POOR Time Management (the famous Filipino Time – “always late”)
- Impatient and unable to delay gratification or reward
- Love to take short-cuts or 'palusot' system
- Carelessness
4. Passivity and Lack of Initiative : Strong reliance to others fate (Makapag-Asawa ng
Mayaman - or Manalo sa Lotto) (Mayaman-Mapera-Abroad naman si Mommy and Daddy/Lola
and Lolo or Tito or Tita or Pinsan or Ninong etc.)
- Yeah the famous PINOY PRIDE. It is all because of the race (nationality/blood) not by
person's attitude, hard-work, dream, and perseverance etc.
- Claiming someone achievement even they are not representing the same flag just because of
ethnicity.
- Very complacent (relax) but their rarely is a sense of urgency (It's OK we have 1 day left to
finish, just relax)
- Strong personality but Lack of Self-Confidence and strong determination to achieve goals
- Good at start but NO Sense of Continuity (sometimes no direction at all or no plan at all)
- Too patient without any plan or action (matiisin) "Bahala na System" - No matter what, at least
we tried (paconsuelo).
- Doubt and Debate or Argument or Objection first than to study, discuss until planning and
action
5. Colonial Mentality : Patriotism vs Active awareness - (mas maganda and magaling kasi ang
ibang bansa)
- To much appreciation to other nationality and foreign products than native one (local vs
imported)
- Lack of LOVE and Appreciation on what they have
- Open outside but Side-open or Close inside (it's OK and Best to RECEIVED more than to
Share)
6. Kanya-kanya Syndrome : Self-serving attitude that generates feeling of envy and
competitiveness towards others (status vs prestige).
- Personal ambition but insensitive to common good (people & own country)
- Crab mentality (Hilahan and Inggitan System)
- Lack of appreciation resulting unhealthy competition
7. Lack of Self Analysis and Reflection
- Superficial and flighty or dreamy

THE MANY FACES OF THE FILIPINO

Many of our strong points are also the sources of our weakness.

As a people, we are person-oriented, and relationships with others are a very important part of
our lives. Thus, we are capable of much caring and concern for others. On the other hand, in
the extreme our person orientation leads to lack of objectivity and a disregard for universal rules
and procedures so that everyone, regardless of our relationship with them, is treated equally.
Our person orientation leads us to be concerned for people, and yet unfair to some.

Our family orientation is both a strength and a weakness, giving us a sense of rootedness and
security, both very essential to any form of reaching out to others. At the same time, it develops
in us an in-group orientation that prevents us from reaching out beyond the family to the larger
community and the nation.

Our flexibility, adaptability and creativity is a strength that allows us to adjust to any set of
circumstances and to make the best of the situation. But this ability to "play things by ear" leads
us to compromise on the precision and discipline necessary to accomplish many work-oriented
goals.

Our sense of joy and humor serves us well in difficult times. it makes life more pleasant, but
serious problems do need serious analysis, and humor can also be destructive.

Our faith in God and our religiosity are sources of strength and courage, but they also lead to an
external orientation that keeps us passive and dependent on forces outside ourselves.

There are other contradictions in the many faces of the Filipino. We find pakikipagkapwa-
tao and the kanya-kanya mentality living comfortably together in us. We are other-oriented and
capable of great empathy; and yet we are self-serving, envious of others, and unconstructively
critical of one another.

We also find the Filipino described alternately as hardworking and lazy. Indeed we see that we
are capable of working long and hard at any job. However, our casual work ethic as well as our
basic passivity in the work setting also is apparent as we wait for orders and instructions rather
than taking the initiative.

ROOTS OF THE FILIPINO CHARACTER

The strengths and weaknesses of the Filipino have their roots in many factors such as:
(1) the home environment,
(2) the social environment,
(3) culture and language,
(4) history,
(5) the educational system,
(6) religion,
(7) the economic environment,
(8) the political environment,
(9) mass media, and
(10) leadership and role models.

For detailed explanation of the ideas above, please read the whole article by Patricia B.
Licuanan
 4.
A Moral Recovery Program: Building a People--Building a Nation
Patricia Licuanan

The events at EDSA in February 1986 not only ousted a dictator, but also demonstrated to the
world and to ourselves our great strengths as a people. At EDSA we saw courage, determination
and strength of purpose; we saw unity and concern for one another; we saw deep faith in God; and
even in the grimmest moments, there was some laughter and humor.
We were proud of ourselves at EDSA and we expected great changes after our moment of
glory. Today, sometime after, we realize that most of our problems as a nation still remain. We
may have ousted a dictator, but that was the easy part. The task of building a nation is so much
more difficult. Now, with EDSA only an inspiring memory, we are faced with our weaknesses.
Self-interest and disregard for the common good rears its ugly head. We are confronted with our
lack of discipline and rigor, our colonial mentality, and our emphasis on porma (form). Despite
our great display of people's power, now we are passive once more, expecting our leaders to take
all responsibility for solving our many problems.
The task of building our nation is an awesome one. There is need for economic recovery.
There is need to re-establish democratic institutions and to achieve the goals of peace and genuine
social justice. Along with these goals, there is a need as well to build ourselves as a people. There
is need to change structures and to change people.
Building a people means eliminating our weaknesses and developing our strengths; this starts
with the analysis, understanding, and appreciation of these strengths and weaknesses. We must
take a good look at ourselves--objectively with scientific detachment, but also emotionally (i.e.,
lovingly) and, when appropriate, with disgust. We must view ourselves as might a lover viewing
a loved one but also as might a judge capable of a harsh verdict. We must not be self-flagellating,
but neither can we afford to be defensive.
We must change, and for this understanding ourselves is the first step.

Strengths of the Filipino Character

Pakikipagkapwa-Tao (regard for others). Filipinos are open to others and feel one with others.
We regard others with dignity and respect, and deal with them as fellow human beings.
Pakikipagkapwa-tao is manifested in a basic sense of justice and fairness, and in concern for
others. It is demonstrated in the Filipino's ability to empathize with others, in helpfulness and
generosity in times of need (pakikiramay), in the practice of bayanihan or mutual assistance, and
in the famous Filipino hospitality.
Filipinos possess a sensitivity to people's feelings or pakikiramdam, pagtitiwala or trust, and
a sense of gratitude or utang-na-loob. Because of pakikipagkapwa-tao, Filipinos are very sensitive
to the quality of interpersonal relationships and are very dependent on them: if our relationships
are satisfactory, we are happy and secure.
Pakikipagkapwa-tao results in camaraderie and a feeling of closeness one to another. It helps
promote unity as well a sense of social justice.
Family Orientation. Filipinos possess a genuine and deep love for the family, which includes
not simply the spouses and children, parents, and siblings, but also grandparents, aunts, uncles,
cousins, godparents, and other ceremonial relatives. To the Filipino, one's family is the source of
personal identity, the source of emotional and material support, and the person's main commitment
and responsibility.
Concern for family is manifested in the honor and respect given to parents and elders, in the
care given to children, the generosity towards kin in need, and in the great sacrifices one endures
for the welfare of the family. This sense of family results in a feeling of belonging or rootedness
and in a basic sense of security.

Joy and Humor. Filipinos have a cheerful and fun-loving approach to life and its ups and
downs. There is a pleasant disposition, a sense of humor, and a propensity for happiness that
contribute not only to the Filipino charm, but to the indomitability of the filipino spirit. Laughing
at ourselves and our trouble is an important coping mechanism. Often playful, sometimes cynical,
sometimes disrespectful, we laugh at those we love and at those we hate, and make jokes about
our fortune, good and bad.
This sense of joy and humor is manifested in the Filipino love for socials and celebrations, in
our capacity to laugh even in the most trying of times, and in the appeal of political satire.
The result is a certain emotional balance and optimism, a healthy disrespect for power and
office, and a capacity to survive.

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. Unplanned or
unanticipated events are never overly disturbing or disorienting as the flexible Filipino adjusts to
whatever happens. We possess a tolerance for ambiguity that enables us to remain unfazed by
uncertainty or lack of information. We are creative, resourceful, adept at learning, and able to
improvise and make use of whatever is at hand in order to create and produce.
This quality of the Filipino is manifested in the ability to adapt to life in any part of the world;
in the ability to make new things out of scrap and to keep old machines running; and, of course, in
the creative talent manifested in the cultural sphere. It is seen likewise in the ability to accept
change.
The result is productivity, innovation, entrepreneurship, equanimity, and survival.

Hard work and Industry. Filipinos have the capacity for hard work, given proper conditions.
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. This is manifested most noticeably in a willingness to take risks with jobs abroad, and to
work there at two or three jobs. The result is productivity and entrepreneurship for some, and
survival despite poverty for others.

Faith and Religiosity. Filipinos have a deep faith in God. Innate religiosity enables us to
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.
Filipinos live very intimately with religion; this is tangible--a part of everyday life. We ascribe
human traits to a supernatural God whom we alternately threaten and thank, call upon for mercy
or forgiveness, and appease by pledges. Prayer is an important part of our lives.
The faith of the Filipino is related to bahala na, which, instead of being viewed as defeatist
resignation, may be considered positively as a reservoir of psychic energy, an important
psychological support on which we can lean during difficult times. Thispampalakas ng loob allows
us to act despite uncertainty.
Our faith and daring was manifest at EDSA and at other times in our history when it was
difficult to be brave. It is seen also in the capacity to accept failure and defeat without our self-
concept being devastated since we recognize forces external to ourselves as contributing to the
unfolding of events in our lives.
The results of the Filipino's faith are courage, daring, optimism, inner peace, as well as the
capacity to genuinely accept tragedy and death.

Ability to Survive. Filipinos have an ability to survive which is manifested in our capacity for
endurance despite difficult times, and in our ability to get by on so little. Filipinos make do with
what is available in the environment, even, e.g., by eking out a living from a garbage dump. This
survival instinct is related to the Filipinos who bravely carry on through the harshest economic and
social circumstances. Regretfully, one wonders what we might be able to do under better
circumstances.

Weaknesses of the Filipino Character

Extreme Personalism. Filipinos view the world in terms of personal relationships and the
extent to which one is able personally to relate to things and people determines our recognition of
their existence and the value. There is no separation between an objective task and emotional
involvement. This personalism is manifested in the tendency to give personal interpretations to
actions, i.e., to "take things personally." Thus, a sincere question may be viewed as a challenge to
one's competence or positive feedback may be interpreted as a sign of special affection. There is,
in fact, some basis for such interpretations as Filipinos become personal in their criticism and
praise. Personalism is also manifested in the need to establish personal relationships before any
business or work relationship can be successful.
Because of this personalistic world view, Filipinos have difficulty dealing with all forms of
impersonal stimuli. For this reason one is uncomfortable with bureaucracy, with rules and
regulations, and with standard procedures--all of which tend to be impersonal. We ignore them or
we ask for exceptions.
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. Extreme
personalism thus leads to the graft and corruption evident in Philippine society.

Extreme Family-Centeredness. While concern for the family is one of the Filipino's greatest
strengths, in the extreme it becomes a serious flaw. Excessive concern for the family creates an in-
group to which the Filipino is fiercely loyal, to the detriment of concern for the larger community
or the common good.
Excessive concern for family manifests itself in the use of one's office and power as a means
of promoting the interests of the family, in factionalism, patronage, and political dynasties, and in
the protection of erring family members. It results in lack of concern for the common good and
acts as a block to national consciousness.

Lack of Discipline. The Filipino's lack of discipline encompasses several related

characteristics. 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.
We have an aversion to following strictly a set of procedures, which results in lack of
standardization and quality control. We are impatient and unable to delay gratification or reward,
resulting in the use of short cuts, skirting the rules (thepalusot syndrome) and in foolhardiness. We
are guilty of ningas cogon, starting out projects with full vigor and interest which abruptly die
down, leaving things unfinished.
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.

Passivity and Lack of Initiative. Filipinos are generally passive and lacking in initiative. One
waits to be told what has to be done. There is a strong reliance on others, e.g., leaders and
government, to do things for us. 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. One is generally submissive to those in authority, and is not likely to raise issues or to
question decisions.
Filipinos tend to be complacent and there rarely is a sense of urgency about any problem.
There is a high tolerance for inefficiency, poor service, and even violations of one's basic rights.
In many ways, it can be said that the Filipino is too patient and long-suffering (matiisin), too easily
resigned to one's fate. Filipinos are thus easily oppressed and exploited.

Colonial Mentality. Filipinos have a colonial mentality which is made up of two dimensions:
the first is a lack of patriotism or an active awareness, appreciation, and love of the Philippines;
the second is an actual preference for things foreign.
Filipino culture is characterized by an openness to the outside--adapting and incorporating the
foreign elements into our image of ourselves. Yet this image is not built around a deep core of
Philippine history and language. The result is a cultural vagueness or weakness that makes
Filipinos extraordinarily susceptible to the wholesome acceptance of modern mass culture which
is often Western. Thus, there is preference for foreign fashion, entertainment, lifestyles,
technology, consumer items, etc.
The Filipino colonial mentality is manifested in the alienation of the elite from their roots and
from the masses, as well as in the basic feeling of national inferiority that makes it difficult for
Filipinos to relate as equals to Westerners.

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, the Filipino demonstrated the so-called "crab mentality",
using the levelling instruments of tsismis, intriga and unconstructive criticism to bring others
down. There seems to be a basic assumption that another's gain is our loss.
The kanya-kanya syndrome is also evident in personal ambition and drive for power and status
that is completely insensitive to the common good. Personal and in-group interests reign supreme.
This characteristic is also evident in the lack of a sense of service among people in the government
bureaucracy. The public is made to feel that service from these offices and from these civil servants
is an extra perk that has to be paid for.
The kanya-kanya syndrome results in the dampening of cooperative and community spirit and
in the denial of the rights of others.
 Lack of Self-Analysis and Self-Reflection. There is a tendency in the Filipino to be superficial
and even somewhat flighty. In the face of serious problems both personal and social, there is lack
of analysis or reflection. Joking about the most serious matters prevents us from looking deeply
into the problem. There is no felt need to validate our hypotheses or explanations of things. Thus
we are satisfied with superficial explanations for, and superficial solutions to, problems.
Related to this is the Filipino emphasis on form (maporma) rather than upon substance. There
is a tendency to be satisfied with rhetoric and to substitute this for reality. Empty rhetoric and
endless words are very much part of public life. As long as the right things are said, as long as the
proper documents and reports exist, and as long as the proper committees, task forces, or offices
are formed, Filipinos are deluded into believing that what ought to be actually exists.
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.

The Many Faces of the Filipino

From this discussion of the strengths and weaknesses of the Filipino, it is clear that there is
much that is good here, but there is also much that needs to be changed. Many of our strong points
are also the sources of our weakness.
As a people, we are person-oriented, and relationships with others are a very important part
of our lives. Thus, we are capable of much caring and concern for others. On the other hand, in the
extreme our person orientation leads to lack of objectivity and a disregard for universal rules and
procedures so that everyone, regardless of our relationship with them, is treated equally. Our
person orientation leads us to be concerned for people, and yet unfair to some.
Our family orientation is both a strength and a weakness, giving us a sense of rootedness and
security, both very essential to any form of reaching out to others. At the same time, it develops in
us an in-group orientation that prevents us from reaching out beyond the family to the larger
community and the nation.
Our flexibility, adaptability and creativity is a strength that allows us to adjust to any set of
circumstances and to make the best of the situation. But this ability to "play things by ear" leads
us to compromise on the precision and discipline necessary to accomplish many work-oriented
goals.
Our sense of joy and humor serves us well in difficult times. it makes life more pleasant, but
serious problems do need serious analysis, and humor can also be destructive.
Our faith in God and our religiosity are sources of strength and courage, but they also lead to
an external orientation that keeps us passive and dependent on forces outside ourselves.
There are other contradictions in the many faces of the Filipino. We find pakikipagkapwa-
tao and the kanya-kanya mentality living comfortably together in us. We are other-oriented and
capable of great empathy; and yet we are self-serving, envious of others, and unconstructively
critical of one another.
We also find the Filipino described alternately as hardworking and lazy. Indeed we see that
we are capable of working long and hard at any job. However, our casual work ethic as well as our
basic passivity in the work setting also is apparent as we wait for orders and instructions rather
than taking the initiative.
Roots of the Filipino Character

The strengths and weaknesses of the Filipino have their roots in many factors such as: (1) the
home environment, (2) the social environment, (3) culture and language, (4) history, (5) the
educational system, (6) religion, (7) the economic environment, (8) the political environment, (9)
mass media, and (10) leadership and role models.

The Family and Home Environment. Childbearing practices, family relations, and family
attitudes and orientation are the main components of 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 trust, on the one hand, and dependence, on the other. In the indulgent atmosphere of
the Filipino home, rigid standards of behavior or performance are not imposed, leading to a lack
of discipline. Attempts to maintain discipline come in the form of many "no's" and "don'ts" and a
system of criticism to keep children in line. Subtle comparisons among siblings also are used by
mothers to control their children. These may contribute to the "crab mentality."
In a large family where we are encouraged to get along with our siblings and other relatives,
we learn pakikipagkapwa-tao. In an authoritarian setting we learn respect for age and authority; at
the same time we become passive and dependent on authority.
In the family, children are taught to value family and to give it primary importance.

The Social Environment. The main components of the social environment are social structures
and social systems such as interpersonal religious and community interaction. The social
environment of the Filipino 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. This feudal structure develops
dependence and passivity.
The Filipino is raised in an environment where one must depend on relationships with others
in order to survive. In a poor country where resources are scarce and where the systems meant to
respond to people's needs can be insensitive, inefficient, or non-existent, the Filipino becomes very
dependent on kinship and interpersonal relationships.
Sensitivity about hurting established relationships controls our behavior. We are restrained
from making criticisms no matter how constructive, so standards of quality are not imposed. We
have difficulty saying no to requests and are pressured to favor our family and friends. That trying
to get ahead of others is not considered acceptable exerts a strong brake upon efforts to improve
our individual performance. The struggle for survival and our dependence on relationships make
us in-group oriented.

Culture and Language. Much has been written about Filipino cultural values. Such
characteristics such as warmth and person orientation, devotion to family, and sense of joy and
humor are part of our culture and are reinforced by all socializing forces such as the family, school,
and peer group.
Filipino culture rewards such traits and corresponding behavioral patterns develop because
they make one more likable and enable life to proceed more easily.
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 our colonial mentality and to the use of English as the
medium of instruction in schools.
The introduction of English as the medium of education de-Filipinized the youth and taught
them to regard American culture as superior. The use of English contributes also to a lack of self-
confidence on the part of the Filipino. The fact that doing well means using a foreign language,
which foreigners inevitably can handle better, leads to an inferiority complex. At a very early age,
we find that our self-esteem depends on the mastery of something foreign.
The use of a foreign language may also explain the Filipino's unreflectiveness and mental
laziness. Thinking in our native language, but expressing ourselves in English, results not only in
a lack of confidence, but also in a lack in our power of expression, imprecision, and a stunted
development of one's intellectual powers.

History. We are the product of our colonial history, which is regarded by many as the culprit
behind our lack of nationalism and our colonial mentality. Colonialism developed a mind-set in
the Filipino which encouraged us to think of the colonial power as superior and more powerful.
As a 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 American influence is more ingrained in the Philippines because the Americans set up a
public school system where we learned English and the American way of life. Present-day media
reinforce these colonial influences, and the Filipino elite sets the example by their western ways.
Another vestige of our colonial past is our basic attitude towards the government, which we
have learned to identify as foreign and apart from us. Thus, we do not identify with government
and are distrustful and uncooperative towards it. Much time and energy is spent trying to outsmart
the government, which we have learned from our colonial past to regard as an enemy.

The Educational System. Aside from the problems inherent in the use of a foreign language in
our educational system, the educational system leads to other problems for us as a people. 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. From this comes a mind-set that things learned in school are not related to
real life.
Aside from the influences of the formal curriculum, there are the influences of the "hidden
curriculum" i.e., the values taught informally by the Philippine school system. Schools are highly
authoritarian, with the teacher as the central focus. The Filipino student is taught to be dependent
on the teacher as we attempt to record verbatim what the teacher says and to give this back during
examinations in its original form and with little processing. Teachers reward well-behaved and
obedient students and are uncomfortable with those who ask questions and express a different
viewpoint. The Filipino student learns passivity and conformity. Critical thinking is not learned in
the school.

Religion. Religion is 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 pre-occupation with
the afterlife. We become vulnerable also to being victimized by opportunism, oppression,
exploitation, and superstition.
 The 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, impel us to work very hard, and
develop in us the ability to survive. Poverty, however, has also become an excuse for graft and
corruption, particularly among the lower rungs of the bureaucracy. Unless things get too difficult,
passivity sets in.

The Political Environment. The Philippine political environment is characterized by a

centralization of power. Political power and authority is concentrated in the hands of the elite and
the participation of most Filipinos often is limited to voting in elections.
Similarly, basic services from the government are concentrated in Manila and its outlying
towns and provinces. A great majority of Filipinos are not reached by such basic services as water,
electricity, roads, and health services. Government structures and systems--e.g., justice and
education--are often ineffective or inefficient.
Since the government often is not there to offer basic services, we depend on our family, kin,
and neighbors for our everyday needs. The absence of government enhances our extreme family-
and even community-centeredness. We find it difficult to identify with a nation-family, since the
government is not there to symbolize or represent the state.
The fact that political power is still very much concentrated in the hands of a few may lead to
passivity. The inefficiency of government structures and systems also leads to a lack of integrity
and accountability in our public servants.

Mass Media. Mass media reinforces our colonial mentality. Advertisements using Caucasian
models and emphasizing a product's similarity with imported brands are part of our daily lives.
The tendency of media to produce escapist movies, soap operas, comics, etc., feed th Filipino's
passivity. Rather than confront our poverty and oppression, we fantasize instead. The propensity
to use flashy sets, designer clothes, superstars, and other bonggafeatures reinforce porma.

Leadership and Role Models. Filipinos look up to their leaders as role models. Political leaders
are the main models, but all other leaders serve as role models as well. Thus, when our leaders
violate the law or show themselves to be self-serving and driven by personal interest--when there
is lack of public accountability--there is a negative impact on the Filipino.

Goals and Strategies for Change

Goals. Based on the strengths and weaknesses of the Filipino, the following goals for change
are proposed. The Filipino should develop:

1. a sense of patriotism and national pride--a genuine love, appreciation, and commitment to
the Philippines and things Filipino;
2. a sense of the common good--the ability to look beyond selfish interests, a sense of justice
and a sense of outrage at its violation;
3. a sense of integrity and accountability--an aversion toward graft and corruption in society
and an avoidance of the practice in one's daily life;
4. the value and habits of discipline and hard work; and
5. the value and habits of self-reflection and analysis, the internalization of spiritual values,
and an emphasis upon essence rather than on form.
Kohlberg's Stages of Moral Development
simplypsychology.org/kohlberg.html

Saul McLeod, updated 2013

Lawrence Kohlberg (1958) agreed with Piaget's (1932) theory of moral development in
principle but wanted to develop his ideas further.

He used Piaget’s storytelling technique to tell people stories involving moral dilemmas. In
each case, he presented a choice to be considered, for example, between the rights of
some authority and the needs of some deserving individual who is being unfairly treated.

One of the best known of Kohlberg’s (1958) stories concerns a man called Heinz who lived
somewhere in Europe.

Heinz’s wife was dying from a particular type of cancer. Doctors said a new drug might save
her. The drug had been discovered by a local chemist, and the Heinz tried desperately to buy
some, but the chemist was charging ten times the money it cost to make the drug, and this was
much more than the Heinz could afford.

Heinz could only raise half the money, even after help from family and friends. He explained
to the chemist that his wife was dying and asked if he could have the drug cheaper or pay the
rest of the money later.

The chemist refused, saying that he had discovered the drug and was going to make money
from it. The husband was desperate to save his wife, so later that night he broke into the
chemist’s and stole the drug.

Kohlberg asked a series of questions such as:

1. Should Heinz have stolen the drug?

2. Would it change anything if Heinz did not love his wife?

3. What if the person dying was a stranger, would it make any difference?

4. Should the police arrest the chemist for murder if the woman died?

By studying the answers from children of different ages to these questions, Kohlberg hoped
to discover how moral reasoning changed as people grew older. The sample comprised 72
Chicago boys aged 10–16 years, 58 of whom were followed up at three-yearly intervals for
20 years (Kohlberg, 1984).

1/6
Each boy was given a 2-hour interview based on the ten dilemmas. What Kohlberg was
mainly interested in was not whether the boys judged the action right or wrong, but the
reasons given for the decision. He found that these reasons tended to change as the
children got older.

He identified three distinct levels of moral reasoning each with two sub-stages. People can
only pass through these levels in the order listed. Each new stage replaces the reasoning
typical of the earlier stage. Not everyone achieves all the stages.

Level 1 - Pre-conventional morality

At the pre-conventional level (most nine-year-olds and younger, some over nine), we don’t
have a personal code of morality. Instead, our moral code is shaped by the standards of
adults and the consequences of following or breaking their rules.

Authority is outside the individual and reasoning is based on the physical consequences of
actions.

• Stage 1. Obedience and Punishment Orientation. The child/individual is good in order

to avoid being punished. If a person is punished, they must have done wrong.

• Stage 2. Individualism and Exchange. At this stage, children recognize that there is not
just one right view that is handed down by the authorities. Different individuals have
different viewpoints.

Level 2 - Conventional morality

At the conventional level (most adolescents and adults), we begin to internalize the moral
standards of valued adult role models.

Authority is internalized but not questioned, and reasoning is based on the norms of the
group to which the person belongs.

• Stage 3. Good Interpersonal Relationships. The child/individual is good in order to be

seen as being a good person by others. Therefore, answers relate to the approval of
others.

• Stage 4. Maintaining the Social Order. The child/individual becomes aware of the wider
rules of society, so judgments concern obeying the rules in order to uphold the law and to
avoid guilt.

Level 3 - Post-conventional morality

Individual judgment is based on self-chosen principles, and moral reasoning is based on
individual rights and justice. According to Kohlberg this level of moral reasoning is as far as
most people get.

Only 10-15% are capable of the kind of abstract thinking necessary for stage 5 or 6 (post-
conventional morality). That is to say, most people take their moral views from those
2/6
around them and only a minority think through ethical principles for themselves.

• Stage 5. Social Contract and Individual Rights. The child/individual becomes aware
that while rules/laws might exist for the good of the greatest number, there are times when
they will work against the interest of particular individuals.

The issues are not always clear-cut. For example, in Heinz’s dilemma, the protection of life
is more important than breaking the law against stealing.

• Stage 6. Universal Principles. People at this stage have developed their own set of
moral guidelines which may or may not fit the law. The principles apply to everyone.

E.g., human rights, justice, and equality. The person will be prepared to act to defend these
principles even if it means going against the rest of society in the process and having to
pay the consequences of disapproval and or imprisonment. Kohlberg doubted few people
reached this stage.

Problems with Kohlberg's Methods

1. The dilemmas are artificial (i.e., they lack ecological validity)

Most of the dilemmas are unfamiliar to most people (Rosen, 1980). For example, it is all
very well in the Heinz dilemma asking subjects whether Heinz should steal the drug to save
his wife.

However, Kohlberg’s subjects were aged between 10 and 16. They have never been
married, and never been placed in a situation remotely like the one in the story. How should
they know whether Heinz should steal the drug?

2. The sample is biased

According to Gilligan (1977), because Kohlberg’s theory was based on an all-male sample,
the stages reflect a male definition of morality (it’s androcentric). Mens' morality is based on
abstract principles of law and justice, while womens' is based on principles of compassion
and care.

Further, the gender bias issue raised by Gilligan is a reminded of the significant gender
debate still present in psychology, which when ignored, can have a large impact on the
results obtained through psychological research.

3. The dilemmas are hypothetical (i.e., they are not real)

In a real situation, what course of action a person takes will have real consequences – and
sometimes very unpleasant ones for themselves. Would subjects reason in the same way if
they were placed in a real situation? We just don’t know.

The fact that Kohlberg’s theory is heavily dependent on an individual’s response to an

artificial dilemma brings a question to the validity of the results obtained through this
research. People may respond very differently to real life situations that they find
themselves in than they do with an artificial dilemma presented to them in the comfort of a
3/6
research environment.

4. Poor research design

The way in which Kohlberg carried out his research when constructing this theory may not
have been the best way to test whether all children follow the same sequence of stage
progression. His research was cross-sectional, meaning that he interviewed children of
different ages to see what level of moral development they were at.

A better way to see if all children follow the same order through the stages would have
been to carry out longitudinal research on the same children.

However, longitudinal research on Kohlberg’s theory has since been carried out by Colby et
al. (1983) who tested 58 male participants of Kohlberg’s original study. She tested them six
times in the span of 27 years and found support for Kohlberg’s original conclusion, which
we all pass through the stages of moral development in the same order.

Problems with Kohlberg's Theory

1. Are there distinct stages of moral development?

Kohlberg claims that there are, but the evidence does not always support this conclusion.
For example, a person who justified a decision on the basis of principled reasoning in one
situation (post-conventional morality stage 5 or 6) would frequently fall back on
conventional reasoning (stage 3 or 4) with another story. In practice, it seems that
reasoning about right and wrong depends more upon the situation than upon general rules.

What is more, individuals do not always progress through the stages and Rest (1979) found
that one in fourteen actually slipped backward. The evidence for distinct stages of moral
development looks very weak, and some would argue that behind the theory is a culturally
biased belief in the superiority of American values over those of other cultures and
societies.

2. Does moral judgment match moral behavior?

Kohlberg never claimed that there would be a one to one correspondence between thinking
and acting (what we say and what we do) but he does suggest that the two are linked.
However, Bee (1994) suggests that we also need to take account of:

a) habits that people have developed over time.

b) whether people see situations as demanding their participation.

c) the costs and benefits of behaving in a particular way.

d) competing motive such as peer pressure, self-interest and so on.

Overall Bee points out that moral behavior is only partly a question of moral reasoning. It is
also to do with social factors.

4/6
3. Is justice the most fundamental moral principle?
This is Kohlberg’s view. However, Gilligan (1977) suggests that the principle of caring for
others is equally important. Furthermore, Kohlberg claims that the moral reasoning of
males has been often in advance of that of females.

Girls are often found to be at stage 3 in Kohlberg’s system (good boy-nice girl orientation)
whereas boys are more often found to be at stage 4 (Law and Order orientation). Gilligan
(p. 484) replies:

“The very traits that have traditionally defined the goodness of women, their care for and
sensitivity to the needs of others, are those that mark them out as deficient in moral
development”.

In other words, Gilligan is claiming that there is a sex bias in Kohlberg’s theory. He neglects
the feminine voice of compassion, love, and non-violence, which is associated with the
socialization of girls.

Gilligan concluded that Kohlberg’s theory did not account for the fact that women approach
moral problems from an ‘ethics of care’, rather than an ‘ethics of justice’ perspective, which
challenges some of the fundamental assumptions of Kohlberg’s theory.

References
Bee, H. L. (1994). Lifespan development. HarperCollins College Publishers.

Colby, A., Kohlberg, L., Gibbs, J., & Lieberman, M. (1983). A longitudinal study of moral
judgment. Monographs of the Society for Research in Child Development, 48 (1-2, Serial
No. 200). Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

Gilligan, C. (1977). In a different voice: Women's conceptions of self and of morality.

Harvard Educational Review, 47(4), 481-517.

Kohlberg, L. (1958). The Development of Modes of Thinking and Choices in Years 10 to

16. Ph. D. Dissertation, University of Chicago.

Kohlberg, L. (1984). The Psychology of Moral Development: The Nature and Validity of
Moral Stages (Essays on Moral Development, Volume 2). Harper & Row

Piaget, J. (1932). The moral judgment of the child. London: Kegan Paul, Trench, Trubner &
Co.

Rest, J. R. (1979). Development in judging moral issues. University of Minnesota Press.

Rosen, B. (1980). Moral dilemmas and their treatment. In, Moral development, moral
education, and Kohlberg. B. Munsey (Ed). (1980), pp. 232-263. Birmingham, Alabama:
Religious Education Press.

How to reference this article:

McLeod, S. A. (2013). Kohlberg. Retrieved from www.simplypsychology.org/kohlberg.html
5/6
6/6
Model for Making Ethical Decisions
Scott B. Rae, Ph.D.

CASE #1--"PLEASE DON'T TELL!"i

A twenty year old Hispanic male was brought to a hospital emergency room,
having suffered abdominal injuries due to gunshot wounds obtained in gang
violence. He had no medical insurance, and his stay in the hospital was
somewhat shorter than expected due to his good recovery. Physicians attending
to him felt that he could complete his recovery at home just as easily as in the
hospital and he was released after only a few days in the hospital.

During his stay in the hospital, the patient admitted to his primary physician that
he was HIV positive, having contracted the virus that causes AIDS. This was
confirmed by a blood test administered while he was hospitalized.

When he was discharged from the hospital, the physician recommended that a
professional nurse visit him regularly at home in order to change the bandages
on his still substantial wounds and to insure that an infection did not develop.
Since he had no health insurance he was dependent on Medicaid, a government

program that pays for necessary medical care for those who cannot afford it.
However, Medicaid refused to pay for home nursing care since there was
someone already in the home who was capable of providing the necessary care.
That person was the patient's twenty-two year old sister, who was willing to take
care of her brother until he was fully recovered. Their mother had died years ago
and the sister was accustomed to providing care for her younger siblings.
The patient had no objection to his sister providing this care, but he insisted that
she not be told that he had tested HIV positive. Though he had always had a
good relationship with his sister, she did not know that he was an active
homosexual. His even greater fear was that his father would hear of his
homosexual orientation and lifestyle Homosexuality is generally looked upon with
extreme disfavor among Hispanics.

The patient's physician is bound by his code of ethics that places a very high
priority on keeping confidentiality. That is, information about someone's medical
condition that he or she does not want known cannot be divulged by the
physician. Some would argue that the responsibility of confidentiality is even
greater with HIV/AIDS since disclosure of someone's homosexuality normally
carries devastating personal consequences for the individual who is forced "out
of the closet."

On the other hand, the patient's sister is putting herself at risk by providing
nursing care for him. Doesn't she have a right to know the risks to which she is
subjecting herself, especially since she willingly volunteered to take care of her
brother?

If you were the physician, what would you do in this case? Would you breach the
norm of confidentiality to protect the patient's sister, or would you keep
confidentiality in order to protect he patient from harm that would come to him
from his other family members, especially his father?

Perhaps as good a question as "what would you do" in this situation is the
question, "how would you decide what to do" in this situation? The process of
making a moral decision can be as important as the decision itself, and many
ethical decisions that people encounter are so complex that it is easy to exhaust
oneself talking around the problem without actually making any progress toward
resolving it. The response to many moral dilemmas is "where do I start?' and the
person who is faced with these decisions often needs direction that will enable
him or her to move constructively toward resolution and "see the forest for the
trees."

In order to adequately address the ethical dilemmas that people encounter

regularly, the following is a model that can be used to insure that all the
necessary bases are covered. This is not a formula that will automatically
generate the "right" answer to an ethical problem. Rather it is a guideline that is
designed to make sure that all the right questions are being asked in the process
of ethical deliberation.

Given the ethnic and religious diversity of our society, it is important that the
model used for making ethical decisions have "room" in it to accommodate a
whole host of different moral and ethical perspectives. This model is not tied to
any one particular perspective, but can be used comfortably with a variety of
cultural, ethnic and religious backgrounds. This is not a distinctively Christian
model, though it is consistent with the Scripture and any Christian can use
Biblical principles in utilizing this model. As was explored in chapter two, what
makes many moral dilemmas so difficult is that the Scripture does not speak to
the issue as clearly as one would prefer because Scripture has not directly
addressed the issue. More general principles can be brought to bear on the issue
at hand. However, in these instances, there is often disagreement about which
Biblical principles are applicable to the specific issue under discussion. For
example, in Case #1 (Please Don't Tell) the physician could invoke the Biblical
principle of compassion toward his patient in refusing to disclose information that
would harm him. But at the same time, he could invoke the same principle of
compassion toward the sister in protecting her from the risk of medical harm. It is
not clear that appeal to principles alone will conclusively resolve this case. Thus
to insist that all ethical dilemmas are resolved simply by appeal to Biblical
principles seems to oversimplify the case. Certainly many moral questions are
resolved conclusively by appeal to Scripture. But there are other cases in which
that does not happen. That is not to say that Scripture is not sufficient for the
believer's spiritual life, but that the special revelation of Scripture is often
supplemented by the general revelation of God outside Scripture. This model
makes room for both general and special revelation, and gives each a place in
helping to resolve the difficult moral dilemmas facing people today.

Here are the elements of a model for making moral decisions:ii

1. GATHER THE FACTS

Frequently ethical dilemmas can be resolved simply by clarifying the facts of the

case in question. In those cases that prove to be more difficult, gathering the
facts is the essential first step prior to any ethical analysis and reflection on the
case. In analyzing a case, we want to know the available facts at hand as well as
any facts currently not known but that need to be ascertained. Thus one is asking
not only "what do we know?" but also "what do we need to know?" in order to
make an intelligent ethical decision.

2. DETERMINE THE ETHICAL ISSUES

The ethical issue(s) are stated in terms of competing interests. It's these
conflicting interests that actually make for an ethical dilemma. The issues should
be presented in a __________ vs. __________ format in order to reflect the
interests that are colliding in a particular ethical dilemma. For example, many
ethical decisions, especially at the end of a patient's life can be stated in terms of
patient autonomy (or the right of the individual to make his or her own decisions
about medical care) vs. the sanctity of life (or the duty to preserve life). In Case
#1 above, the interests of the patient in having the physician keep confidentiality
conflict with the interests of his sister in being protected from the risk of
contracting the HIV virus.

3. WHAT PRINCIPLES HAVE A BEARING ON THE CASE?

In any ethical dilemma, there are certain moral values or principles that are
central to the competing positions being taken. It is critical to identify these
principles, and in some cases, to determine whether some principles are to be
weighted more heavily than others. Clearly Biblical principles will be weighted the
most heavily. There may be other principles that speak to the case that may
come from other sources. There may be Constitutional principles or principles

drawn from natural law that supplement the Biblical principles that come into play
here.

4. LIST THE ALTERNATIVES

Part of the creative thinking involved in resolving an ethical dilemma involves
coming up with various alternative courses of action. Though there will be some
alternatives which you will rule out without much thought, in general, the more
alternatives that are listed, the better the chance that your list will include some
high quality ones. In addition, you may come up with some very creative
alternatives that you had not considered before.

5. COMPARE THE ALTERNATIVES WITH THE PRINCIPLES

At this point, the task is one of eliminating alternatives according to the moral
principles that have a bearing on the case. In many instances, the case will be
resolved at this point, since the principles will eliminate all alternatives except
one. In fact, the purpose of this comparison is to see if there is a clear decision
that can be made without further deliberation. If a clear decision is not
forthcoming, then the next part in the model must be considered. At the least,
some of the alternatives may be eliminated by this step of comparison.

6. WEIGH THE CONSEQUENCES

If the principles do not yield a clear decision, then a consideration of the
consequences of the remaining available alternatives is in order. Both positive
and negative consequences are to be considered. They should be informally
weighted, since some positive consequences are more beneficial than others
and some negative consequences are more detrimental than others.

7. MAKE A DECISION
Deliberation cannot go on forever. At some point, a decision must be made.
Realize that one common element to ethical dilemmas is that there are no easy
and painless solutions to them. Frequently, the decision that is made is one that
involves the least number of problems or negative consequences, not one that is
devoid of them.

BACK TO CASE #1--PLEASE DON'T TELL!

Using the model, let's return to the case that began the chapter. This will illustrate
how the model is used and clarify exactly what is meant by each of the elements
in the model. Two additional cases will be presented and analyzed in the
framework of this model to insure that it can be used profitably.

1. GATHER THE FACTS

The relevant facts in this case are as follows:

The patient is a young man, infected with HIV and an active homosexual.

He suffered fairly severe abdominal wounds but is recovering well.

Homosexuality is looked down upon in Hispanic communities.

The patient has insisted that his physician maintain confidentiality about
his HIV status.

The patient is afraid of rejection by his father if his homosexuality is
discovered, an understandable fear given the way homosexuality is
viewed in the Hispanic community.

He was wounded by gunfire in gang violence. It is not clear but is a
reasonable assumption that he is a gang member. As a result, he likely
fears rejection and perhaps retribution from his fellow gang members,
especially if they discover that he is HIV positive.

He is uninsured and cannot afford home nursing care by a professional.

Medicaid refuses to pay for professional home nursing care.

The patient's sister is willing and able to provide the necessary nursing
care for her brother. She is accustomed to providing maternal-like care for
her brothers and sisters.

The patient has specifically requested that his sister not be told of his HIV
status. She does not know that he is an active homosexual.

The patient's sister would be changing fairly sizable wound dressings for
her brother and the chances are high that she would come into contact
with his HIV infected blood. The probability of her becoming infected with
the virus from this contact is difficult to predict.

2. DETERMINE THE ETHICAL ISSUE(S):

The competing interests in this case are those of the sister who will provide the
care and the patient who will receive it. Both have interests in being protected
from harm. The patient fears being harmed in a psycho-social way if his
homosexuality and HIV status were discovered. Thus he has put the physician in
a difficult situation by demanding that his right to confidentiality be kept. Though
she does not know it, his sister fears medical harm due to the risk of contracting
the HIV virus from contact with her brother's blood. This could be stated as a
conflict between confidentiality for the patient vs. the right to know the patient's
condition for his sister due to the risk she would be taking in giving him nursing
care. The conflict could be summarized by the need for patient confidentiality vs.
the duty to warn the sister of risk of harm.

3. WHAT PRINCIPLES HAVE A BEARING ON THE CASE?

Two moral principles that speak to this case come out of the way in which the
ethical issue is stated. This case revolves around a conflict of rights, a conflict of
duties that the physician has toward his patient and toward the sister. He is
called to exercise compassion toward both, but what compassion (or the duty to
"do no harm") demands depends on which individual in the case is in view. Thus
two principles are paramount. First is the widely recognized principle that patients
have a right to have their medical information kept confidential, particularly the
information that could be used to harm them if it were disclosed. But a second
principle that comes into play is the duty of the physician to warn interested
parties other than the patient if they are at risk of imminent and substantial harm.

One of the difficult aspects of any ethical decision is knowing what weight to give
the principles that are relevant to the case. Here, the principle of confidentiality is
considered virtually sacred in the medical profession and most physicians will
argue that it is necessary to keep confidentiality if patients are to trust their
physicians and continue coming for treatment. But confidentiality is often
considered subordinate to the duty to warn someone who will likely be harmed if
that information is not disclosed. For example, if a psychologist believes that his
patient will kill his wife, or beat her severely, he has a moral obligation to inform
the wife that she is in danger from her husband. The duty to warn someone from
imminent and severe harm is usually considered a more heavily weighted
principle than confidentiality in cases like these.

The key question here in weighting the principles of confidentiality and the duty to
warn (both fulfilling the Biblical notion of compassion toward those in need of it) is
the degree of risk that the patient's sister is taking by providing nursing care for
her brother. If the risk is not substantial, then that weights confidentiality a bit
more heavily. But if the risk is significant, then the duty to warn is the more
heavily weighted principle. This is particularly so given the fact that the sister has
volunteered to perform a very self-sacrificing service for her brother. Some would
argue that her altruism is an additional factor that weights the duty to warn
principle more heavily. Others would suggest that his contracting HIV is an
example of "reaping what one sows," and that minimizes consideration of the
patient's desire for confidentiality. An additional factor that should be figured into
the deliberation is that the risk to the patient, though it may have a higher
probability of happening, is not as severe as the risk to the sister. After all, if the
worst case scenario happened to the patient, his father would disown him and
the gang would throw him out (though their action could be more severe than
that). He would recover from all of that. But if his sister contracted HIV, she would
not recover from that. Though the probability of the worst case scenario is higher
for the patient, the results of the worst case are clearly higher for the sister.

4. LIST THE ALTERNATIVES:

In this case, there are a number of viable alternatives that involve compromise on
either the patient's part or his sister's. However, there are two alternatives that do
not involve compromise and they each reflect a weighting of the principles.

One alternative would be to tell the sister that her brother is HIV positive. This
alternative comes out of taking the duty to warn principle as higher priority. On
the other hand, a second alternative is to refuse to tell her that information,
upholding the patient's request for confidentiality and taking the confidentiality
principle as the one that carries the most weight.

However, there are other alternatives. For example, the physician could warn the
patient's sister in general terms about taking appropriate precautions for caring
for these types of wounds. She is to wear gloves and even a mask at all times
when handling the bandages. Should she get any blood on her clothes or body,
she is to wash immediately with a disinfectant soap. In other words, she is to take
universal precautions that any medical professional routinely takes in caring for
patients.
A further alternative is to request that the patient inform his sister of his condition.
He could then request that she not tell any other family member or any or his
friends. If he refused, then the next step might be to say to him in effect, "If you
don't tell her, I will."

5. COMPARE ALTERNATIVES WITH PRINCIPLES:

In many cases, the principles resolve the case. Depending on how one assesses
the relative weight of the principles, that may be the case here. In fact, it may be
that the alternative of encouraging universal precautions for the sister but not
telling her why, comes very close to satisfying all the relevant principles. But
certainly there are questions about the adequacy of those precautions. Will she
follow them, or treat them casually? However, assume for the moment that
appeal to principles does not resolve the dilemma.

6. ASSESS THE CONSEQUENCES:

Here the task is to take the viable alternatives that attempt to predict what the
likely consequences (both positive and negative) of each would be. In addition,
one should try to estimate roughly how beneficial are the positive consequences

and how severe the negative ones are, since some consequences are clearly
more substantial than others.

In many cases, when two opposing alternatives are presented, the

consequences of one are the mirror image of the other. This is the case here with
the alternatives of telling that sister, or refusing to tell her of her brother's HIV
status.
In the first alternative, that of telling the sister (or insisting that the patient tell his
sister), the likely consequences include the following:

The sister would be properly warned about the risks of taking care of her brother,
minimizing the risk of her contracting HIV, and saving her from the risk of
developing a fatal illness.

The brother's HIV status would be out in the open, leaving family and gang
friends to draw their own conclusions about his homosexuality. Should they draw
the right conclusion, which is likely, he suffers significant psycho-social harm
from his gang members, and possibly (though not certainly) from his family.

Trust with the physician and the patient suffers and he may refuse to see that
physician, or any other one again until a dire medical emergency. This would be
unfortunate since due to his HIV status, he will need ongoing medical care.

But if the physician refuses to disclose the information, the following may be
expected as the likely consequences:

The sister would not know about the risks she is taking, making her vulnerable to
contracting an infection for which there is no cure. The degree of risk that she is
taking is open to debate, but some would argue that if the degree of risk is any
more than minimal, that justifies warning her since the virus produces a fatal
disease.

The patient's HIV status is a well-kept secret, as his homosexuality. But it is not
likely that either his HIV status or his homosexuality can be kept a secret forever,
since as HIV develops into full-blown AIDS, both are likely to come out at some
point in the future.

Trust between the physician and patient is maintained.

If the alternative of telling the sister to take general precautions is taken, the
following are the likely consequences:

She may exercise appropriate caution in taking care of her brother, but she may
not. She may treat the precautions casually and unknowingly put herself at risk.
If the physician tells her about the precautions in very strong terms to insure her
compliance with them, that may start her asking questions about why the doctor
was so insistent on her following his precautions. In fact, one of the motives of
the physician might be to nudge her toward asking some of those questions, of
her brother, to further minimize the risk of contracting HIV.

In general, the patient's HIV status and homosexual orientation are kept secret,
and confidentiality is honored, but the question of how long it will remain a secret
is unknown and it is likely that it will become known eventually.

Trust with the physician and patient is maintained. However, if the sister is
nudged to ask her brother some pressing questions about why these precautions
are so important, he may conclude that the physician has prompted his sister to
ask these questions, leaving him feeling betrayed.

7. MAKE A DECISION
What would you decide in this case? Which principles are the most weighty? Are
there others that you would include? Which alternatives are the most viable? Are
there others that you would suggest? Which consequences seem to you the
most severe? Are there others that you think will occur? It is important to realize
that at some point you must stop deliberating and make a decision, as
uncomfortable as that may be.

i
Taken from the Hastings Center Report 22 (January/February 1992): ???.
ii
This model is adapted from the seven step model of Dr. William W. May, School
of Religion, University of Southern California, from his course, "Normative
Analysis of Issues."
=============================================================
Copyright © Scott Rae. All rights reserved. International copyright secured. Used
with author's permission.
The article originally appeared in the chapter one of Beyond Integrity, 1st edition,
published in 1996.
MORAL COURAGE
Dr. Manny Dy

Exercise:

Individual Reflection on a most recerit moral dilemma:

• How did I decide and what did I actually do?

• Did I actually execute what I plan to do?
by my
Sharing a recent moral dilemma of student X who was discovered
teaching assistant to have plagiarized a part of his paper.
. .

in the
Dilemma: after giving him an F for his.paper, should I file a case
issal?
Committee on Discipline which would mean suspension or dism
me personally
My decision: I asked him to write a letter to me to be given to
Committee
the following day explaining why I should not report him to the
on -Discipline.
gist of
He did write a handwi;itten1etter (2 pages yellow·p~d paper) the
his parents . .
which is begging me to give him another chance for the sake of
taught in _
But what touched me in the letter is his mention of what he was
to say 'I'm
grade school: when you do something wrong, it is not enough
sorry, I will not do it again.,' but also to ask for recompense.

Two insights from my experience:

1. Moral Imagination: my asking him to write that letter
reading the
2. Moral Courage: my not reporting him to the Committee after
letter.

Moral Imagination
bilities for
Mark Johnson: "an ability to imaginatively discern warious possi
and hann
acting within a given situation and to envision the potential help
that are likely to result from a given action."
courses of
Charles Latmore: "our ability to elaborate and appraise different
of moral
action which are only partially determined by the given content
lly best thing
rules, in order to learn what in a particular situation is the mora
 ,; .
~ --

moral judgement."
to do .. ..Mora l imagination belongs to ... the exercise of
(Werharne, p .. 92) ·

nces to
"Moral imagination, then, is the ability in particular circumsta
by that
discover and evaluate possibilities not merely determined
or merely framed
·circumstance; or limited by its operative mental mo<rlels,
95)
by a set of rules or rule-governed concems'."(Werhane, p.
ition for
• Moral imagination is a necessary but not a sufficient cond
moral decision-making.
• . Moral reasoning still needed.
we will still
• To be truly imaginative, we must be di~engaged, and yet
be operating within a scheme.
critical
"Moral imagination involves developing less partial and self-
ionship, for
perspectives. But this is obviously a dynamic; two- way relat
s schema requires
being self-critical and at the saine time cognizant of one'
r hand, this
lots of imagination on one particular situation. On the othe
one needs to
process is not just imaginative. To be morally imaginative,
l judgements,
appeal to good reasons as the ·basis for evaluation and mora
, social moral
good reasons supplied by the ideal of an impartial spectator
rds." (Werhane, p.
rules, expectations of common morality, and moral 'Standa
p7).
l goods? (Michael
Are we then tied to a relativistic notion of spheres of socia
Walser, Spheres ofJustice)

"Because different societies or different groups with in a

society C(?uld have
s, or the human good
quite disparate social goods~ one can define 'basi c good
' only contextually" (Walzer, chaper 1)
Thin)
"Mo ral Min imum s" (Michael Walzer, Through Thick and
·
• the mutual agreements on what is unjust
• Neg ative standards, the "bot tom lines"
periods, yet
• stiH subject to change according to different historical
.
appeal to impartial standards, still within limits of hum an
understanding and imagination.

Moral Cour age

 e, the.n "no one
• Socrates and Plato: virtue is knowledge and teachabl
does evil knowingly and willingly."
• When a man chooses that whicli.vde facto evil h, he choo
ses it sub
specie boni, what he imagines tov.-good}

Aristotle
ething good
• Aristotle: Knowledge not enough for I may kill.ow som
do it. Inner
and yet not do it, or I may know something bad and still
struggle between reason and will.
Three kinds of act:
Voluntary=knowledge and approval
Involuntary=knowledge and lack of approval
. Non-voluntary=no knowledge, and no approval
Only voluntary act can be held accountable ,
)Ji~

s is the good
• So, wha~'is mora~ courage? It is the will #ha t one know
or the will to avoid what one knows to be bad. .

Courage as Virtue
• Aristotle held that courage is a virtue. .
: L~tin word
• Original meaning of the contemporary word '"virtue"
manliness
"virtus'' ... In Latin "vir" means a man, and "virtus" means
s, it is the
synonymous with courage because in ancient barbaric time
n killing
man who protects the village from the enemy. Later, whe
nal
·was no longer an everyday act, cour.~ge ·came to mean inter
fortitude of both man and woman. (lmamichi)
.
. . .
. .

tion that will be ·

• Inner fortitude needed "when we should create a situa
d is
unpleasant for us. It takes courage to apologize. If a frien
doing. It takes
grieving, it takes courage to ask her directly how she is
really want
courage to volunteer to do something nice that you don 't
to do." (Raches, p. 177.) ·
) and
• Courage, a mean between two extreme: cowardice (lack
foolhardiness (excess)
people on
• Courage for the 19 hijackers who murdered almost 3000
September 11, 2001?
ch). So we
• Courage in ah unworthy cause is not a virtue· (Peter Gea
. should add "Moral" to courage.
• We need courage, because no one (not even the scholar) is free from
danger (Rachel, p.184).

• B~t we need ·courage (inner) even more to be moral!