The Role of Culture in Morality

Our existence as human persons is shaped by the world around us. Martin Heidegger calls
the human person as the “being-in-the-world”, much less, as “being-thrown-into-the-world” where
humanity, who had no choice when s/he was born, is left with the world to where he/she could
depend on his/her existence and exercise his/her freedom. In this world, as human persons, we
interpret our reality and create, in the words of contemporary philosopher Jurgen Habermas, our
“lifeworld”, the environment where we create meanings from our daily experience (Bohman
&Rehg,2014). Part of the lifeworld that contextualizes a person is the culture where he/she was
born and raised. Culture “is that complex whole which includes knowledge, belief, art, morals,
law, custom, and any other capabilities and habits acquired by man as a member of society." (Tylor
1958). It is the instrument societies use to adapt to their environment. It is "... a historically
transmitted pattern of meanings embodied in symbols, a system of inherited conceptions expressed
in symbolic forms through which men communicate, perpetuate, and develop their knowledge
about and attitudes toward life" (Geertz 1973: 89). To put it more simply, it is the way of life where
a community is conditioned and accustomed to living.

Culture shapes and forms the person more particularly in terms of moral development.
Along with personal identity, the human person also develops moral identity which can be defined
as “the degree to which being a moral person is important to an individual” (Hardy & Carlo,
2005)”. If the person values respect, honesty, being good to neighbors, and standing for justice and
rights, most likely, the person may develop a moral identity. This is being developed not without
in cultural context. For instance, studies have shown that while Western cultures tend to be
individualistic, Asians are inclined to be collectivist. In an individualist culture, “the person tends
to perceive him or herself as an independent self who pursues his or her interests and projects;
while in collectivist cultures, the person tends to perceive the self in an interdependent relationship
with others”(Markus & Kitayama, 1991 on Husted,2001). Cultural expectations, constructs, and
values serve as guiding principles of an individual in the decision-making process. So if one is
inclined to an individualistic culture, the person tends to consider his/her personal preferences and
values than a collectivist who tends to consider other people before making decisions. Perhaps in
choosing your course, you have become either individualistic or collectivist. Either you made a
decision based on your preference or asked others close to you about their opinions. You might be
playing your music too loud mindless of others who are asleep or you would rather wait for the
right time to enjoy it with them. Young people 18 years old decide to live on their own while here
in the Philippines, living with your parents and extended family is a common practice.

Moreover, due to cultural differences and environmental factors, we might find other
cultures as somewhat immoral and against our moral standards. For instance, Eskimos are
practicing wife swapping and offering sex as hospitality (Rubel 1961) while some parts of Fiji and
Papua New Guinea are still practicing cannibalism. Needless to say, the practices of abortion,
divorce, and the death penalty are tolerated in other countries but contradicted here in the
Philippines. Imagine living and growing up in cultures tolerant of these practices, because of
conditioning to these human conventions, seeing, hearing, or perhaps doing all of these will be
second nature. But comparing these practices to our culture you would automatically say they are
wrong. The differences in culture lead to conflicting notions of morality to the point that some
adhere to the idea that right and wrong depend on one’s perception of culture. Thus, being situated
is to be culturally conditioned. In the study of Ethics, the influences of culture matter especially in
the ethical decision-making of the human person.

The Filipino Culture: Loob, Hiya, Kapwa at Pandaraya

Local philosophers, anthropologists, sociologists, and even theologians have contributed

their reflections on the search for a truly Filipino Philosophy. Four of the many concepts they have
explored are “loob”, “hiya”, “kapuwa” and, recently, theologians included “daya” in moral
theology. Here we shall define and discuss first each term and eventually use them all together to
come up with Filipino Ethics.

Loob is a Filipino philosophical concept of the inner self. However, unlike the Western
orientation of compartmentalizing the will, reason, and emotions, the concept of loob shows “the
connectedness of intellectual, volitional and emotional and ethical” faculties of the human person
(Mercado, 1972). You might hear someone who says “Do not let your reason rule over your
emotion” or might have heard in philosophy classes the comparison of emotion and reason as two
horses in a chariot. This and other rational and segmental explanations of human faculties are
Western-oriented. But being an Oriental nation, the Philippines shares this tradition of unity of
human faculties and the concept of interiority with other Asian nations such as dharma in India,
Hsin in China, and leb in Hebrew culture. The loob or the interiority is expressed by the outer self,
the physical self, or pangangatawan. The body is not like a machine that the inner self can control
but rather, it is the “self” itself. Thus, the human person in this kind of philosophy is rightfully
called “embodied spirit” or beautifully said in Filipino “sumasakatawang-diwa” or “embodied
spirits implying that whatever the conditions of the inner self are what the body, the outer self
would show. There is no duality nor a separation of the body(soul) and spirit but only unity.

Now, ethically speaking, the Filipino Aesthetics (philosophy of beauty) contributes to the
philosophy of “loob” when we talk about “beauty”. “Ganda” or “Kagandahan” or “maganda” is
the Filipino concept of beauty where in ethical sense it speaks of “goodness, order, and truth and
guilessness” or “mabuti, maayos, totoo at walang daya”(De Mesa & Cacho, 2012). So that when
one says “maganda ang ating ginagawa” this means we are doing good, “magandang samahan”
means good relationship, and “gandang tunay at walang daya” is genuinely and winsomely
beautiful without guile or hypocrisy. When we speak of ethical and moral good acts in Filipino,
we think of actions that spring from “kagandahang-loob” or beauty from within which is physically
expressed by our outer self, our bodies or we can say “pinangangatwanan” Since we speak of
“loob-labas” connection, every action that we do be it freely and joyfully done or otherwise (bukal
sa kalooban vs. labag sa kalooban), it will flow from within and will be felt by those who receive
the gesture. Thus, those who have “magandang-loob” is an ethically upright person while those
who are called “masama, magulo at madaya” are unethical, immoral, or worst be called “evil”.
“Daya” or fake, treachery, or deception is proposed by Filipino theologians Jose De Mesa and
Rebecca Cacho as the rightful translation of sin, the theological equivalent of unethical and
immoral actions. While we have “mali” o “pagkakamali” and “kasalanan” as the opposite of
“tama” or “right”, both of these terms can be reduced as “mistake” or “missing the point” which
on some occasions, unintentional. Daya or pandaraya is never unintentional. No one will say “Pare
sorry hindi ko alam na nandadaya ako” in a game. Nobody cheats on exams and if caught would
say “Sorry, I do not know that I am cheating. “Daya” could also mean bad intentions disguised
through good deeds. We usually experience these through “user-friendly” friends who are present
when they are in need from you (how…), politicians who help the poor only when elections come
(legit!!!), “lovers” with flowers to cover up their affairs (oops, sorry!), students who pretend to be
good at their teachers (super oops!), etc. In other words “fake people with bad intentions”. It can
also pertain to artificial goods that sellers use to lure their buyers promising the beauty of the
product yet is fake and sub-standard. In terms of food, many artificial edible products are pleasing
to the eyes yet dangerous to our health and environment such as fast foods and junk foods. What
makes pandaraya greater than kamalian and kasalanan? It is the nature of awareness and intention
that makes “daya” unethical and immoral in the fullest sense because of the three integral parts of
the moral act that we discussed in the previous lesson (De Mesa&Cacho, pp.22- 30)

Be it in the local movies or real life, what do we usually hear when someone has wronged
the other? It is either “hayop ka!” or “walanghiya ka!” The first one connotes the degradation of
humanity into an animal (hayop in Filipino) stature every time an immoral act is committed against
the other. Although the first expression is indeed an insult to animals who are naturally not rational,
it means that the person lost the reasoning to act properly and therefore be likened to a beast usually
a swine. The second expression is the loss of honor, dignity. “Hiya” is usually translated as
“shame” in English and it could be in the Filipino context a feeling of embarrassment in a negative
sense and a notion of honor and pride in a positive sense. This trait springs from the collectivist
perspective where Filipinos are so conscious of what other people might say against or in favor of
their name. “Ayaw natin ng napapahiya tayo”. We do not want to get embarrassed in front of others.
As a sense of honor and pride, we strive hard to do everything possible to keep our dignity intact.
That is why when someone did something wrong and heinous you are called either walang hiya in
the sense of loss of dignity and nakakahiya ka (You are such a shame!) if it is in the context of
shame (kahihiyan). However, because also of keeping the honor and avoidance of embarrassment,
the fear of failure and shame makes Filipinos act unethically to cover up or evade humiliation. We
are inclined to pandaraya by telling lies and spreading rumors to destroy those we blame for our
failures, we cheat during exams because the failing grade is “nakakahiya”, we pretend to be all-
knowing just to avoid the shame of ignorance and the long lists of cover-ups goes on speaking,
“hiya” is linked to our face or “mukha”. Although the whole body is the physical manifestation of
the self, “Mukha” is where our identity lies. We flaunt our face when we know it is presentable
and on an honorable occasion but we cover it when we are disgraced just like those who are
publicly arrested because of a crime or defeated athletes after bragging and thrash talking to
discredit the opponents. But after being caught in the act of crimes, or being discovered a fraud,
corrupt, dishonest, and “mandaraya” yet still have the face to show others as if nothing wrong
happened and continuously doing shameful acts, these people are called “makapal ang mukha” or
“matigas ang mukha”, a version of “walang hiya” for those who are already indifferent to shame
and unmindful of honor.

The culture of loob, hiya and daya is always geared towards others or “kapuwa”. Derived
from the Spanish term “capoua” which means “equal” and “both” usually used for humans (Reyes,
2013). We usually translate it in English as “others” but it is utterly insufficient. “Kapuwa” is a
“recognition of shared identity, an inner self shared with others” while “other” is an individuated
self who is different from the “self”. Thus, kapuwa is “another self” (p.97) or the “shared self”
(p.98). Now since “loob” equals “self”, kapuwa, therefore, is “another loob”. Potentially, everyone
is kapuwa as we are interconnected by our humanity, particularly as Filipinos. But the genuine
actualization of relationship with kapuwa or “another loob” is when the kagandahang loob is
reciprocated by “utang na loob” or “depth of gratitude” or “indebtedness” (p.100). The reciprocal
relationship of kagandahang-loob and utang na loob constitutes a dynamic relationship of the self
and the “another self” which is expressed in ethical and moral ways. If every Filipino possesses
kagandahangloob, then, s/he will be ashamed of deceiving his/her “kapuwa”. And as a kapuwa
who is at the receiving end of kagandahang-loob we shoud be ashamed of “pandaraya” or else, we
will be marked as “walang utang na loob”, another way of saying wzlang hiya ka! So it is implied
that both kagandahang-loob and utang na loob should be possessed by every honorable and
dignified (may kahihiyan) Filipino to be truly ethical without any “daya”.

But no matter how beautiful our culture is, there is a danger when we make it the ultimate
standard of morality as it could go either in the right direction or otherwise. Hiya and utang na
loob are the two of the most compelling Filipino cultural concepts that could make or break the
ethical Pinoy. As such, the need for a more solid grounding of ethical theories and principles could
complement and supplement these cultural values to attain what is truly ethical and be aware of
what is truly unethical.