Before the discussion starts…

▪ Is Ethics relative? (Group yourselves in 4)

1. Make a list of 5 things that you would say might be wrong in
certain situations.
2. Compare your list with other groups and come up with a
common list with which you agree. Order the items, from
“most likely to always be wrong” to “least likely to always be
wrong”
3. Pick one of the 5 items and give a plausible exception where
you might be justified in breaking the rule; and discuss it in
class. Most justified group will win. (50 pt. worth quiz for the
winners)
 A Brief History of Relativism

▪ Began with the Stoics There are no universal

forms beyond this world –
▪ Plato criticized the forms are in the world and
therefore not absolute.
Stoics with his theory Moral behavior should be a
of the forms (and midway approach between
ethical absolutism) two extremes; human
circumstances are infinite
and it is not possible to
▪ Aristotle disagreed have a general rule which
with Plato: will cover every
situation. Moral rules
hold for the most part but
there are times when they
won’t.
Aristotle’s Virtue Ethics

▪ Ethics is not absolute, it should seek a midway

approach to behavior between two extremes.
▪ Virtue is the mean between two extremes

Example:
Cowardly Courageous Rash
Vice of Deficiency Virtuous Mean Vice of Excess
 Relativism in Modernity…
▪ For millennia, most people believed
that right is right and wrong is
wrong, and that was all there is to it.
14th April 2007 ▪ Now university lecturers report that
Julian Baginni their fresh-faced new students take it
as obvious that there is no such thing
as “the truth” and that morality is
relative.
In educated circles at least,
only the naïve believe in
objectivity.
Ethical Relativism and
the Ambivalence of
Filipino Cultural
Values
Culture and Moral Behavior

▪ Culture plays an important roles in the development

of one’s moral character; at such point that some
philosophers consider culture as inseparable from
morality.
▪ To disregard culture is to have a groundless
metaphysical generalities.
▪ For some; Morality = result of Cultural Factors.
▪ Ethical Relativism – a framework where morality
does not rest on culture.
Ethical Relativism Defined
It refers to a view or doctrine that ethical values and beliefs are relative
to the time, place, persons, situations and societies that hold them.
 Ethical Relativism

• A theory that holds that there

are no universally valid moral
principles; all moral values are
valid relative to culture of
individual choice – thus,
subjective.
• Relativism does not try to tell
us which acts and practices are
right and wrong; it says no
matter how we answer that
question, we must
acknowledge that a conduct
may be both right and wrong
at the same time [right in one
culture, and wrong in another].
Arguments for Ethical
Relativism
The Cultural Differences Argument

▪ There is an actual existence of moral diversity among

culture.
▪ There is no universal or transcultural consensus on which
actions are right and wrong, “even though there is a
considerable overlapping with regards to this.”
▪ However, “acquaintance with the wide diversity of moral
beliefs across societies” may lead us to deny that there is
really only one correct moral code.
The Argument from Respect

▪ If moral codes differ from culture and there is

no objective basis, then there is no special
status of any culture.
▪ No culture has the right to impose its cultural
values.
▪ Thus, the appropriate attitude would be to
respect it.
▪ People should stop being too dogmatic on one’s
culture and claim themselves to be right, and
thus just respect other’s claims to be
“different.”
The Psychological Argument

▪ This argument rests on a conclusion that; “One’s values are

conditioned through parental rearing.”
▪ If we would be brought up differently, then our moral
principles would be different as well.
▪ There would be no such thing as objective truth in ethics.
▪ Moral truth is relative to one’s own psychological
upbringing.
The Conformity Argument

▪ Some people accept Ethical Relativism because they think

that people should conform with the ethical code of their
respective societies; some even think that it is their duty.
▪ Through Cultural Relativism, people would come to be
more accepting of their own societal norms.
▪ Their belief gives a good basis for a common morality
within a culture.
▪ Diverse ideas and principles are pooled in.
The Provability Argument

▪ Each person is at lost in knowing

the morally “RIGHT THING” to do
in a particular situation.
▪ This leads to an attitude of
skepticism.
▪ Its main argument lies: if there is
such a thing as objective truth in
ethics we should be able to prove
that some moral opinions are true
and others false.
Critical Evaluation of
Ethical Relativism
 On Cultural Diversity

▪ Cultural Relativism is indeed sociological and anthropological

fact; however, it does not establish the truth of ethical
relativism.
▪ The point is: “Does cultural relativism imply ethical relativism?”
▪ Relativism self destructs.
▪ If “morality is relative to one’s culture” is followed, it is in itself a
contradiction – since, if everything is relative then the very
truth of relativism would also be relative.
 On the Argument from Respect
▪ This is the kind that render tolerance in face of something unfamiliar and
contradictory which seem to be an attitude of mature and enlightened
mind.
▪ If there is no way of criticizing other culture then we might as well as
accept it – INTERCULTURAL TOLERANCE [by Herskovits]
▪ Contention: “If people believe that there is ethical relativism, then they
will be more tolerant of moral differences.”
▪ The main question is: “How do we really know that one would be tolerant
and respectful?” There is no empirical evidence.
▪ Another: “Acceptance of it involves one in some sort of contradiction,
while tolerance is a virtue, it could not be practiced consistently.
 On the Psychological Argument

▪ In Moral Skepticism, Rachels points out a flaw in the argument,

he says, “even granting the truth of the premise, that we do
acquire our moral beliefs by a process like the one psychologists
described, the conclusion that if we had been conditioned
differently, we would have different moral beliefs, thus there’s no
such thing as objective moral truth, does not follow, hence
unsound and invalid.”
▪ The conclusion does not follow from the premises.
▪ Commits the Genetic Fallacy and Fallacy of Misrepresentation.
 On the Conformity Argument

▪ Morality is dependent on the majority, which is problematic for

the argument.
 On the Provability Argument

▪ Normal Proof – can be proven.

▪ Standard Scientific Sense of Proof – cannot be proven.
▪ Human beings are in a constant disagreement.
▪ We are uncertain about the morality of some of our actions and
decisions, and cannot really prove them beyond reasonable
doubt.
▪ Even though there were no solid way to know moral truths, it
would not follow that there are no such truths.
The Ambivalence of Filipino
Values
 The Ambivalence of Filipino
Traits and Values
▪ Filipinos are sometimes
called “ambivalent,” as it is a
product of our complex
history.
▪ According to Dr. Quito, we
have a “weak character” that
is comprised as the
“scapegoat of our failures.”
▪ Does these characters make
up of our “being a Filipino?”
 The Ambivalence of Filipino
Traits and Values

1. Hiya (Shame)
– Negative – arrests one’s actions (“morality of the slave” by
Nietzsche)
– Positive – contributes peace of mind by not doing anything
2. Ningas-cogon (Procrastination)
– Negative – begins ardently and dies down as soon as it begins.
– Positive – the person is non-chalant, detached and indifferent,
thus conducive to peace and tranquility.
 The Ambivalence of Filipino
Traits and Values

3. Pakikisama (Group Loyalty)

– Negative – because one closes one’s eyes to evil like graft and
corruption in order to achieve peace and harmony.
– Positive – because one lives for others.
4. Patigasan (Test of Strength)
– Negative – stubborn and resists all efforts at reconciliation. This trait
makes us childish, vindictive, irresponsible and irrational.
– Positive – it is a sign that we know our rights and not easily cowed into
submission. (Nietzsche’s will-to-power)
 The Ambivalence of Filipino
Traits and Values

5. Bahala Na (Resignation)
– Negative – one leaves everything to chance under the pretext of
understanding in Divine providence.
– Positive – one relies on superior power rather than one’s own.
Conducive to humility, modesty and lack of arrogance.
6. Kasi (Because, i.e. Scapegoat)
– Negative – because one disowns responsibility and makes scapegoat
out of someone or something; there is always an alibi.
– Positive – one sees both sides of the picture; knows where the project
failed; one will never suffer from guilt.
 The Ambivalence of Filipino
Traits and Values

7. Saving Face
– Negative – it enables a person to avoid responsibility.
– Positive – one’s psyche is saved from undue embarrassment;
will enable someone to make a graceful exit.
8. Sakop (Inclusion)
– Negative – one never learns to be on one’s own but relies on
one’s family and relatives. Generates a life of parasitism.
– Positive – shows concern for the family where the agent
belongs.
 The Ambivalence of Filipino
Traits and Values

9. Mañana or Bukas Na/ Mamaya Na (Procrastination)

– Negative – one constantly postpones action and accomplishes
nothing.
– Positive – one is without stress and tension; one learns to take
what comes naturally.
10. Utang na Loob (Indebtedness)
– Negative – one overlooks moral principles when one is
indebted.
– Positive – it is a recognition of one’s indebtedness.
 The Ambivalence of Filipino
Traits and Values

11. Kanya-Kanya (Self-Centeredness)

– Negative – one has no regard for others.
– Positive – one takes care of oneself and one’s family. “Blood is
thicker than water.”