Lesson 7

Cultural Relativism
What is cultural relativism?
• Relativism states that “what is true for you is for you, and what is true for me is true for me.”
Analogously, cultural relativism would say, “what you believe, value or practice depends on your
culture while what I believe, value and practice, depends on my culture.” In other words, cultural
relativism is “the idea that a person’s beliefs, values, and practices should be understood based on
that person’s own culture, rather than be judged against the criteria of another.”
• Stated in another way: Cultural relativism is the view that moral or ethical systems, which vary from
culture to culture, are all equally valid and no one system is really “better” than any other. This is
based on the idea that there is no ultimate standard of good or evil, so every judgement about right
and wrong is a product of society. Therefore, any opinion on morality or ethics is subject to the
cultural perspective of each person. Ultimately, this means that no moral or ethical system can be
considered the “best”, or “worst”, and no particular moral or ethical position can actually be
considered “right” or “wrong.”
• In the context of cultural relativism, the manner by which the African women is treated in
comparison to that of the African man should not be judged against other culture’s standards
according to the previous lesson. This should be judged in the context of African culture, not in the
context of Christian culture.
Cultural Relativism vs Cultural
Perspective
• However, what the cultural relativist fails to see is the difference between cultural perspective and cultural
relativism. A perspective is a standpoint or viewpoint of something. For instance, there are as many
perspectives of a building, a house, as there are standpoints. You try to appreciate the design of a house
considering its various perspective, but you never judge the design based on only one perspective. Trying to
understand one’s culture, having a perspective of one’s culture, is needed to understand people.
• But it does not follow that morality must be based only on said culture: … the problem with moving from
cultural perspective to cultural relativism is the erosion of reason that it causes. Rather than simply saying “we
need to understand the morals of other cultures,” it says, “we cannot judge the morals of other cultures,”
regardless of the reasons for their actions. There is no longer any perspective, and it becomes literally
impossible to argue that anything a culture does is right or wrong. If we hold on to strict cultural relativism, it is
not possible to say that human sacrifice is “wrong”, or that respect for the elderly is “right.” After all, those are
products of the culture. This takes any talk of morality right over the cliff, and into meaningless gibberish.
• Likewise, logical analysis of cultural relativism yields contradictory implications: relativism in general breaks
down when examined from a purely logical perspective. The basic premise is that “truth is relative.” If every
truth statement is valid, then the statement “some truths are absolute” must be valid. The statement “there are
no absolute truths” is accurate, according to relativism – but it is an absolute truth itself. These contradict the
very concept of relativism, meaning that absolute relativism is self-contradictory and impossible.
Stated in Another Way:
• Tolerance is certainly a virtue… if morality is simply relative to each culture then if
the culture does not have a principle of tolerance, its members have no obligation
to be tolerant… from a relativistic point of view, there is no more reason to be
tolerant than to be intolerant and neither stance is objectively morally better than
the other.
• If valid criticism supposes an objective or impartial standard, relativists cannot
morally criticize anyone outside their own culture. Adolf Hitler’s genocidal actions,
so long as they are culturally accepted, are as morally legitimate as Mother
Teresa’s works of mercy. If Conventional Relativism is accepted, racism, genocide
of unpopular minorities, oppression of the poor, slavery and even the advocacy of
war for its own sake are as equally moral as their opposites. And if a subculture
decided that starting a nuclear war was somehow morally acceptable, we could
not morally criticize these people.
 Lesson 8
The Filipino Character
The Filipino Character: Weaknesses
• The weaknesses of the Filipino character as cited in the Moral Recovery Program: Building a
People, Building a Nation are as follows:
• Extreme Family Centeredness - Excessive concern for family means using one’s office and power to
promote family interests and thus factionalism patronage, political dynasties and the protection of
erring family members. It results in lack of concern for the common good, and acts as a block to
national consciousness.
• Extreme Personalism – “takes things personally”, cannot separate objective task from emotional
involvement. Because of this the Filipino is uncomfortable with bureaucracy, with rules and
regulations and with standard procedures. One uses personal contacts and gives preference to
family and friends in hiring, services, and even voting. Extreme personalism leads to the graft and
corruption evident in PH society.
• Lack of Discipline – A casual attitude toward time and space, manifested in lack of precision and
compulsiveness, in poor time management and procrastination. Aversion to following procedures
strictly results in short cuts, palusot, ningas cogon. Lack of discipline often results in inefficient
work systems, the violation of rules and a casual work ethic lacking follow through.
The Filipino Character: Weaknesses
• Passivity and Lack of Initiative – Waiting to be told what to do, reliance on others (leaders and
government), complacence, lack of a sense of urgency. There is high tolerance for inefficiency, poor
service, and even violations of one’s basic rights. Too patient and matiisin, too easily resigned to his
fate, the Filipino is easily oppressed and exploited.
• Colonial Mentality – Lack of patriotism, or of an active awareness, appreciation and love of the
Philippines and an actual preference for things foreign.
• Kanya-kanya Syndrome, talangka mentality – Done by tsismis, intriga, unconstructive criticism… It is
evident in the personal ambition that is completely insensitive to the common good, e.g., the lack of
a sense of service among people in the government bureaucracy. This results in the dampening of
cooperative and community spirit and in the trampling upon other’s rights.
• Lack of Self Analysis and Self-Reflection – The tendency to be superficial and somewhat flighty. In the
face of serious personal and social problems, there is a lack of analysis or reflection and instead
satisfaction with superficial explanations and solutions.
• Emphasis on Porma Rather than Substance - This lack of analysis and emphasis on form is reinforced
by an educational system that is more form than substance.
The Filipino Character: Weaknesses and
Strengths
• These weaknesses are rooted in many factors: home, social and economic environment; culture
and language; history; religion; educational system; mass media; leadership and role models.
Change is possible, however, and the following goals are proposed to develop in the Filipino: (1) a
sense of patriotism and national pride; (2) a sense of the common good; (3) a sense of integrity
and accountability; (4) the values and habits of discipline and hard work; (5) the value and habits
of self-reflection and analysis; the internalization of spiritual values and the emphasis on essence
rather than on form.
• In the same report in 1988, Senator Leticia Shahani said, the strengths of the Filipino character
are (1) pakikipagkapwa-tao; (2) family orientation; (3) joy and humor; (4) flexibility, adaptability
and creativity; (5) hard work and industry; (6) faith and religiosity and (7) ability to survive.
• There is so much good in the Filipino but so much needs to be changed, too. Many of our
strengths as a people are also sources of our weaknesses. Shahani’s report explains that “family
orientation becomes in-group orientation that prevents us from reaching out beyond the family to
the large community and the nation.” For the Filipino, charity begins at home and at the same
time ends there.
Values Education in Schools
• So that it will not be “more form than substance” as described in
Senator Sahani’s Report, Philippine schools have to intensify values
educations in the curriculum which in essence is moral education. In
fact, in response to this report, Values Education now Edukasyon sa
Pagkakatao in the K to 12 Curriculum was introduced as a separate
subject in the basic education under the Values Education Framework
program of Dr. Lourdes Quisumbing.
• To help every Filipino child grow morally and ethically, he/she must be
helped acquired the strengths of the Filipino character at the same
time, he/she must be made to realize that his/her strengths also
become his/her source of weaknesses.
Other Studies on Filipino Moral Character
• One study identified the “kami” mentality of Filipinos. In defining “kami” (a Filipino term
which means “us”), this basically states “I identify with my family and relatives… We are
opposed to all who are not kami.” This can be perceived as a way of thinking that
emphasizes “group-centeredness” or “group-centeredness” wherein one’s in-group
determines for the individual what is right or wrong.
• “What will others say” usually determines Filipino moral behavior; it is conscience from
the outside. “For instance, parents tell their daughter who is being courted: “Iha, please
entertain your boyfriend at home. Do not go outside. What will the neighbors say?
Nakakahiya naman.” Here, there is a conflict between the individual and social morality,
between internal and external morality. The norm of morality should be internalized so
that the mature individual should form his/her own moral “conscience from the inside”.
• This “group thinking” can also be called “sakop mentality” by other academicians. The
sakop may refer to “person’s relatives, peers etc.” This thinking or mentality explains the
“pakikisama” in both positive and negative sense.
Graded Recitation Questions:
• Is cultural perspective the same as cultural relativism? Why or why not?
• Illustrate examples of cultural perspective and cultural relativism.
• Explain cultural relativism from your own understanding.
• How does cultural relativism differ from cultural perspective?
• What is the strength of cultural relativism? What is a weakness of cultural relativism?
• What does extreme family centeredness mean? Cite an example.
• What does extreme personalism mean? Cite an example.
• What does lack of discipline mean? Cite an example.
• What does passivity and lack of initiative mean? Cite an example.
• What does colonial mentality mean? Cite an example.
• What does kanya-kanya syndrome/talangka mentality mean? Cite an example.
• What does lack of self-analysis and self-reflection mean? Cite an example.
Graded Recitation Questions:
• What does emphasis on porma rather than substance mean? Cite an example.
• What does pakikipagkapwa-tao mean? Cite an example.
• What does faith and religiosity mean in the Filipino context? Cite an example.
• What does flexibility, adaptability, and creativity mean in the Filipino context? Cite
an example.
• What does family orientation mean in the Filipino context? Cite an example.
• What does hard work and industry mean in the Filipino context? Cite an example.
• What does the “kami”- mentality mean in the Filipino context? Cite an example.
•