Ethics and morality

Introduction

Ethics (Greek ethika, from ethos,  “character,” “custom”), principles or standards of human

conduct, sometimes called morals (Latin mores,  “customs”), and, by extension, the study of such
principles, sometimes called moral philosophy. From the etymology of ethics and morality, they
both speak of character and a customary way of doing good/bad and right/wrong. Custom
refers to tradition or community habit. Hence, it is something a community of persons always
does in a particular way; a way a person or community usually or routinely behaves in a
particular situation. According to Gaffney (1979), the difference is basically between the realm of
theory and the realm of practice. Ethics refers to a set of ideas, principles or convictions
determining what one considers right and wrong in moral conduct, whereas morality refers to
practical behavior as judged according to someone’s ideas about right and wrong. Ethics points
to how one thinks about right and wrong and morality points to actual conduct with respect to
its rightness or wrongness. At the outset, ethics and morality have somehow almost a
comparable meaning, although ethics is sometimes limited to the concern for the individual
character and morality to the rules concerning good and bad. For the purpose of this course,
both ethics and morality will be used interchangeably while keeping in mind the distinction to
avoid a category error.

According to Meacham (2011), the primary task of ethics, or morality, is to guide one’s actions.
To guide one’s actions may seem obviously easy. Any person in general, through the rule of
thumb, would readily distinguish what is good from what is bad, and what is right from what is
wrong. A striking problem arises when an individual could hardly make a fine line distinction
between what is good from what is right. This is because what is right does not necessarily mean
that it is good, and vice versa, what is good does not necessarily mean that it is right. In other
words, there are many ways of thinking about ethics whose focuses are on whether specific
actions are good or bad, or right or wrong. They help an individual decide what should be done
in a particular case or class of cases, or evaluate the actions that a person has done.

Meacham (2011) describes two ways of thinking about ethics, which manifest themselves as two
clusters of concepts and language, or domains of discourse, used to recommend or command
specific actions or habits of character: they are called the good and the right (The subsequent
discussion was availed with a special permission from the author).

The Good and the Right

 
The good has to do with achievement of goals; the right, with laws and rules. The goodness
paradigm recognizes that people have desires and aspirations, and frames values in terms of
what enables a being to achieve its ends. The rightness paradigm recognizes that people live in
groups that require organization and regulations, and frames values in terms of duty and
conformance to rules. Goodness and rightness “are not complementary portions of the moral
field but alternative ways of organizing the whole field to carry out the tasks of morality.”

Another approach, virtue ethics, focuses on qualities of character and motives for action. Within
Virtue Ethics the distinction between the good and the right is also applicable. Questions about
what sort of character traits one should cultivate can be answered on the basis either of what is
good or of what is right. Compassion and insight are typical goodness virtues, and a disposition
of conscientious obedience is a typical rightness virtue.

The good and the right each have their area of applicability; they often get confused and
students need to know the difference so that errors in ethical judgements are avoided.

The Good

What is good has to do with benefits. Something that benefits something or someone else is
called good for that thing or person. We can think of this instrumentally or biologically.
Instrumentally, an android phone is good for sending emails, sending and receiving text
messages, watching movies, playing online and offline games, shopping and many other
activities; what is good for the phone is what enables it to do so well. Biologically, air, water, and
food are good for living beings.

Instrumentally, what is good for a thing enables that thing to serve its purpose. To make sense,
an instrumental usage of the term “good” requires reference to somebody’s purpose or
intention. Thus, all products of technologies are good for students, professionals, businessmen
and everybody in this fast-paced environment for so many reasons. We want the comfort and
utility they afford us. The instrumental usage is expressed in terms of usefulness, of utility for
achieving a purpose or intention. Some gadgets are better than others in that they have better
and updated software and applications and thus can be used more effectively and efficiently.

The instrumental usage leads to the biological usage. Why is it good for human beings to have
comfort and utility? It is because comfort and utility nourish us and keep us alive. Unlike the
instrumental usage, the biological usage does not require reference to conscious purpose or
intention.

The biological usage is expressed in terms of health and well-being. Biologically, what is good
for an organism is what helps it survive and thrive, what nourishes it. Some things are better for
us than others in this respect. For instance, a diet of whole grains and vegetables is better, in the
sense of providing better health for humans, than a diet of simple carbohydrates and fats.
Another example: some plants need full sunlight to thrive, and others need shade; thus full
sunlight is good for the former, and shade is good for the latter. The good, in this sense, is that
which enables a thing to function well.

The instrumental usage intersects the biological when we consider what is good for something
that is itself good for a purpose or intention. For instance, keeping one’s clothes clean and taken
cared of from dirt is good for the clothes; if they get too dirty or tattered easily to provide a
good impact on your personality, they are not useful as clothes. So we can talk about what is
good for the clothes in a way that is analogous to what is good for a living being. The good, in
this sense also, is that which enables a thing to function well.

The approach to ethics that emphasizes goodness is called the teleological approach, from a
Greek word, telos, which means “end”, “purpose”, or “goal”. Biologically, what is good for an
organism helps that organism survive and thrive. Instrumentally, what is good for a thing
enables that thing to serve its purpose.

Just as good is defined in relation to an end, the value of the end is defined in relation to
another end. For instance, a hammer is good for driving nails. Driving nails is good for, among
other things, building houses. We build houses to have shelter and warmth. And we desire
shelter and warmth because they sustain our life. This chain of goods and ends stretches in both
directions from wherever we arbitrarily start looking.

This approach is also sometimes called a consequentialist approach or an effect-oriented

approach because both usages give meaning to the term “good” by reference to the
consequences or effects of an action or event. That whole grains are good for humans means
that the effect of eating them is healthful. That a cellphone is good for faster communication
means that using it for that purpose is likely to have the effect you want.

The Goodness approach to ethics uses the terms “good” and “bad” and their variants and
synonyms to evaluate actions, things, people, states of affairs, etc., as well as maxims or
guidelines for conduct. Some synonyms for “good” in this context are “helpful,” “nourishing,”
“beneficial,” “useful” and “effective.” Some synonyms for “bad” are their opposites: “unhelpful,”
“unhealthy,” “damaging,” “useless” and “ineffective.”

There are degrees of goodness and its opposite, badness. That some plants need full sunlight to
thrive and others need shade means that full sunlight is good for the former and not so good
for the latter.

An ethics – a set of moral principles or values – based on goodness applied to concerns about
choices between courses of action will ask questions about the anticipated or hoped-for
benefits of one course of action as opposed to another. An ethics based on goodness applied to
concerns about character will ask questions about the anticipated or hoped-for effects on one’s
habitual way of approaching life of one course of action as opposed to another.
The Right

What is right has to do with conformance to rules or regulations. This is easy to see in non-
ethical situations. For instance, the right answer to “9 divided by 3” is 3. We apply a
mathematical rule, the rule for how to do long division, and derive the right, or correct, answer.
In ethical situations, we apply a moral rule to determine what the right course of action is. If one
finds a wallet with some money in it and the owner's identification as well, the right thing to do
is to return the money to the owner because it is wrong to keep something that does not
belong to one, especially if one knows who the owner is. The moral rule in this case is “it is
wrong to keep something that does not belong to you.”

The approach to ethics that emphasizes rightness is called the deontological approach, from a
Greek word, deon, that means “duty.” A person does her duty when she acts according to the
moral rules. We could also call this a rules-based approach. (By “rules” we mean prescribed
guides for conduct, not generalizations that describe physical reality, such as the laws of
nature). 

According to the deontological approach, an action is justified on the basis of a quality or

characteristic of the act itself, regardless of its consequences. That characteristic is its
conformance to a rule. Morality is concerned with identifying and obeying moral rules. It is right
to obey the rules and wrong to disobey them. Any particular act can be judged right or wrong
according to whether and to what extent it conforms to the moral rules. A central concern, then,
is to identify the rules so one can make sure one is acting in accordance with them. Once the
rules are established, all one needs to do in order to be moral is to do one's duty, which is to act
in accordance with the rules.

The language associated with this school uses the terms “right” and “wrong” to evaluate actions.
Some synonyms for “right” are “proper,” “legal” and “correct.” Some synonyms for “wrong” are
“improper,” “illegal” and “incorrect.”

The problem, of course, is how to determine the moral rules. Humans seem to have an innate
sense of morality, of right and wrong; but, notoriously, the actual set of rules they espouse
varies from culture to culture. Although many people unreflectively adopt the rules taught them
by their parents, teachers, religious leaders and culture, the task of philosophy is to provide a
rational grounding for one’s choice of what rules to follow. Philosophers have proposed
numerous ways of determining what the rules are, such as divine command, the dictates of pure
reason, and using an intuitive moral sense to apprehend an unseen but existent world of values.
So far, there is no agreement on which of these is correct.

The primary meaning of “right” in an ethical context is conformance to moral rules. There are a
number of other uses of the term “right” in addition to conformance to moral rules, such as the
following:
Correct, truthful, as in “the right answer.” This implies that rightness is exclusive, that there is one
right answer or opinion and that others are wrong.

The best possible option or a very good option, as in “the right choice.” This also implies
exclusivity, but is problematic. Often one does not need to do what is best. Sometimes one only
needs to do something good enough to get a useful response, a response that gives feedback
so one can further hone one’s strategy, one’s response to what is happening.

Fitting, appropriate, in harmony with the way things are. This sense is more akin to the goodness
paradigm. It asserts an aesthetic component of rightness, as when one artistically puts an
element of a composition in “the right place.”

What the speaker approves of or assumes people generally approve of. This is an uncritical
usage and is the least useful.

Confusion between the Good and the Right

All too often people confuse the notions of good and right. Both concepts apply to what one
should do, and often the debate is really about persuading someone to act in a certain way.
Clarity of language and conceptual rigor seem to be less important than rhetoric. Here is an
example on iPhones and android phones: “Some phones are problematic to unsuspecting
consumers. We certainly respect companies’ desires to protect their products, but the whole
thing has become a mess. You want to install some very important applications, and guess what,
they do not work as they should, and you have to ask help from a lot of people to make them
work, and worst you are paralyzed of an activity if they do not totally function well. That's just
wrong.”

This argument quoted is partly in terms of the effects of some phones on unsuspecting
consumers – they have to jump through hoops, and doing so is undesirable – and partly in
terms of some unstated moral rule. 

Here is another example: “With the glaring poverty being experienced by almost all Filipinos
including average families, both the senate and congress should be figuring out more ways for
poor families to have foods on their table and eat three times a day. Unfortunately, it appears
both the TRAIN Law and Rice Tariffication Law have found their way to stab the poor and send
them to their graves alive. That is wrong ....” “With the Balik Probinsya Program of the
government on this pandemic, a lot of locally stranded individuals in the National Capital Region
(NCR) are transporting the Corona Virus to the provinces thereby deliberately spreading the
virus. That is a wrong …”
Again, one does not need to understand TRAIN Law or Rice Tariffication Law to understand what
the remark is pointing but then says “That is wrong” as if the lack of benefits of TRAIN Law or
Rice Tariffication Law is what caused it to be wrong. It is the same way with the remark on the
Balik Probinsya Program of the government. 

It is this way of using “right” and “wrong” – to express emphatically one’s approval or
disapproval – that leads some thinkers to assert that moral discourse is actually meaningless and
merely expresses the speaker’s preference or the speaker’s attempt to influence someone else’s
behavior.

Why It Matters

If someone says something is good, one can always ask “good for what?” If someone says
something is right, one can always ask “according to what rule?” The two domains of discourse
really are separate, and it is not useful to mix them. Mixing them is a form of category error, that
is, an error “by which a property is ascribed to a thing that could not possibly have that
property.” That something has good effects does not make it right. That something is in
accordance with a moral rule does not make it good.

Implication to Following Rules

Rules are not just sufficient but rather necessary to social beings in the promotion of the
common good in every society. Making the distinction between good and right is important
because it promotes clarity of thought and allows an individual to assess oneself and
understand why rules have to be followed. It does not mean, however, that clarity of language is
a necessary condition for clarity of thought, but it certainly helps. The clearer one’s thinking, the
more likely one is to follow rules. Accurate thinking based on accurate perception leads to
accuracy of action, action that leads to attainment of one’s goals.
 Moral versus Non-Moral Standards

Introduction

Moral Standards are principles, norms or models an individual or a group has about what is
right or wrong, what is good or bad. It is an indication of how human beings ought to exercise
their freedom. Norms are expressed as general rules about our actions or behaviors. Some
examples are: “Take responsibility for your actions”; “Always tell the truth”; “Treat others as you
want to be treated”; “It is wrong to kill innocent people”. Values are underlying beliefs and ideals
that are expressed as enduring beliefs or statements about what is good and desirable or not.
Some examples are: “Honesty is good”; “Injustice is bad.” Moral Standards are a combination of
norms and values. They are the norms about the kinds of actions believed to be morally right or
wrong, as well as, the values placed on what we believe to be morally good and morally bad. In
other words, they point us towards achievable ideals (De Guzman, 2018).

What moral standards do? First, they promote human welfare or well-being; second, they
promote the “good” (animals, environment, and future generations); and third, they prescribe
what humans ought to do in terms of a.) Rights (responsibilities to society); and b.) Obligations
(specific values/virtues).

Non-Moral or Conventional Standards are standards by which we judge what is good or bad

and right or wrong in a non-moral way. Some examples are: good or bad manners, etiquettes,
house rules, technical standards in building structures, rules of behavior set by parents, teachers,
other authorities, the law, standards of grammar or language, standards of art, rules of sports,
and judgments on the way to do things. Hence, we should not confuse morality with etiquette,
law, and 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
an individual a moral person. Violation of said standards also does not pose any threat to
human well-being.

Some individuals may have heard the term “Amoral” (n.d). What makes this word different from
the descriptions above? It means not influenced by right and wrong. If a person who is immoral
acts against his conscience, a person who is amoral does not have a conscience to act against in
the first place. Infants could be said to be amoral since they have not yet developed a mature
mind to understand right and wrong. Some extreme sociopaths are also amoral, since they lack
a conscience as a result of a cognitive disorder. In other words, an immoral person has a sense
of right and wrong but fails to live up to those moral standards. An amoral person has no sense
of right and wrong and does not recognize any moral standard.
Another word that needs clarification is the adjective “Unmoral” (n.d.). It refers to something to
which right and wrong are not applicable, such as animals, forces of nature, and machines. For
example, Typhoons cause damages to properties and loss of lives but they are unmoral, since
they are formed by unconscious natural processes that exist outside the bounds of morality.
When talking about non-moral agents, such as animals or weather patterns, we use unmoral.

“Moral norms” (n.d.) have different forms. They can be expressed as principles, dispositions,
character traits, and even through the life of a person. These are different ways of specifying
criteria for moral judgments.

Metaphors for Moral Standards

1. Carpenter’s Square

Moral norms are like a carpenter’s square used to measure human freedom and construct
morally good character and right actions. Moral norms are standards or criteria for judging and
acting. Its purpose is first, to provide moral standards, criteria, or measures for judging; and
second is to guide one’s conscience in making moral judgments.

2. Moral Road Signs

Moral road signs are guides to being and doing; they are indications or directions to types of
actions that are right or wrong, obligatory or permitted. Its purpose is to preserve and protect
moral goods and values by guiding us; and to focus our attention on what is morally important.

3. A Model for an Art Class

Moral norms are ideals indicating who we ‘ought’ to become and what we ought to do. They are
models and patterns for how to do so. Hence, the purposes of moral norms are to provide
models to help us concretize our values and realize our ideals, and to prioritize our values and
help us to fit them with our circumstances.

 
4. An Architect’s Blueprint for a Building

Moral norms are a set of instructions and expectations for the moral life. Their purposes are: to
teach moral wisdom of a community and serve as moral reminders of communal wisdom; and,
to set moral expectation that shape how we see and act.

Five Characteristics of Moral Standards

1. Involved with serious injuries or benefits

They deal with situations, conditions and behaviors we think can seriously injure or significantly
benefit the well-being and the good of human beings, animals and the environment. Some
examples are fraud, theft, murder, assault, rape, slander, etc…

2. Not established by law or legislature

Moral standards are not formed or changed by the decision of particular authoritative bodies
such as the senate or congress or even the college of bishops of the Church. The validity of
these moral standards lies on the adequacy of the reasons that are taken to support and justify
them. We do not need a law to back up our moral conviction that killing innocent people is
absolutely wrong.

3. Overriding

They should be preferred to other values including self-interest. If a person has a moral
obligation to do something, then the person ought to do that even if this conflicts with other
non-moral values or self-interest. At work, for instance, moral values of honesty and respect for
lives come first rather than compromising them for keeping a well-paid job.

4. Based on impartial considerations

Moral standards do not evaluate on the basis of the interest of one particular individual or
group but one that goes beyond personal interests to a universal standpoint in which everyone’s
interest is objectively counted as equal.
 

5. Associated with special emotions and vocabulary

Emotions such as guilt and shame, and vocabulary such as right, wrong, good and bad revolve
around moral standards. The feeling of guilt, shame and remorse arise as an individual act
contrary to certain moral standards. If your heart and mind tell you an action you have done had
an unsettling and seemingly disconcerting ending, then the action was probably morally wrong
and not the best way to react. For example: A young man helps an old lady to cross the street in
order to impress the ladies on the other side of the road but then he feels guilty about it when
he reflects on what he just did.

Moral Dilemmas

Introduction

A dilemma is a situation in which a difficult choice has to be made between two or more alternatives,
especially equally undesirable ones. It is a conflict in which you have to choose between two or more
actions and have moral reasons for choosing each action.

1) An individual is presented with two or more actions, all of which the individual has the ability to
perform.
2) There are moral reasons for the individual to choose each of the actions.
3) The individual cannot perform all of the actions and have to choose which action, or actions to
perform when there are three or more choices.

Since there are moral reasons to choose each action, and the individual cannot choose them all, it
follows that no matter what choice the individual makes, he or she will be failing to follow his or her
morals. In other words, someone or something will suffer no matter what choice he or she makes.

Three Levels of Moral Dilemmas

Individual Moral Dilemma
This is a moral dilemma that involves the individual on a personal level. Factors such as personal health
issues, family issues, personal financial issues, peer pressures and socio-economic issues among many
others may lead to ethical tensions within the person himself. Example: A child in the family is in a
dilemma whether to donate his kidney for the sake of his sister or not considering that there may be
some health complications that may arise in the future.

Organizational Moral Dilemma

This is a moral conflict that occurs in the organization or institution where individuals within the
organization will face the dilemma of personal choices against the working ethics of the organization or
institution. Example: a network administrator who found out about the infidelity of his best friend’s wife
through her emails is in a dilemma whether to inform his best friend about it or not considering the
policy of the company on personal emails. Other examples may be found in businesses, scholarship
policies, medical field, and employment discriminations among others.

Systemic Moral Dilemma

This is a moral dilemma that occurs at a macro level. Factors such as political pressures, economic
conditions, societal attitudes, government regulations and policies may bring about a moral dilemma.
These factors affect operations and relationships which drives an impact to the people, the market, the
workplace and others on a local, national and international level. Examples are death penalty,
Contractualization, War on Drugs Program of the Government, RH Law.

Freedom as a Foundation of Ethics

Introduction
Why do matters of right/wrong and good/ bad need a foundation? What difference would a foundation
make? Let’s consider these comments from someone: “I am going to obey my conscience regardless of
whether it is or it is not grounded in any foundation. I am going to obey it even if some reliable
foundation tells me not to. Even if a god suddenly appears and tells me to do something that my
conscience won’t let me do, I am not doing it. So, where did this conscience come from? How about if a
person’s conscience contradicts the conscience of another individual?
 The comment above leads us to the question of choice, freedom or liberty and decision. It also leads to
the question of end.

Freedom or liberty may be described as the power or right to act, speak or think as one wants without
hindrance or restraint. But this power is not absolute. It has limitations. “Great power comes with great
responsibility.” Imagine the world if there is no limit to freedom and no appeal for responsibility. When
one changes the question from “what do I want to do?” to “what do I ought to do?”, all moral acts
become clearer and point to freedom of choice. There is the invocation for people to use their freedom
in way that they won’t harm anyone including animals, plants and the whole of nature, to not abuse
their freedom and to give limitation to it. The exercise of freedom to act morally liberates us from our
selfish passions and desires. If we are not free in making decisions, then the ethical value of our
decisions is questionable.

Kant points to freedom as the autonomy or self-determination of rational beings. This type of freedom
plays a crucial role in the ethical journey of each individual, of societies and humanity as a whole. Our
everyday choices allow us to pursue our goals that in a way enable us to live well and pursue the kind of
human beings we ought to be. We want to be virtuous by choice, for example, because reason and
experience teaches us that there is no fulfillment in life if we are coerced to live a life that we do not
like. There is no true happiness from slavery within. Human potential and creativity flourishes when
there is liberty.

Freedom has a Moral Dimension

1. The moral dimension belongs to the realm of human freedom.
The act or conduct that is not the result of free choice is without moral quality. Morality relates to what
we are accountable for. Freedom is not just about what we can do but also about what we must do. It
does not follow that just because we can do something so we must do it.

2. The moral dimension refers to the concern for the good and happy life.
Moral philosophy claims an essential connection between goodness and happiness. The moral
dimension is concerned with defining ultimate goal of man or what constitutes his happiness. The path
to being happy is the way of goodness.

3. The moral dimension speaks to our sense of moral responsibility.

 The moral dimension pertains to what freedom entails – the freedom to commit – and the limits that
the freedom of others imposes on our own. The moral dimension is about developing the skills for
sound decision making based on ethical principles.

Basic Foundations of Morality (n.d.)

Harm/Care
This is related to our long evolution as mammals with attachment systems and an ability to feel (and
dislike) the pain of others. This foundation underlies virtues of kindness, gentleness, and nurturance.
This foundation makes us sensitive to signs of suffering and need. In order to maximize care and
minimize harm, we enact laws that protect the vulnerable. We punish people who are cruel and we care
for those in suffering.

Fairness/Reciprocity
This is related to the evolutionary process of reciprocal altruism. This foundation generates ideas of
justice, rights, and autonomy. This foundation leads us to seek out people who will be good
collaborators in whatever project we are pursuing. It also leads us to punish people who cheat the
system. People on both the right and the left believe in fairness, but they apply this foundation in
different ways. Haidt explains: “On the left, fairness often implies equality, but on the right, it means
proportionality – people should be rewarded in proportion to what they contribute, even if that
guarantees unequal outcomes.”

In-group/Loyalty
This is related to our long history as tribal creatures that are able to form shifting coalitions. This
foundation underlies virtues of patriotism and self-sacrifice for the group. It is active anytime people feel
that it’s “one for all, and all for one.” We love the people on our team, and loyalty makes our team more
powerful and less susceptible to our failure. Likewise, we have a corresponding hatred for traitors. Those
who betray our “team” for the other side are worse than those who were already on the other side.

Authority/Respect
This is shaped by our long primate history of hierarchical social interactions. This foundation underlies
virtues of leadership and followership, including deference to legitimate authority and respect for
traditions. Authority plays a role in our moral considerations because it protects order and fends off
chaos. “Everyone has a stake in supporting the existing order and in holding people accountable for
fulfilling the obligations of their station.”
Purity/Sanctity
This is shaped by the psychology of disgust and contamination. This foundation underlies religious
notions of striving to live in an elevated, less carnal, nobler way. It underlies the widespread idea that
the body is a temple which can be desecrated by immoral activities and contaminants (an idea not
unique to religious traditions). No matter the era, humans have always considered certain things
“untouchable” for being dirty and polluted. The flipside is that we want to protect whatever is hallowed
and sacred, whether objects, ideals, or institutions.

The Liberty/Oppression Foundation

This foundation builds on Authority/Subversion because we all recognize there is such a thing as
legitimate authority, but we don’t want authoritarians crossing the line into tyranny. Oppression is
hated and liberty desired. It is liberty for the underdogs and liberty from intrusion.

Concluding reflection on freedom: Whether morality is subjective, objective or a social construct, they
all point to one thing: the individual is a choice-maker. A believer makes a choice; and so, with the non-
believer; and members of society make their own choices. The individual’s freedom is essential to any
levels of morality. Hence, human freedom is the primal foundation of morality.

Role of Culture in Moral Behavior

Introduction
Culture is a manner of looking at reality by a certain group of people, in a certain place, and in a certain
time in history. It consists of the way people relate to the world through basic assumptions and images
which would more or less give them a coherent view of reality they experience (Claver, 1978). It
involves the following: a) material living (dress, housing and architecture); b) way of behaving
(customary manners and conduct); c) way of speaking (language use); d) way of thinking (thought
processes); e) way of feeling (shared psychology); f) way of meaning (arts and symbols); g) way of
believing, valuing and meaning (views of life and attitudes).
 Matsumoto (2007) defines human culture as a unique meaning and information system, shared by a
group and transmitted across generations, that allows the group to meet basic needs of survival,
coordinate socially to achieve a viable existence, transmit social behavior, pursue happiness and well-
being, and derive meaning from life.

Since every culture is a carrier of a community’s social practices and beliefs, the moral behavior and
values are also passed on from generation to the next.

Culture’s Role in Moral Behavior

So, how does culture shape moral behavior? Within culture are moral codes that are practiced through
social behavior. Moral codes are a set of rules or guidelines that a person or group follows in order to
live a just and good life. Moral codes are heavily dependent upon culture. This is because each culture
has its own ideas of what is considered right or wrong, and what is regarded as good or bad. Moral
codes dictate many aspects of our lives, from how we act with different age groups, to how we dress,
and even how we treat other people.

Cultural Relativism
Culture may vary from one location to another, from one society to another, and from a nation to
another nation. And this becomes problematic when the ideas and practices of right or wrong and good
or bad of one ethnic group clashes or overlaps with another even in a wider context of societies, nations
and religions. This brings us to the idea of cultural diversity and relativism. Cultural relativism claims that
ethical truths are relative-that the rightness of an action and the goodness of an object depend on or
consist in the attitude taken towards it by some individual or group, and hence may vary from individual
to individual or from group to group. Ethical judgements have their origins in individual or cultural
standards. It is the principle of regarding the beliefs, values, and practices of a culture from the
viewpoint of that culture itself. An individual's beliefs and activities should be understood by others
from the perspective of that individual's own culture (Runes, 1983; Baldwin, 1986; Martin, 2007; De
Guzman, 2018).

The idea of cultural relativism is that the terms right and wrong are completely dictated by the culture
that they are being used in. A person’s actions should be looked at with all things considered, especially
the religion and culture that they grew up in. Supporters strongly believe that one’s moral codes and
beliefs of right and wrong are influenced completely by the culture in which an individual is raised. A
better way to look at this would be that what is considered morally correct in one culture, may be
deemed wrong in another. It doubts if there truly is a universal idea of right and wrong. In other words,
the cultural lenses carry with them their own biases of ethical behavior.
Universal Values
Universal human values are those ideals that we believe should be privileged and promoted in the lives
of all human beings in spite of the differing cultures and societies where we grew up. A value is one of
our most important and enduring beliefs, whether that be about a thing or a behavior. Even though
some values may be universal, they often arise from particular religious, socio-cultural and political
contexts (UNODC, 2018: 21).

Rachels (2018: 23) points out that there are some moral rules that all societies must embrace because
these rules are necessary for society to exist. The rules against lying and murder are two examples.
Telling the truth and valuing life are being enforced across cultures although they are expressed
differently and exceptions to the rule cannot be denied. Human rights are also universal in character.
The rights enshrined in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights crafted by the United Nations (UN)
originated from debates among multicultural group of individual philosophers, diplomats and politicians.
Universal values arise from lived experiences and their justifications from others form part of the
discourses if humans are to live in global harmony. They can be uncovered by different means including
scientific investigation, historical research, public debate and deliberation (UNODC, 2018: 22).

The Filipino Way

The Filipino culture is so rich and diverse that it has greatly transformed in time. Although it is
composed of diverse ethnolinguistic groups spread across the islands, these cultural communities have
somehow retained their indigenous moral values and belief systems while consciously or unconsciously
embracing Western lifestyles brought about by colonial subjugation for five centuries and the adverse
effects of globalization that followed. Our culture and history molded us to what we are now.

Unfortunately, Filipinos are in deep cultural identity crisis. Many of us show little appreciation for our
culture. Our colonizers have been instrumental in making us believe that our culture is inferior to theirs
to the point that the more individuals look closer to foreign or Caucasian features using chemicals and
treatments, the more they feel that their status is elevated thereby looking down on their fellow
Filipinos. With this colonial mentality that we imbibed aside from the proliferation of diverse lifestyles
brought about by rapid global changes, our ethical values continue to disintegrate. This situation may
seem negative but there is hope in every adversity. As generally observed, Filipinos are resilient; they
rise from the challenges like bamboos that bend but do not break from the ravages of storms year-
round. We can be proud of our identity if we can convince ourselves that the values of our culture are
the sources of our strength and willpower as a nation worthy of respect and admiration like those of
other cultures (Wostyn, et al., 2004: 110).
 Strengths and Weaknesses of Filipinos
Strengths Weaknesses
1. Pakikipagkapwa-tao: Opening yourself to others; 1. Kanya-kanya Syndrome: Self-serving attitude
feel one with others with dignity and respect; that generates feeling of envy and
deal with them as fellow human beings. competitiveness towards others (status vs
- sense of fairness and justice prestige).
- concern for others - personal ambition but insensitive to common
- ability to empathize with others good
- helpfulness and generosity - crab mentality
- practice of hospitality - lack of appreciation resulting unhealthy
- sensitive to other feelings and trust competition

2. Family Orientation: a Genuine and deep love for 2. Extreme Personalism

family.
- commitment and responsibility
- honor and respect
- generosity and sacrifice
- sense of trust and security
- always trying to give personal interpretation to
actions
- thank you with "but" (complimentcriticism-
compliment)

3. Joy and Humor: Cheerful and funloving (matiisin) "Bahala na System" - No

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. We laugh at
those we love and hate. We
3. Passivity and Lack of Initiative: strong reliance to
other’s fate

- “yeah proud Pinoy”. It's all because of the race

(nationality/blood) not by persons attitude, hard-
work, dream and perseverance etc.
tend to make joke about our good and even bad
fortune, to smile even in the most trying of
times.
- emotional balance and optimism
- healthy disrespect for power and office. - very
complacent (relax) but their rarely is a sense of
urgency (It's OK we have 1 day left to finished,
just relax)
- too patient without any plan or action
 matter what, At least we tried.

- doubt and debate first than study, discuss until planning and action
4. Hard Work and Industry: capacity for hard work 4. Lack of Discipline: relaxed attitude but poor
given to raise one's standard living of a decent life time management
for one's family. - impatient and unable to delay gratification or
reward
- love to take short-cuts or 'palusot' system
- carelessness

5. Faith and Religiosity: Faith in God - accepting 5. Colonial Mentality: Patriotism vs Active
reality to comprehend as a human created by awareness
God. "Pampalakasloob" - luck of love and appreciation on what they have
- open outside but side-open or close inside

6. Flexibility, Adaptability and Creativity 6. Lack of Self Analysis and Reflection

- Sometimes superficial and flighty

7. Ability to Survive 7. Extreme Family Centeredness

- strong family protection good or bad condition