CHAPTER 1: UNDERSTANDING MORALITY AND MORAL STANDARDS

Lesson 1 Course Orientation and The Importance of Rules

INTRODUCTION
Everywhere you go are rules - at home, at school, in church, in the barangay. Do these rules make our life
more difficult and so should be eliminated or do these rules make our life more peaceful and orderly? Imagine
your life, your home, your school, your Church and community without rules. In this Lesson, we'll study about
the importance of rules.
ABSTRACTION
Rules are important to social beings. Just imagine the chaos that results from the absence of rules. What
happens when students and professors alike come to school in any attire they want? Imagine what happens when
in the classroom everyone wants to talk at the same time. Let's go out of the classroom for more examples. What
if there were no traffic rules? Rules can be expanded to include the Philippine Constitution and other laws. What
if there were no Constitution and other laws of the land?
Rules are meant to set order. Rules (the Philippine Constitution and other laws included) are meant for
man. The greatest Teacher, Jesus Christ, preached emphatically, "The Sabbath is made for man and not man for
the Sabbath". The law of the Sabbath, i.e. to keep it holy and observe rest, is meant to make man whole by resting
and by giving him time to thank and spend time in prayer and worship for his own good.
For the sake of order in society, everyone is subject to rules. In a democratic country like the Philippines,
we often hear the statement "No one is above the law," including the highest official of the country. We are all
subject to rules or else court chaos. Rules are not meant to restrict your freedom. They are meant to help you grow
in freedom, to grow in your ability to choose and do what is good for you and for others. If there are rules or laws
that restrict your ability or strength to do good, they are suffocating laws and they are not good laws. They ought
to be abolished. Any rule or law that prevents human persons from doing and being good ought to be repealed.
They have no reasons to exist.
In fact, if you are a rule or a law-abiding citizen, you don't even feel the restricting presence of a rule or
law because you do what the law or what the rule states everybody should do. Looking from a higher point of
view, this is the state when one acts not because rules demand it but because one sees he has to act that way. It is
like saying one no longer needs the rule or law because one has become mature and wise enough to discern what
ought to be done. This is an ideal state which the ancient Chinese sages (Confucius, Lao Tzu) referred to as state
of no-more rules, no-more laws, because people discern what is right or good and do what is right or good without
thinking or a rule or law; people are no longer in need of a government because they can govern themselves. It is
a state where one owns the moral standard not just abide by the moral standard.
KEY TAKEAWAYS
• Rules are meant to set order in society.
• Rules are intended for human persons. They are not meant to limit a person's freedom which is the ability
to choose and do what is good. Rather rules are meant to help persons choose and do what is good.
• Those who do what is good don't even feel the presence of a rule that prevents them from doing what is
not good. It is those who intend to do the opposite of what is good that feel the suffocating and limiting
presence of a rule.
• When society is ideal, i.e. when all persons are good and do only what is ideal then there will be no more
need for rules and laws according to Lao Tzu.
 Lesson 2 Moral and Non-Moral Standards
INTRODUCTION
We often hear the terms "moral standards" and "non-moral standards." What do these refer to? What about
the word "immoral? Is there such a thing as immoral standards? Is immoral synonymous with non-moral? Let's
find this out in this Lesson.
ABSTRACTION
Etymology and Meaning of Ethics
The term "ethics" comes from the Greek word "ethos" meaning "custom" used in the works of Aristotle,
while the term "moral" is the Latin equivalent. Based on the Greek and Latin etymology of the word "ethics".
ethics deals with morality. When the Roman orator Cicero exclaimed, "O tempora o mores" (Cicero, 1856) (Oh,
what time and what morals), he may have been trying to express dismay of the morality of his time.
Ethics or moral philosophy, is a branch of philosophy which deals with moral standards, inquires about
the rightness or wrongness of human behavior or the goodness or badness of personality, trait or character. It
deals with ideas, with topics such as moral standards or norms of morality, conscience, moral values and virtues.
Ethics is a study of the morality of human acts and moral agents, what makes an act obligatory and what makes
a person accountable.
"Moral" is the adjective describing a human act as either ethically right or wrong. or qualifying a person,
personality, character, as either ethically good or bad.
Moral Standards or Moral Frameworks and Non-Moral Standards
Since ethics is a study of moral standards, then the first question for the course is, what are moral standards.
The following are supposed to be examples of moral standards: "Stealing is wrong." "Killing is wrong. "Telling
lies is wrong." "Adultery is wrong." "Environment preservation is the right thing to do". "Freedom with
responsibility is the right way." "Giving what is due to others is justice". Hence, moral standards are norms or
prescriptions that serve as the frameworks for determining what ought to be done or what is right or wrong action,
what is good or bad character. The following can be classified as moral standards:
• Do not lie.
• Don't steal.
• Don't cheat others.
• Don't kill.
Moral standards are either consequences standards (like Stuart Mill's utilitarianism) or non-consequence
standards (like Aristole's virtue, St. Thomas' natural law, or Immanuel Kant' good will or sense of duty). The
consequence standards depend on results, outcome. An act that results in the general welfare, in the greatest good
of the greatest number, is moral. To take part in a project that results in the improvement of the majority of people
is, therefore, moral.
The non-consequence standards are based on the natural law. Natural law is the law of God revealed
through human reason. It is the law of God written in the hearts of men." To preserve human life is in accordance
with the natural law, therefore it is moral. Likewise, the non-consequence standard may also be based on good
will or intention, and on a sense of duty. Respect for humanity, treatment of the other as a human person, an act
that is moral, springs from a sense of duty, a sense of duty that you wish will apply to all human persons.
On the other hand, non-moral standards are social rules, demands of etiquette and good manners. They
are guides of action which should be followed as expected by society. Sometimes they may not be followed or
some people may not follow them. From time to time, changes are made regarding good manners or etiquette. In
sociology, non-moral standards or rules are called folkways. In short, non-moral actions are those where moral
categories cannot be applied.
Examples of non-moral standards are rules of good manners and right conduct, etiquette, rules of behavior
set by parents, teachers, and standards of grammar or language, standards of art, standards of sports set by other
authorities. Examples are "do not eat with your mouth open;" "observe rules of grammar," and "do not wear socks
that don't match."
The following are non-moral standards:
• No talking while your mouth is full.
• Wear black or white for mourning; never red.
• The males should be the one to propose marriage not females.
• Observe correct grammar when writing and speaking English.
• Submit school requirements on time.
• If you are a male, stay by the danger side (roadside) when walking with a female.
• Go with the fashion or you are not "in.
• When you speak pronounce words correctly.
• Focus the microscope properly.
 • Maintain a good body figure.
An indicator whether or not a standard is moral or non-moral lies in it compliance as distinguished from
its non-compliance. Non-compliance with moral standards causes a sense of guilt, while non-compliance with a
non-moral standard may only cause shame or embarrassment.
Classification of the Theories of Moral Standards
Garner and Rosen (1967) classified the various moral standards formulated by moral philosophers as
follows:
1) Consequence (teleological, from tele which means end, result, or consequence) standard states that
an act is right or wrong depending on the consequences of the act, that is, the good that is produced in the world.
Will it do you good if you go to school? If the answer is right, because you learn how to read and write, then
going to school is right. The consequence standard can also be a basis for determining whether or not a rule is a
right rule. So the consequence standard states that the rightness or wrongness of a rule depends on the
consequences or the good that is produced in following the rule. For instance, if everyone follows the rule of a
game, everyone will enjoy playing the game. This good consequence proves the rule must be a correct rule.
2) Not-only-consequence standard (deontological), holds that the rightness or wrongness of an action or
rule depends on sense of duty, natural law, virtue and the demand of the situation or circumstances. The rightness
or wrongness of an action does not only depend or rely on the consequence of that action or following that rule.
Natural law and virtue ethics are deontological moral standards because their basis for determining what
is right or wrong does not depend on consequences but on the natural law and virtue. Situation ethics, too, is
deontological because the rightness or wrongness of an act depends on situation and circumstances requiring or
demanding exception to rule.
Rosen and Garner are inclined to consider deontology, be it rule or act deontology, as the better moral
standard because it synthesizes or includes all the other theory of norms. Under this theory, the rightness or
wrongness of an action depends on (or is a function of all the following:
a) consequences of an action or rule, what promotes one's greatest good, or the greatest good of the greatest
number;
b) consideration other than consequences, like the obligatoriness or the act based on natural law, or its
being one's duty, or its promoting an ideal virtue. Deontology also considers the object, purpose, and
circumstances or situation of the moral issue or dilemma.
What Makes Standards Moral?
The question means what obliges us to follow a moral standard? For theists, believers in God's existence,
moral standards are commandments of God revealed to man through prophets. According to the Old Testament,
the Ten Commandments were revealed by God to Moses. One who believes in God vows to Him and obliges
himself/herself to follow His Ten Commandments. For theists, God is the ultimate source of what is moral
revealed to human persons.
How about non-theists? For non-theists, God is not the source of morality. Moral standards are based on
the wisdom of sages like Confucius or philosophers like Immanuel Kant.
In China, B. C. Confucius taught the moral standard, "Do unto others what you like others to do unto you"
and persuaded people to follow this rule because it is the right way, the gentleman's way. Later, Immanuel Kant,
the German philosopher, formulated criterion for determining what makes a moral standard moral. It is stated as
follows: "Act only according to that maxim whereby you can at the same time will that it should become a
universal law." (1993) In other words, if a maxim or standard cannot pass this test, it cannot be a moral standard.
For instance, does the maxim "Stealing is wrong" pass this test? Can one will that this maxim be a universal
maxim? The answer is in the affirmative. The opposite of the maxim would not be acceptable. Moral standards
are standards that we want to be followed by all, otherwise, one would be wishing one's own ill fortune. Can you
wish "do not kill" to be a universal maxim? The answer has to be yes because if you say "no" then you are not
objecting to someone killing you. Thus, the universal necessity of the maxim, what makes it a categorical
imperative is what makes it obligatory. "Stealing is wrong" means "one ought not steal" and "Do not kill"
means "one ought not kill." It is one's obligation not to steal or kill. Ultimately, the obligation arises from the
need of self-preservation.
The Origin of Moral Standards: Theist and Non-Theist
Related to the question on what makes moral standards moral is how do moral standards arise or come
into existence? A lot of new attempts to explain the origins of morality or moral standards have been made.
The theistic line of thought states moral standards are of divine origin while 20th century thinkers claim
state that they simply evolved. The issue is: Are moral standards derived from God, communicated to man through
signs or revelation, or did they arise in the course of man's evolution? With the Divine source concept, moral
standards are derived from natural law, man's "participation" in the Divine law. The moral principle, "Do good
and avoid evil" is an expression of natural law. Man's obliging himself to respect the life, liberty, and property of
his fellowman arises from the God-given sacredness, spirituality, and dignity of his fellow man. It arises from his
faith, hope, and love of God and man.
With the evolutionary concept, the basics of moral standards do good, avoid evil have been observed
among primates and must have evolved as the process of evolution followed its course.
Are these theist and non-theist (evolutionary) origin of moral standards reconcilable?
The evolutionist claims that altruism, a sense of morality, can be observed from man's fellow primates-
the apes and monkeys and, therefore, it can be said that the altruism of human persons evolved from the primates.
However, the evolutionist cannot satisfactorily argue, with factual evidence, that the rudiments of moral standards
can be observed from the primates. Neither can it be scientifically established that the theist view, that man's
obliging himself to avoid evil, refrain from inflicting harm on his fellowman, is a moral principle implanted by
God in the hearts of men. But the concept of creation and evolution are not necessarily contradictory The
revelation of the norms of Divine origin could not have been instant, like a happening "in one fell swoop." It
could have happened gradually as man evolved to differ from the other primates. As the evolutionists claim.
creation may be conceived as a process of evolution. Hence, the biblical story of creation could have happened
in billions of years instead of six days.
KEY TAKEAWAYS
• Non-moral standards originate from social rules, demands of etiquette and good manners. They are
guides of action which should be followed as expected by society.
• Moral standards are based on the natural law, the consequence of one's actions and sense of duty.
• Moral standards are based on natural law, the law of God revealed through human reason or the " law of
God written in the hearts of men."
• Moral standards are based on consequences standards. That which leads to a good consequence or result
like the greatest good of the greatest number is what is moral.
• Moral standards are based also on non-consequence standards or sense of duty that you wish would be
followed by all. Respect for humanity, treatment of the other as a human person, an act that is moral,
springs from a sense of duty, a sense of duty that you wish is wished by all and applies to all human
persons.
• For theists, the origin of moral standards is God who "wrote his law in the heart of every person", the
natural law.
• For non-theists, the origin of moral standards is the moral frameworks formulated by philosophers like
Confucius, Immanuel Kant, Stuart Mill, et al.
• The evolutionist claims that the sense of moral standards must have taken place not only in 6 days as the
creationist claims but in billions of years as the evolutionist asserts.
• For the theists, belief in God strengthens them to be moral.
 Lesson 3 Moral Dilemmas
INTRODUCTION
After learning moral and non-moral standards, you must now have an idea of what a moral experience is.
When you find yourself in a moral dilemma, you are in for a moral experience. What is a moral dilemma? This
is the main focus of this Lesson.
ABSTRACTION
Meaning of Moral Dilemma
A moral dilemma is a problem in the decision-making between two possible options, neither of which is
absolutely acceptable from an ethical perspective. It is also referred to as ethical dilemma. The Oxford Dictionary
defines ethical dilemma as a "decision-making problem between two possible moral imperatives, neither of which
is unambiguously acceptable or preferable. It is sometimes called an ethical paradox in moral philosophy."
(Oxford Dictionary)
Based on these definitions, moral dilemmas have the following in common: 1) "the agent is required to
do each of two (or more) actions which are morally unacceptable; 2) the agent can do each of the actions; 3) but
the agent cannot do both (or all) of the actions. The agent thus seems condemned to moral failure; no matter what
she does, she will do something wrong (or fail to do something that she ought to do).
This means that moral dilemmas are situations where two or more moral values or duties make demands
on the decision-maker, who can only honor one of them, and thus will violate at least one important moral concern,
no matter what he or she decides to do. Moral dilemmas present situations where there is tension between moral
values and duties that are more or less on equal footing. The decision-maker has to choose between a wrong and
another wrong. The decision-maker is a deadlock.
In the case of The Pregnant Lady and the Dynamite, there were two options use the dynamite and kill the
pregnant woman but save the other 5 or don't use the dynamite and all the 5 will get drowned except the pregnant
woman whose head is out.
To have a genuine dilemma, one of the conflicting solutions should not override the other. For instance,
"... the requirement to protect others from serious harm overrides the requirement to repay one's debts by returning
a borrowed item when its owner so demands." Hence,... "in addition to the features mentioned above, in order to
have a genuine moral dilemma it must also be true that neither of the conflicting requirements is overridden"
(McConnell, T. 2019). This means that none of the conflicting requirements is solved by the other. The persons
involved in the dilemma are in a deadlock. They find themselves in a "damn-if-you-do and damn-if you-don't"
situation.
Another example of a moral dilemma is the story from the Bible about King Herod. On his birthday, his
stepdaughter, Salome danced so well in front of him and the guests at his party that he promised to give her
anything she wanted. Salome consulted her mother about what she should wish for, and decided to ask for the
head of John the Baptist on a platter. The king now had a choice between honoring the promise to his stepdaughter,
or honoring the life of John the Baptist. And Herod chose to have John the Baptist beheaded.
The king had inadvertently designed a moral trap for himself, a dilemma where whatever he decided to
do would be morally wrong.
Meaning of a False Dilemma
On the other hand, a false dilemma is a situation where the decision maker has a moral duty to do one
thing, but is tempted or under pressure to do something else. A false dilemma is a choice between a right and a
wrong. For example, a lawyer or an accountant can face an opportunity to prioritize self-interest over the client's
interest.
What to Do When Faced with a Moral Dilemma
Ultimately, dilemmas are conflicts in the application of moral standards. The question is which moral
standards must be followed? In a state of emergency, necessity demands no moral law. You have to decide based
on your best judgment or choose based on the principle of lesser evil or greater good or urgency.
There are 24 moral dilemmas listed by Pixi's blog. Refer to 25 Moral Dilemmas, Pixi's Blog
(retrieved/http://psychopixi.com/author/pixil)
KEY TAKEAWAYS
• A moral dilemma is a "decision making problem between two possible moral imperatives, neither of
which is unambiguously acceptable or preferable.
• A moral dilemma is a situation where a person has the moral obligation to choose between two options
both based on moral standards, but he /she cannot choose both, and choosing one means violating the
other.
• In a moral dilemma, one is caught between two options. It is a "damn if-you-do and damn-if-you-don't
situation. One is in a deadlock.
• False dilemmas are situations where the decision-maker has a moral duty to do one thing, but is tempted
or under pressure to do something else. A false dilemma is a choice between a right and a wrong unlike a
moral dilemma where both choices are wrong.
 Lesson 4 The Three Levels of Moral Dilemmas

INTRODUCTION
This Lesson reinforces your understanding of moral dilemmas. After understanding the meaning of moral
dilemmas, let us now illustrate three levels of moral dilemma. In this Lesson, you are expected to give examples
of the levels of moral dilemmas. A research on some significant events in history may help you arrive at a concrete
understanding of structural dilemma most especially.
ABSTRACTION
A. Individual
This refers to personal dilemmas. It is an individual's damn-if you-do-and-damn-if-you-don't situation.

The case of Heinz as given in the Activity phase of the lesson is one of the best known individual
dilemma's of Kohlberg's (1958).

Kohlberg's dilemma questions were as follows: "Should Heinz have stolen the drug." (Mackinnon, B., etal
2015) If he did not steal. the drug that would mean his wife's death. He was torn between stealing the drug and
saving his wife. The dilemma is faced by an individual who is torn between 2 obligations to save the wife or obey
the law. So this an example of an individual dilemma.

B. Organizational
An organizational dilemma is a puzzle posed by the dual necessities of a social organization and members'
self-interest. It may exist between personal interests and organizational welfare or between group interests and
organizational well-being... (Wagner, J. 2019)

The example of the Catholic school in the Activity phase of the lesson shows the dilemma between the
goal of the school to give quality education for the poor and so must charge the lowest tuition fee possible and
yet to keep quality faculty the school must raise their salary and consequently, must raise tuition.

Organizational dilemmas may likewise occur in business, medical, and public sector.

The following hypothetical case highlights the story of Mr. Brown, a 74-year old man who is seriously ill
of metastatic lung cancer. Mr. Brown completed a full course of radiation therapy as well as chemotherapy for
treatment of his cancer, and he is now hospitalized with severe shortness of breath and pneumonia. His physician
has managed the symptoms associated with the lung disease, including chest pain, fever, infection, and respiratory
distress, but believes that there are no other options available to aggressively treat the underlying cancer.... Both
Mr. Brown and his wife clearly state that they want everything done.....

The dilemma here lies in the conflicting concerns: a) the financial problems of Mr. Brown and his wife,
b) the hospital concern of focusing its attention on this hopeless patient when there are other cases which have
still possible remedies, c) the other hospital patient's concern, particularly their need of the medicine used by Mr.
Brown, c) the concern of the medical staff, et al.

Organizational dilemmas arise due to different opposing concerns between various groupings in an
organization.

C. Structural
The case of the principal whether to be participatory or non participatory in school affairs but due to her
not so favorable experience of attempting to be participatory ended up to one-woman rule is an example of a
structural dilemma. Below are more examples of structural dilemma.

Differentiation Versus Integration in Structural Dilemma

Different divisions have their own different culture and so coordination between divisions or bringing
them together for becomes more difficult.

With decentralization, local governments have become more empowered to direct their affairs just as
schools have become empowered to address their problems or are given opportunity to localize the given
curriculum.

In effect, local governments and schools have likewise become more differentiated and so it becomes
more difficult to integrate them for a unified structure. Local governance and schools curricula have become more
complex. There is need for more costly coordination strategies.
 Any attempt to introduce reform in society or government creates structural dilemma. For instance,
promoting or introducing universal health care, which is tantamount to socialized health care, gives rise to a
structural dilemma, that is, a conflict of perspective of sectors, groups and institutions that may be affected by the
decision. Why would those who contribute less to the social fund enjoy the same benefits as those who contributed
big amounts of premium? In a study on the prices of medicines in the Philippines, it was established that "patients
are buying medicines from the private sector at many times their international reference price" (Ateneo de Manila
University 2019). If the government intervenes by introducing price control, the drug stores may lose so much
that they may close shop. If the government does not do anything at all, the patients will continue to suffer because
they may not be able to afford the high prices of medicines.

Gap Versus Overlap

There may be gaps and overlaps in roles and responsibilities. If key responsibilities are not clearly
assigned, there may be gaps or overlaps in important tasks. If there are gaps, organizations end up with no one
doing the responsibility. If there are overlaps, things. become unclear and may lead to more confusion and even
conflict and worse wasted effort and perhaps even resources because of the unintended overlap.

Here is an example. A patient in a teaching hospital called her husband to report how disturbed she is and
how sleepless she was during the night. At night, she couldn't sleep because hospital staff kept waking her up,
often to repeat what someone else had already done. This is an overlap of nurse duty. Conversely, when she
wanted something, her call button rarely produced any response. This is a gap. There is a gap as to who according
to rule is supposed to respond to the buzzer.

To illustrate further the consequence of gap and overlap, here is a story to show what happens when there
is a gap or overlap. A boy wanted his pants shorter. So he went to his mother to ask him to shorten. it. His mother
was busy computing grades and told her son to ask his sister to do it. His sister was busy reviewing for the final
exams and asked her brother to ask their elder brother to do it. But his older brother was also busy with his school
project and so could not also attend to it. The boy highly frustrated went to sleep. His pants were beside him.
After finishing her grades, Mother peeped into her son's room, saw the pants and remembered her son's request.
So she took a pair of scissors and shortened them. Before she went to bed, the sister also remembered her brother's
request. Full of remorse she went to her younger brother's room, saw the pants, got a pair of scissors and shortened
them, too. The older brother finally completed his school project and suddenly remembered his brother's asking
for help to shorten the pants. So he went to his younger brother's room, got a pair of scissors and cut them, too.
When the younger brother woke up, he was surprised to see a pair of extremely short shorts. The pants which he
wanted to make just a little bit shorter ended up too short to him!

That is what happens when there are gaps or overlaps in an organization. The gaps leave an important
thing in an organization undone. The overlap results in unnecessary and counterproductive, redundant procedures
which ultimately lead to waste of resources.

Lack of Clarity Versus Lack of Creativity. If employees are unclear about what they are supposed to
do, they often tailor their roles around personal preferences instead of system wide goals, frequently leading to
trouble. Most McDonald's customers are not seeking novelty and surprise in their burgers and fries. But when
responsibilities are over defined, people conform to prescribed roles and protocols in "bureaucratic" ways. They
rigidly follow job descriptions regardless of how much the service or product suffers and so end up uncreative.

"You lost my bag!" an angry passenger shouted, confronting an airline manager. The manager's response
was to inquire, "How was the flight?" "I asked about my bag," the passenger said. "That's not my job," the manager
replied. "See someone in baggage claim." The passenger did not leave as a happy airline customer. The job of the
manager was overdefined and made the manager uncreative and inefficient. Her job in relation to the airline
system wide goals was neither clear and so ended up giving the wrong answer that turned off the airline passenger.

Flexibility versus Strict Adherence to Rules

You accommodate by bending rules to help someone or you stick strictly to rules no matter what and so
unable to help someone who is thrown into a helpless situation. Or you may become being too accommodating
that all rules are no more.

Your jobs are defined so clearly that you will stick to them even if circumstances are such that by sticking
to your job description the service or product that your organization provides suffers.

Excessive Autonomy Versus Excessive Interdependence.

This refers to being too isolated versus too much coordination.
 To illustrate:
When individuals or groups are too autonomous, people often feel isolated and disconnected. School
teachers working in self-contained classrooms and rarely working with other teachers may feel lonely and
unsupported. Yet, efforts to create closer teamwork have repeatedly failed because of teachers' difficulties in
working together. In contrast, if units and roles are too tightly linked, people are distracted from work and waste
time on unnecessary or too much coordination. IBM lost an early lead in the personal computer business in part
because new initiatives required so many approvals - from levels and divisions alike that new products were over
designed and late to market. Hewlett-Packard's ability to innovate in the late 1990's was hindered by the same
problem.

Structural dilemma is the dilemma arising from conflicting concerns among various sectors of society. In
the first instance of differentiation versus integration, the dilemma is how to enforce a decision, policy, or rule
intended for everybody among many different or unique groups or individuals. In the second, the dilemma arises
because of either gaps or overlaps in the procedure of implementation of certain projects or policies among
involved agencies like the FBI and CIA in the U.S.A. or like the NBI and the INP in the Philippines. GAPS creates
serious consequences. Read about the unforgettable Mamasapano massacre in Mindanao, Philippines.

Centralized versus Decentralized Decision Making

In decentralized decision making, organizations can respond. to change more rapidly and effectively
because the decision makers. are the people closest to the situation. However, top managers may lose some
control. This is the dilemma of tight overcentralization or diffusing authority which is loose.

Structural Dilemma in a World Organization Like the UN

Succinctly put, a structural dilemma in a world organization like the UN is the problem of the balance
between world order and national sovereignty re-stated as the balance between the measure of international
authority essential to the establishment of an organized common peace and the continued freedom of action of
the separate members of the world community or the balance between interdependence and independence. (Jenks,
1971)

Resolving Moral Dilemmas

The following offer some techniques in resolving moral dilemma: One way is to think of available
alternative options revealing that the dilemma does not really exist. This happens where there are available
alternative options. For instance one is experiencing a dilemma between stealing or not stealing otherwise his
family will either die of hunger or survive. The creative moral agent will try to think of other alternatives, like
"alternative means of income or support such as social safety net, charity, etc."

Another way is "choosing the greater good and lesser evil" or...," Or one may apply the situation ethics
approach, following the rule, one must do only what he can where he is. Do not resort to extraordinary or
supernatural means.

Joseph Fletcher offers some principles in resolving moral dilemma. He uses Kant's "ought implies I can"
rule. If I ought to do something, then I can do it. By contraposition, if I cannot do something, then I cannot be
obliged to do it. Or by implication, either I cannot be obliged to do something or I can do it. In other words, one
is only obliged to do something if and only if he can do it. So Fletcher says, "do what you can where you are." Or
quoting St. Augustine's, "Dilige, et quod vis fae" (love and do what you will). The extent of one's obligation and
responsibility is the extent of one's ability and the measure of the "extent" is one's capacity for love.

Here is a situation: You are a father of seven children. On your support, seven children plus your wife
depend. You work in the mines and receive only a minimum wage. After working like a "carabao" in the mines,
you need to ease your pains with a bottle of gin before you lie down to rest and sleep. You also need to eat food
sufficient enough to replace your wasted energy. Hence, you spend for wine, food, and cigarette. Minus these
expenses, the balance of your wage is just enough for the food of your children. Nothing is left for their education,
and other expenses. Question: Should you be faulted for not being able to sacrifice enough by giving up your
needs, so that your dependents can have something left for their education? You love your family, but you have
a need you cannot give up. Is your case what Fletcher wants to picture? Your obligation ends where your capacity
for love ends. Love is supposed to be unconditional, no limits of sacrifice or boundaries. But your love is human,
you are only human. "You can only do what you can where you are." Others can sacrifice more by giving up their
gin and cigarette and eat less expensive food. Yes others can, but can one be faulted for not being like the others,
not having the strength to overcome a vice? Can one not argue that the extent of his ability is the limit of his
responsibility? On the other hand, can it not be said that resorting to human frailty is just a convenient or
comfortable way of justifying one's lack of moral will? That may be easier said than done, although it is possible
for one who has virtue as his moral strength. But what can be said of one who has no moral virtue or strength to
sacrifice with the discomfort of self-giving? Endless condemnation? That would be un-Christian.

KEY TAKEAWAYS
• Moral dilemmas come in three levels individual, organizational or structural.
• Individual dilemmas concern dilemmas that individual persons face.
• Organizational dilemmas refer to dilemmas between organizational benefits versus individual
members' welfare.
• Structural dilemmas concern dilemmas faced by groups or individuals as a result of structural
relationships.
• A world organization like the United Nations is usually faced with this dilemma: sovereignty of
nations versus world order.
• If confronted with a moral dilemma, choose the greater good and lesser evil or...." do only what
you can where you are (Fletcher) or "love and do what you will" (St. Augustine) The extent of one's
obligation and responsibility is the extent of one's ability and the measure of the "extent" is one's capacity
for love.
 Lesson 5 Freedom as Foundation for Moral Acts

INTRODUCTION
Do the lower forms of animals have ethics? Like can we say that a dog is immoral or unethical if it
defecates right there at you doorstep? Or is ethics only for human persons? If so, why? This is the concern of this
Lesson.

ABSTRACTION
Ethics Applies Only to Human Persons
The song, My Way/Born This Way, implies choice or freedom "I did it my way". Unlike the lower forms
of animals, human persons have a choice or freedom, hence morality applies only to human persons.

Ethics, therefore, applies only to human persons. We cannot say a cat is "unethical" when it eats the food
at table intended for you or when a dog urinates on your favorite bag lying on the floor.

Dilemmas presuppose freedom. Freedom-loving societies have customary ways of training the young to
exercise their freedom. Parents regularly give their children opportunities to choose. "Guys, what do you want for
breakfast - ham and egg or pancake?" Later in life, they come face to face with hard choices. Then dilemmas
come along. There is such a thing as a dilemma because there is such a thing as freedom. If there is no ability or
power of choice, then any incident simply happens without any interference. There would also be no obligation
to do any act in expectation of the responsibility following the act.

Freedom and Moral Choice

" Without freedom it is impossible to make a moral choice." If we are to have free will we must
have the ability to make a decision that is unhindered. Kant believed that we must have free will if we are
to be held morally responsible for our actions. If God did not give us free will then our decisions cannot
be considered immoral or moral as we would have had to act in the way we did. Thus we cannot be held
responsible; a good moral. action cannot be praised as you had no other option, whilst an immoral action
cannot be punished as once again there was no free choice. In other words, making moral choice is a
necessary consequence for being free, a consequence of being a human person.

Because a human person has freedom, he/she has a choice and so is responsible for the
consequences of his/her choice. The lower forms of animals have no choice since they are bound by
instinct and so cannot be held responsible for their behavior.

To be Ethical: Own Not Merely Abide by Moral Standards

Having free will or freedom to choose among alternatives, which implies prior analysis and study, is
coming to terms with what you finally affirm or deny. When you arrive at a personal conviction and self
affirmation, you begin to own the moral standard. The moral standard. begins to be integrated, internalized. You
follow the norm not because it is imposed by others, not because others say or authoritatively impose it on you.
On the other hand, merely abiding by moral standards means applying them as basis to resolve a moral problem
without necessarily having internalized them. Merely abiding by them means once the enforcer is not around, the
moral standard is not followed.

Or if you do not own or internalize the standard, you will tend to use it for convenience, to evade
responsibility, to put the blame on the standard itself when things do not end well. You simply become legalistic,
and adopt the maxims, "follow the rule or law, even if the sky falls down"; "the law says so"; the law is hard, but
it is the law (dura lex sed lex). You follow the law because others, authorities, regulators say so; not because you
say so. Owning moral standards means internalizing them, making them part of your conviction. Internalized or
embodied moral standards are being followed with or without anyone telling you.

You internalize a rule after using reason to understand. When you are persuaded of its wisdom, it becomes
your basis of resolving an ethical problem. You decide to do something not because the law says so but the law
says so but because you yourself say so.

This may be termed as the embodiment of the moral standard in you. T The moral standard becomes one
with the moral agent. As the moral agent, this moral standard becomes your natural and immediate basis in your
ethical decision making.

The presupposition is that you have come to own the moral standard after having been convinced of its
wisdom, having chosen it among other principles or standards. Any dilemma regarding the standard has been
resolved. Under the Chinese Taoist concept of harmony, this is where the thought, the word, and the action
become one. This author once visited a Taoist temple and had a chance to ask what a Taoist live by us a principle
of life. He replied, "what I think must be the same as what I say, and what I say must be the same as what I do."
The result is oneness of thought, word and action, and its effect is an integrated personality, personality made
whole.

Making your mind, word, and action, a unity is not easy. You have in mind the maxim, "honesty is the
best policy." As a teacher you always tell that to students. But deep in your heart you know it has been difficult
to be honest all the time. There was the joke, of which no one knew the source, regarding the motto of the
Philippine Military Academy (PMA) "Integrity, Courage, Loyalty." This is a signage at the gate of PMA in Baguio
City. At that time, some military officials, alumni of PMA, were being investigated for corruption, the word
"Integrity" disappeared.

KEY TAKEAWAYS
• Choice or freedom is a prerequisite of ethics or morality.
• Every human person has freedom or choice and so is expected to be ethical or moral.
• Lower forms of animals have no choice. They are governed by instincts and so ethics or morality does
not apply to them.
• To be truly ethical or moral, we must internalize or possess not just adhere to moral standards. "I did it
My Way" because I am convinced, have to do it "My Way" and not because others tell me so.
 Lesson 6 Culture: How It Defines Moral Behavior

INTRODUCTION
The "absolute freedom" that the existentialist and phenomenologist are talking about does not of course
exist in vacuum. It exists in a world with all its spatio-temporal conditions, its "facticity." Facticity refers to the
"givens" of our situation such as our language, our environment. Our previous choices and our very selves in their
function as in -itself constitute our facticity. (Sartte, Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy) That includes culture.
In this Lesson, we shall discuss culture and how it affects our definition of moral behavior.

ABSTRACTION
What is Culture?
Culture "is the integrated pattern of human knowledge, beliefs, and behaviors. This consists of language,
ideas, customs, morals, laws, taboos, institutions, tools, techniques, and works of art, rituals and other capacities
and habits acquired by a person as a member of society." (Taylor as quoted by Palispis, 1997). These include the
list of items you made in the Activity phase of this Lesson. Culture is the one word expected of Question # 2 of
Activity # 1.

The Magisterium of the Church explains culture as "the set of means used by mankind to become more
virtuous and reasonable in order to become fully human. In its fullest sense, culture means opening up to the
divine, and ultimately, to a religious dimension." Based on this Church definition, it is clear that culture is meant
to serve human persons.

Sociologists categorize culture into material and non-material culture. "Nonmaterial culture consists of
language, values, rules, knowledge, and meanings shared by members of society. Material culture is the physical
object that a society produces-tools, streets, homes and toys, to name a few." (Brinkerhoff, 1989). If you review
your lists again in the Activity phase, you will be able to categorize those that belong to material culture and to
the non-material culture.

Culture is passed on to the next generation by learning not through the genes or heredity. "Culture"
includes all human phenomena which are not purely results of human genetics. (Kroeber et al, 1952)

The Human Person and Culture

As a moral agent you are born into a culture, a factual reality you have not chosen. You are not born
nothing. It may be said that the Aristotelico-Thomistic tradition is one dominant, if not the most dominant culture.
This Aristotelico-Thomistic culture is a Greco-Roman culture, which influenced and shaped the moral life of
those who have been exposed to it. Those who were born into this culture, educated under this culture, are
persuaded that there is God, that a divine order and law keep and govern the world, which includes you. But what
happens when there are different cultures with their own different views of man's direction and destiny? For
instance, the Greek culture introduced the idea of perfection. In terms of numbers, a perfect thing is 100%; in
terms of figures, it is a whole circle. A perfect thing has no privation, no lack, no absence of being. What if a new
culture redefines perfection as any created and present model, which may be recreated, remolded like clay? Any
change in the model may be perceived as the creation of a new model of perfection, not the actualization of what
was lacking. Every created model is a perfection in its own right.

Enculturation, Inculturation and Acculturation

Cultures change or evolve. There are various ways by which cultures change by enculturation,
inculturation and by acculturation.

Enculturation, an anthropological term, was coined by J.M. Herskovits Margaret Mead has, however, was
the one who defined the term as "the process of learning a culture in all its uniqueness and particularity".

...Enculturation is a process of learning from infancy till death, the components of life in one's culture.
The contents of this learning include both the material and non-material culture. The latter refers to values
while the former refers to tools such as a hoe or mask. In the said process of learning, a person grows
into a culture, acquires competence in that culture and that culture takes root in that person and becomes
the cognitive map, the term of reference for acting.

For instance, African girls (South of the Sahara) grow up learning that as a woman she has less rights and
privileges as the African man. For instance, a man can marry more than one woman while she cannot. While the
African wife cannot share her love with other men, the man can share his with other women in the system. It turns
women into an appendage, a property of the man- one of the man's laborers. Umoren, U.E. (1992).
 Another marriage practice that shows that the African woman is the property of the husband and his family
is levirate marriage. Levirate marriage is the marriage between the widow and the brother of her deceased
husband. Therefore at the husband's death the woman is generally expected to stay on (as property of the family)
without any choice in the matter. She raises children to immortalise the deceased husband's name. Umoren, U.E.
1992.

This is enculturation in concrete terms. The African girl grows up and becomes a woman through the said
process of enculturation. This enculturation process has both cognitive and emotional elements. The girl child
who later becomes a woman learns and internalizes the idea that she, because she is a woman, has less privileges
than the African man. This learning takes place through example, direct teaching and in patterns of behavior.
What is learned becomes her cognitive map, her term of reference that directs her behavior.

Another term is inculturation. Inculturation refers to the "missiological process in which the Gospel is
rooted in a particular culture and the latter is transformed by its introduction to Christianity." Umoren, U.E. (1992)

In the Special Assembly of the Synod in 1985, Pope John Paul II defined inculturation in Redemptoris Mission,
n. 52, as

... the intimate transformation of authentic cultural values through their integration in Christianity and
the insertion of Christianity in the various human cultures." This means that inculturation is characterized
by a dual movement, i.e. a dialogic movement towards cultures via the incarnation of the Gospel and the
transmission of its values, and a movement towards the Church that involves the incorporation of values
that come from the cultures the latter encounters. Therefore, a fruitful cross-fertilisation can follow.
(Umoren, U.E., 1992).

In other words, inculturation raises two related problems, that of the evangelisation of cultures (rooting
the Gospel in cultures) and that of the cultural understanding of the Gospel. It was this movement that led Pope
John Paul II to say in 1982, "The synthesis between culture and faith is not only a requirement of culture, but also
of faith.... Faith that does not become culture is not fully accepted, nor entirely reflected upon, or faithfully
experienced"

This means that inculturation is not an action but a process that unfolds over time, one that is active and
based on mutual recognition and dialogue, a critical mind and insight, faithfulness and conversion, transformation
and growth, renewal and innovation.

Inculturation is a two way process: it roots the Gospel in a culture and introduces that transformed culture
to Christianity. For example, to root the Gospel in the African culture is to initiate two events. The first
event is to transform the African culture of oppressing women into a culture where men and women are
treated as human persons equal in dignity, rights and privileges. The second event is to develop the African
culture's latent potential towards the human development of the woman, created like her male counterpart
in the image and likeness of God. The other aspect is to introduce the woman and her transformed culture
to Christianity, for example, by allowing the woman a meaningful place among the agents of inculturation.
(cf. Umoren, U.E. 1992)

Acculturation is another big term. It is the "cultural modification of an individual, group, or people by
adapting to or borrowing traits from another culture". It is also explained as the merging of cultures as a result of
prolonged contact". Immigrants to the United States of America become acculturated to American life. Refugees
and indigenous peoples (IP) likewise adapt to the culture of the dominant majority.

There are cultural practices that should be stopped because of the painful harm they do. The practice of
human sacrifice has somehow been stopped. But the circumcision of women still goes on in some parts of the
world, like Africa. Some approaches have been successful, like what one NGO tried to introduce in Africa. It is
called a buying in. To gradually stop the circumcision of women, the approach was to buy in, like introducing
into the place good health facilities and other forms of assistance to alleviate their economic hardships in return
to their stopping the practice.

How Culture Shapes the Moral Agent

Culture definitely affects the way we evaluate and judge things. Consider the African women not as
privileged as the African men described. in the earlier section of this Lesson. Some societies consider it alright
gathering vegetables at the backyard of their neighbor considering the act as getting a share. In such societies, the
act would not be called stealing. In most societies, the act is stealing. In ancient times, human sacrifice was not
wrong. Today it is a criminal act. In some culture like Islamic culture, and African culture (South of Sahara)
having several wives is allowed. In other cultures, it's concubinage or adultery.

Culture has a very long lasting hold on an individual. A person may have become highly educated, may
have even obtained a doctorate degree, educated with Christian values of forgiveness, but if he comes from a
society with a culture of vengeance ("an eye for an eye and a tooth for a tooth") having the sense of obligation to
make an act of revenge when a member of his tribe has been killed or harmed by another tribe, and when a case
arises where a member of his tribe is harmed by another, he becomes ultimately vindictive and joins his tribe
seeking revenge. No amount of graduate education can prevent him from joining his tribe to seek revenge. He
forgets about his doctorate degree in Values Education.

KEY TAKEAWAYS
• Culture is the integrated pattern of human knowledge, beliefs and behaviors. It is people's way of life.
• Culture consists of material and non- material culture. Non-material culture includes language, values,
rules, knowledge and meanings shared by members of society. Material culture refers to the physical
objects that a society produces such as tools and works of art.
• Culture is learned not inherited. It is acquired through enculturation, inculturation and acculturation.
• Enculturation is the process of learning the components of life- material as well as non-material in one's
culture.
• Inculturation is making the Gospel take roots in a culture and introducing that transformed culture to
Christianity.
• Acculturation is the process by which people learn and adapt a new culture.
• Culture influences the human person, who is the moral agent.
• Culture affects human behavior. Not all cultural practices are morally acceptable. Examples are the
culture of vengeance and low regard for the African women in comparison to the African men.
 Lesson 7 Cultural Relativism

INTRODUCTION
After studying the meaning of culture, how it is learned and how it shapes moral behavior, let us focus on
cultural relativism, its meaning and its strengths and weaknesses.

ABSTRACTION
What is cultural relativism? First, relativism says "what is true for you is true 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 judgment 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 woman is treated in comparison to
that of the African man should not be judged against other culture's standards. 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. (Mckinnon, et al., 2015)

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. (MacKinnon, et al., 2015).
KEY TAKEAWAYS
• 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."
• Morality is relative to the norms of one's culture. That is, whether an action is right or wrong depends
on the moral norms of the society in which it is practiced. The same action may be morally right in one
society but be morally wrong in another.
• The danger of cultural relativism is the idea of relativism itself. Whether an action is right or wrong
depends on the moral norms of the society in which it is practiced. What is good depends on what society's
culture considers as good. What is bad likewise depends on what society's culture considers as bad.
• Absolute relativism is self contradictory and impossible. Absolute relativism states "there are no absolute
truths: which is an absolute truth itself, so absolute relativism contradicts itself.
• There is a difference between cultural perspective and cultural relativism. To have a cultural perspective
is to understand people's beliefs, values and practices in the context of their culture. Having a perspective
of one's culture, is needed to understand people. But it does not follow that morality must be based on said
culture.
 Lesson 8 The Filipino Character

INTRODUCTION
After having learned that culture influences the human person as a moral agent of and after having
understood the meaning of culture relativism let us now examine the Filipino character to determine which one
does not help him/her grow in moral character.

ABSTRACTION
The Filipino Character: Strengths and Weaknesses
Below is an excerpt of the Report "A Moral Recovery Program: Building a People, Building a Nation"
submitted on April 27, 1988 by the Task Force to President Corazon Aquino, the Senate and the members of the
press by then Senator Leticia Shahani, the moving spirit behind the program.

The weaknesses of the Filipino character as cited in the Report are as follows:

1. 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.

2. 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. He 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
Philippine society.

3. 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 lack of standardization and quality control. Impatience 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.

4. 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.

5. Colonial mentality - Lack of patriotism, or of an active awareness, appreciation and love of the
Philippines and an actual preference for things foreign.

6. 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.

7. 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 lack of analysis or reflection and instead satisfaction
with superficial explanations and solutions.

8. 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...

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. (Shahani, Leticia. (1988). A Moral Recovery Program:
Building a People, Building a Nation.)

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

Senator Shahani's Report was given in 1988. But its findings as reported may still be true today. If the
Department of Education has to be true to its vision to help develop... "Filipinos who passionately love their
country and whose values and competencies enable them to realize their full potential and contribute meaningfully
to building the nation" and to its core values - maka-Diyos, maka-tao, makakalikasan and makabansa - it is an
uphill battle for Philippine schools to realize these considering the weaknesses of the Filipino character: 1)
extreme family centeredness, 2) extreme personalism, 3) lack of discipline, 4) passivity and lack of initiative, 5)
colonial mentality, 6) kanya-kanya syndrome, talangka mentality, 7) lack of self-analysis and self-reflection and
8) emphasis on porma rather than substance.

So that it will not be "more form than substance" as described in Senator Shahani's Report, Philippine
schools have to intensify values education in the curriculum which in essence is moral education. In fact, in
response to this Report, Values Education now Edukasyon sa Pagpapakatao in the K to 12 Curriculum was
introduced as a separate subject in the basic education curriculum under the Values Education Framework
program of Dr. Lourdes Quisumbing, then Department of Education, Culture and Sports Secretary in 1988-1990.
The Values Education Framework was conceptualized in 1987. In 2002, the Basic Education Curriculum (Grade
1-6, and First-Fourth Year High School) integrated values in the major learning areas or subjects. Beginning with
the K to 12 Curriculum in 2013, Values Education was renamed Edukasyon sa Pagpapakatao (EsP) for Grades
1-10. In the Senior High Curriculum (Grades 11-12), there is no course with the title, Values Education or
Edukasyon sa Pagpapakatao but core courses such as Introduction to the Philosophy of the Human Person and
Personal Development, are in essence Values Education subjects and Moral Education subjects themselves.

To help every Filipino child grow morally and ethically, he/she must be helped acquire 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

There had been studies of the Filipino moral life, the more popular of which were those Fr. Jaime Bulatao,
Fr. Leonardo Mercado, Fr. Francis Senden, and Fr. Vitaliano Gorospe. Fr. Bulatao's research identified the "kami"
mentality of Filipinos. In "kami" (a Filipino term which means "us") he says, "I identify with my family and
relatives... We are opposed to all who are not kami." Fr. Vitaliano Gorospe, SJ referred to this way of thinking as
"group-centeredness" or "group thinking" characterized as follows:

One norm of morality in the Philippines is based on "group centeredness" or "group-thinking."

One's in-group determines for the individual what is right or wrong. The individual who has not yet
attained moral independence and maturity will ask: "What will my family, or my relatives and friends, or
my barkada think or say?" "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.
"Shame or hiya makes the parents and the girl conform to the social expectations of the neighbors lest
they become the object of tsismis or gossip.

Here again 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 own moral "conscience from the inside." (Gorospe, 1977)

The "group thinking" cited by Fr. Gorospe is called "sakop mentality" by others like Fr. Leonardo
Mercado. (1977) The sakop may refer to "person's relatives, peers, classmates, townmates, officemates, etc." This
thinking or mentality explains the "pakikisama" in both positive and negative sense; it explains the barkada
attitude, euphemism, the laughter of affirmation of gutter language; it explains subservience to an illegal or
immoral order. Hence, Dr. Brenda B. Corpuz (1986) observed in her article published in the St. Louis University
Research Journal:
 One can estimate the consequences of this sakop mentality by imagining how it works in decision
making. Since sakop welfare is the ultimate value, then a lot of principles may be sacrificed for the sake
of it. One can kill and hide the body of the crime by reason of being part of the sakop. One can tell a lot
of lies for the sake of the sakop. One can pick some vegetable from his neighbor's backyard and is... not
bothered by a sense of guilt because one does not steal from a member of the sakop. The sakop determines
for the individual what is right or wrong.

Impact of Culture on Morality

Speaking of the significant impact of culture on the morality of people, let us think of the Japanese "shame
culture." "Guilt cultures emphasize punishment and forgiveness as ways of restoring the moral order; shame
cultures stress self-denial and humility as ways of restoring the social order." What keeps Japanese from acting
contrary to moral standards is the fear of being put to shame. At most they would do when put to shame is hara-
kiri, (suicide). Contrast this to the "guilt culture" in the Philippines. When a Filipino commits an immoral act, he
would of course feel guilty, but after confessing his sin, he may feel as if he is back to the normal thing and can
sin again.

Can it be said that a society that easily resorts to mob rule, mob mentality, where only a few have the guts
to stand up and insist on what conscience dictates, is in need of moral development? Filipino homes and schools
have to do something, to teach the moral development they want or hope to see.

KEY TAKEAWAYS
• The Filipino has a number of strengths. His/her strengths when they become extreme, however, also
become his/her weaknesses.
•His/her strengths help him/her become ethical and moral but his/her weaknesses obstruct his/her moral
and ethical growth.
• Culture has a significant impact on morality.
• The Filipino group-centeredness and "kami"- mentality make it difficult for the Filipino to stand up
against the group when that is the moral thing to do.
• There is much need for home, school and society as a whole to help every Filipino grow into the strong
moral person everyone is called to become.
• For the Filipino to become the moral and ethical person, he/she should capitalize on his/her strengths
and eliminate his/her weaknesses.
 Lesson 9 Universal Values

INTRODUCTION
After a lesson on cultural relativism and after a discussion on the Filipino strengths and weaknesses, let
us find out if there are universal values.

ABSTRACTION
Despite the claims of cultural relativism, the concept on the reality of universal values persists. Are there
universal values? Is honesty a universal value? Plato talked about the values or virtues of temperance, courage,
and wisdom. Jesus Christ preached the value of love from which springs patience, kindness, goodwill,
forgiveness, and compassion. Confucius taught righteousness, human-heartedness, filial piety. Are not these
universal values, that is, they remain values at all times and in all places? Yes, Plato would say, they exist apart
form the concrete world. On the other hand, Aristotle would say that they exist embodied in the concrete
individual as common or essential characteristic. St. Thomas agreed with them, but the universals do not exist
apart from the individual; they exist as universal features individuated, instantiated in the individuals. In other
words, the universals are abstracted common features from individuals. For example, the universal characteristics
of man are that he is a "rational, sentient, living, body" are abstracted as characteristics common to all persons. A
human person differs from a stone because he/she is alive. He/she differs from living things like plants because
he/she is sentient, and differs from sentient things like animals because he/she is rational. This universal character
of a human person exists in the mind as idea. Universals are immaterial and immutable, beyond (transcendent)
space and time, or spatio-temporal conditions. In the words of Van Peursen, they are termed as "logical structures"
underlying the material world and making the world possible.

The same thing is true with moral standards and values. The values of honesty and respect for human life
are characteristics individuated in all people who respect, do not harm, injure or kill, human beings. All the
standards and values implied in the Ten Commandments can be reduced to the value or rule of love. This is
because no one can wish or will the opposite, hatred, killing, stealing, to be universal. Values are universalized
because they can only be wished to be the values of all. For instance, one cannot wish that killing be obligatory
because it is like wishing anyone to come and kill you.

Using Kant's criteria, can these identified "universal values" be willed as universal. Can one will these
values be the values of all? Certainly, the answer is in the affirmative.

Related to the empirical findings on the universal values, Dr. Kent M. Keith (2003) came up with a list of
fundamental, or universal moral. principles that can be found throughout the world. These are grouped into
negative and positive statements as follows:

DO NO HARM. Do not do to others what you would not like them to do to you. Do not lie. Do
not steal. Do not cheat. Do not falsely accuse others. Do not commit adultery. Do not commit incest. Do
not physically or verbally abuse others. Do not murder. Do not destroy the natural environment upon
which all life depends.

DO GOOD. Do to others what you would like them to do to you. Be honest and fair. Be generous.
Be faithful to your family and friends. Take care of your children when they are young. Take care of your
parents when they are old. Take care of those who cannot take care of themselves. Be kind to strangers.
Respect all life. Protect the natural environment upon which all life depends.

KEY TAKEAWAYS
• Universal values are for human survival.
• Universal values are the ultimate bases for living together and learning how to live together. Without
respect for human life all then people will just kill each other. If honesty or truth telling is not valued by
all, there will be endless lack of trust among people.
• In spite of cultural relativism, there are values that are universal for human survival.