Ethical Relativism and Filipino Cultural Values PDF

Before the discussion starts… ▪ Is Ethics relative? (Group yourselves in 4) 1. Make a list of 5 things that you would say might be wrong in certain situations. 2. Compare your list with other groups and come up with a common list with which you agree. Order the items, from “most likel...

Before the discussion starts… ▪ Is Ethics relative? (Group yourselves in 4) 1. Make a list of 5 things that you would say might be wrong in certain situations. 2. Compare your list with other groups and come up with a common list with which you agree. Order the items, from “most likely to always be wrong” to “least likely to always be wrong” 3. Pick one of the 5 items and give a plausible exception where you might be justified in breaking the rule; and discuss it in class. Most justified group will win. (50 pt. worth quiz for the winners)  A Brief History of Relativism ▪ Began with the Stoics There are no universal forms beyond this world – ▪ Plato criticized the forms are in the world and therefore not absolute. Stoics with his theory Moral behavior should be a of the forms (and midway approach between ethical absolutism) two extremes; human circumstances are infinite and it is not possible to ▪ Aristotle disagreed have a general rule which with Plato: will cover every situation. Moral rules hold for the most part but there are times when they won’t. Aristotle’s Virtue Ethics ▪ Ethics is not absolute, it should seek a midway approach to behavior between two extremes. ▪ Virtue is the mean between two extremes Example: Cowardly Courageous Rash Vice of Deficiency Virtuous Mean Vice of Excess  Relativism in Modernity… ▪ For millennia, most people believed that right is right and wrong is wrong, and that was all there is to it. 14th April 2007 ▪ Now university lecturers report that Julian Baginni their fresh-faced new students take it as obvious that there is no such thing as “the truth” and that morality is relative. In educated circles at least, only the naïve believe in objectivity. Ethical Relativism and the Ambivalence of Filipino Cultural Values Culture and Moral Behavior ▪ Culture plays an important roles in the development of one’s moral character; at such point that some philosophers consider culture as inseparable from morality. ▪ To disregard culture is to have a groundless metaphysical generalities. ▪ For some; Morality = result of Cultural Factors. ▪ Ethical Relativism – a framework where morality does not rest on culture. Ethical Relativism Defined It refers to a view or doctrine that ethical values and beliefs are relative to the time, place, persons, situations and societies that hold them.  Ethical Relativism A theory that holds that there are no universally valid moral principles; all moral values are valid relative to culture of individual choice – thus, subjective. Relativism does not try to tell us which acts and practices are right and wrong; it says no matter how we answer that question, we must acknowledge that a conduct may be both right and wrong at the same time [right in one culture, and wrong in another]. Arguments for Ethical Relativism The Cultural Differences Argument ▪ There is an actual existence of moral diversity among culture. ▪ There is no universal or transcultural consensus on which actions are right and wrong, “even though there is a considerable overlapping with regards to this.” ▪ However, “acquaintance with the wide diversity of moral beliefs across societies” may lead us to deny that there is really only one correct moral code. The Argument from Respect ▪ If moral codes differ from culture and there is no objective basis, then there is no special status of any culture. ▪ No culture has the right to impose its cultural values. ▪ Thus, the appropriate attitude would be to respect it. ▪ People should stop being too dogmatic on one’s culture and claim themselves to be right, and thus just respect other’s claims to be “different.” The Psychological Argument ▪ This argument rests on a conclusion that; “One’s values are conditioned through parental rearing.” ▪ If we would be brought up differently, then our moral principles would be different as well. ▪ There would be no such thing as objective truth in ethics. ▪ Moral truth is relative to one’s own psychological upbringing. The Conformity Argument ▪ Some people accept Ethical Relativism because they think that people should conform with the ethical code of their respective societies; some even think that it is their duty. ▪ Through Cultural Relativism, people would come to be more accepting of their own societal norms. ▪ Their belief gives a good basis for a common morality within a culture. ▪ Diverse ideas and principles are pooled in. The Provability Argument ▪ Each person is at lost in knowing the morally “RIGHT THING” to do in a particular situation. ▪ This leads to an attitude of skepticism. ▪ Its main argument lies: if there is such a thing as objective truth in ethics we should be able to prove that some moral opinions are true and others false. Critical Evaluation of Ethical Relativism  On Cultural Diversity ▪ Cultural Relativism is indeed sociological and anthropological fact; however, it does not establish the truth of ethical relativism. ▪ The point is: “Does cultural relativism imply ethical relativism?” ▪ Relativism self destructs. ▪ If “morality is relative to one’s culture” is followed, it is in itself a contradiction – since, if everything is relative then the very truth of relativism would also be relative.  On the Argument from Respect ▪ This is the kind that render tolerance in face of something unfamiliar and contradictory which seem to be an attitude of mature and enlightened mind. ▪ If there is no way of criticizing other culture then we might as well as accept it – INTERCULTURAL TOLERANCE [by Herskovits] ▪ Contention: “If people believe that there is ethical relativism, then they will be more tolerant of moral differences.” ▪ The main question is: “How do we really know that one would be tolerant and respectful?” There is no empirical evidence. ▪ Another: “Acceptance of it involves one in some sort of contradiction, while tolerance is a virtue, it could not be practiced consistently.  On the Psychological Argument ▪ In Moral Skepticism, Rachels points out a flaw in the argument, he says, “even granting the truth of the premise, that we do acquire our moral beliefs by a process like the one psychologists described, the conclusion that if we had been conditioned differently, we would have different moral beliefs, thus there’s no such thing as objective moral truth, does not follow, hence unsound and invalid.” ▪ The conclusion does not follow from the premises. ▪ Commits the Genetic Fallacy and Fallacy of Misrepresentation.  On the Conformity Argument ▪ Morality is dependent on the majority, which is problematic for the argument.  On the Provability Argument ▪ Normal Proof – can be proven. ▪ Standard Scientific Sense of Proof – cannot be proven. ▪ Human beings are in a constant disagreement. ▪ We are uncertain about the morality of some of our actions and decisions, and cannot really prove them beyond reasonable doubt. ▪ Even though there were no solid way to know moral truths, it would not follow that there are no such truths. The Ambivalence of Filipino Values  The Ambivalence of Filipino Traits and Values ▪ Filipinos are sometimes called “ambivalent,” as it is a product of our complex history. ▪ According to Dr. Quito, we have a “weak character” that is comprised as the “scapegoat of our failures.” ▪ Does these characters make up of our “being a Filipino?”  The Ambivalence of Filipino Traits and Values 1. Hiya (Shame) – Negative – arrests one’s actions (“morality of the slave” by Nietzsche) – Positive – contributes peace of mind by not doing anything 2. Ningas-cogon (Procrastination) – Negative – begins ardently and dies down as soon as it begins. – Positive – the person is non-chalant, detached and indifferent, thus conducive to peace and tranquility.  The Ambivalence of Filipino Traits and Values 3. Pakikisama (Group Loyalty) – Negative – because one closes one’s eyes to evil like graft and corruption in order to achieve peace and harmony. – Positive – because one lives for others. 4. Patigasan (Test of Strength) – Negative – stubborn and resists all efforts at reconciliation. This trait makes us childish, vindictive, irresponsible and irrational. – Positive – it is a sign that we know our rights and not easily cowed into submission. (Nietzsche’s will-to-power)  The Ambivalence of Filipino Traits and Values 5. Bahala Na (Resignation) – Negative – one leaves everything to chance under the pretext of understanding in Divine providence. – Positive – one relies on superior power rather than one’s own. Conducive to humility, modesty and lack of arrogance. 6. Kasi (Because, i.e. Scapegoat) – Negative – because one disowns responsibility and makes scapegoat out of someone or something; there is always an alibi. – Positive – one sees both sides of the picture; knows where the project failed; one will never suffer from guilt.  The Ambivalence of Filipino Traits and Values 7. Saving Face – Negative – it enables a person to avoid responsibility. – Positive – one’s psyche is saved from undue embarrassment; will enable someone to make a graceful exit. 8. Sakop (Inclusion) – Negative – one never learns to be on one’s own but relies on one’s family and relatives. Generates a life of parasitism. – Positive – shows concern for the family where the agent belongs.  The Ambivalence of Filipino Traits and Values 9. Mañana or Bukas Na/ Mamaya Na (Procrastination) – Negative – one constantly postpones action and accomplishes nothing. – Positive – one is without stress and tension; one learns to take what comes naturally. 10. Utang na Loob (Indebtedness) – Negative – one overlooks moral principles when one is indebted. – Positive – it is a recognition of one’s indebtedness.  The Ambivalence of Filipino Traits and Values 11. Kanya-Kanya (Self-Centeredness) – Negative – one has no regard for others. – Positive – one takes care of oneself and one’s family. “Blood is thicker than water.”