Module 1: The Ethical Dimension of Human Existence PDF

# MODULE 1 ## THE ETHICAL DIMENSION OF HUMAN EXISTENCE ### CHAPTER OBJECTIVES After reading this chapter, you should be able to: 1. Identify the ethical aspect of human life and the scope of ethical thinking; 2. Define and explain the terms that are relevant to ethical thinking; and 3. Evaluate...

# MODULE 1 ## THE ETHICAL DIMENSION OF HUMAN EXISTENCE ### CHAPTER OBJECTIVES After reading this chapter, you should be able to: 1. Identify the ethical aspect of human life and the scope of ethical thinking; 2. Define and explain the terms that are relevant to ethical thinking; and 3. Evaluate the difficulties that are involved in maintaining certain commonly-held notions on ethics. ### INTRODUCTION In August 2007, newspapers reported what seemed to be yet another sad incident of fraternity violence. Chris Anthony Mendez, a twenty-year-old student of the University of the Philippines (UP), was rushed to the hospital in the early morning hours, unconscious with large bruises on his chest, back, and legs. He passed away that morning, and the subsequent autopsy report strongly suggests that his physical injuries were most probably the result of "hazing" (the term colloquially used to refer to initiation rites in which neophytes may be subjected to various forms of physical abuse). What exactly happened remains an open question, as none of those who were with him that night came forward to assume responsibility for the death of Cris. Even the leaders of Sigma Rho fraternity denounced the death of Cris, those members of theirs who had been with him that night vanished, avoiding and refusing to cooperate with legal authorities. Meanwhile, UP students and the general public clamored for justice. In a move that surprised the student body, the UP chancellor called on all fraternities to justify their continued existence. Meanwhile, the case of the tragic death of Cris Anthony Mendez was left unresolved. It remains that way up to this day. No one knows what exactly just happened. No charges have been filed, no definitive testimony has been forthcoming. But there is more to this for us than just a criminal mystery. Pondering on the death of Cris, we may find ourselves asking such questions such as "What is the value of one's life?" What exactly were the wrong done to Cris by his so-called fraternity brothers?", or perhaps even, "Is there and good fraternities?" These questions that concern good and bad, or right and wrong- these are questions concerning value- are the kind of questions that we deal with in ethics. ### VALUE Ethics, generally speaking is about matters as the good things that we should pursue and the bad thing that we should avoid; the right ways in which we could or should act and the wrong ways of acting. It is about what is acceptable and unacceptable in human behavior. It may involve obligations that we are expected to fulfill, prohibitions that we are required to respect, or ideals that we are encouraged to meet. Ethics as a subject for us to study is about determining the grounds for the values with particular and special significance to human life. ### CLARIFICATIONS AND TERMINOLOGY Recognizing the notions of good and bad, and right and wrong, are the primary concern of ethics. In order to start, it would be useful to clarify the following points. #### Kinds of Valuation Our first point of clarification is to recognize that there are instances when we make value judgments that are not considered to be part of ethics. For instance, I could say that this new movie I had just seen was a "good" one because I enjoyed it, or a song I had just heard on the radio was a "bad" one because it had an unpleasant tone, but these are not part of the discussion of ethics. I may have an opinion as to what is the "right" dip (sawsawan) for my chicken barbecue, or I may maintain that it is wrong "wrong" to wear a leather vest over a Barong tagalog, and these are not concerns of ethics. These are valuations that fall under the domain of aesthetics. The word "aesthetics" is derived from the Greek word aesthesis ("sense" or "feeling") and refers to the judgements of personal approval or disapproval that we make about what we see, hear, smell, or taste. In fact, we often use the word "taste" to refer to the personal aesthetic preferences that we have one on these matters, such as "his taste in music" or "her taste in clothes". Similarly, we have a sense of approval or disapproval concerning certain actions which can be considered relatively more trivial in nature. Thus, for instance, I may think that it is "right" to knock politely on someone's door, while it is "wrong" to barge into one's office. Perhaps I may approve of a child who knows how to ask for something properly by saying "please" and otherwise, disapprove of a woman that I see picking her nose in public. These and other similar examples belong to the category of etiquette, which is concerned with right and wrong actions, but those which might be considered not quite grave enough to belong to a discussion of ethics. To clarify this point, we can differentiate how I may be displeased seeing a healthy young man refuse to offer his seat on the bus to an elderly lady, but my indignation and shock would be much greater if I were to see a man deliberately push another one out of moving bus. We can also consider how a notion of right and wrong actions can easily appear in a context that is not a matter of ethics. This could also be when learning how to bake, for instance. I am told that the right thing to do would be to mix the dry ingredients first such as flour or sugar before bringing in any liquids, like milk or cream; this is the right to do in baking, but not one that belongs to a discussion of ethics. This could also be when learning how to play basketball. I am instructed that it is against the rules to walk more than two steps without dribbling the ball; again, obeying this rule to not travel is somethings that makes sense only in the context of the game and is not an ethical prohibition. We derive from the Greek word techne the English words "technique" and "technical" which are often used to refer to a proper way (or right way) of doing things, but a technical valuation (or right and wrong technique of doing things) may not necessarily be an ethical one as these examples show. Recognizing the characteristics of aesthetic and technical valuation allows us to have a rough guide as to what belongs to a discussion of ethics. They involve valuations that we make in a sphere of human actions, characterized by certain gravity and concern the human well-being or human life itself. Therefore, matters that concern life and death such as war, capital punishment, or abortion and matters that concern human well-being such as poverty, inequality, or sexual identity are often included in discussions of ethics. However, this general description is only a starting point and will require further elaboration. One complication that can be noted is that the distinction between what belongs to ethics and what does not is not always clearly defined. At times, the question of what is grave or trivial is debatable and sometimes some of the most heated discussions in ethics could be on the fundamental question of whether a certain sphere of human activities belongs to this discussion. Are clothes always just a matter of taste or would provocative clothing call for some kind of moral judgement? Can we say that a man who verbally abuses his girlfriend is simply showing bad manners or does this behavior deserve stronger moral condemnation? #### Ethics and Morals Our second point of clarification is on the use of the words "ethics" and morals". This discussion of ethics and morals would include cognates such as ethical, unethical, immoral, amoral, morality, and so on. As we proceed, we should be careful particularly on the use of the word "not" when applied to the words "moral" or "ethical" as this can be ambiguous. One might say that cooking is not ethical, that is, the act of cooking does not belong to a discussion of ethics; on the other hand, one might say that lying is not ethical, but the meaning here is that act of lying would be an unethical act. Let us consider those words further. The term "morals" may be used to refer to specific beliefs or attitudes that people have or to describe acts that people perform. Thus, it is sometimes said that an individual's personal conduct is referred to as his morals, and if he falls short of behaving properly, this can be described as immoral. However, we also have terms such as "moral judgement" or "moral reasoning", which suggest a more rational aspect. The term "ethics" can be spoken of as the discipline of studying and understanding ideal human behavior and ideal ways of thinking. Thus, ethics is acknowledged as an intellectual discipline belonging to philosophy. However, acceptable and unacceptable behaviors are also generally described as ethical and unethical, respectively. In addition, with regard to the acceptable and unacceptable ways of behaving in a given field, we have the term "professional ethics" (e.g., legal ethics for the proper comportment of lawyers and other people in the legal profession; medical ethics for doctors and nurses; and media ethics for writers and reporters). Therefore, various thinkers and writers posit a distinction between the terms "moral" and "ethics" and they may have good reasons for doing so, but there is no consensus as to how to make that distinction. So, in this book, we will be using the terms "ethical" and "moral" (likewise, "ethics" and "morality") interchangeably. #### Descriptive and Normative Our third point of clarification is to distinguish between a descriptive and a normative study of ethics. A descriptive study of ethics reports how people, particularly groups, make their moral valuations without making any judgement either for or against these valuations. This kind of study is often the work of the social scientist: either a historian (studying different moral standards overtime) or a sociologist on an anthropologist (studying different moral standards across cultures). A normative study of ethics, as is often done in philosophy or moral theology, engages the question: What could or should be considered as the right way of acting? In other words, a normative discussion prescribes what we ought to maintain as our standards or bases for moral valuation. When engaging in a discussion of ethics, it is always advisable to recognize whether one is concerned with a descriptive view (e.g., noting how filial piety and obedience are pervasive characteristics of Chinese culture) or with normative perspective (e.g., studying how Confucian ethics enjoins us to obey our parents and to show filial piety). We need to go further. A philosophical discussion of ethics goes beyond recognizing the characteristics of some descriptive theory; also, it does not simply accept as correct any normative theory. A philosophical discussion of ethics engages in critical consideration of the strengths and weaknesses of these theories. This will be our primary concern throughout this book. #### Issue, Decision, Judgement, and Dilemma As the final point of clarification, it may be helpful to distinguish a situation that calls for moral valuation. It can be called a moral issue. For instance, imagine a situation wherein a person cannot afford a certain item, but the then the possibility presents itself for her to steal it. This is a matter of ethics (and not just law) insofar as it involves the question of respect for one's property. We should add that "issue" is also often used to refer to those particular situations that are often the source of considerable and inconclusive debate (thus, we would often hear topics such as capital punishment and euthanasia as moral "issues".) When one is placed is a situation and confronted by the choice of what act to perform, she is called to make a moral decision. For instance, I choose not to take something I did not pay for. When a person is an observer who makes an assessment on the actions or behavior of someone, she is making a moral judgement. For instance, a friend of mine chooses to steal from a store, and I make an assessment that it is wrong. Finally, going beyond the matter of choosing what is right over wrong, or good over bad, and considering instead the more complicated situation wherein one is torn between choosing one of two goods or choosing between the lesser of two evils: this is referred to as moral dilemma. We have a moral dilemma when an individual can choose only one from a number of possible actions, and there are compelling ethical reasons for the various choices. A mother may be conflicted between wanting to feed her hungry child, but then recognizing that it would be wrong for her to steal is an example of a moral dilemma. ### REASONING Why do we suppose that a certain way of acting is right and its opposite wrong? The study of ethics is interested in questions like these: Why do we decide to consider this way of acting as acceptable while that way of acting, its opposite, is unacceptable? To put it in another way, what reasons do we give to decide or to judge that a certain way of acting is either right or wrong? A person's fear of punishment or desire for reward can provide him a reason for acting in a certain way. It is common to hear someone say: "I did not cheat on the exam because I was afraid that I might get caught," or "I looked after my father in the hospital because I wanted to get a higher allowance." In a certain sense, fear of punishment and desire for reward can be spoken of as giving someone a "reason" for acting in a certain way. But the question then would be: Is this reason good enough? That is to say, this way of thinking seems to be a shallow way of understanding reason because it does not show any true understanding of why cheating on an exam is wrong or why looking after a member of my family is in itself a good thing. The promise of rewards and the fear of punishments can certainly motivate us to act, but are not in themselves a determinant of the rightness or wrongness of a certain way of acting or of the good or the bad in a particular pursuit. It is possible to find better reasons for finding a certain way of acting either acceptable or unacceptable? I am in a situation wherein I could obtain a higher grade for myself by cheating. I make the decision not to do so. Or I know that my friend was in a position to get a better grade for herself by cheating. She refuses to do so; I then make the judgement of praising her for this. In making this kind of moral decision or moral judgement, the question can be asked: Why? Asking the question "why" might bring us to no more than a superficial discussion of rewards and punishments, as seen above, but it could also bring us to another level of thinking. Perhaps one can rise above, but it could also bring us to another level of thinking. Perhaps one can rise above the particulars of a specific situation, going beyond whatever motivation or incentive is present in this instance of cheating (or not doing so). In other words, our thinking may take on a level of abstraction, that is, detaching itself from the particular situation and arriving at a statement like, "Cheating is wrong", by recognizing proper reasons for not acting in this way. Beyond rewards and punishments, it is possible for our moral valuation- our decisions and judgements- to be based on principles. Thus, one may conclude that cheating is wrong based on a sense of fair play or a respect for the importance and validity of testing. From this, we can define principles as rationally established grounds by which one justifies and maintains her moral decisions and judgements. But why do we maintain one particular principle rather than another? Why should I maintain that I should care for fair play and that cheating is, therefore, wrong? Returning to the case of fraternity hazing where we started this chapter, why is it wrong to cause another person physical injury or take another's life? We can maintain principles, but we can also ask what good reasons for doing so. Such reasons may differ. So, for example, what makes the death of Cris such a tragedy? One person may say that life is sacred and God-given. Another person may declare that human life has a priceless dignity. Still another may put forward the idea that taking another's life does not contribute to human happiness but to human misery instead. How exactly do we arrive at any of these claims? This is where we turn to theory. A moral theory is a systematic attempt to establish the validity of maintaining certain moral principles. Insofar as a theory is a system of thought or of ideas, it can also be referred to as a framework. We can use this term, "framework", as a theory of interconnected ideas, and at the same time, a structure through which we can evaluate our reasons for valuing a certain decision or judgement. There are different frameworks that can make us reflect on the principles that we maintain and thus, the decisions and judgements we make. By studying these, we can reconsider, clarify, modify, and ultimately strengthen our principles, thereby informing better both our moral judgements and moral decisions. The next chapter of this book will explore different ethical frameworks that have come down from the history of philosophy. This is not an exhaustive list, and many worthwhile theories and thinkers have been set aside. But the choice had been made to discuss more deeply and at greater length just few of the more significant and influential thinkers and ideas that have contributed to ethical discernment. In the Apology of Socrates written by Plato, Socrates makes the claim that it is the greatest good for a person to spend time thinking about and discussing with others these questions on goodness and virtue. Hopefully, as we pursue these topics, you will come to agree with Socrates that this effort is indeed a good thing. We will be returning to Plato later in this chapter, as he guides us though some further difficulties. Before turning to the ethical theories, we will spend the rest of this chapter exploring certain notions of ethics that are commonly maintained, but further thought on these notions will reveal that these are quite problematic. These involve either an appeal to a particular form of authority or to a particular way of understanding the self. ### SOURCES OF AUTHORITY Several common ways of thinking about ethics are based on the idea that the standards of valuation are imposed by a higher authority that commands our obedience. In the following section, we will explore three of such ideas: the authority of the law, the authority of one's religion, and the authority of one's own culture. #### Law It is supposed that law is one's guide to ethical behavior. In the Philippines, Filipinos are constrained to obey the laws of the land as stated in the country's criminal and civil codes. Making this even more particular, in Cebu, residents are constrained to follow any provincial laws or city ordinances. One can easily imagine this becoming even more localized to the barangay or village level, where local or municipal layers of obligation are there for residents to follow. The term positive law refers to the different rules and regulations that are posited or put forward by an authority figure that require compliance. At first glance, this seems to make a lot of sense. We recognize that there are many acts that we immediately consider unethical (e.g., murder or theft, which we also know are forbidden by law. Furthermore, the law is enforced by way of a system of sanctions administered through persons and institutions, which all help in compelling us to obey. Taking the law to be the basis of ethics has the benefit of providing us with an objective standard that is obligatory and applicable to all. So, we would not be surprised if we were to hear someone say, "Ethics? It is simple. Just follow whatever the law says." However, there are some problems with this. Of course, we do maintain that, generally speaking, one should obey the law. However, the idea that we are examining here is a more controversial one: the more radical claim that one can look to the law itself in order to determine what is right or wrong. But the question is: can one simply identify ethics with the law? One point to be raise is the prohibitive nature of law. The law does not tell us what we should do; it works by constraining us from performing acts that we should not do. To put it slightly differently, the law cannot tell us what to pursue, only what to avoid. Would we be satisfied thinking about ethics solely from the negative perspective of that which we may not do, disregarding the important aspect of a good which we could and maybe even should do, even if it were not required of us by the law? In line with this, we might find that there are certain ways of acting which are not forbidden by the law, but are ethically questionable to us. For instance, a company that pads its profits by refusing to give its employees benefits may do so within the parameters of the law. The company can do so by refusing to hire people on a permanent basis, but offering them six-month contracts. Constrained to work under this contractual system, the employees are thus deprived not only of benefits, but also of job security. Here, no law is violated, yet one can wonder whether there is something ethically questionable to this business practice. The fact that one can make such a negative value judgement of the practice where there is no violation of the law is already a hint that one can look to something beyond the law when making our ethical valuations. To make this point concrete, recall the story of a toddler who had been run over by a couple of vehicles. While there were many passers-by who witnessed what had happened, for quite a long while, no one did anything to help. The child later died in the hospital. The law does not oblige people to help others in need, so none of these passers-by were guilty of breaking any law. However, many people reacting to this sad news report share a sense that those passers-by were somewhat ethically culpable in their negligence. In view of all this, perhaps one should think of ethics in a way that does not simply identify it with obedience to the law. Later, we shall see how the concept of law is creatively utilized in the Deontology if Immanuel Kant in a more ethically significant way. #### Religion "Love the Lord, your God, therefore, and always heed his charge: his statutes, decrees, and commandments." (New American Bible) This verse is the first line of Chapter 11 of the book of the book of Deuteronomy. It expresses a claim that many people of a religious sensibility find appealing and immediately valid: the idea that one is obliged to obey her God in all things. As a foundation for ethical values, this is referred to as the divine command theory. The divinity called God, Allah, or Supreme Being commands and one is obliged to obey her Creator. There are persons and texts that one believes are linked to the Divine. By listening to these figures and reading these writings, an individual discovers how the Divine wants her to act. Further, someone maintaining a more radical form of this theory might go beyond these instruments of divine revelation and claim that God "spoke" to her directly to instruct her what to do. At first glance, this seems to make a lot of sense. Many of us had been brought up with one for of religious upbringing or another, so it is very possible that there is a strong inclination is us to refer to our religious background to back up our moral valuations. We a presented with a more-or-less clear code of prohibitions and many of these prohibitions given by religion- "Thou shall not kill", "Thou shall not steal", and "Thou shall not commit adultery"- seems to coincide with our sense of what ethics should rightly demand. In addition, there is an advance here over the law because religion is not simply prohibitive, but it also provides ideals to pursue. For instance, one may be called to forgive those who sinned against him or be charitable to those who have less. Further, taking religion as basis of ethics has the advantage of providing us with not only set of commands but also a Supreme Authority that can inspire and compel our obedience in a way that nothing else can. The Divine can command absolute obedience on one's part as the implications of her actions involve her ultimate destiny. Thus, we would not be surprised if we were to hear someone say, "Ethics? It is simple. Just follow whatever your religion says." However, there are some problems with this. First, on the practical level, we realize the presence of a multiplicity of religions. Each faith demands differently from its adherents, which would apparently result in conflicting ethical standards. For instance, certain religions have prohibitions concerning what food may be consumed, while others do not share the same constraints. Are we then compelled to judge others negatively given their different morality? Are we called upon to convert them toward our own faith? How about the problem of realizing that not everyone is devout or maintains a religious faith? Would we be compelled to admit then that if religion is the basis of morality, some people would simply have no moral code? Differences, however, are not confined to being problematic of varying religious traditions. Experience teaches us that sometimes even within one and the same faith, difference can be a real problem. For instance, we can easily imagine a number of Christians agreeing that they should read and find their inspiration from the Bible; but we could easily imagine them disagreeing on which particular lines they need to focus on. Which of the passages from the sacred Scriptures are they supposed to obey if I find them debating over how to interpret the scripture, not to mention ethical issues? The problem of difference thus remains. In the exchange between Socrates and Euthyphro, the question is raised as to how one is supposed to define "holiness". Euthyphro puts forward the idea that what is holy is loved by the gods. Socrates calls this into question by asking for the following clarification: Is it holy only because it is loved by the gods, or is it holy in itself and that is why it is loved by the gods? The relevance of these questions to our discussion becomes clear if rephrased this way: Is it the case that something is right only because God commanded it, or is it the case that something is right in itself and that is why God commanded it? If we presume that taking another's life is wrong, we can ask the question: Is it the case that this is so only because God commanded it, or that killing is in itself wrong, and that is the reason why God commanded it, we are left with the difficult conclusion that there is nothing inherently wrong with killing. It is only because God said so- "Thou shall not kill"- that we consider such an act wrong. It would seem then that there is something arbitrary about it all, in the sense that God could will whatever He wants. On that basis and nothing further, we have the distinction between right from wrong. As a further disturbing though, we may find an occasion wherein we could believe that God is suddenly commanding us to do otherwise- that killing might now become acceptable. History reveals many sad instances of people believing that God so wills it, allowing them to kill their fellow human beings in His name. The Crusades of the Middle Ages are a tragic case in point. Can we be satisfied with this idea that the divine will could be arbitrary? If, on the other hand, we were to accept that killing is in itself wrong, then we acknowledge that perhaps there are standards of wring and wrong that we refer independently of God. But if this is the case, then we actually do not obey a command because God commanded it, but looking for those objective standards of right and wrong, to which God simply concurs. One would not even have to think in terms of obeying God-or even believing in Him- in order to abide by such ethical standards. Having said this, we maintain that, generally speaking, it is a good thing for a person of faith to abide by the teachings of her particular religion. But the divine command theory demands more than this as it requires us to identify the entire sense of right and wrong with what religion dictates. The conceptual framework we have seen and the practical difficulties of simply basing ethics on the divine command are reasons enough for us to wonder whether we have to set this way of thinking aside. Now, let us clarify this point: Our calling into question of the divine command theory is not a calling into question of one's belief in God; it is not intended to be a challenge in one's faith. Instead, it is an invitation to consider to whether there may be more creative and less problematic ways of seeing the connection between faith and ethics, rather than simply equating what is ethical with whatever one takes to be commanded by God. Later, we shall see one way that we can have a more subtle and yet powerful presentation of how one's faith may contribute to ethical thought when we look at the Natural Law theory of Thomas Aquinas. #### Culture Our exposure to different societies and their cultures makes us ware that there are ways of thinking and valuing that are different from our own, that there is in fact a wide diversity of how different people believe it is proper to act. There are aesthetic differences (Japanese art vs. Indian art), religious differences (Buddhism vs. Christianity), and etiquette differences (conflicting behaviors regarding dining practices). In these bases, it may become easy to conclude that this is the case in ethics as well. There are also various examples that seem to bear these out: nudity can be more taboo in one culture than in another. Another example would be how relations between men and women can show a wide variety across different cultures, ranging from greater liberty abd equality on one hand, to greater inequality and a relation of dominance versus submission on the other. From the reality of diversity, it is possible for someone to jump to the further claim that the sheer variety at work in the different ways of valuation means there is no single universal standard for such valuations, and that thus holds true as well in the realm of ethics. Therefore, what is ethically acceptable or unacceptable is relative to, or that is to say, dependent on one's culture. This position is referred to as cultural relativism. There is something appealing to this ways of thinking because cultural relativism seems to conform to what we experience, which is the reality of the differences in how cultures makes their ethical valuations. Second, by taking one's culture as the standard, we are provided basis for our valuations. Third, this teaches us to be tolerant of others from different cultures, as we realize that we are in no position to judge whether the ethical thought or practice of another culture is acceptable or unacceptable. In turn, our own culture's moral code is neither superior to nor inferior to any other, but they would provide us the standards that are appropriate and applicable to us. So, we would not be surprised if we were to hear someone say, "Ethics? It is simple. Just follow whatever your culture says.' Tempting as this idea is, there are problems. In classic exposition of this topic by James Rachels, he presents some of these difficulties. The first three points in the following paragraphs are a brief restatement of some of his criticisms of cultural relativism; these are followed by an additional fourth point of criticisms of cultural relativism; these are followed by an additional fourth point of criticism based on more recent and more contextualized observations. First, the argument of cultural relativism is premised on the reality of difference. Because different cultures have different moral codes, we cannot say that any one moral code is the right one. But is it a case of the presence of disagreement means there are no right or wrong answers? Isn't it a common experience to be confronted by a disagreement between persons and then to have the conflict clarified later as to who is right or wrong? In other words, disagreement may mean that the question of who is right or wrong is not immediately evident, but it does not necessarily mean that there is no one correct resolution. Second, under cultural relativism, we realize that we are in no position to render any kind of judgement on the practices of another culture. This seems to be a generous and an open-minded way of respecting others. But what if the practice seems to call for comment? What if a particular African tribe thought it is advantageous and therefore right for them to wipe out a neighboring people through a terrible practice of genocide? What is some Middle Eastern country was highly repressive toward women reaching to the point of violence? What about the traditional practice of head-hunting that is still maintained by certain societies in the Cordilleras? Are we in no position to judge any of this as wrong? Would we be satisfied with concluding that we cannot judge another culture? But this is one of the implications of cultural relativism. Third, under cultural relativism, we realize that we are in no position to render any kind of judgement on the practices of even our own culture. If our culture was the basis for determining right and wrong, we would be unable to say that something within our cultural practice was problematic, precisely because we take our culture to be the standard for making such judgements. If we came from a particular society wherein there is a tradition of arranged marriage, we would simply have to accept that this is how we do things. But what if we are not satisfied by this conclusion? We may be proud and glad about identifying certain traits, values, and practices of our culture, but we may not necessarily laud or which to conform to all of them. It is possible that we may not be satisfied with the thought of not being able to call our own culture into question. Fourth, perhaps the most evident contemporary difficulty with cultural relativism is that we can maintain it only by following the presumption of culture as a single, clearly-defined substance or as something fixed and already determined. Now, it is always possible to find examples of certain culture having a unique practice or way of life and to distinguish it from other cultures' practices, but it is also becoming increasingly difficult to determine what exactly defines one's culture. Is my culture "Filipino"? What if I identify more with a smaller subset within this group, if for example, I am Igorot? Is this then my culture? Why not go further and define my culture as being Kankana-ey rather than Ibaloi? Or this then my culture? The point here precisely is the question: What am I supposed to take as "my culture"? We can think of many other examples that reflect the same problem. Let us say that my father is from Pampanga and my mother is from Leyte, and I was brought up in Metro Manila: What is my culture? On one hand, let us say that my father is American and my mother is Filipina, and I was brought up in Sand Diego, California, but I am currently studying in a university in the Philippines: What am I supposed to take as "my culture"? In an increasingly globalized world, the notion of a static and well-defined culture gives way to greater flexibility and integration. One result of this is to call into question an idea like cultural relativism, which only makes sense if one could imagine a clear-cut notion of what can be defined as my culture. We can conclude this criticism of cultural relativism by pointing out how it is a problem in our study of ethics because it tends to deprive us of our use of critical thought. On the positive side, cultural relativism promotes a sense of humility, which is, urging us not to imagine that our own culture is superior to another. Such humility, however, should go hand in hand with a capacity for a rational, critical discernment that is truly appreciative of human values. Unfortunately, what happens in cultural relativism is that it basically renders us incapable of discerning about the values we may wish to maintain as we are forced to simply accept whatever or culture gives us. It keeps us from comparing and judging-either positively or negatively- the valuations that are made by different cultures. As previously mentioned, this presumes that we can determine culture in the first place, which becomes increasingly questionable in a transcultural world. As with our earlier discussions on law and religion, this is not to set aside culture entirely as if it were irrelevant. Instead, we are urged to think more carefully about how one's understanding of her belonging to a certain culture could be more fruitful and meaningful for her ethical discernment. We will explore this further in the last chapter.