MODULE: VAL02 – ETHICS

CULTURAL RELATIVISM

A. Explain cultural relativism

B. Cite the strengths and weaknesses of cultural relativism
C. Analyze crucial qualities of the Filipino moral identity
D. Evaluate elements of the Filipino character

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

1
 MODULE: VAL02 – ETHICS

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." (Https:
//www.allaboutphilosophy. org/cultural-relativism.htm)

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
2
 MODULE: VAL02 – ETHICS

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
cricize these people. (MacKinnon, et al., 2015)

THE FILIPINO CHARACTER

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. 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.

3
 MODULE: VAL02 – ETHICS

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

4
 MODULE: VAL02 – ETHICS

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.

ETHICS book
Ruben A. Corpuz, AB English-Philo, LIB, PhD
Brenda B. Corpuz, BSE, MAED, PhD
(https://batasnatin.com/law-libraray/civil-law/persons-and-family/