PRLM2Ethics Part 1 Moral Agent

ETH
ICS
DR. LIONEL E. BUENAFLOR
Head-Social and Behavioural Sciences Department
Head-Batangas Heritage Center
University of Batangas
Part 1
The Moral
Agent
Dr. Lionel E. Buenaflor

Culture and Moral
Behavior
1. How does culture shape moral behaviour?
2. Why should culture not be the ultimate determinant of values?
3. Is there a Filipino understanding of right or wrong? Why
this interpretations? What are its influences?
We have to make students aware of the fact that we are

embedded
in our culture.
This does not mean that all creatures are correct.

Different Cultures Have Different Moral
Codes (Rachels
King Darius of Persia was intrigued by the variety of cultures he
met in his travels. He had found, for example, that the Callatians,
who lived in India, ate the bodies of their dead fathers.
The Greeks practiced cremation and regarded the funeral pyre as
the natural and fitting way to dispose of the dead.
Darius thought that a sophisticated outlook should appreciate the
differences between cultures.

Codes (Rachels
One day, to teach this lesson, he summoned some Greeks who
happened to be at his court and asked what it would take for
them to eat the bodies of their dead fathers.
They were shocked, as Darius knew they would be, and replied
that no amount of money could persuade them to do such a
thing.
Then Darius called in some Callatians and, while the Greeks
listened, asked them what it would take for them to burn their
dead fathers’ bodies. The Callatians were horrified and told
Darius not to speak of such things.

Codes (Rachels
This story, recounted by Herodotus in his History, illustrates a
recurring theme in the literature of social science: different
cultures have different moral codes.
What is thought within one group may horrify the members
of
another group, and vice versa.
Should we eat the bodies of the dead or burn them? If you were
a Greek one answer would seem obviously correct; but if you
were a Callatian, the other answer would seem certain.

Codes (Rachels
There are many such examples. Consider the Eskimos of the
early and mid 20th century. The Eskimos are the native
people of Alaska. Today, none of these groups call themselves
“Eskimos,” but the term has historically referred to that scattered
Arctic population.
Prior to the 20th century, the outside world knew little about
them. Then explorers began to bring back strange tales.

Codes (Rachels
The Eskimos lived in small settlements, separated by great
distances, and their customs turned out to be very different from
ours.
The men often had more than one wife, and they would share
their wives with guests, lending them out for the night as a sign
of hospitality.
Moreover, within a community, a dominant male might demand
—
and get—regular sexual access to other men’s wives.

Codes (Rachels
The women, however, were free to break these arrangements
simply by leaving their husbands and taking up with new
partners—free, that is, so long as their former husbands chose
not to make too much trouble.
It was not only their marriages and sexual practices that were
different. The Eskimos also seemed to have less regard for human
life.
Infanticide, for example, was common.

Codes (Rachels
Knud Rasmussen, an early explorer, reported that he met one
woman who had borne 20 children but had killed 10 of them at
birth.
Female babies, he found, were especially likely to be killed, and
this was permitted at the parents’ discretion, with no social
stigma attached.
When elderly family members became feeble, they were left out
in the snow to die.
In Eskimo society, there seemed to be remarkably little respect for
life.

Codes (Rachels
Most of us would find these Eskimos customs completely

immoral.
But to anthropologists, the Eskimos did not seem unusual.
Since the time of Herodotus, enlightened observers have known
that conceptions of right and wrong differ from culture to
culture.

Cultural Relativism
(Rachels
• The basis of morality are sometimes based
on the questions:
• Is it moral?
• Is it right?
• Is it good?
• Is it legal?
• Paul Ricoeur: “Is it really the good that we
are aspiring for?”

Cultural Relativism
(Rachels
Protagoras of Abdera
• He was known primarily for 3 claims:
1. That man is the measure of all things;
2. That he could make the worse argument appear better
or the weaker appear to be stronger; and
3. That one could not tell if gods existed or not.
• There is no standard for testing whether one person’s
perceptions is right and another person’s perception is
wrong.
• Knowledge is relative to each person.

Cultural Relativism
(Rachels • In ethics, the idea of universal truth is a myth.
• To say that a custom is correct or incorrect would imply that
we can judge that custom by some independent standard of
right and wrong. But no such standard exists. Every
standard is culture-bound.
• Cultural relativism challenges our belief in the objectivity
and universality of moral truth.
• “There are no universal or absolute moral principle.
Standards of right or wrong are always relative to a
particular culture or society.”

Cultural Relativism
(Rachels • The following claims have all be made by cultural relativists:
1. Different societies have different moral codes;
2. The moral code of a society determines what is right
within that society.
3. There is no objective standards that can be used to
judge one society’s code as better than another’s.
4. The moral code of our own society has no special
status; it is but one among many.
5. It is arrogant for us to judge other cultures. We
should always be tolerant of them.

Cultural Relativism
(Rachels • These 5 propositions may seem to go together, but they
are independent of one another. Some may be true
while others are false.
• The second and fifth proposition may be inconsistent with
one another. E.g., the case of the West Philippine Sea.
• Given that cultural relativists take pride in their tolerance,
it would be ironic if their history actually supported the
intolerance of warlike societies.

The Cultural Differences
Argument (Rachels
• Cultural relativists often employ a certain form of
argument:
1. The Greeks believed it was wrong to eat the dead,
whereas the Callatians believed it was right to eat the
dead.
2. Therefore, eating the dead is neither objectively right
nor objectively wrong. It is merely a matter of
opinion, which varies from culture to culture.

Argument (Rachels
• Or:
1. The Eskimos saw nothing wrong with infanticide,
whereas we believe infanticide is immoral.
2. Therefore, infanticide is neither objectively right nor
objectively wrong. It is merely a matter of
opinion, which varies from culture to culture.

Argument (Rachels
• Clearly, these arguments are variations of one
fundamental idea. They are both examples of a
more general argument, which says:
1. Different cultures have different moral codes.
2. Therefore, there is no objective “truth” in morality.
Right and wrong are only matters of opinion, and
opinions vary from culture to culture.
• Is this cultural differences argument a sound argument?

Argument (Rachels
• It is not sound. For an argument to be sound, its
premises must all be true, and the conclusion must follow
logically from them.
• Here, the conclusion does not follow from the premises—
i.e., even if the premise is true, the conclusion might still
be false.
• The premise concerns what people believe.
The conclusion concerns what really is the case.

Argument (Rachels
• Consider again the example of the Greeks and Callatians:
Does it follow from the fact that they disagreed, that there
is no objective truth in the matter?
• No, it does not follow; it could be that the practice was
objectively right (or wrong) and that one of them was
simply mistaken.
• Consider a different matter: in some societies, people
believed the earth is flat. In other societies, people
believe that the earth is spherical. Does it follow
that there is no objective truth in geography?

What follows from Cultural
Relativism (Rachels
• Even if Cultural Differences Argument is unsound, Cultural
Relativism might still be true. What would follow if it were
true?
• According to William Graham Sumner, there is no measure
of right and wrong other than the standards of one’s
society.
• If this argument is true, what will be some of the
consequences?

Relativism 1.(Rachels
We would no longer say that the customs of other societies
are morally inferior to our own.
• We would have to stop condemning other societies merely
because they are “different.”
• However, we would also be barred from criticizing other, less
benign practices.
• For example, the Chinese government has a long history of
repressing political dissent within its own borders.
• The failure to condemn these practices does not seem
enlightened; on the contrary, political oppression seems wrong
wherever it occurs.
• Nevertheless, if we accept Cultural Relativism, we have to
regard
such social practices as immune from criticism.

We could no longer criticize the code of our own society.
• Cultural relativism suggests a simple test for determining
what is right or wrong. All we need to do is ask
whether it is in line with the code of the society in
question.
• Consider the castes system of India. An Indian may
ask:
does it conform to their society’s moral code?
• Few of us think that our society’s code is perfect.
However, we can think of ways in which we might learn
from other cultures.
• If right and wrong are relative to culture, this must be true
for our culture, just as it is for other cultures.
The idea of moral progress is called into doubt.
• Some social changes are for the better. In the early
Western history, the place of women in society was
narrowly defined.
• But this has changed and most people think of it as
progress.
• If cultural relativism is correct, can we consider this as
progress?
• If the old ways conformed to the standards of their time,
then Cultural Relativism would not judge them by our
standards.

Some values are shared by all
cultures (Rachels
• Any culture that continues to exist must have cared for its
young. Infants who are not cared for must be the
exception rather than the rule.
• Every society must have valued truthfulness. If lying is
commonplace, communication would be extremely difficult.
• Could a society exist in which there was no prohibition against
murder?
• The general point is: there are some moral rules that all
societies must embrace, because those rules are necessary
for society to exist. The rules against lying and murder are
two examples.

Judging a Cultural Practice to be
UndesirableIn 1996,
(Rachels
a 17-year old Fauziya Kassindja arrived in New Jersey
and asked for asylum. She had fled her native country of Togo in
West Africa to escape what people there call “excision.”
Excision is a permanently disfiguring procedure. It is sometimes
called “female circumcision,” but it bears little resemblance to
male circumcision. In the Western media, it is often referred to
as “female genital mutilation.”
According to the World Health Organization, excision is practiced
in 28 African nations, and about 120 million females have been
painfully excised.

UndesirableSometimes,
(Rachels excision is part of an elaborate tribal ritual,
performed in small villages, and girls look forward to it because it
signals their acceptance into the adult world.
Other times, the practice is carried out in cities on young women
who desperately resist.
Faiziya Kassindja was the youngest of five daughters. Her father,
who owned a successful trucking business, was opposed to
excision, and he was able to defy the tradition because of his
wealth.
His first four daughters were married without being mutilated.

UndesirableBut(Rachels
when Fauziya was 16, he suddenly died. She then came
under the authority of her aunt, who arranged a marriage for her
and prepared to have her excised.
Fauziya was terrified, and her mother and oldest sister helped
her escape.
In America, Fauziya was imprisoned for nearly 18 months while
the authorities decided what to do with her.
During this time, she was subjected to humiliating strip searches,
denied medical treatment of her asthma, and generally treated
like a criminal.

UndesirableFinally,
(Rachels
she was granted asylum, but not before her case aroused
a great controversy.
The controversy was not about her treatment in America, but
about how we should regard the cultural practices of other
peoples.
A series of articles in The New York Times encouraged the
idea
that excision is barbaric and should be condemned.
Other observers were reluctant to be so judgmental. Live and let
live, they said; after all, our culture probably seems just as
strange to other peoples.

Is there a Culture-independent standard of right and
wrong? (Rachels
Excision is bad in many ways.
It is painful and results in the permanent loss of sexual pleasure.
Its short-term effects can include haemorrhage, tetanus, and
septicaemia. Sometimes the woman dies.
In long-term effects can include chronic infection, scars that
hinder-walking, and continuing pain.
Why, then, has it become a widespread social practice? The
practice has no obvious social benefits.
However, a number of reasons are given in its defense.

wrong? (Rachels
Women who are incapable of sexual pleasure are less likely to
be promiscuous; thus, there will be fewer unwanted
pregnancies in unmarried women.
Moreover, wives for whom sex is only a duty are less likely to
cheat on their husbands; and because they are not thinking
about sex, they will be more attentive to the needs of their
husbands and children.
Husbands, for their part, are said to enjoy sex more with
wives
who have been excised.
The men feel that a woman who is not excised is unclean
and
immature.
wrong? (Rachels
It would be easy to ridicule these arguments.
But notice an
important feature of them:
They try to justify excision by showing that excision is
beneficial—men, women, and their families are said to be
better off when women are excised.
Is this true? Is excision helpful or
harmful?
Does the practice promote or hinder the welfare of the
people
affected by it?
The problem is: all culture value human happiness.
Why, despite all these, thoughtful people may be
reluctant to r? (Rachels
Many people who are horrified by excision are nevertheless
reluctant to condemn it, for three reasons:
1. There is an understandable nervousness about interfering
in the social customs of other peoples.
Europeans and their cultural descendants in America have
a shameful history of destroying native cultures in the
name of Christianity and enlightenment.

2. People may feel, rightly enough, that they should be
tolerant of other cultures.
Tolerance is a virtue—a tolerant person can live in peace
with those who see things differently.
But nothing about tolerance requires us to say that all
beliefs, all religions, and all social practices are equally
admirable.
On the contrary, if we did not think that some things were
better than the others, there would be nothing for us to
tolerate.

3. People may be reluctant to judge because they do not
want to express contempt for the society being criticised.
Again, this is misguided. To condemn a particular practices
is not to say that the culture on the whole is contemptible
or is inferior to any other culture.
The culture could have many admirable features.
Any human society is a mixture of good and bad practices.
Excision happens to be one of the bad ones.

Filipino
Morality
• The opposite of relativism is Ethnocentrism. It is a
belief
that there is one correct culture.
• The common ground between the ethical/cultural
relativism and ethnocentrism is the shared values, i.e.,
the values common to one another.
• Does culture play a role?

Filipino
Morality
A MORAL RECOVERY PROGRAM
• The events at EDSA not only ousted a dictator but also
demonstrated to the world and to ourselves, our great
strengths as a people.
• Today, we realize that most of our problems as a nation
still remain.
• Ousting a dictator is an easy part. The
difficult part is the task of building a nation.
• Self-interests and disregarding of common good are
becoming too ordinary.

Filipino
Morality
• We are confronted with the lack of discipline and rigor,
our colonial mentality, and our emphasis on porma.
• Despite our display of people’s power, we are now
passive once more, expecting our leaders to take all
responsibility for solving our many problems.
• To build a nation, there is a need for
economic recovery. There is a need to re-establish
democratic institutions and to achieve the goals of
peace and genuine social justice.

Filipino
Morality
• Building a people means eliminating our weaknesses

and developing our strengths and this starts with
analysis, understanding, and appreciation of these
strengths and weaknesses.
• The first step to change is understanding ourselves.

Filipino
Morality
THE PHILIPPINES: A NATION OF MISGUIDED MORALS
• Edmund Burke: “The only thing necessary for the

triumph of evil is for good men to do nothing.”
• Many Filipinos don’t only condition themselves to
NOT act against evil but to also NOT care about it
when it is staring at them in the face.
• How can a once proud and honourable people, once
lauded as one of the most progressive nations of
Southeast Asia become the laughing stock that it is
today?

Filipino
Morality
• First Question: What is evil to begin with?

How do you define evil?
What, for you, is bad and what is
good?
• For religious people, being good is about following the
standards put forth by God, Allah, Brahma or any
other deity.
• For us Abrahamanics, there are the 10
commandments.
• For the atheists, there is the idea of
Humanism.
Filipino
Morality
• Philippines is home to both religious people, non-
religious people and everyone else in between.
However, do a lot of them know the
difference between good and evil and are they willing to
take a stand in such matters.
• The answer is NO! Why? Because the
media has essentially corrupted the idea of what is good
and what is evil.
• A lot of Filipinos do not like having their
fun ruined. Policeman, even the good ones who are just
trying to maintain law and order in their respective
communities, are used to scare children.
Filipino
Morality
• For many Filipinos:

Discipline = Strict Rules = Evil.
• That is why it has become quite popular to demonize the
Marcos administration and whatever projects he put
together for the country.
• What matters to most Filipinos is not what you are doing
but how they figure in what you are doing.
Are you
stealing funds from the community? I
won’t say anything unless you steal from me.
Filipino
Morality
• Are you sharing the funds you have stolen with me?
Even better!
• This is not the only thing that is wrong with the morals of
the Filipino people. The other is how
they misinterpret
the idea of “good.”
• Everyone admires the poor but hardworking type of
person. Unfortunately, through the use of the
media, many of our less-informed countrymen are
duped into thinking that the poor are always good.

Filipino
Morality
• The media seems to openly demonize the rich and the

intellectuals and depict anyone criticizing the poor and
their activities as “evil” even if what many poor people in
real life are doing (i.e., drinking, gambling, or committing
incest) can be considered “evil” in and of themselves.
• In more progressives shows like in Filipino indie films, the
occasional thought-out TV show and most foreign
media, there is often a grayness in protagonists, no
matter who they are.

Filipino
Morality
• For instance, Oskar Schindler was a rampant womanizer

and George Washington was still a slave owner.
But even this concept flies way over the
head of most Filipnos.
• Not all conflicts are pure black and white or a good vs.
evil.
• The bottom line is that anyone who is being criticized or
persecuted by the rich are almost automatically labelled
as “evil” even when they might actually have a point.

Filipino
Morality
• Doubly so for intellectuals who are depicted as ignorant

to the plight of the poor or utterly emotionless.
• If this is how we classify the difference between good
and evil in the Philippines, is it any real surprise that
terrorists are allowed to run free and are even
considered allies by our government.
• Second Question: What do we do
now?
• Taking action is important if we want to put a decisive
end to evil and corruption.

Filipino
Morality
• Unfortunately, this kind of work can get really messy and

when not taken seriously, can have serious
consequences.
• In our society alone, it is probably tough to find anyone
with any strong opinions and a well thought-out reason
for it.
• Consider how our brand of democracy works:
instead of choosing a leader who will
guide us to progress and prosperity, we only choose
people who will shoulder the burden of leadership
alone.
Filipino
Morality
• We have countless irresponsible people who throw their

garbage all over the countryside or the cityscape and
then, when it floods, blames the government for all their
troubles.
• Third Question: What are we going to do about it?

Filipino
Morality
STRENGTHS OF FILIPINO CHARACTER
• Pakikipagkapwa-tao (regard for others). This is
manifested in a basic sense of justice and fairness, and in
concern for others. This is demonstrated in pakikiramay and in
the practice of bayanihan (mutual assistance) and in the
famous hospitality.
• Family Orientation. To the Filipinos, one’s family is the source of
personal identity, the source of emotional and material support,
and the person’s main commitment and responsibility.
• Joy and Humor. Filipinos have a cheerful and fun-loving approach
to life and its ups and downs. Laughing at ourselves and our
trouble is an important coping mechanism.

Filipino
Morality
• Flexibility, adaptability and creativity. Filipinos have a great

capacity to adjust, and to adapt to circumstances and to the
surrounding environment, both physical and social.
• Hard work and industry. The desire to raise one’s
standard of living and to possess the essentials of a decent
life for one’s family, combined with the right opportunities
and incentives, stimulate the Filipino to work very hard.

Filipino
Morality
• Faith and religiosity. Innate religiosity enables Filipinos to

comprehend and genuinely accept reality in the context of God’s
will and plan. Thus, tragedy and bad fortune are accepted
and some optimism characterizes even the poorest lives. This
faith is related to bahala na.
• Ability to survive. Filipinos make do with what is available in
the
environment

Filipino
Morality
WEAKNESSES OF THE FILIPINO CHARACTER
• Extreme Personalism. Filipinos have a tendency to give

personal interpretations to actions, i.e., to “take things
personally.” Because of this personalistic world view, Filipinos
have difficulty dealing with all forms of impersonal stimuli.
Hence, one is uncomfortable with bureaucracy, with rules and
regulations, and with standard procedures—all of which tend to
be impersonal. Personal contacts are involved in any transaction
and are difficult to turn down. Preference is
usually given to family and friends in hiring, delivery of services,
and even in voting.

Filipino
Morality
• Extreme Family-Centeredness. Excessive concern for the family

creates an in-group to which the Filipino is fiercely loyal, to the
detriment of concern for the larger community or the common
good.
• Lack of Discipline. We have a casual and relaxed attitude
towards time and space which manifests itself in lack of
precision and compulsiveness, in poor time management and in
procrastination. Our lack of discipline often results in
inefficient and wasteful work systems, the violation of rules
leading to more serious transgressions, and a casual work ethic
leading to carelessness and lack of follow-through.

Filipino
Morality
• Passivity and Lack of Initiative. One waits to be told what
has to be done. There is a strong reliance on others.
This is related to the attitude towards authority. Filipinos
have a need for a strong authority figure and feel safer and more
secure in the presence of such an authority. There is a
high tolerance for inefficiency, poor service, and even violations
of one’s basic rights.
• Colonial Mentality. This is made up of two dimensions: (1) lack
of patriotism or an active awareness, appreciation, and love of
the Philippines; (2) an actual preferences for things foreign.

Filipino
Morality
• Kanya-kanya Syndrome. Filipinos have a selfish, self-serving

attitude that generates a feeling of envy and competitiveness
towards others, particularly one’s peers, who seem to have
gained some status or prestige. Towards them, Filipinos
demonstrated the “crab mentality.” This syndrome results in the
dampening of cooperative and community spirit and in the
denial of the rights of others.

Filipino
Morality
• Lack of Self-Analysis and Self-Reflection. Joking about the

most serious matters prevents us from looking deeply into the
problem. The Filipino lack of self-analysis and our emphasis
upon form is reinforced by an educational system that is often
more form than substance and a legal system that tends to
substitute law for reality.

Filipino
Morality
ROOTS OF THE FILIPINO CHARACTER
• The strengths and weaknesses of the Filipino have their
roots in many factors such as:
1. The home environment. Childbearing in
the Filipino family is characterized by high nurturance,
low independence training, and low discipline.
The Filipino child grows up in an
atmosphere of affection and over protection, where
one learns security and trust, on the one hand, and
dependence, on the other. In the family, children are
taught to value family and to give it primary
importance.

Filipino
Morality
2. Social environment. This is characterized by a feudal

structure with great gaps between the rich minority
and the poor majority. These gaps are not merely
economic but cultural as well, with the elite being
highly westernized and alienated from the masses.
Filipinos are raised in an environment where one must
depend on relationships with others in order to
survive.

Filipino
Morality
3. Culture and language.Aside from emphasizing

interpersonal values, Filipino culture is also
characterized by an openness to the outside which
easily incorporates foreign elements without a basic
consciousness of our cultural core. This is related to
our colonial mentality and to the use of English as the
medium of instruction in schools, which de-Filipinized
the youth and taught them to regard American culture
as superior. At a very early age, we find that our
self- esteem depends on the mastery of something
foreign.

Filipino
Morality
4. History. Colonialism developed a mind-set in the Filipino
which encouraged us to think of the colonial power as
superior and more powerful. As a second-class citizen
beneath the Spanish and then the Americans, we developed
a dependence on foreign powers that makes us believe we
are not responsible for our country’s fate. The colonizers
eventually became our savior; hence, we considered our
own government as foreign and apart from us. We became
distrustful and cooperative towards our leaders.Much time
and energy is spent trying to outsmart the government.

Filipino
Morality
5. Educational system. The lack of suitable local

textbooks and dependence on foreign textbooks,
particularly in the higher school levels, force Filipino
students as well as their teachers to use school
materials that are irrelevant to the Philippine setting.
Teachers reward well-behaved and obedient students
and are uncomfortable with those who ask questions
and express a different viewpoint. Critical thinking
is not learned in the school.

Filipino
Morality
6. Religion. The root of Filipino optimism and its capacity
to accept life’s hardships. However, religion also
instills in the Filipino attitudes of resignation and a
preoccupation with the afterlife. We become
vulnerable also to being a victim of opportunism,
oppression, exploitation, and superstition.
7. Economic environment. Many Filipino traits
are rooted in the poverty and hard life that is the lot of
most Filipinos. Our difficulties drive us to take risks,
impels us to work very hard, and develop in us the ability
to survive.

Filipino
Morality
8. Political environment. This is characterized by a
centralization of power. Basic services from the
government are concentrated in Manila and its
outlying towns and provinces. A great majority of
Filipinos are not reached by such basic services as
water, electricity, roads and health services. Since the
government often is not there to offer basic services,
we depend on our family, kin, and neighbours for our
everyday needs. The inefficiency of government
structures and systems also leads to a lack of integrity
and accountability in our public servants.

Filipino
Morality
9. Mass media. This reinforces our colonial

mentality.
Advertisements using Caucasian models and
emphasizing a product’s similarity with imported
brands are part of our daily lives.
Rather than confront our poverty and oppression,
we fantasize instead.

Filipino
Morality
10. Leadership and role models. Filipinos look up to

their leaders as role models. When our leaders
violate the law or show themselves to be self-serving
and driven by personal interest—when there is a lack
of public accountability—there is a negative impact
on the Filipino.

PRLM2Ethics Part 1 Moral Agent

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

PRLM2Ethics Part 1 Moral Agent

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

PRLM2Ethics Part 1 Moral Agent

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

ETH

Dr. Lionel E. Buenaflor

We have to make students aware of the fact that we are

Dr. Lionel E. Buenaflor

Dr. Lionel E. Buenaflor

Dr. Lionel E. Buenaflor

Dr. Lionel E. Buenaflor

Dr. Lionel E. Buenaflor

Dr. Lionel E. Buenaflor

Dr. Lionel E. Buenaflor

Dr. Lionel E. Buenaflor

Most of us would find these Eskimos customs completely

Dr. Lionel E. Buenaflor

Dr. Lionel E. Buenaflor

Dr. Lionel E. Buenaflor

Dr. Lionel E. Buenaflor

Dr. Lionel E. Buenaflor

Dr. Lionel E. Buenaflor

Dr. Lionel E. Buenaflor

Dr. Lionel E. Buenaflor

Dr. Lionel E. Buenaflor

Dr. Lionel E. Buenaflor

Dr. Lionel E. Buenaflor

Dr. Lionel E. Buenaflor

Dr. Lionel E. Buenaflor

Dr. Lionel E. Buenaflor

Dr. Lionel E. Buenaflor

Dr. Lionel E. Buenaflor

Dr. Lionel E. Buenaflor

Dr. Lionel E. Buenaflor

Dr. Lionel E. Buenaflor

Dr. Lionel E. Buenaflor

Dr. Lionel E. Buenaflor

Dr. Lionel E. Buenaflor

Dr. Lionel E. Buenaflor

Dr. Lionel E. Buenaflor

Dr. Lionel E. Buenaflor

Dr. Lionel E. Buenaflor

• Building a people means eliminating our weaknesses

Dr. Lionel E. Buenaflor

• Edmund Burke: “The only thing necessary for the

Dr. Lionel E. Buenaflor

• First Question: What is evil to begin with?

• For many Filipinos:

Dr. Lionel E. Buenaflor

• The media seems to openly demonize the rich and the

Dr. Lionel E. Buenaflor

• For instance, Oskar Schindler was a rampant womanizer

Dr. Lionel E. Buenaflor

• Doubly so for intellectuals who are depicted as ignorant

Dr. Lionel E. Buenaflor

• Unfortunately, this kind of work can get really messy and

• We have countless irresponsible people who throw their

Dr. Lionel E. Buenaflor

Dr. Lionel E. Buenaflor

• Flexibility, adaptability and creativity. Filipinos have a great

Dr. Lionel E. Buenaflor

• Faith and religiosity. Innate religiosity enables Filipinos to

Dr. Lionel E. Buenaflor