LESSON 3: Ethical Relativism, Moral Subjectivism and the Ambivalence of

Filipino Cultural Values

A Brief History of Relativism
▪ Began with the Stoics
▪ Plato criticized the Stoics with his theory of the forms (and ethical
absolutism)
▪ Aristotle disagreed with Plato: ARISTOTLE SAID: There are no universal forms
beyond this world – forms are in the world and therefore not absolute. Moral behavior
should be a midway approach between two extremes; human circumstances are infinite
and it is not possible to have a general rule which 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 (Vice of Deficiency) Courageous (Virtuous Mean) Rash
(Vice of Excess)
Relativism in Modernity
JULIAN BAGINNI (APRIL 14, 2007) - ▪ For millennia, most people believed that
right is right and wrong is wrong, and that was all there is to it.
▪ Now university lecturers report that 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.

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.
• 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 (5)

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 the Arguments for Ethical Relativism (5)

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 Traits and Values (11)
▪ 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?”
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
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)
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.
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.
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.
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.