CHAPTER

 3  
Ethical  Relativism  and  the  Ambivalence  of  Filipino  Cultural  Values  
 
 
DEVOTIONAL:  
“Pilate  said  to  him,  ‘What  is  truth?’”  

-­‐  John  18:38a  

 
 
The  Ten  Commandments  for  the  is  a  part  of  our  larger  study  of  how  the  old  covenant  is  
fulfilled  in  the  new.  These  Ten  Commandments  have  played  a  foundational  role  in  all  
Christian  ethical  thought,  especially  within  the  Reformed  tradition,  which  has  
traditionally  been  known  for  its  high  estimation  of  the  law  of  God  revealed  to  Moses.  
Given  this  connection  between  the  Ten  Commandments  and  Christian  ethics,  we  will  
now  take  a  short  break  from  our  study  of  covenant  fulfillment  and  take  a  broader  look  
at  ethical  theory  and  practice  using  Christian  Ethics,  a  teaching  series  by  Dr.  R.C.  Sproul.  
Hardly  anyone  today  would  deny  that  in  the  modern  West,  the  prevailing  cultural  mood  
is  one  of  moral  relativism.  A  majority  of  people  in  the  United  States,  for  example,  would  
deny  that  there  is  any  absolute  truth,  especially  when  it  comes  to  matters  of  personal  
and  private  behavior.  The  problem  is  even  more  advanced  in  Europe.  Most  people  have  
a  live-­‐and-­‐let-­‐live  attitude,  and  they  voice  opinions  like,  “What  is  right  for  you  may  not  
be  right  for  me,  and  what  is  right  for  me  may  not  be  right  for  you.”  
A  confusion  of  the  terms  ethics  and  morals  lies  at  the  root  of  all  this  relativism.  Ethics  
has  traditionally  been  considered  a  normative  science  that  addresses  the  foundations  of  
civilization  and  the  norms  that  govern  our  lives.  It  has  endeavored  to  discover  what  we  
“ought  to  do.”  Contrariwise,  morality  has  been  historically  understood  as  a  descriptive  
science,  looking  at  what  people  are  actually  practicing  in  a  given  culture.  It  looks  to  what  
“is”  and  not  necessarily  to  what  “should  be.”  
Most  people  today  have  reversed  the  order  of  ethics  and  morals.  Many  consider  that  
whatever  the  majority  is  doing  is  okay  as  long  as  there  is  no  clear  harm  to  the  majority.  
We  have  confused  “isness”  with  “oughtness,”  believing  that  what  is  happening  is  what  
ought  to  happen.  
Students  of  Scripture,  however,  know  that  the  Lord  always  distinguishes  between  what  
people  are  actually  doing  and  what  they  should  be  doing.  As  Dr.  Sproul  has  often  
reminded  us,  “God  does  not  rule  by  referendum.”  The  actions  of  the  majority  are  not  
necessarily  good.  What  society  allows  us  to  do  may  not  be  what  God’s  Word  allows  us  
to  do,  and  our  ethics  must  always  be  based  on  the  latter  standard.  
 
Being  Christians  in  the  world,  we  face  the  challenge  of  having  our  ethics  shaped  by  the  
culture  around  us.  That  is  why  we  must  be  careful  to  discern  the  messages  we  are  being  
sent  and  evaluate  them  by  the  standards  of  God’s  Word.  Our  media-­‐driven  age  makes  
this  even  more  difficult.  May  we  strive  not  to  embrace  what  the  voices  around  us  are  
telling  us  is  good  but  call  good  only  that  which  our  Lord  approves.  

 
 
Chapter  Objectives    
 
At  the  end  of  this  chapter,  the  students  should  be  able  to:    
 
1.  discuss  the  theory  of  ethical  relativism;    
2.  identify  and  explain  the  arguments  for  and  against  it,    
3.  recognize  the  role  that  culture  plays  in  moral  behavior  and  development;  and    
4.  situate  the  theory  of  ethical  relativism  in  the  context  of  Filipino  cultural  traits  and  
values.    
 
Culture  and  Moral  Behavior    
 
  It  is  now  a  common  and  well-­‐  accepted  belief  that  culture  plays  a  very  influential  
and  crucial  role  in  the  development  and  formation  of  one's  moral  character.  Various  
studies,  especially  in  the  broad  field  of  the  Social  Sciences,  such  as  in  Sociology  and  
Anthropology,  provide  enormous  scientific  data  to  support  the  major  and  significant  
impact  that  culture  contributes  to  moral  behavior.  Apart  from  genetics,  culture  is  
undeniably  a  major  force  to  reckon  with,  if  only  to  have  a  thorough,  genuine  and  
meaningful  multi-­‐disciplinary  discussion  in  ethics.  
 
   In  fact,  for  a  lot  of  thinkers,  they  even  go  to  the  extent  or  saying  that  one  can  
never  truly  separate  morality  from  culture.  Any  meaningful  and  relevant  discussion  of  
ethics  must  include  culture  as  a  major  theme.  To  disregard  or  treat  it  as  just  a  minor  
and  negligıble  component  is  to  risk  getting  lost  in  vague  and  even  groundless  
metaphysical  generalities.  Any  discussion  of  morality  that  is  not  rooted  with  the  living  
concreteness  of  human  cultural  life  is  simply  unrealistic  and  even  absurd.  For  some,  
morality  is  but  a  result  of  cultural  factors.  For  them  Ethics  or  morality  is  simply  defined  
by  one's  culture.  That  it  is  nothing  but  a  mere  social  construct.  No  more,  no  less.    
 
  But  is  this  absolutely  and  irrefutably  true?  Is  culture  all  that  there  is  to  consider  
when  we  talk  about  moral  development?  Is  morality  simply  a  matter  of  cultural  
influences?  Or,  is  there  "something  in  one's  moral  behavior  that  cannot  be  totally  
reduced  to  cultural  factors?    
 
  In  the  history  of  ethical  thought,  there  is  a  particular  moral  view  that  claims  that  
morality  is  mainly,  if  not  totally,  dependent  on  one's  culture,  primarily.  This  kind  of  
framework  or  philosophy  is  known  as  Ethical  Relativism.    
 
  
Ethical  Relativism  Defined    
 
  Before  setting  out  to  examine  that  theory  of  Ethical  Relativism,  we  should  define  
it.  Although  there  are  different  specific  types  or  versions  of  Ethical  Relativism,  we  can  
say  that  generally,  it  refers  to  a  view  or  doctrine  that  ethical  values  and  beliefs  (as  to  
what  is  right/good  and  wrong/bad)  are  relative  to  the  time,  place,  persons,  situations  
and  societies  that  hold  them  (See  Camp  et  al.  2015:4;  Ardales  1987:97-­‐98;  Mackinnon  
1998:12;  Pojman  1999:28;  Thiroux  1995:95).    
 
  In  short,  Ethical  Relativism  is  a  theory  that  holds  that  there  are  no  universally  
valid  moral  principles;  that  all  moral  values  are  valid  relative  to  culture  or  individual  
choice.  For  an  ethical  relativist,  "whether  an  action  is  right  or  wrong  depends  on  the  
moral  norms  of  society  or  the  moral  commitments  of  the  individual,  and  no  absolute  
standard  exists  by  which  differing  rules  commitments  can  be  judged"  (Camp,  Olen  &  
Barry  2015:  4).  
 
  Hence,  there  are  no  values  that  cut  across  cultural  boundaries  and  peoples  that  
are  not  relative  to  the  specific  place  or  context  in  which  they  are  held.  Morality  
therefore  depends  on  specific  s  n  or  cultural  circumstances  (traditions,  customs,  etc.).  
What  is  then  morally  right  or  wrong  may  vary  fundamentally  from  person  to  person  or  
culture  to  culture.    
 
  Without  a  doubt,  Ethical  Relativism  poses  a  great  challenge  to  the  very  
foundation  of  morality.  Aside  from  being  a  controversial  View,  it  is  also  one  of  the  most  
difficult  and  complex  problems  or  issues  in  ethics.  It  is,  in  fact,  "arguably  the  central  
problem  in  ethics,  one  to  which  virtually  all  others  eventually  lead  (Holmes  1998:  63).    
 
  Ethical  relativists,  though,  are  neither  skeptics  nor  nihilists.  They  believe  in  moral  
right  and  wrong.  It  is  just  that  they  contend  that  what  is  basically  right  for  an  individual  
or  group  may  be  wrong  for  another"  (Holmes  1998:  164;  Timbreza  1993:18).    
 
  Relativism  does  not,  however,  try  to  tell  us  which  acts  and  practices  are  right  and  
wrong.  "It  only  says  that  no  matter  how  we  answer  that  question,  we  must  acknowledge  
that  an  act  or  conduct  may  be  both  right  and  wrong  at  the  same  time  say,  right  in  one  
culture  but  wrong  in  another.  To  put  it  more  simply,  differing  moral  views  about  the  
same  action  may  be  both  right  at  the  same  time"  (Ellin  1995:35-­‐36;  Holmes  1998:16;  
Pojman  1999:28).    
 
Arguments  for  Ethical  Relativism  
 
  There  are  quite  a  good  number  of  reasons  for  believing  and  accepting  that  what  
Ethical  Relativism  holds  is  true.  In  what  follows,  we  will  present  the  most  commonly  
mentioned  reasons  Or  In  what  arguments,  which  in  one  way  or  the  other  favor  and  
support  the  belief  in  the  philosophy  of  Ethical  Relativism.    
1.  The  Cultural  Differences  Argument    
  One  of  the  most  often  cited  reasons  to  support  relativism  is  the  actual  existence  
of  moral  diversity  among  cultures.  Throughout  history  many  societies  have  held  beliefs  
and  practices  about  morality  that  are  strikingly  different  from  our  own.  
   
  For  centuries,  people  have  pointed  out  those  different  societies  or  cultures  at  
least  appear  to  have  vastly  different  moral  codes  (See  Barcalow  1998:48-­‐49;  Curd  
1992:171;  De  Castro  1995:127-­‐130  Montemayor  1985:6;  Pojman  1999:28-­‐29).    
 
  Indeed,  it  is  uncontroversially  true  that  people  in  different  societies  have  
different  customs  and  different  ideas  about  right/good  and  wrong/bad.  There  is  no  
universal  or  transcultural  there  is  a  considerable  overlapping  with  regards  to  this  
consensus  on  which  actions  are  right  and  wrong,  "even  though  (Warburton  1995:  56-­‐
60).    
 
  Noted  American  anthropologist  Ruth  Benedict  (1887-­‐1948),  a  pioneering  scholar  
in  the  field,  in  her  book  Patterns  of  Culture  (first  published  in  1935),  claims  that  "careful  
study  of  the  cultural  practices  of  different  peoples  supports  the  idea  that  what  is  and  is  
not  behaviorally  normal  is  culturally  determined."    
 
  Thus,  "acquaintance  with  the  wide  diversity  of  moral  beliefs  across  societies"  
may  lead  us  to  deny  that  there  really  is  only  one  correct  moral  code  that  applies  to  and  
binds  all  societies  (Barcalow  1998:48).    
 
  The  indisputable  reality  of  cultural  diversity  has  been  tremendously  influential;  it  
has  persuaded  a  lot  of  people  to  adopt  a  skeptical  stance  as  to  the  whole  idea  of  an  
objective  and  universal  moral  truth  (Curd  1992:99).  Given  the  wide  disparities  of  
practice  and  belief  it  seems  that  Ethical  Relativism  is  consistent  with  the  facts  of  cultural  
diversity  .    
 
2.The  Argument  from  Respect  As  we  have  just  noted  above,  Ethical  Relativism  rooted  in  
multiplicity  seemed  to  be  very  appealing  to  a  good  number  of  people,  especially  among  
the  youth  of  today.    Part  of  its  [powerful  drawing  power]  is  due  to  the  fact  that  such  
view  has  been  thought  to  promote  tolerance"  (Timothy  &  Wong  1996:141  .  
 
   Accordingly,  if  moral  codes  differ  from  culture  and  there  is  no  objective  or  
culturally  dependent  basis  by  which  to  judge  the  moral  code  of  any  culture,  then  the  
moral  code  of  one's  particular  culture  has  no  special  status  compared  with  the  rest.    
 
  Moreover,  "no  culture]  has  the  right  to  impose  its]  own  ethical  views  [and  
practices]  on  anyone  else,  least  of  all  on  people  in  different  cultures  and  traditions  
(1imothy  &  Wong  1996:14).  The  appropriate  attitude  to  take  is  therefore  one  of  respect  
and  tolerance  for  moral  standpoints  different  from  what  one  upholds  (Gensler  1998:15).    
 
  Tolerance  has  always  been  considered  as  a  virtue  while  taking  a  superior  stance  
is  usually  viewed  as  the  height  of  arrogance,  if  not  plain  narrow  mindedness  especially  
so  in  this  postmodern  world  of  ours  which  have  seen  the  fall  of  many  "absolutes  in  the  
course  of  humanity's  long  history.    
 
  Through  Ethical  Relativism,  it  is  believed  that  people  would  become  more  
accepting  of  moralities  of  others,  no  matter  how  these  may  be  radically  different  from  
their  own.  People  have  to  see  and  realize  that  the  other  side  of  the  fence  is  not  
necessarily  wrong.  They  have  to  stop  this  "we  re  right  and  they  re  wrong  attitude  and  
rather  view  the  other  as  simply  "different.    
 
3.  The  Psychological  Argument    
 
  This  argument  undermines  confidence  in  the  objectivity  of  ethics  by  making  us  
aware  of  the  non-­‐rational  ways  in  which  moral  ideas  and  beliefs  are  formed  and  
developed  in  the  individual.  Among  psychologists,  there  is  considerable  agreement  
about  ho  this  happens;  the  picture  remains  remarkably  constant,  even  when  we  
consider  radically  different  psychological  theories.    
 
  All  these  suggest  a  certain  conclusion:  Our  values  are  simply  the  result  of  our  
having  been  conditioned  to  behave  in  a  certain  way.  We  may  feel  that  certain  actions  
are  good  and  others  are  ad  or  evil,  but  that  1s  merely  because  we  all  had  been  trained  
and  conditioned  to  have  those  feelings,  beginning  when  we  were  still  little  children  
usually  through  parental  rearing.    
 
  Thus,  "if  we  have  been  trained  and  brought  up  by  our  parents  or  elders  
differently,  most  certainly  we  would  have  different  moral  values  and  principles,  and  we  
would  definitely  feel  just  as  strongly  about  them"  (Curd  1992:99-­‐105).    
 
  In  other  words,  all  of  us  human  beings  acquire  our  moral  beliefs  by  a  process  of  
psychological  conditioning.  Thus,  if  we  had  been  conditioned  differently,  we  would  have  
different  moral  beliefs.  The  conclusion  becomes  inevitable:  our  moral  beliefs  are  neither  
true  nor  false,  right  nor  wrong,  for  there  is  no  such  thing  as  objective  truth  in  ethics"  
(Curd  1992:103).  Moral  truth  is  relative  to  one’s  own  psychological  upbringing,  nothing  
more,  and  nothing  less.    
 
  The  Psychological  Argument  is,  without  doubt,  impressive.  All  of  us,  consciously  
or  unconsciously,  have  been  subjected  in  one  way  or  the  other,  to  some  sort  of  a  
"psychic  manipulation  by  our  "Significant  Others."  Hence,  the  argument  if  it  is  sound,  
provides  valid  evidence  that  some  kind  of  ethical  relativism  is  true.  
 
    
 
 
4.  The  Conformity  Argument    
 
  Some  people  accept  Ethical  Relativism  because  they  somehow  think  that  people  
should  conform  with  and  embrace  the  ethical  code  of  their  respective  societies  or  
cultures  (Barcalow  1998:54).  In  fact  some  even  went  as  far  as  believing  that  it  is  their  
duty  to  do  so.  As  social  beings  by  nature,  it  is  but  natural  for  people  to  easily  affiliate  
and  conform  to  the  accepted  ethical  Standards  of  the  particular  group  that  they  belong.    
 
  Through  cultural  relativism,  it  is  thought  that  people  would  one  to  be  more  
accepting  of  their  own  societal  norms.  Their  gives  a  good  basis  for  a  common  morality  
within  a  culture  in  fact,  a  kind  of  a  democratic  basis  where  "diverse  ideas  and  principles  
are  pooled  in,  thus  insuring  that  the  norms/r  /rules  that  certain  society  would  eventually  
accept  have  a  wide  and  solid  support"  (Gensler  1998:12).  This  then  provides  the  central  
wlid  or  justification  of  the  morality  of  the  group,  whatever  it  may  be.    
 
5.  The  Provability  Argument  
 
   Finally,  another  reason  to  believe  that  what  Ethical  Relativism  holds  is  indeed  
true  is  the  undeniable  fact  of  moral  dispute  Occurring  between  and  among  groups  as  
well  as  individuals.    
 
  The  usual  experience  of  people  having  a  great  difficulty  in  knowing  what  is  the  
morally  "right  thing"  to  do  in  a  particular  situation  has  led  to  a  general  attitude  of  
skepticism  on  the  possibility  of  determining,  much  worse  establishing  a  universal  and  
detinite  moral  standard  (See  Popkin  &  Stroll  1993:48-­‐49).    
 
  The  main  point  of  contention  in  this  line  of  argument  is  this:  "If  there  is  such  
thing  as  objective  or  universal  truth  in  ethics,  we  should  be  able  to  prove  that  some  
moral  opinions  are  true  and  others  false.  But  in  fact  we  cannot  prove  which  moral  
opinions  are  true  and  which  are  false.  Therefore,  there  is  no  such  thing  as  objective  
truth  in  ethics  (Rachels  as  cited  in  Curd  1992:101).    
 
Critical  Evaluation  of  Ethical  Relativism  
 
1.  On  Cultural  Diversity    
  Because  of  cultural  diversity,  many  people  think  morality  is,  just  as  obvious  as  it  
is  relative  to  culture.  If  people  differ  in  the  clothes  they  wear,  the  kind  of  food  they  eat  
and  the  language  they  speak,  why  cannot  they  also  differ  in  their  moral  beliefs?  If  the  
former  is  not  universal,  why  should  morality  be  universal?    
 
   No  doubt,  there  is  an  enormous  fact  of  cultural  diversity,  and  many  societies  
have  radically  different  and  sometimes  conflicting  moral  codes.  Cultural  relativism  is  
indeed  a  sociological  and  anthropological  fact.  And  facts  can  never  be  disputed.    Arguing  
though  that  cultural  relativism  is  an  indisputable  fact,  it  does  not  way.  We  may  feel  that  
certain  actions  are  good  and  others  are  bad  Way  evil,  but  that  is  merely  because  we  all  
had  been  trained  and  conditioned  to  have  those  feelings,  beginning  when  we  were  still  
little  children  usually  through  parental  rearing.    
 
  Thus,  "if  we  have  been  trained  and  brought  up  by  our  parents  or  elders  
differently,  most  certainly  we  would  have  different  moral  values  and  principles,  and  we  
would  definitely  feel  just  as  strongly  about  them"  (Curd  1992:99-­‐105).    
 
  In  other  words,  all  of  us  human  beings  acquire  our  moral  beliefs  by  a  process  of  
psychological  conditioning.  "Thus,  if  we  had  been  conditioned  differently,  we  would  
have  different  moral  beliefs.  The  conclusion  becomes  inevitable:  our  moral  beliefs  are  
neither  true  nor  false,  right  nor  wrong,  for  there  is  no  such  thing  as  objective  truth  in  
ethics"  (Curd  1992:103).  Moral  truth  is  relative  to  one’s  own  psychological  upbringing,  
nothing  more,  and  nothing  less.    
 
  The  Psychological  Argument  is,  without  doubt,  impressive.  All  of  us,  consciously  
or  unconsciously,  have  been  subjected  in  one  way  or  the  other,  to  some  sort  of  a  
"psychic  manipulation"  by  our  "Significant  Others."  Hence,  the  argument  if  it  is  sound,  
provides  valid  evidence  that  some  kind  of  ethical  relativism  is  true.    
 
4.  The  Conformity  Argument  
   "Some  people  accept  Ethical  Relativism  because  they  somehow  think  that  
people  should  conform  with  and  embrace  the  ethical  code  of  their  respective  societies  
or  cultures  (Barcalow  1998:54).  In  fact  some  even  went  as  far  as  believing  that  it  is  their  
duty  to  do  so,  As  social  beings  by  nature,  it  is  but  natural  for  people  to  easily  affiliate  
and  conform  to  the  accepted  ethical  Standards  of  the  particular  group  that  they  belong.    
 
  Through  cultural  relativism,  it  is  thought  that  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  in  fact,  a  kind  of  a  democratic  basis  where  "diverse  ideas  and  
principles  are  pooled  in,  thus  insuring  that  the  norm/rules  that  a  certain  society  would  
eventually  accept  have  a  wide  and  solid  support  (Gensler  1998:12).  This  then  provides  
the  central  Solid  or  justification  of  the  morality  of  the  group,  whatever  it  may  be.    
 
5.  The  Provability  Argument    
 
  Finally,  another  reason  to  believe  that  what  Ethical  Relativism  holds  is  indeed  
true  is  the  undeniable  fact  of  moral  dispute  Occurring  between  and  among  groups  as  
well  as  individuals.    
 
   The  usual  experience  of  people  having  a  great  difficulty  in  knowing  what  is  the  
morally  right  thing"  to  do  in  a  particular  Situation  has  led  to  a  general  attitude  of  
skepticism  on  the  possibility  of  determining,  much  worse  establishing  a  universal  and  
definite  moral  standard  (See  Popkin  &  Stroll  1993:48-­‐49).    
 
  The  main  point  of  contention  in  this  line  of  argument  is  this:  If  there  is  such  thing  
as  objective  or  universal  truth  in  ethics,  we  should  be  able  to  prove  that  some  moral  
opinions  are  true  and  others  false.  But  in  fact  we  cannot  prove  which  moral  opinions  are  
true  and  which  are  false.  Therefore,  there  is  no  such  thing  as  objective  truth  in  ethics"  
(Rachels  as  cited  in  Curd  1992:101).    
 
Critical  Evaluation  of  Ethical  Relativism  
 
1.  On  Cultural  Diversity    
 
  Because  of  cultural  diversity,  many  people  think  morality  is,  just  as  obvious  as  it  
is  relative  to  culture.  If  people  differ  in  the  clothes  they  wear,  the  kind  of  food  they  eat  
and  the  language  they  speak,  why  cannot  they  also  differ  in  their  moral  beliefs?  If  the  
former  is  not  universal,  why  should  morality  be  universal?    
 
  No  doubt,  there  is  an  enormous  fact  of  cultural  diversity,  and  many  societies  
have  radically  different  and  sometimes  conflicting  moral  codes.  Cultural  relativism  is  
indeed  a  sociological  and  anthropological  fact.  And  facts  can  never  be  disputed.  Arguing  
though  that  cultural  relativism  is  an  indisputable  fact,  it  does  not  by  itself  establish  the  
truth  of  ethical  relativism'"  (Pojman  1999:38).    
 
  The  point  or  rather  the  whole  question  here  is  this:  Does  the  fact  of  cultural  
relativism  necessarily  imply  ethical  relativism?  Is  the  fact  that  cultures  vary  in  beliefs  and  
practices  tantamount  to  say  that  there  is  no  morally  right  or  wrong  conduct  and  
practices  in  the  objective  sense  of  the  term?    
 
  Cultural  diversity  as  a  sociological  and  anthropological  fact  is  in  itself  neutral  to  
making  any  value  or  moral  judgment.  It  does  not  necessarily  deny  the  objectivity  of  
moral  values.  What  merely  it  is  saying  is  that  cultures  do  vary  in  so  many  ways.  It  does  
not  categorically  say  whose  or  what  culture  or  cultures  is/are  doing  and  practicing  what  
is  right.    
 
  The  problem  with  the  reasoning  that  morality  is  simply  a  product  of  culture  is  
that  a  product  of  culture  can  express  objective  truths.  So  too,  a  moral  code  be  a  product  
of  culture  and  yet  still  express  objective  truth  about  how  people  ought  to  live  (Gensler  
1998:16).    
 
   Is  this  not  a  contradiction?  If  morality  is  relative  to  one's  culture,  is  this  very  
statement  subject  also  to  this  same  relativity?  "If  everything  is  relative,  then  the  very  
truth  of  relativism  would  also  be  relative"  (Montemayor  1985:6).    
 
  In  here,  the  logic  of  relativism  self-­‐destructs.  It  clearly  suffers  a  dose  of  its  own  
medicine.  In  the  words  of  a  prominent  Filipino  philosopher:    
Ethical  relativism  appears  to  be  self-­‐contradictory  and  inconsistent...  If  the  moral  
relativist  insists  on  the  legitimacy  of  his  view,  then  he/she  is  proposing  a  theory  that  
must  be  accepted  by  everyone..  which  is  against  what  he/  she  is  leaching.  It  seems  then,  
that  one  who  styles  oneself  as  a  moral  relativist  encounters  difficulty  in  being  self-­‐
consistent  moral  and  in  acting  in  accordance  with  one's  own  moral  Claim...(Timbreza  
1993:19)  
 
2.  On  the  Argument  from  Respect    
 
  Some  people  have  come  to  accept  Ethical  Relativism  because  they  believe  that  
people  should  not  Judge  other  people  from  cultures  or  societies  on  the  basis  of  their  
own  moral  standards.  Besides,  they  think  that  this  is  the  attitude  of  mature  and  
enlightened  minds,  the  kind  that  can  render  respect  and  tolerance  in  the  face  of  
something  unfamiliar  and  even  contradictory.    
 
  lt  is  true  to  a  point  that  if  there  is  no  independent  way  of  criticizing  any  other  
culture  as  what  the  relativists  do  believe,  then  we  ought  to  be  tolerant  of  the  moral  
beliefs  and  practices  of  others.  
 
   One  of  the  most  famous  proponents  of  this  particular  position  is  the  
anthropologist  Melville  Herskovits.  He  argues  even  more  explicitly  than  Benedict  that  
the  belief  in  ethical  relativism  entails  intercultural  tolerance  (As  quoted  in  Pojman  
1999:34).    
 
  The  major  contention  in  here  seems  to  be  that  "if  people  think  Ethical  Relativism  
is  true,  they  will  be  more  tolerant  of  moral  differences  than  they  would  otherwise  be  
(Holmes  1998:177).  Well,  it  is  not  difficult  to  see  that  if  one,  believes  that  his  or  her  
culture  is  not  morally  better  than  the  other,  he  or  she  could  likely  become  more  
accepting  of  the  differences  of  cultural  beliefs  and  practices.  One  cannot  simply  afford  
to  show  arrogance  if  one  has  this  certain  level  of  consciousness.    
 
  The  main  question  here,  however  is  how  we  do  really  know  that  this  would  be  
necessarily  the  case'?  Are  we  really  that  certain  that  if  one  accepts  the  theory  of  Ethical  
Relativism,  he  or  she  becomes  automatically  more  tolerant  and  respectful  of  the  culture  
of  others?  Is  there  hard  empirical  evidence  to  support  this  particular  contention?  Or  is  
this  just  pure  speculation  which  does  not  really  have  the  solid  backing  of  a  scientific  
proof?    
 
   To  truly  establish,  beyond  any  iota  of  doubt,  that  belief  in  Ethical  Relativism  
necessarily  translates  into  becoming  more  tolerant  of  other  cultures,  one  would  have  to  
do  an  actual  experimentation  (in  the  context  of  a  scientific  rigor)  of  those  who  claimed  
to  embrace  Ethical  Relativism  and  find  out  whether  these  people  are  in  fact  more  
tolerant  than  those  who  do  not  accept  the  theory  (See  Holmes  1998:1  78).    
 
  Another  argument  against  the  issue  on  toleration  is  that  acceptance  of  it  
involves  one  in  some  sort  of  a  contradiction.  While  tolerance  is  definitely  a  virtue,  it  
cannot  be  practiced  consistently.  
 
  Why?  If  morality  simply  is  relative  to  each  culture,  then  what  if  the  culture  in  
question  does  not  have  toleration  as  part  of  its  moral  code?  This  would  naturally  mean  
that  the  members  of  that  culture  have  no  moral  obligation  to  practice  toleration.    
 
  Not  only  do  moral  relativists  offer  no  basis  for  criticizing  people  who  are  
intolerant,  but  they  also  cannot  criticize  anyone  who  espouses  what  they  might  regard  
as  a  brutal  practice,  like  Hitler's  genocidal  policy  during  the  Second  World  War.    
 
  Moreover,  to  take  the  position  of  the  relativists  with  regard  to  moral  standards  
and  principles  is  to  court  disaster.  Allowing  every  individual  or  group  to  set  their  own  
standard  as  a  gesture  of  respect  and  tolerance  will  most  likely  lead  to  eventual  conflict  
and  disorder,  what  with  numerous  existing  standards.  In  this  scenario,  it  is  likely  that  the  
law  of  the  jungle  where  "might  is  always  right"  prevails  (Ardales  1987:98).    
 
  Finally,  we  might  insist  that  tolerance  is  either  not  always  good  or  always  a  
virtue.  A  lot  of  people  would  argue  that  tolerance  should  be  tempered  with  a  sense  of  
outrage  in  the  face  of  extreme  evil.    
 
3.  On  the  Psychological  Argument    
 
  As  what  we  have  discussed,  the  Psychological  Argument  is  undoubtedly  very  
impressive.  Hence,  if  it  is  proven  to  be  logically  Sound,  it  will  definitely  add  to  the  file  of  
arguments  stacked  in  favor  of  Ethical  Relativism.  
 
  However,  as  Rachels  systematically  points  out  in  the  article  Moral  Skepticism  
(See  Curd  1992:99-­‐104),  the  Psychological  Argument  contains  a  serious  flaw.    
 
  According  to  him,"even  granting  that  the  truth  of  the  premise,  that  we  do  
acquire  our  moral  beliefs  by  a  process  like  the  one  psychologists  described,  the  
conclusion  that  i  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"  (Cited  in  Curd  1992).    
 
  He  notes  that  the  argument  is  transparently  fallacious.  
  
   lt  is  not  because  the  premises  are  false.  The  premises  are  in  fact  true:  we  do  
acquire  many  of  our  early  beliefs...through    a  system  of  positive  and  negative  
reinforcements.  The  argument  is  fallacious  because,  even  if  the  premises  true,  the  
skeptical  conclusion  does  not  follow  from  them.  The  question  of  how  we  acquire  our  
beliefs  is  logically  independent  of,  and  separate  from,  the  question  of  whether  there  are  
objective  facts  to  which  those  beliefs  correspond.  (As  quoted  in  Curd  1992:103)    
 
 
  Obviously,  how  one  acquires  one's  belief  does  not  necessarily  undermine  its  
truthfulness  or  validity.  The  Psychological  Argument  is  indeed  guilty  of  committing  the  
so-­‐called  genetic  fallacy.  Just  because  something  comes  from  a  dubious  source,  it  (one's  
belief)  does  not  necessarily  follow  that  it  is  false  or  erroneous.    
 
  Moreover,  the  Psychological  Argument  is  guilty  of  another  (though  not  so  
obvious)  mistake.  It  is  guilty  of  the  fallacy  of  misrepresentation.  It  simply  overstates  its  
case.    
 
  It  tries  (though  not  good  enough  as  we  are  about  to  see)  to  deceive  us  into  
believing  that  the  matter  of  social  conditioning/training  is  all  that  there  is  in  the  person's  
moral  ethical  development.  It  fails  to  give  due  consideration  to  other,    perhaps  equally  
powerful  if  not  more  powerful  and  significant  factors  that  have  contributed,  in  one  way  
or  the  other,  to  a  greater  or  lesser  extent,  to  the  formation  and  building  of  the  
individual's  sense  of  morality.    
 
  One  of  the  most  important  and  crucial  of  all  these  other  factors  (in  fact  for  the  
Existentialist  philosophers  this  is  the  most  important,  if  not  the  sole  element)  is  the  
exercise  of  the  person  s  freedom  of  choice  or  free  will.    
 
  This  implies  that  the  person's  morality  is  a  primary  function  o  his/her  own  free  
volition.  What  one  is  nothing  but  a  result  of  the  decisions  that  he/she  constantly  makes.  
The  human  person  then  becomes  the  sole  creator  of  his/her  values,  nothing  more  and  
nothing  less.  One's  moral  development  or  formation,  therefore,  is  entirely  a  matter  of  
decision,  not  condition.    
 
  This  last  counterpoint  to  the  Psychological  Argument  paints  an  extreme  picture  
to  the  whole  scenario.  We  may  not  be  solely  and  mainly  (again,  this  one  is  also  very  
much  debatable)  the  product  of  our  childhood  conditioning  but,  to  disregard  totally  the  
specific  role  that  our  early  psychological  upbringing  played  in  the  formation  of  our  moral  
values  and  behavior,  is  also  committing  the  fallacy  of  oversimplification.    
 
4.  On  the  Argument  from  Conformity  
 
    I  think  that  of  all  the  arguments  forwarded  in  defense  of  Ethical  Relativism,  the  
Argument  from  Conformity  is  seemingly  the  easiest  to  destroy  and  annihilate.  Let  me  
state  a  couple  of  reasons  why.    
 
  First,  according  to  one  form  of  Ethical  Relativism  (i.e.,  Conventionalism),  
whatever  a  society  believes  to  be  right  is  right  for  that  particular  society.    
 
  What  is  considered  as  "good  is  what  the  majority,  as  the  major  constitution  of  a  
society,  approves  or  acknowledges  as  good.  Likewise,  what  the  majority  says  as  "bad"  is  
bad.  Thus,  morality  is  simply  dependent  of  what  the  majority  wants  or  decides.  What  is  
good  and  bad  is  reducible  to  a  kind  of  social  contract  or  ct  or  a  matter  of  group  
consensus.    
 
  The  obvious  problem  with  this  view  is  that  it  makes  the  majority  as  the  only  true  
and  legitimate  voice  or  What  is  moral  o  not.  It  is  them  that  makes  or  decides  what  is  
good  and  bad.  Erg0,  it  reduces  the  minority  to  the  side  of  falsehood  or  error.  For  when  
we  talk  about  the  moral  code  or  ethical  beliefs  of  a  society,  it  would  only  mean  the  
moral  code  or  the  moral  beliefs  and  stand  of  the  majority  in  a  society"  (Barcalow  
1998:56).    
 
  To  say  for  instance  that  a  society  believes  that  abortion  is  immoral,  simply  means  
that  that  majority  of  the  members  of  that  particular  society  believe  that  the  act  in  
question  is  immoral.  If  a  society  believes  that  slavery  is  right,  that  simply  means  that  the  
majority  of  the  people  in  that  society  believe  that  it  is  right.    
 
  The  logical  implication  of  this  is  very  clear  and  somewhat  terrifying:  The  majority  
is  always  right!  They  can  never  be  wrong!  This  claim  has  terrible  consequences  that  
perhaps  most  of  us  find  too  difficult  to  accept.    
 
  Try  to  imagine  a  group  that  believes  and  accepts  racial  superiority  (the  Aryan  
race  during  Hitler's  time  easily  comes  to  mind)  as  morally  right,  then  it  (the  majority's  
belief)  is  morally  right.  If  a  society  judges  infanticide  (as  ancient  Greek  and  some  other  
primitive  cultures  once  believed)  as  morally  acceptable,  then  it  is  morally  acceptable.    
 
  If  the  argument  from  conformity  is  valid,  then,  all  that  we  have  to  do  is  to  take  
the  word  of  the  majority  as  gospel  truth  or  some  kind  of  a  dogma  and  be  assured  that  
we  are  already  in  the  right.  We  should  just  openly  accept  and  embrace  what  the  
majority  of  our  society  had  come  to  accept  and  embrace,  and  that  would  save  us  from  
the  risk  of  falling  into  the  pit  of  erroneous  moral  judgment.  
 
  But  most  of  us  know  (are  we  guilty  here  of  the  fallacy  of  the  majority?)  that  the  
majority  is  not  always  right.  We  know  for  a  fact  that  the  minority  can  also  be  correct  in  
moral  matters.    
 
   We  just  have  to  take  a  serious  look  at  history  to  see  the  presence  of  the  so-­‐called  
moral  reformers  (or  rebels  if  you  wish).  The  list  is  quite  long:  Socrates,  Mahatma  
Gandhi,  Martin  Luther  King,  Jr.,  to  name  a  few.  If  the  majority  is  always  right,  then  all  
these  and  the  many  other  moral  reformists  are  simply  wrong.    
 
  Another  problem  confronting  the  argument  from  conformity  is  the  undeniable  
reality  of  subgroups.  Again,  according  to  ethical  relativism,  whether  a  person's  moral  
beliefs  and  claims  are  true,  depends  on  what  is  approved  and  accepted  by  the  majority  
in  that  person’s  society  or  group  (cultural  or  whatever).    
 
  The  issue  here  is  how  can  one  define  the  boundary  or  scope  of  what  really  
constitutes  a  group?  In  reality,  people  belong  to  numerous  subgroups.  One  can  be  a  
member  of  a  religious  group,  a  fraternity  or  sorority,  a  professional  group,  an  ethnic  
group,  a  peer  group,  and  many  more.    
 
  Clearly,  the  argument  from  Conformity  has  ignored  the  subgroup  problem  (See  
Gensler  1998:14-­‐15;  Pojman  1999:35;  Warburton  1995:61).  People  can  belong  to  
overlapping  societies  or  groups.  In  fact  we  all  do.    
 
  What  makes  matters  worse  is  that,  some  of  these  groups  do  not  only  Overlap  
but  at  times  also  conflict  with  one  another.  It  would  be  easy  if  we  all  belong  to  a  single  
homogenous  group.  However,  the  world  is  not  like  that.  Instead,  our  world  is  a  diverse  
mixture  of  overlapping  groups  and  communities,  and  people  do  not  always  adhere  to  
the  rule  of  the  majority.  ""The  world  is  a  lot  more  complicated  than  that  we  are  all  
multicultural  to  some  extent  (Gensler  1998:15).  
 
5.  On  the  Provability  Argument    
 
  Its  plausibility  mainly  hangs  on  how  strict  and  rigid  w  we  should  take  the  whole  
question  of  "proof  in  matters  pertain  morality  (See  Barcalow  199;63).  If  we  take  proof  as  
we  ordinarily  to  construe  it  to  be  in  day-­‐to-­‐day,  "normal  conversation,  then  we  would  
venture  to  say  that  moral  issues  can  be  "proved."  But  if  we  take  it  to  mean  "proof"  in  
the  standard  scientific  sense,  then,  we  would  say  otherwise.  
 
   The  fact  that  human  beings  disagree  with  each  other  on  certain  fundamental  
issues  is  nothing  but  just  common  occurrence.  "But  unlike  the  disputes  between  
scientists  about  the  age  of  the  universe  or  the  constitution  of  matter,  which  can  be  
settled  in  principle  through  the  empirical  method  of  observation  and  experimentation,  
ethical  disputes  seem  to  be  far  from  being  resolved"  (Curd  1992:171-­‐172).    
 
  One  will  only  think  of  perennial  moral  issues  which  have  not  been  settled  with  
finality  like  euthanasia,  abortion,  divorce,  homosexuality,  capital  punishment  and  the  
like.  Far  from  seeing  the  definite  end  of  the  various  disagreements  and  conflicts  
regarding  the  morality  behind  all  these,  they  instead  continually  bother  and  confuse  us  
even  more.    
 
  Thus,  the  conclusion  that  morality  can  never  be  proved  seems  to  be  a  logical  
necessity.  One  will  only  have  to  try  to  "prove"  one's  ethical  viewpoint  to  another  to  find  
out  how  difficult  and  frustrating  the  entire  activity  is.    
 
  However,  if  we  really  follow  more  carefully  the  aforementioned  argument,  we  
can  see  that  it  contains  some  objectionable  features.  First,  let  us  examine  the  
contention  that  ethical  issues  are  complex  and  difficult  to  determine.    
 
  Granting,  for  the  sake  of  argument,  that  indeed  are  uncertain  about  the  morality  
of  some  of  our  actions  and  decisions,  and  cannot  really  "prove"  them  beyond  any  
reasonable  doubt.  This  does  not  mean  that  it  has  no  answer  whatsoever.  “Even  if  there  
were  no  solid  way  to  know  moral  truths,  it  would  not  follow  that  there  are  no  such  
truths  (Curd  1992:101-­‐102;  Gensler  1998-­‐17  Mackinnon  1998:15).    
 
  It  may  be  that  some  truths  are  forever  hidden  from  us  ordinary  and  limited  
mortals.  But  the  very  statement  that  they  are  hidden  paradoxically  confirms  that  they  
exist.    
 
  Moreover,  and  a  point  of  significance,  the  very  act  of  discussing  whether  it  is  
ever  possible  to  resolve  moral  disputes,  is  itself  a  "proof  that  an  "answer"  exists.  For  
moral  disagreements  presupposed  that  there  are,  in  the  first  place,  moral  
disagreements  to  resolve  (Holmes  1998:170-­‐171).    
 
  If  there  are  moral  disagreements  existing,  then  it  is  implied  that  there  is  
"something"  independent  of  the  disagreements  which  serves  as  some  kind  of  a  basis  or  
gauge,  thus,  making  the  disagreements  possible.  An  objective  theory  allow[s]  us  to  
account  for  the  strong  feeling  that  there  are  genuine  disputes  about  moral  matters"  
(Popkin  &  Stroll  1993:51).    
 
Conclusion    
 
  As  we  see,  Ethical  Relativism  is  not  just  a  naïve  and  simple  moral  theory.  Its  
arguments  and  justifications  are  firmly  rooted  in  good  number  of  points.  This  probably  
explains  its  persistent  and  perennial  appeal  and  popularity  to  the  contemporary  mind,  
especially  to  the  young,  to  the  so0-­‐called  "millennials,"  who  have  become  too  suspicious  
and  even  impervious  to  the  moral  absolutes  adhered  to  and  preached  zealously  by  the  
older  generation.  Admittedly,  one  "can  understand  the  appeal  of  Cultural  
Relativism...despite  its  shortcomings.  It  is  an  attractive  theory  [for  Sure]  because  it  is  
based  on  genuine  insight:  that  many  of  the  practices  and  attitudes  we  find  natural  are  
only  cultural  products.  ping  this  thought  in  mind  is  important  if  we  want  to  avoid  
arrogance  and  be  open  to  new  ideas.  These  are  [indeed]  important  points  [that  should]  
not  be  taken  lightly"  (Rachels  &  Rachels  arrogance  65  2015:  32).  
 
  Indeed,  Ethical  Relativism  looks  formidable,  especially  at  first  glance,  but  upon  
closer  examination,  reveals  that  it  too  a  number  of  complications  and  inconsistencies  
(Rachels  2007:27).    
 
  But,  in  spite  of  its  glaring  and  subtle  flaws  and  shortcomings,  Ethical  Relativism  is  
not  really  refuted  (as  in  totally  and  categorically  debunked  and  undermined).  What  the  
previous  What  the  previous  presentation  only  accomplished,  if  at  all,  "is  to  show  that  
Ethical  Relativism  is  not  as  reasonable  or  as  sound  as  many  of  us  might  have  thought  
and  believed"  (Rachels  2007:27).    
 
  Of  course,  to  be  fair,  Ethical  Relativism  does  contain  some  important  and  
valuable  truths.  Truths  which  are  difficult  to  ignore.  But  definitely,  not  the  whole  truth.  
Thus,  in  the  end,  it  is  clear  that  the  reasonable  thing  to  do  is  to  take  and  seriously  
consider  the  theory'  s  good  points,  and  learn  from,  and  be  cautious  of  its  Concomitant  
weaknesses.    
 
Ethical  Relativism  and  the  Ambivalence  of  Filipino  Values    
 
  Now  it's  time  to  put  the  above  discussion  in  the  Philippine  setting,  particularly  in  
the  context  of  the  cultural  values  and  traits  of  the  Filipino.  It  has  long  been  commonly  
observed  by  direct  personal  and  collective  experience  that  Filipinos,  as  a  people,  have  
certain  particular  and  distinct  cultural  traits  and  characteristics  that  can  be  aptly  (though  
not  so  neatly)  described  as  *ambivalent."  This  ambivalence  or  incongruence  seems  to  
be  a  product  of  a  long  and  complex  confluence  of  factors  brought  about  by  our  equally  
complex  history  as  a  people  and  as  a  nation.    
 
  For  so  long  a  time  we  all  know  that  we  Filipinos,  have  been  influenced  to  a  large  
extent,  and  in  various  ways,  by  a  number  of  foreign  colonizers  throughout  our  history.  
These  varied  and  complex  influences,  admittedly,  have  become  very  much  a  part  ol  who  
we  are,  and  who  we  have  become  as  a.  people  for  "better  or  for  worse.    
 
  Admittedly,  there  has  been  so  much  that  has  been  said  a00  the  negative  aspect  
of  the  Filipino  traits  and  values  as  pointed  out  by  Emerita  Quito  (the  first  Filipina  who  
obtained  a  by  Prof  Emeritus  Doctorate  in  Philosophy  abroad).  These  negative  side  of  the  
Filipino  cultural  character,  as  mentioned  by  Dr.  Quito,  have  been  conveniently  made  as  
an  excuse  for  our  "weak  character."  They  have  been  also  made  as  the  "culprits,  the  
"scapegoat""  failures"-­‐both  individually  as  well  as  collectively.  
 
   Now,  we  cannot  help  but  ask:  "Are  we  really,  as  in  totally,  the  kind  of  people  
and  character  the  image  that  are  usually  and  commonly  projected  to  the  world,  a  
rotten,  hopeless  and  "damaged  culture"  (as  one  foreign  writer  once  sadly  and  tragically  
described  us).  Are  the  Filipinos,  as  a  people,  only  good  at  entertaining  and  serving  the  
world  as  singers,  boxers,  as  well  as  domestic  helpers?    
 
  In  the  reading  that  follows,  Prof  Quito  tries  to  "take  a  second  and  closer  look  at  
these  so-­‐called  negatives  in  the  Filipino  psyche,  to  determine  whether  there  might  be  a  
positive  aspect,  a  saving  face,  a  silver  lining  behind  the  dark  clouds.    
 
THE  AMBIVALENCE  OF  FILIPINO  TRAITS  AND  VALUES  
by  Prof.  EMERITA  S.  QUITO,  PhD.  
 
Hiya  (shame)    
 
Negative,  because  it  arrests  or  inhibits  one's  action.  This  trait  reduces  one  to  smallness  
or  to  what  Nietzsche  calls  the  "morality  of  slaves",  thus  congealing  the  soul  of  the  
Filipino  and  emasculating  him,  making  him  timid,  meek  and  weak.  
 
 Positive,  because,  it  contributes  to  peace  of  mind  and  lack  of  stress  by  not  even  trying  to  
achieve.    
 
Ningas-­‐cogon  (procrastination)    
 
Negative,  by  all  standards,  because  it  begins  ardently  and  dies  down  as  soon  as  it  begins.  
This  trait  renders  one  inactive  and  unable  to  initiate  things  or  to  persevere.    
 
Positive,  in  a  way,  because  it  makes  a  person  non-­‐chalant,  detached,  Indifferent,  
nonplussed  should  anything  go  wrong,  and  hence  conducive  to  peace  and  tranquility.
 
Pakikisama  (Group  Loyalty)    
 
Negative,  because  one  closes  one's  eyes  to  evils  like  graft  and  corruption  order  to  
conserve  peace  and  harmony  in  a  group  at  the  expense  of  one's  comfort.    
 
Positive,  because  one  lives  for  others;  peace  or  lack  of  dissension  is  a  constant  goal.    
 
Patigasan  (Test  of  Strength)    
 
Negative,  because  it  is  stubborn  and  resists  all  efforts  at  reconciliation.  The  trait  makes  
us  childish,  vindictive,  irresponsible,  irrational.  Actions  resulting  from  this  trait  are  
leaving  the  phone  off  the  hook  to  get  even  with  one's  party  line;  stopping  the  engine  of  
the  car  to  prove  that  one  has  the'  right  of  way;  standing  one's  ground  until  the  opposite  
party  loses  its  patience.    
 
Positive,  because  it  is  a  sign  that  we  know  our  rights  and  are  not  easily  cowed  into  
submission.  It  is  occidental  in  spirit,  hence  in  keeping  with  Nietzsche's  "will  to  power.'    
  
Bahala  Na  (Resignation)  Negative,  because  one  leaves  everything  to  chance  under  the  
pretext  of  trusting  in  Divine  providence.  This  trait  is  really  laziness  disguised  in  religious  
garb.  
 
Positive,  because  one  relies  on  a  superior  power  rather  than  on  one's  own.  It  is  conducive  
to  humility,  modesty,  and  lack  of  arrogance.    
Kasi  (Because,  i.  e.,  Scapegoat)    
 
Negative,  because  one  disowns  responsibility  and  makes  a  scapegoat  out  of  someone  or  
something.  One  is  never  to  blame;  one  remains  lily  white  and  has  a  ready  alibi  for  failure.    
 
Positive,  because  one  can  see  both  sides  of  the  picture  and  know  exactly  where  a  project  
failed.  One  will  never  suffer  from  guilt  or  self-­‐recrimination.    
 
Saving  Face    
 
Negative  because,  being  closely  related  to  hiya  and  kasi,  it  enables  a  person  to  shirk  
responsibility.  One  is  never  accountable  for  anything.    
 
Positive,  because  one's  psyche  is  saved  from  undue  embarrassment,  sleepless  nights,  
remorse  of  conscience.  It  saves  one  from  accountability  or  responsibility,  This  trait  
enables  one  to  make  a  graceful  exit  from  guilt  instead  of  facing  the  music  and  owning  
responsibility  for  an  offense.  
 
Sakop  (lnclusion)    
 
Negative,  because  one  never  learns  to  be  on  one's  Own  but  relies  on  one's  family  and  
relatives.  This  trait  stunts  growth  and  prevents  a  person  from  growing  on  one's  own.  
Generating  a  life  of  parasitism,  this  trait  is  very  non-­‐  existential.  Blaring  music,  loud  
tones  are  a  result  of  this  mentality.  We  wrongly  think  that  all  people  like  the  music  we  
play  or  the  stories  we  tell.  This  mentality  also  makes  us  consider  the  world  as  one  vast  
comfort  room.    
 
Positive,  because  one  cares  for  the  family  and  clan;  one  stands  or  falls  with  them.  This  
trait  makes  a  person  show  concern  for  the  family  to  which  he  belongs    
 
Mañana  or  "Bukas  Na/Mamaya  Na"  (Procrastination)    
 
Negative,  because  one  constantly  postpones  action  and  accomplishes  nothing.  This  
aggravates  a  situation,  a  problem  grows  beyond  correction,  a  leak  or  a  small  break  
becomes  a  gaping  hole.  This  arises  from  an  indolent  mentality  that  a  problem  will  go  
away  by  itself.  
 
  Positive,  because  one  is  without  stress  and  tension;  one  learns  to  take  what  comes  
naturally.  Like  the  Chinese  wu-­‐wei,  this  trait  makes  one  live  naturally  and  without  undue  
artificiality.    
 
 
 
 
Utang  na  Loob  (lndebtedness)  
 
 Negative,  because  one  overlooks  moral  principles  when  one  is  indebted  to  a  person.  One  
who  is  beholden  to  another  person  will  do  anything  to  please  him,  thinking  that  by  doing  
so  he  is  able  to  repay  a  debt.  One  condones  what  the  other  person  does  and  will  never  
censure  him  for  wrongdoing.    
 
Positive,  because  it  is  a  recognition  of  one's  indebtedness.  This  trait  portrays  the  spirit  
behind  the  Filipino  saying,  "He  who  does  not  know  how  to  look  to  the  past  will  never  
reach  his  destination."    
 
Kanya-­‐Kanya  (Self-­‐Centeredness)    
 
Negative,  because  self-­‐centered;  one  has  no  regard  for  others.  So  long  as  my  family  and  I  
are  not  in  need,  I  do  not  care  about  the  world.    
 
Positive,  because  one  takes  care  of  oneself  and  one's  family:  "Blood  is  thicker  than  
water."  
 
As  we  saw  in  the  above  article  by  Quito,  the  Filipino  traits  and  values  can  be  
methodically  viewed  from  the  lens  of  ethical  relativism.  For  in  every  trait  and  value  of  the  
Filıpino,  there  is  always  something"  that  is  good  or  a  positive  aspect.  It  is  only  a  matter  
of  appropriation  and  putting  each  particular  cultural  value  in  proper  perspective  that  
would  allow  us  to  see  the  good  and  positive  side  of  our  character.  
 
   Thus,  there  is  always  something  that  we  can  learn  and  do  as  to  who  we  are  
given  our  distinct  (though  diversely  influenced)  cultural  identity.  We  discover  that  there  
is  really  nothing  absolute  or  "objective  when  it  comes  to  a  given  specific  trait  of  our  
character  as  a  people.  Filipino  values  in  particular  are  neither  good  nor  bad  in  the  
absolute  sense.  They  are  all  relative.  Their  being  good  or  bad,  right  or  wrong,  would  
really  depend  on  how  each  particular  trait  is  used  concretely  in  a  specific  context.  
 
   It  is  therefore  contingent  on  each  of  us  individually  whether  to  make  and  turn  
these  values  and  traits  into  good  or  bad,  right  or  wrong,  moral  or  immoral.  The  decision  
is  ours  to  make.  And  the  time  is  now.    
 
 
 Fake  News  and  Moral  Relativism  
 
For  decades,  people  have  generally  held  a  trust  for  the  media,  political  institutions,  
mainline  churches,  schools,  and  others  occupying  important  and  honored  positions  in  our  
society.  However,  that  trust  has  by  and  large  eroded  today.    
 
Right  now  we  are  hearing  quite  a  bit  about  "fake  news."  The  term  first  arose  during  the  
US  Presidential  election  when  completely  manufactured  news  stories  from  non-­‐sources  
quickly  turned  viral  in  the  election  frenzy.  The  term  was  then  adopted  by  President  
Trump  to  characterize  liberal  media  sources  like  the  New  York  Times  and  what  he  says  is  
factually  baseless  reporting  win  a  thinly  veiled  agenda.  
 
 For  generations,  we  were  taught  by  these  institutions  that  there  were  certain  things  
that  were  always  right  and  other  things  that  were  always  Wrong.  But  around  the  time  in  
the  1960s,  moral  absolutes  began  to  be    replaced  by  moral  relativism.  When  right  and  
wrong  become  relative,    truth  cannot  be  judged.  All  things  quickly  fall  into  a  murky  world  
of  relative  perspective.  A  los  of  truth  inevitably  leads  to  a  loss  of  trust.  
 
 There  are  many  areas  where  this  decay  is  deeply  concerning,  but  I  find  its  impact  on  the  
law  to  be  among  the  most  critical.  Without  fixed  and  knowable  standards  of  right  and  
wrong,  a  nation  cannot  operate  a  just  legal  system.  The  very  definition  of  justice  requires  
that  the  standards  are  steady  and  that  the  people  can  know  them.  Laws  which  cannot  be  
understood  by  those  required  to  obey  them  are  deemed  to  be  "unconstitutionally  void  
for  vagueness."  
 
 And  here  we  find  the  problem:  the  very  institutions  that  have  taught  us  there  are  no  
moral  absolutes  are  now  the  institutions  we  no  longer  believe  .  
 
Murder  used  to  have  a  fixed  meaning.  Then  the  Supreme  Court  said  that  killing  babies  
was  a  newly  discovered  constitutional  right.  Marriage  had  a  fixed  meaning.  Then  the  
Supreme  Court  said  that  same-­‐sex  marriage  newly  discovered  constitutional  right.  Now  
we  are  seeing  the  rise  of  transgendered  rights.  Gender  itself  was  fixed  and  knowable.  
New  discoveries  claim  to  show  that  it  is  fluid  and  self-­‐defining.    
 
The  legal  landscape  ahead  is  troubling.  Opposition  forces  are  not  content  to  win  their  
own  right  to  marry  whom  they  will  or  kill  whom  they  will.  They  insist  that  others  join  
with  them  on  all  these  fronts  threatening  to  obliterate  freedom  of  conscience  in  the  
process.  
 
 Being  able  to  sniff  out  these  relative  standards  (or  lack  thereof)  is  critical.  We  know  
when  journalists  biasedly  select  certain  stories  and  "facts"  to  include  that  achieve  a  
desired  end.  They  are  not  pursuing  truth.  Rather,  they  are  telling  us  their  version  of  a  
corner  of  the  truth  -­‐  one  they  wish  us  to  know  to  advance  an  agenda.  We  should  demand  
more.    
  
Similarly,  we  don't  believe  the  churches  that  teach  moral  relativism.  By  and  large,  they  
are  losing  members  because  they  offer  the  same  thing  one  can  find  for  free  and  in  a  
more  entertaining  fashion  -­‐  on  television  (churches  that  teach  moral  absolutes,  by  the  
way,  are  thriving  on  the  whole).    
 
Over  the  past  30  years,  we  have  watched  the  Homeschooling  movement  explode  largely  
because  parents  wanted  their  children  to  learn  Truth  which  moral  absolutes  as  a  
foundation.  Trying  to  learn  Truth  in  a  school  denies  the  existence  of  moral  absolutes  is,  
by  definition,  an  impossible  task.    
 
Whatever  the  issue  or  the  side,  fake  news  and  fake  laws  arise  when  moral  
relativism  rules  the  day.  The  media  may  be  campaigning  for  the  importance  of  
discovering  truth,  but  it  will  always  fall  short  as  long  as  they  lack  a  basis  of  ultimate  
Truth.  Building  confidence  in  our  society's  biggest  institutions  has  to  start  with  knowable  
standards,  and  standards  mean  right  and  wrong.  Those  standards  are  found  in  the  clear  
commands  of  Judeo-­‐Christian  teachings.  There  we  find  the  stable  bedrock  upon  which  
lasting  trust  can  thrive.  There  simply  is  no  workable  alternative  
 
 Source:  https://www.phc.edu/chancellors-­‐corner/fake-­‐news-­‐and-­‐moral-­‐absolutes,  
[accessed  7  April  2018].  
 
APPLY  WHAT  YOU  HAVE  LEARNED:  
 
 Questions    
 
1.  What  is  ethical  relativism?    
2.  How  does  ethical  relativism  differ  from  cultural  relativism?  How  are  they  related?  .    
3.  Give  a  specific  and  particular  example  of  ethical  relativism.    
4.  Distinguish  cultural  relativism  from  moral  subjectivism.  Show  their  interconnection.    
5.  Does  the  fact  that  cultures  differ  prove  that  ethical  relativism  is  true  and  a  valid  
ethical  theory?  Why  or  why  not?    
6.  What  is  the  argument  from  respect?  How  can  it  be  used  to  support  the  validity  of  
cultural  relativity?  How  can  it  be  refuted?  
7.    Explain  the  psychological  argument.  Give  a  concrete  and  specific  example.  Show  its  
weaknesses  as  an  argument  for  ethical  relativism.    
8.  What  is  conformity  argument?  Point  out  one  criticism  against  it.    
9.  Expound  on  the  provability  argument.  Criticize  it.    
10  Which  do  you  think,  among  the  arguments  that  support  ethical  relativism  is  the  
strongest?  Why?    
11.  Which  among  the  arguments  do  you  consider  the  weakest:  Why?    
12.  Do  you  honestly  think  that  morality  (what  is  good  and  what  is  bad)  is  relative?  Why?  
13.  If  ethics  is  merely  relative  and  subjective,  does  it  mea  there  is  no  such  thing  as  good  
and  bad  or  right  and  wrong?  
14.  What  are  the  practical  implications  if  we  accept  that  morality  is  just  relative?    
15.  How  can  we  really  determine  whether  there  is  really  such  a  thing  as  absolute  and  
universal  morality?    
 
ACTIVITY  TIME    
 
Things  to  Do    
1.  Enumerate  five  specific  practices  that  are  considered  good  or  right  in  one  culture  but  
not  so  in  another.    
 
2  Ask  several  of  your  schoolmates  about  a  particular  controversial  moral  issue  of  today  
and  find  out  their  opinions  about  it.  Compare  them  with  your  own.  Do  you  exactly  hold  
the  same  view?  Cite  the  factors/reasons  why  your  views  are  similar/different.    
 
3.Look  for  someone  who  had  spent  a  long  time  living  in  another  country  aside  from  one's  
own.  Find  out  whether  his  or  her  moral  values  have  changed  and  why?    
 
4.  Come  up  with  a  list  of  other  ambivalent  Filipino  cultural  values  and  traits  aside  from  
what  are  found  in  the  article  above  by  Professor  Quito.  Show  both  the  positive  and  
negative  aspect  of  each  trait  and  value.  
 
Chapter  Exercise  
 
A.  
 
1.  Concisely  define  Ethical  Relativism    
 
 
 
2.  Briefly  distinguish  ethical  relativism  from  cultural  relativism  
 
 
 
 
3.  Enumerate  five  arguments  that  support  Ethical  Relativism  
  a.  
  b.  
  c.  
  d.  
  e.  
 
 
B.  TRUE  OR  FALSE  
 
________1.  Ethical  Relativism  holds  that  morality  is  not  absolute.    
________2.  Ethical  Relativism  views  good  and  bad  as  universally  true.  
________3.  Ethical  Relativism  poses  a  challenge  to  the  study  of  ethics.    
________4.  Ethical  Relativism  does  believe  in  right  or  wrong.  
________5.  Ethical  Relativism  is  not  identical  with  ethical  nihilism.    
________6.  Ethical  Relativism  is  arguably  a  minor  problem  in  ethics.    
________7.  Ethical  Relativism  claims  that  morality  is  not  contextual.    
________8.  Ethical  Relativism  advocates  cultural  insensitivity  to  ethical  values.    
________9.  Ethical  Relativism  says  that  moral  values  are  cultural.    
________10.  Ethical  Relativism  holds  that  good/bad  is  independent  on  time  and  place.  
________11.  Ethical  Relativism  does  not  claim  that  what  is  good  for  one  is  good  for  all.  
________12.  Ethical  Relativism  believes  that  what  is  right  is  dependent  from  persons    
    and/or  groups.    
________13.  Ethical  Relativism  says  that  there  are  valid  universal  moral  principles    
________14.  Ethical  Relativism  is  one  of  the  most  difficult  problems  or  issues  in  ethics.  
________15.  Ethical  Relativism  holds  that  moral  values  are  relative  to  culture  and    
    circumstance.    
________16.  Ethical  Relativism  is  practically  the  same  with  moral  subjectivism.    
________17.  Ethical  Relativism  is  a  fact  of  morality.    
________18.  Ethical  Relativism  believes  in  the  subjectivity  of  ethics.  
________19.  Ethical  Relativism  tells  us  exactly  which  acts  are  right  and  wrong    
________20.  Ethical  Relativists  are  skeptical  on  any  belief  in  relative  morality.  
 
C.  FILL  IN  THE  BLANKS    
1.  One  of  the  most-­‐often  cited  reasons  in  favor  of  ethical  relativism  is  the  fact  of  cultural  
____________.  
2.  It  is  indeed  true    that  cultures  differ  as  to  their  _____________  views.  
3  Noted  American  anthropologist  Ruth  Benedict  says  that  what  is  and  is  not  
behaviourally  normal  is  culturally  ______________.  
4.  Given  the  wide  disparities  among  cultures  as  to  what  is  good/bad,  it  is  easy  to  accept  
that  ___________  says  that  we  have  to  be    
5.  The  argument  from  _______________tolerant  on  the  different  beliefs  of  people  as  to  
what's  good  and  bad.    
6.  This  is  so  because  ____________  is  considered  as  a  virtue.    
7.Through  ethical  relativism,  it  is  believed  that  people  would  become  more  accepting  of  
_____________of  others.    
8.  The_______________    argument  undermines  confidence  in  the  objectivity  of  ethics  
by  making  us  aware  of  how  a  person  is  formed  by  conditioning.    
9.  The  above  argument  claims  that  our  parents  or  elders  play  an  important  role  in  the  
formation  of  our_____________  values.    
10.  The  provability  argument  questions  the  view  that  there  are  clear  and  definite  
______________  to  moral  problems.    
11.  The  conformity  argument  believes  that  as  social  beings,  it  is  but  natural  to  follow  
and  adhere  to  a  _____________  morality.    
12.  The  central  point  of  the  provability  argument  is  that,  if  there's  such  a  thing  as  
___________  moral  truth  then  it  would  be  easy  too  prove  it.    
13.  One  criticism  against  the  cultural  diversity  argument  is  that  it  equates  cultural  
relativism  with  ethical  _____________  
14.  Cultural  diversity  as  a  sociological  and  anthropological  ______________is  in  itself  
neutral  to  making  any  value  or  moral  judgment.    
15.  Ethical  relativism  is  self-­‐contradictory  because  it  is  making  its  own  claim  to  relative  
morality  as  something  ______________.  
 
C.  ESSAY  
Instruction:  Read  the  article  entitled  “Fake  News”  and  Moral  Relativism”  Write  an  
assessment  on  it.  
 
Fake  News:  A  Moral  Assessment  
 
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________  
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________  
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________  
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________  
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________  
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________  
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________  
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________  
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________  
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________  
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________  
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________  
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________  
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________  
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________  
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________  
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________