ETHICS: LESSON 1 On Culture

CULTURE IN MORAL BEHAVIOUR

Culture is all around us. Particularly, it appears to be an actual part of our social life as well as our
personality. For some, culture is a quality that some people have more than others: how cultured
somebody is depending on some factors like status, class, education, taste in music or film, and speech
habits.

The term 'culture' is so complex that it is not easy to define. in one sense culture is used to denote that
which is related to the arts and humanities. But in broader sense, culture denotes the practices, beliefs
and perception of a given society. it is in this sense that culture is often opposed with 'savagery' that is,
'cultured' is seen as a product of a certain evolvement from natural state.

CULTURE'S ROLE IN MORAL BEHAVIOUR

Based on the definitions of culture above, it is not hard to pinpoint the role of the culture in a 'way of
life' of a group of people, and this is so called 'way of life' actually includes moral values and behaviors,
along with knowledge, beliefs, symbols, that they accept, "generally without thinking about them, and
that are passed along by communication and imitation from one generation to next.

Culture is learned as children grow up in society and discover how their parents and others around them
interpret the world. In our society, we learn to distinguish objects, recognize attributes, and even
"evaluate what is (morally) good and bad and to judge when an unusual action is appropriate or
inappropriate."

Many aspects of Morality are taught. People learn moral and aspects of right or wrong from transmitters
of culture: respective parents, teachers, novels, films, and television. Anthropologically speaking,
culture-including moral values, beliefs and behaviors-is learned from the people while growing upon a
particular society. "Individuals are a product or their 'culture" and "learning culture is an essential part of
human development."

MORAL STANDARDS AS 'SOCIAL CONVENTION' AND THE 'SOCIAL CONDITIONING' THEORY

Among the popular notions which attempts to give account for basic concepts in Ethics, such as the
existence of moral rules' the sense of moral obligation, the moral accountability, are the so-called 'social
convention' and 'social conditioning' theories. these views are upshot of the fact that we can learn
morality culturally or through socialization.

(social convention- agreed upon by the people)

(Learning culture naturally or through specialization)

Theories explained. The things we regard as moral law (moral standards or rules), some purport, are
nothing but just social conventions.
By convention, they mean those things agreed upon by people, like through their authorities.
Convention also refers to the usual or customary ways through which things are done within a group.

Relatedly, some submit that morality is nothing but an effect of social conditioning. As regards moral
consciousness or the feeling that we are obliged to act morally, some atheists, like Richard Robinson
(1902-1996), maintain that it is nothing but an outcome of social conditioning.

(Social Conditioning-behavior of the people how they condition an act based on social convention, it is
where they trained the right behavior or right reaction of a morally conscious individual)

The theory further claims that the demands of conscience are also due to society. As society expresses
disapproval of certain actions, people especially children, are said to become aware of the reproof or
contempt.

(what is right or wrong depends on social convention in a society)

The philosopher C.S. Lewis offers two reasons for saying that morality belongs to the same class.

a) Although there are differences between the moral ideas of one time or country and those of
another, the differences are not really very great.
b) We affirm that the morality of one people is better or worse than that of another, which means
that there is a moral standard or rule by which we measure both moralities and that standard is
real.

In the same way, if moral law or rule of decent behavior means simply, "whatever each nation happens
to approve," that is, social convention, then there would be no sense saying that one nation had ever
been more correct in its approval than any other.

there would be no sense in saying that the world could ever grow better or worse. Thus, Moral Law is
not Synonymous to mere Social Convention-it's not something which each culture or society just
happens to approve.

Concerning 'Social Conditioning theory' it can be observed that when one says that a particular action
'ought' or 'ought not' to be done, he/she is not simply echoing Social Approval or Disapproval. In fact,
there are plenty of situations where a person, although conditioned and influenced by his culture to
adopt a particular course, feels the moral obligation to take an entirely different action.

As a matter of fact, we indeed learn plenty of moral things from our society through our parents,
teachers, religious leaders, and the like. But it is basically our 'intellect' which is nurtured by the teaching
of moral authorities. The intellect remembers what actions are moral and what are not, at least as
prescribed by the society. Therefore, it is this intellect which can be molded or socially conditioned, not
the sense of moral obligation nor the so-called conscience per se.

CULTURAL RELATIVISM in ETHICS

MORAL RELATIVISM fundamentally believes that no act is good or bad objectively, and there is no single
objective universal standard through which we can evaluate the truth of moral judgment.

(Walang universal truth na mag eevaluate ng moral judgement. Walang tama o mali, it is crucial and
dangerous)

Moral Relativism submits that different moral principles apply to different persons or group of
individuals. Claiming that various cultures have distinct standards of right and wrong, it maintains too,
that moral standards change over time even the same culture. Moral relativist views all moral norms as
equally true, and morals, as mere references

when the recognized standard is a particular agent, the relativist theory is very much compatible with
moral subjectivism. If the considered basis is a given society the relativist ideology is typically referred
to as cultural relativism.

Cultural relativism, the most dominant form of moral relativism, define 'moral' as what is 'socially
approved' by the majority in a particular culture. it maintains that an act is ethical in a culture that
approves of it, but immoral and one that disapproves of it.

Cultural relativists base their moral theory on the observation that societies fundamentally disagree
about ethical issues. What is deemed moral within one group may be totally despicable to the members
of another group, and vice versa. It is thus concluded that morality differs in every society concept of
right and wrong vary from culture to culture.

According to the theory, there is no "universal truth" in ethics; that is there are no moral truths that
holds for all peoples at all times. Various cultural codes or customs are all that exist, and nothing more.

Allegedly, there is no unconventional yardstick in ethics because every standard is culture-bound.

Cultural relativism: an analysis

From moral relativism and cultural relativism, we could learn some beneficial lessons. As a theory in
ethics nonetheless, they have some claims that are questionable, if not totally mistake.

A. Valuable Lessons from Ethical Relativism. In proposing that there is no independent standard in
ethics, moral relativism does encourage tolerance. Without a doubt, tolerance is necessary for people of
different culture origins to co-exist and leave peacefully in a society.
B. The Theory's Ethical Faults. In spite of its apparently convincing features, cultural relativism contains
various ethical faults. For instance, imagine what a theory would say if you were a member of Hitler's
Nazi party who lived in the society that approved the anti-Semitism. Since according to the theory,
'moral' simply means 'socially approved', then you would have to believe that exterminating millions of
Justews is right.

Cultural relativism discourages analytical thinking and independent decision making in ethics as it
requires unsuspecting compliance and subscription to social norms.

Endorsing traditionalism, one is not supposed to think for himself. The theory teaches that to be ethical,
folkways and cultural norms should be followed uncritically. In other words, the theory is practicable
only if people do not belong to more than one situation.

(Cutural relativism refuses the idea of change, and to only believe on to what had been believed)

Rachel's evaluation of cultural relativism.

The late Philosophy professor James Rachels (1941-2003) made a compelling assessment of cultural
relativism. Because the theory attains widespread prominence, it would help a lot to consider Rachel's
comprehensive evaluation of this ethical system.

Rachel’s logically analyzed the cultural relativism's line of thinking. he explains that the cultural
relativists' approach is to argue from the facts about the differences between cultural outlooks to a
conclusion about the status of morality. Thus, we are invited to accept reasoning like these;

The cultural differences argument

-the Greeks believed it was wrong to eat the dead, whereas the Callatians (Indian tribe) believed it was
right to eat the dead. Therefore, eating the dead is neither objectively right nor objectively wrong. It is
merely a matter of opinion, which varies from culture to culture.

-the Eskimos see nothing wrong with infanticide, whereas we believe infanticide is immoral. Therefore,
infanticide is neither objectively right nor objectively wrong. It is merely a matter of opinion which varies
from culture to culture. (The situation is deductive reasoning; it is also Moral Relativism)

Against cultural differences argument, this counter argument could be submitted:

-People in some societies (primitive tribes) believe that the earth is flat, whereas Europeans hold that
the earth is (roughly) Spherical. Therefore, there is no "objective truth" in geography. Belief in the shape
of the earth is only a matter of opinion, and opinions vary from culture to culture.

This argument is obviously unsound because some societies might simply be wrong and their beliefs.
there is no reason to think that if the world is round then everyone must know it. Similarly, there is no
reason to suppose that if there is moral truth then all people, without any exception, must know it.
Clearly, just because various society disagree on something does not mean that there is no objective
truth about that matter.

C. The Bad Consequences of Cultural Relativism. If we look cultural relativism seriously, we would be
necessitated to deal with the following corollaries enumerated by Rachel's. -we would no longer say that
the customs of other society are morally inferior to our own. -we could decide whether actions are right
or wrong just by consulting the standards of our society. -the idea of moral progress is called into doubt.

THE ASIAN MORAL UNDERSTANDING

Because culture has major impact on morality, people from different cultures appears to have
seemingly, but not essentially, different sets of ethics. This is particularly apparent in ethics of group of
people from the Eastern or Asian Culture as compared to those from the Western culture.

Some say that one of the differences between Eastern (Asian) and Western Ethics is the fact that
Western ethics is basically about finding the truth, more of stress on self and what is rationally or
logically true. Western ethics is seen to place more emphasis on law and justice, whereas Eastern Ethics
is very much about the protocol and showing of respect. Asian Ethics is said to be much more about
doing what is right in terms of what is expected of someone by his family, society, and culture.

As indicated in the table, the basis of Asian or Eastern Ethics is Religion, specifically Eastern Religions or
Philosophies. Confucianism, for instance, focuses on the cultivation of virtue and maintenance of
morality, the most basic of which are ren (an obligation of altruism and humaneness for other
individuals), yi (the upholding of righteousness and the moral disposition to do good), and li (a system of
norms and propriety that determined how a person should properly act in everyday life).

FILIPINO MORAL CHARACTER: STRENGTHS AND WEAKNESSES

Filipino cultural morality, especially that which concerns social ethics, centers on ideally on having a
'smooth interpersonal relationship' (SIR) with others. the definition of smooth interpersonal relationship
in Philippine culture is principally supported by and anchored on at least six basic filipino virtues:

the concepts of (1)'pakikisama' (2)'hiya' (3)'amor propio' pagiging mayabang (4)'utang na loob' involves
the concept of reciprocity (5)'filipino hospitality,' and (6)'respect for elders'. Pagmamano, and po and
opo

UNIVERSAL VALUES

By universal values, we mean those values generally shared by cultures. The existence of the so-called
universal values is a strong proof that cultural relativism is wrong. If certain values exist boat in western
and eastern cultures (including Filipino culture) despite the distance, then cultural relativism's claim that
cultures' moralities radically different from each other is mistaken.

The "general theoretical point" here is that "there are some moral rules that all societies will have in
common, because those rules are necessary for society to exist."

Giving value on truth-telling, for instance is indispensable in the existence of a society, for which without
it there would be no reason to pay attention to what anyone communicates with anyone.

Another case of valuing is respecting life which is necessitates the prohibition on murder. In a society
where no one thought there was anything wrong with killing others at will, everyone would have to be
constantly on guard. Therefore, "it is a mistake to overestimate the amount of difference between
culture." In fact, not every moral rule can vary from society to society. This definitely flies in the face of
Cultural Relativism.