Culture’s Role in Moral Behavior

Culture is learned as grow up in society and discover how parents and others around
them interpret the world. In our society, we learn to distinguish objects such as cars, windows,
houses, children and food; recognize attributes like sharp, hot, beautiful, and humid, classify and
perform different kind of acts; and even “evaluate what is good and bad and to judge when an
unusual action is appropriate or inappropriate”
‘Moral Standards as Social Convention’ and the social Conditioning Theory
 Theories Explained. The things we regard as moral laws (moral standards or rules),
some purport, are nothing but 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.
 Theories Analyzed. However, just because something is learned at homes or schools
does not necessarily mean that it is a social convention. Mathematical operations,
geographical facts, and scientific laws are also taught in those institutions, yet they are
never considered as mere human fabrications. Meaning, whether or not people know and
like them, they are as they are.
The Philosopher C.S Lewis offers two reasons for saying that morality belongs to the same
class as mathematics (Lewis, 1943, p. 28-31)
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. Nations or cultures only
have slightly different moralities but not quite different ones. Essentially, we can
recognize the same moral law running through them all (more of this under the section
“Universal Values”) It is thus concluded that moral law is not among the class of mere
conventions---for conventions, like the rule of the road or the kind of clothes people
wear, are observed to be differing almost completely.
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. For instance, New Testament’s morality can be said to be far
better than Nazi morality. In fact, one aspect of the National Socialist (Nazi) reign was
the systematic cold-blooded murder of between 5.6 million and 5.9 million European
Jews (National Socialism, 2008)
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 action. And in a culture where moral views have become corrupted,
say the Nazi society, those who opted to go against the societal norms are even considered as
social reformer and moral model.

Culture Relativism in Ethics

Cultural relativism is perhaps the most famous form of moral relativism, a theory in
ethics which holds that ethical judgment have their origin either in individual or cultural
standards.
 Moral relativism believes that no act is good or bad objectively and there is
no single objective or universal standard through which we can evaluate the
truth of moral judgments.
 Cultural Relativism is the most dominant forms of moral relativism. Most
cultural relativists place notion of right in the folkways and consider the
tradition as morality’s warrant.
  Moral refers to what is “socially approved”
 Culture 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, vice versa it
thus concluded that morality differs in every society as concepts of right and
wrong vary from culture to culture.
Cultural Relativism: An Analysis
From moral relativism and cultural relativism, we could learn some beneficial
lesson. As a theory in ethics nonetheless, they have some claims that are questionable, if not
totally mistaken.
 Valuable lessons from ethical relativism
- Proposed that there is no independent standard in Ethics, moral
relativism does encourage tolerance without doubt, tolerance is necessary for
people different cultural origins to co-exist and live peacefully in a society.
-Be open minded, being more open to discovering truth. By stressing
that our moral views can reflect the partially of our traditions, the theory
make us understand that our feelings and beliefs do not necessarily reflect to
truth, they maybe product of culture conditioning.
- Some of our beliefs and practices are mere conventional, and thus
not absolutely and exclusively correct.
 The theory’s ethical faults
Despite of convincing features, cultural relativism contains various
ethical faults for instance, imagine what the theory would say if you ere a
member of Hitler’s Nazi party who lived in a society that approved of anti-
Semitism. Since according to the theory ‘moral’ simply means ‘societal
approved’, then you would have to believe that exterminating millions of
Jews is right. We could not say that anti- Semitism is socially approved but
wrong since this would be self-contradicting within the theory.
Cultural Relativism discourages analytical thinking and independent
decision -making, in Ethics as it requires unsuspecting compliance and
subscription to social norms. “To be Ethical , folkways and cultural norms
should be followed uncritically”

Cultural Relativism (Logically)

Is Inconsistent in promoting tolerance while teaching that culture is morally
superior or more progressive than others. It is also self-contradiction because if we really do not
believe that some culture was better than others, then there would be nothing for us to tolerate,
furthermore being tolerant does not demand that we consider all practices, including racism and
oppression, as morally acceptable.
We are member of various overlapping societies and organization. An individual
belongs to race, country, province, and barangay and community at the same time part of a
certain clan, family, religion, and more. The problem lies in the fact that various groups do have
differ values.
Cultural relativists’ approach is to argue from facts about difference between
cultural outlooks to conclusion about the status of morality. Thus, we are invented to accept
reasoning (Rachels 1999). In addition, different cultures have different moral codes therefore,
there is no objective “truth” in morality right and wrong are only matter of opinion, and opinion
vary from culture to culture.
The bad consequence of cultural relativism.
 If we took cultural relativism seriously, we would be necessitated to deal with the
following:
A. We could no longer say that the customs of other societies are morally
inferior to our own.
B. We could decide whether actions are right or wrong just by consulting the
standards of our society.
(Cultural relativist suggests a simplistic test for determining what is right and
what is wrong- one just need to ask whether the action is in accordance with
the code of his society.)
C. The idea of moral progress is called into doubt.

Asian Moral Understanding

Culture has a major impact on morality, people from different cultures appear to have
seemingly, but not essentially, different set of ethics. Some say that Western Ethics is basically
about finding truth, whereas Eastern Ethics is very much about the protocol and showing of
respect.
Western Ethics Eastern Ethics
Focus Finding Truth Protocol and Respect
Basis Rational Thought Religious Teachings
Emphasis Logic, Cause and Effect Respect towards Family
Roots in Athens, Rome, and Hinduism, Buddhism, Confucianism
JudeoChristianity and Taoism

Approach Rational Holistic and Cultural

Conflict and Good must triumph over Evil Good and Bad, Light and Dark all
Harmony exist in equilibrium

Filipino Moral Character: Strengths and Weaknesses

Filipino cultural morality, especially which concerns social ethics, centers on ideally
having a 'smooth interpersonal relationship' (SIR) with others. The definition of 'smooth
interpersonal relationship in Philippine culture is principally supported by and nchored on at
least six basic Filipino values: the concepts of (1) 'pakikisama', (2) 'hiya', (3) 'amor propio', (4)
'utang na loob', (5) Filipino hospitality, and (6) respect for elders.
1. Pakikisama is having and maintaining 'good public relations'. This is usually being
practiced toavoid clash with other people or a certain group. Just like other Filipino values,
however, 'pakikisama'can work either positively or destructively.
2. Hiya is described as the feeling of lowliness, shame or embarrassment, and inhibition
or shyness which experienced as somewhat distressing. This unique Filipino concept 'hiya' or
'fear of losing face' encompasses being afraid to do bad things as it may damage one's reputation
in the sight of other people.
3. Amor propio comes from the person's tendency to protect his or her dignity and honor.
Because of pride or amor propio, for instance, a person may refuse offers even if he/she really
wants to accept them.
4. Utang na loob is likewise a fundamental aspect of upholding group harmony and
relationships that demand the balancing of obligations and debts. This involves the concept
'reciprocity' or returning the received favor.
 5. Filipino Hospitality refers to the innate ability and trait of Filipinos to be courteous
and entertaining to their guests. Filipinos known to be hospitable even in other countries because
they are warm, welcoming and accommodating. This trait, however, makes Filipinos prone to
being abused or maltreated.
6. Respect to elders, we, Filipinos, are not only respectful to elders but also have unique
ways of expressing this respect to elders. Like the use of 'po and opo' when talking to elders and
'pagmamano' or the putting of the elder's hand to one's forehead.

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 both in Eastern and Western cultures (including Filipino Culture) despite the distance, then
cultural relativism's claim that cultures’ moralities radically differ from each other is mistaken.
Giving value on (1) TRUTH TELLING for instance, is indispensable in the existence of
a society for without it there would be no reason to what anyone communicates with anyone.
Rachels also mentions of the case of (2) VALUING OR RESPECTING LIFE which
necessitates the prohibition on murder.
The “general theoretical point” here, Rachels concludes, is that “there are some moral
rules that all societies will have in common, because those rules are necessary for society to
exist. . Therefore ‘it is a mistake to overestimate the amount of difference between cultures. In
fact, not every moral rule can vary from society to society. This definitely files in the face of
Cultural Relativism.

The claim for universal values can be understood in two different ways. First, it could be
that something has a universal value when everybody finds it valuable. This was Isaiah Berlin's
understanding of the term. According to Berlin, "...universal values....are values that a great
many human beings in the vast majority of places and situations, at almost all times, do in fact
hold in common, whether consciously and explicitly or as expressed in their behaviour..."
Second, something could have universal value when all people have reason to believe it has
value. Amartya Sen interprets the term in this way, pointing out that when Mahatma
Gandhi argued that non-violence is a universal value, he was arguing that all people
have reason to value non-violence, not that all people currently value non-violence. Many
different things have been claimed to be of universal value, for
example, fertility, pleasure, and democracy. The issue of whether anything is of universal value,
and, if so, what that thing or those things are, is relevant to psychology, political science,
and philosophy, among other fields.