Chapter 2: THE AGENT
Module 2: Culture in Moral Behavior and Developing Virtue as a
Habit
Introduction
Developmental Activities (most discussions here are lifted from the
book of De Guzman, (2017) -Ethics: Principles of Ethical Behaviour in
Modern Society)
Culture in Moral Behavior
To understand the role of culture in moral behavior, it is important to
first of all have an understanding of what culture is and its necessary
relationships with man. It is commonly said that culture is all around us.
Practically, culture appears to be an actual part of our social life as well as our
personality.
The term culture is so complex that it 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 perceptions of a
given society. The following are other definitions of the term culture:
1. Culture refers to the cumulative deposit of knowledge, experience,
beliefs, values, attitudes, meanings, hierarchies, religions, notion of
time, roles, spatial relations, concepts of the universe, and material
objects and possessions acquired by a group of people in the
course of generations through individual and group striving.
2. Culture consists of patterns, explicit and implicit, of and for
behaviour acquired and transmitted by symbols, constituting the
distinctive achievement of human groups, including their
embodiments in artefacts, the essential core of culture consists of
traditional ideas and especially their attached values, culture
systems may, on the one hand, be considered as products of action
on the other hand as conditioning influence upon further action.
3. Culture is the sum total of the learned behaviour of a group of
people that are generally considered to be the tradition of that
people and are transmitted from generation to generation
4. Culture in its broadest sense is cultivated behaviour; that is the
totality of a person’s learned, accumulated experience which is
socially transmitted, or more briefly, behaviour through social
learning.
5. Culture is symbolic communication.
Some of its symbols include a group’s skills, knowledge, attitudes,
values, and motives. The meanings of the symbols are learned and
deliberately perpetuated in a society through its institutions.
1 1
Defined broadly therefore, culture includes all the things individuals
learn while growing up among particular group: attitudes, standards of morality,
rules of etiquette, perceptions of reality, language, notions about the proper
way to live, beliefs about how females and males should interact, ideas about
how the world works and so forth. We call this cultural knowledge.
Culture’s Role in Moral Behavior
Based on the definitions of culture above, it is not hard to
pinpoint the role of culture in one’s moral behavior. A culture is a ‘way of life’ of
a group of people, and this 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 they are passed along by
communication and imitation from one generation to the 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
evaluate what is (morally) good and bad and to judge when an unusual action
is appropriate or inappropriate (Manebog & Pena, 2016).
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. Observing or watching them, pole develop a set of what is
right and wrong and what is acceptable and what is not.
Even experientially, it is improbable, if not impossible, to live in a society
without being affected by its culture. It follows too that it is hard to grow up in a
particular culture without being impacted by how it views morality or what is
ethically right or wrong. Social learning is the process by which individuals
acquire knowledge from others to which they belong as a normal part of
childhood. The process by which infants and children socially learn the culture
including morality, of those around them is called enculturation or socialization.
Moral Standards as Social Convention and the Social Conditioning
Theory
Among the popular notions which attempt to give account for basic
concepts in Ethics, such as the existence of moral rules, the senses of moral
obligation, and the moral accountability, are the so called social conventions
and social conditioning theories. These views are upshot of the fact that we can
learn from morality culturally or through socialization.
Theories Explained. The things we regard as moral laws (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 refer to the usual or customary ways through
which things are done within a group.
Since it is observed that morality is something that is handed down to
us primarily by education or socialization, either through parents and elders or
though teachers, some believe that moral standards are merely a human
invention., like those other inventions we learn from school or home.
Essentially, to theorize that moral law is a social convention is to say that it is
something which human beings had just made up for themselves and might
have been different had they liked.
2
However, just because something is learned at home or school 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:
1. Although there differences between the moral ideas of one time or
another country and those of another, the difference are not really
very great.
2. 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.
Culture Relativism in Ethics
Cultural Relativism is the most famous and dominant form of moral
relativism. Moral Relativism fundamentally believes that no act is good or bad
objectively. It also submits that different moral principles apply to different
persons or group of individuals.
Cultural Relativism defines ‘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 in one that disapproves of it.
Cultural relativists claim the following:
1. Different societies have different moral codes.
2. The moral code of a society determines what is right or wrong within
that society.
3. There are no moral truths that hold for all people at all times.
4. The moral code of our own society has no special status; it is but one
among many.
5. It is arrogant for us to judge other cultures. We should always be
tolerant of them
It is concluded that morality differs in every society as concepts of right
and wrong vary from culture to culture.
Cultural relativism: an analysis
1. Valuable lessons from ethical relativism
In proposing that there’s no independent standard in Ethics, moral
relativism does encourage tolerance. Without a doubt, tolerance is necessary
for people of different cultural origins to co-exist and live peacefully in a society.
The theory also teaches us to be open minded, thereby being more
open to discovering truth. Cultural relativism warns against being judgmental as
it reminds us that some of our beliefs and practices are mere conventional, and
thus not absolutely and exclusively correct.
3
2. The theory’s ethical faults
Cultural relativism discourages analytical thinking and independent
decision-making in Ethics as it requires unsuspecting compliance and
subscription to social norms. The theory teaches that to be ethical, folkways
and cultural norms should be followed uncritically.
Cultural Relativism is inconsistent in promoting tolerance while
teaching that no culture is morally superior or more progressive than others.
The theory is practicable only if people do not belong to more than
one institution.
Moral relativism is fundamentality self-defeating.
3. Rachels’ evaluation of cultural relativism
Philosophy professor James Rachels (1941-2003) made a compelling
assessment of Cultural Relativism.
The Cultural Differences Argument
Rachels explained that cultural relativists’ approach is to argue from
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 Greeks believed it was wrong to eat the dead, whereas the
Callatians (an Indian Tribe) believed it was right to eat the dead.
Therefore eating dead is neither 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.
Different cultures have different moral codes. Therefore, there is no
objective “truth” in morality. Right and wrong are only matters of opinion, and
opinions vary from culture to culture.
Rachels call these cultural differences argument. It is nonetheless
unsound because its conclusion does not follow from its premise.
Against cultural differences argument, this counter-argument could be
submitted:
People in some societies (e.g. Primitive Tribes) believe that the Earth is
flat, whereas Europeans hold that truth that the Earth is spherical. This
argument is obviously unsound because some societies might simply
be wrong in their beliefs
Cultural Relativism goes wrong in drawing a conclusion about an issue
from the mere fact that people disagree about it.
The Disagreements among Cultures
There are many factors, Rachel further explains, which work together to
4
produce the customs of a society. Since the difference in customs may be
because of some other aspects of social life, then it’s wrong to conclude that
there is a disagreement about values and morality just because customs differ.
Therefore there may be less ethical disagreements that there appears to be
(1997, p. 27).
The Case of Eskimos and Callatians
In sociology and Anthropology, the Eskimos are popular for killing
normal infants, especially girls. This makes them appear to possess
significantly different values from ours.
It is not that Eskimos have less affection for their children or less
respect for human life. An Eskimo will always protect its babies if conditions
permit. But they live in a harsh environment where food is in short supply that
“life is hard, and the margin of safety is small” (1999, p. 28).
In Eskimo’s very special case, Infanticide is thus a recognition that
drastic measures are sometimes needed to ensure the family’s survival.
The Bad Consequences of Cultural relativism
If we took cultural relativism seriously, we would be necessitated to
deal with the following corollaries enumerated by Rachels (1999, pp.25-27)
1. We could no longer say that the customs of other societies are
morally inferior to our own
2. We could decide whether actions are right or wrong just by consulting
standards of our society.
3. The idea of moral progress is called to doubt.
ASIAN AND FILIPINO UNDERSTANDING OF MORAL BEHAVIOUR
Because culture has an impact on morality, people from different
cultures appear to have seemingly, but not essentially different sets of ethics.
This is particularly apparent in ethics of groups of people from the Eastern or
Asian Culture as compared to those from Western culture
The Difference Between Western and Eastern Ethics
Western Ethics Eastern Ethics
Focus Finding the Truth Protocol and Respect
Basis Rational Thought Religious Teachings
Emphasis Logic, Cause, and Effect Respect Towards
Family
Roots in Athens, Rome and Judeo Hinduism, Buddhism,
Christianity Confucianism and
Taoism
Approach Rational Holistic and Cultural
Conflict and Good must triumph over Evil Good and Bad, Light
Harmony and Dark all exist in
equilibrium
Filipino Moral Character: Strength and Weakness
5
Filipino cultural morality, especially that which concerns social ethics,
centers on ideally having a ‘smooth interpersonal relationship’ (SIR) with
others. The definition of SIR in Philippine culture is principally supported by and
anchored on at least six basic Filipino values.
Six Basic Filipino Values
1. Pakikisama is having and maintaining good public relation.
2. Hiya is described as a feeling of lowliness, shame or embarrassment,
and inhibition of shyness which is experienced as somewhat
distressing.
3. Amor propio has been characterized as the high degree of sensitivity
that makes a person intolerant to criticism and causes him to have an
easily wounded pride.
4. Utang na loob is likewise a fundamental aspects of upholding group
harmony and relationships that demand the balancing of obligation and
depts.
5. Filipino hospitality refers to the innate ability and trait of Filipinos to be
courteous and entertaining to their guest.
6. Respects for Elders. Filipinos are not only respectful to elders, but also
have unique ways of expressing this respect.
These Filipino social values are important to maintain harmony in
Filipino relationships in social institutions such as family, school and
community.
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 Western and Eastern
cultures (including Filipino culture) despite the distance, then cultural
relativism’s claim that culture’s moralities radically differ from each other is
mistaken.
Going back to the contention that Eskimos are also protective of their
children, Rachel submits the following sound argument (1999, p.29) Human
infants are helpless and cannot survive if they are not given extensive care for
a period of years. Therefore, if a group did not care for its young, the young
would not survive and the older members of the group would not be replaced.
After a while, the group would die out. Therefore, any cultural group that
continues to exist must care for its young infants that are not cared for must be
the exceptions rather than the rule.
The same argument could be used to reasonably show that other
values must be generally shared by many cultures. Given value on 1) truth
telling, for instance is indispensable in the existence of a society, for without it
there would be no reason to pay attention to what anyone communicates with
anyone.
Rachels also mentions of the case of 2) valuing or respecting life which
necessitates the prohibition of murder. In a society where no one thought there
6
was anything wrong with killing at will, everyone would have to be constantly on
guard.
A. Developing Virtue as A Habit
1. Moral Character and Virtues
The term “character” is derived from the Greek word “charakter”, which
was initially used as a mark impressed upon a coin. It means a distinct mark or
qualities by which one thing was distinguished from others. At the beginning of
Book II of the Nicomachean Ethics, the Greek philosopher Aristotle tells us that
there are two distinct of human excellences:
1. Excellences of Thought
2. Excellences of Character
Excellences of Character
Excellences of character is often translated as ‘moral virtue(s)’ or ‘moral
excellence(s)’. ‘Ethikos’ (ethical) is the adjective cognate with ‘ethos’
(character). So when we speak of ‘virtue’ or excellence of moral character, the
highlight is on the blend of qualities that make a person the sort of ethically
admirable individual that he/she is.
Moral Character
Moral character refers to the existence or lack of virtues such as
integrity, courage, fortitude, honesty, and loyalty. If one lacks virtue, he/she
may have any moral vices, or he/she may be marked by a condition
somewhere in between virtue and vice. Moral character means that you're a
good person and a good citizen with a sound moral compass. Moreover,
philosophers usually think that moral character traits, unlike other personality or
psychological traits have an irreducibly evaluative dimension; that is, they
involve a normative judgment. The agent is morally responsible for having the
moral character trait itself or for the outcome of that trait. Hence, a certain
moral character trait is a trait for which the agent is morally responsible.
The Circular Relations of acts and character
There are some ACTS THAT BUILD character and moral character
itself. But not all acts helps to build moral character. A person’s actions
determine his/her moral character, but moral character itself generates acts
that help in developing either virtue or vice. Habitual practice of moral and
intellectual excellences, or ‘virtues.’
For Aristotle, the function of human being consists in activities which
manifest the best states of his rational aspects, that is , the virtues. To
determine regularity and reliability, what individual acts are appropriate and
reasonable in certain situations. It is not easy to define in rules which acts
deserve moral praise and blame, and that, these matters require the judgment
of the victorious person, that is , someone with good moral character
Moral Characters as Dispositions
The moral characters that constitute a person’s moral character are
7
characteristically understood as behavioral and affective dispositions. Generally
speaking dispositions are particular kinds or characteristics that objects can
possess. Among human beings, moral character traits-either virtue or vices are
also considered as dispositions. Moral character traits are those dispositions of
character for which it is suitable top hold agents morally responsible. A moral
character which a person is deserving of a positive reactive attitude such as
praise or gratitude is a virtue. On the other hand, a vice is amoral character trait
for which the agent is deserving of a negative reactive attitude such as
resentment or blame.
Six Stages of Moral Development
The American psychologist Lawrence Kohlberg is best known for his
theory of stages of moral development. In Heinz dilemma, Kohlberg found a
pattern in how people justified whether or not they would steal the drug as
people age. By analyzing the answers from various children, Kohlberg
discovered that the reasons tend to change as the children got older.
Kohlberg’s Theory consist of 3 levels and 6 stages of Moral
Development
Level Age Range Stage
Level 1: Pre- Pre – school children, Stage 1: Obedience and
Conventional Elementary, Some HS Punishment Orientation
Morality students
Stage2: Individualism
and
Exchange
Level 2: Seen in a few older Stage 3: Good Interpersonal
Conventional Elementary and many Relationships
Morality high school students
Level 2: Seen in a few older Stage 3: Good
Conventional Elementary and many
Morality high school students Interpersonal
Relationships
Stage 4: Maintaining
Social
Order
Level 3: Rarely seen before Stage 5:
Post - college (Stage 6 is Social Contract and
Conventional extremely rare even in Individual rights
Morality adults)
Stage 6:
Universal
Principles
Six Stages of Moral Development
Level 1 – Pre-Conventional Morality
• Stage 1. Obedience and Punishment Orientation
8
• Stage 2. Individualism and Exchange
Level 2 – Conventional Morality
• Stage 3. Good Interpersonal Relationships
• Stage 4. Maintaining the Social Order
Level 3 – Post- Conventional Morality
• Stage 5. Social Contract and Individual Rights
• Stage 6. Universal Principles
