Human nature

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

For other uses, see Human nature (disambiguation).
Human nature refers to the distinguishing characteristicsincluding ways of thinking, feeling,
and actingwhich humans tend to have naturally, independently of the influence ofculture. The
questions of what these characteristics are, how fixed they are, and what causes them are amongst
the oldest and most important questions in philosophy andscience. These questions have
particularly important implications in ethics, politics, and theology. This is partly because human
nature can be regarded as both a source ofnorms of conduct or ways of life, as well as presenting
obstacles or constraints on living a good life. The complex implications of such questions are also
dealt with in art andliterature, while the multiple branches of the humanities together form an
important domain of inquiry into human nature and into the question of what it is to be human.
The branches of contemporary science associated with the study of human nature
include anthropology, sociology, sociobiology, and psychology, particularly evolutionary psychology,
which studies sexual selection in human evolution, as well as developmental psychology. The
"nature versus nurture" debate is a broadly inclusive and well-known instance of a discussion about
human nature in the natural sciences.

Contents
[hide]

1Overview

2Classical Greek philosophy

3Christian theology
o

3.1Created human nature

3.2Fallen human nature

3.2.1Empirical view

3.2.2Realistic view

3.3Regenerated human nature

3.4Total transformation
3.4.1Catholic view

4Modernism

5Natural science

6See also

7References

8Further reading

Overview[edit]
The concept of nature as a standard by which to make judgments was a basic presupposition
in Greek philosophy. Specifically, "almost all" classical philosophers accepted that a good human life
is a life in accordance with nature.[1]
(Notions and concepts of human nature from China, Japan, or India are not taken up in the present
discussion.)
On this subject, the approach of Aristotlesometimes considered to be a teleological approach
came to be dominant by late classical and medieval times. This approach understands human
nature in terms of final and formal causes. In other words, nature itself (or a nature-creating divinity)
has intentions and goals, similar somehow to human intentions and goals, and one of those goals is
humanity living naturally. Such understandings of human nature see this nature as an "idea", or
"form" of a human.[2] By this account, human nature really causes humans to become what they
become, and so it exists somehow independently of individual humans. This in turn has sometimes
been understood as also showing a special connection between human nature and divinity.
However, the existence of this invariable human nature is a subject of much historical debate,
continuing into modern times. Against this idea of a fixed human nature, the relative malleability of
man has been argued especially strongly in recent centuriesfirstly by early modernists such
as Thomas Hobbes and Jean-Jacques Rousseau. In Rousseau'sEmile, or On Education, Rousseau
wrote: "We do not know what our nature permits us to be".[3] Since the early 19th century, thinkers
such as Hegel, Marx, Kierkegaard,Nietzsche, Sartre, structuralists, and postmodernists have also
sometimes argued against a fixed or innate human nature.
Charles Darwin's theory of evolution has changed the nature of the discussion, confirming the fact
that mankind's ancestors were not like mankind today. Still more recent scientific perspectivessuch
as behaviorism, determinism, and the chemical model within modern psychiatry and psychology
claim to be neutral regarding human nature. (As in much of modern science, such disciplines seek to
explain with little or no recourse to metaphysical causation.)[4] They can be offered to explain human
nature's origins and underlying mechanisms, or to demonstrate capacities for change and diversity
which would arguably violate the concept of a fixed human nature.

Classical Greek philosophy[edit]

Main article: Ancient Greek philosophy Classical Greek philosophy
Philosophy in classical Greece is the ultimate origin of the western conception of the nature of a
thing. According to Aristotle, the philosophical study of human nature itself originated with Socrates,
who turned philosophy from study of the heavens to study of the human things. [5] Socrates is said to
have studied the question of how a person should best live, but he left no written works. It is clear
from the works of his students Plato and Xenophon, and also by what was said about him by
Aristotle (Plato's student), that Socrates was a rationalist and believed that the best life and the life
most suited to human nature involved reasoning. The Socratic school was the dominant surviving
influence in philosophical discussion in the Middle Ages, amongst Islamic, Christian, and Jewish
philosophers.
The human soul in the works of Plato and Aristotle has a divided nature, divided in a specifically
human way. One part is specifically human and rational, and divided into a part which is rational on

its own, and a spirited part which can understand reason. Other parts of the soul are home to
desires or passions similar to those found in animals. In both Aristotle and Plato, spiritedness
(thumos) is distinguished from the other passions (epithumiai).[6] The proper function of the "rational"
was to rule the other parts of the soul, helped by spiritedness. By this account, using one's reason is
the best way to live, and philosophers are the highest types of humans.
AristotlePlato's most famous studentmade some of the most famous and influential statements
about human nature. In his works, apart from using a similar scheme of a divided human soul, some
clear statements about human nature are made:

Man is a conjugal animal, meaning an animal which is born to couple when an adult, thus
building a household (oikos) and, in more successful cases, a clan or small village still run upon
patriarchal lines.[7]

Man is a political animal, meaning an animal with an innate propensity to develop more
complex communities the size of a city or town, with a division of labor and law-making. This
type of community is different in kind from a large family, and requires the special use of human
reason.[8]

Man is a mimetic animal. Man loves to use his imagination (and not only to make laws and
run town councils). He says "we enjoy looking at accurate likenesses of things which are
themselves painful to see, obscene beasts, for instance, and corpses." And the "reason why we
enjoy seeing likenesses is that, as we look, we learn and infer what each is, for instance, 'that is
so and so.'"[9]

For Aristotle, reason is not only what is most special about humanity compared to other animals, but
it is also what we were meant to achieve at our best. Much of Aristotle's description of human nature
is still influential today. However, the particular teleological idea that humans are "meant" or intended
to be something has become much less popular in modern times.[10]
For the Socratics, human nature, and all natures, are metaphysical concepts. Aristotle developed the
standard presentation of this approach with his theory of four causes. Every living thing exhibits four
aspects or "causes": matter, form, effect, and end. For example, an oak tree is made of plant cells
(matter), grew from an acorn (effect), exhibits the nature of oak trees (form), and grows into a fully
mature oak tree (end). Human nature is an example of a formal cause, according to Aristotle.
Likewise, to become a fully actualized human being (including fully actualizing the mind) is our end.
Aristotle (Nicomachean Ethics, Book X) suggests that the human intellect () is "smallest in bulk"
but the most significant part of the human psyche, and should be cultivated above all else. The
cultivation of learning and intellectual growth of the philosopher, which is thereby also the happiest
and least painful life.

Christian theology[edit]
Main article: Christian theology
In Christian theology, there are two ways of "conceiving human nature". The first is "spiritual, Biblical,
and theistic", whereas the second is "natural, cosmical, and anti-theistic." [11]The focus in this section
is on the former. As William James put it in his study of human nature from a religious perspective,
"religion" has a "department of human nature."[12]
Various views of human nature have been held by theologians. However, there are some "basic
assertions" in all "biblical anthropology."[13]
1. "Humankind has its origin in God, its creator."

2. "Humans bear the 'image of God'."

3. Humans are "to rule the rest of creation."
4. Humans have the "ability to transcend" themselves.
The Bible contains no single "doctrine of human nature." Rather, it provides material for more
philosophical descriptions of human nature.[14] For example, Creation as found in the Book of
Genesis provides a theory on human nature.[15]

Created human nature[edit]

As originally created, the Bible describes "two elements" in human nature: "the body and the breath
or spirit of life breathed into it by God." By this was created a "living soul," that is, a "living
person."[16] According to Genesis 1:27, this living person was made in the "image of God." [17] From the
biblical perspective, "to be human is to bear the image of God." [18]
"Two main modes of conceiving human naturethe one of which is spiritual, Biblical, and theistic,"
and the other "natural, cosmical, and anti-theistic." John Tulloch[11]
Genesis does not elaborate the meaning of "the image of God," but scholars find suggestions. One
is that being created in the image of God distinguishes human nature from that of the beasts.
[19]
Another is that as God is "able to make decisions and rule" so humans made in God's image are
"able to make decisions and rule." A third is that mankind possesses an inherent ability "to set goals"
and move toward them.[20]That God denoted creation as "good" suggests that Adam was "created in
the image of God, in righteousness."[21]
Adam was created with ability to make "right choices," but also with the ability to choose sin, by
which he fell from righteousness into a state of "sin and depravity."[22] Thus, according to the Bible,
"humankind is not as God created it."[23]

Fallen human nature[edit]

Main article: Fall of man
By Adam's fall into sin, "human nature" became "corrupt", although it retains the image of God. Both
the Old Testament and the New Testament teach that "sin is universal."[24]For example, Psalm 51:5
reads: "For behold I was conceived in iniquities; and in sins did my mother conceive me." [25] Jesus
taught that everyone is a "sinner naturally" because it is mankind's "nature and disposition to
sin."[26] Paul, in Romans 7:18, speaks of his "sinful nature." [27]
Such a "recognition that there is something wrong with the moral nature of man is found in all
religions"[28] Augustine of Hippo coined a term for the assessment that all humans are born
sinful: original sin.[29] Original sin is "the tendency to sin innate in all human beings." [30] The doctrine of
original sin is held by the Catholic Church and most mainstreamProtestant denominations, but
rejected by the Eastern Orthodox Church, which holds the similar doctrine of ancestral fault.
"The corruption of original sin extends to every aspect of human nature": to "reason and will" as well
as to "appetites and impulses." This condition is sometimes called "total depravity."[31] Total depravity
does not mean that humanity is as "thoroughly depraved" as it could become. [32] Commenting on
Romans 2:14, John Calvin writes that all people have "some notions of justice and rectitude . . .
which are implanted by nature" all people.[33]
Adam embodied the "whole of human nature" so when Adam sinned "all of human nature
sinned"[34] The Old Testament does not explicitly link the "corruption of human nature" to Adam's sin.
However, the "universality of sin" implies a link to Adam. In the New Testament, Paul concurs with
the "universality of sin." He also makes explicit what the Old Testament implied: the link between
humanity's "sinful nature" and Adam's sin[35] In Romans 5:19, Paul writes, "through [Adam's]

disobedience humanity became sinful."[36] Paul also applied humanity's sinful nature to himself:
"there is nothing good in my sinful nature."[37]
The theological "doctrine of original sin" as an inherent element of human nature is not based only
on the Bible. It is in part a "generalization from obvious facts" open to empirical observation. [38]

Empirical view[edit]
A number of experts on human nature have described the manifestations of original (i.e., the innate
tendency to) sin as empirical facts.

Biologist Richard Dawkins in his The Selfish Gene states that "a predominant quality" in a
successful surviving gene is "ruthless selfishness." Furthermore, "this gene selfishness will
usually give rise to selfishness in individual behavior." [39]

Child psychologist Burton L. White, PhD,[40] finds a "selfish" trait in children from birth, a trait
that expresses itself in actions that are "blatantly selfish."[41]

Sociologist William Graham Sumner finds it a fact that "everywhere one meets "fraud,
corruption, ignorance, selfishness, and all the other vices of human nature." [42] He enumerates
"the vices and passions of human nature" as "cupidity, lust, vindictiveness, ambition, and vanity."
Sumner finds such human nature to be universal: in all people, in all places, and in all stations in
society.[43]

Psychiatrist Thomas Anthony Harris, MD, on the basis of his "data at hand," observes "sin, or
badness, or evil, or 'human nature', whatever we call the flaw in our species, is apparent in every
person." Harris calls this condition "intrinsic badness" or "original sin." [44]

Realistic view[edit]
Liberal theologians in the early 20th century described human nature as "basically good" needing
only "proper training and education." But the above examples document the return to a "more
realistic view" of human nature "as basically sinful and self-centered." Human nature needs "to be
regenerated . . . to be able to live the unselfish life." [45]

Regenerated human nature[edit]

Main article: Regeneration (theology)
According to the Bible, "Adam's disobedience corrupted human nature" but God mercifully
"regenerates."[46] "Regeneration is a radical change" that involves a "renewal of our [human]
nature."[47] Thus, to counter original sin, Christianity purposes "a complete transformation of
individuals" by Christ.[48]
The goal of Christ's coming is that fallen humanity might be "conformed to or transformed into the
image of Christ who is the perfect image of God," as in 2 Corinthians 4:4. [49]The New Testament
makes clear the "universal need" for regeneration. [50] A sampling of biblical portrayals of regenerating
human nature and the behavioral results follow.

being "transformed by the renewing of your minds" (Romans 12:2) [51]

being transformed from one's "old self" (or "old man") into a "new self" (or "new man")
(Col.3:9-10)[52]

being transformed from people who "hate others" and "are hard to get along with" and
who are "jealous, angry, and selfish" to people who are "loving, happy, peaceful, patient,
kind, good, faithful, gentle, and self-controlled" (Galatians 5:20-23) [53]

being transformed from looking "to your own interests" to looking "to the interests of
others" (Philippians 2:4)[54]

Total transformation[edit]
The goal is to raise transform human nature to a "higher level" than "before the Fall," a level in
which people will no longer sin.[55] Theology holds that this goal is not reached in this life where
always "human nature is deficient." Thus, the goal cannot be reached until after one dies. [56]
There are two views of reaching the goal in an intermediate state between earth and heaven:
one Protestant, the other Roman Catholic. According to both views, the Christian goal of the
transformation of sinful human nature will be met. The goal is that people will be "conformed to
or transformed into the image of Christ who is the perfect image of God." [57]
Protestant view
Randy Alcorn says that "In heaven there will be no evil desires or corruption." Thus, because
everyone's "human nature is deficient," no one can go to heaven immediately after death.
Between death and the "final destination" (a sinless "New Earth"), there is an intermediate state:
a temporary "intermediate Heaven." In the resurrection from this temporary state, "human
nature" will be restored to "the state of its ultimate perfection." The resurrected inhabitants of the
final Heaven will be "so constituted or reconstituted" that they cannot sin because they do not
want to.[58]

Catholic view[edit]
Jerry L. Walls agrees with the Protestant view that sinful human nature requires a "complete
transformation" before admission into heaven. Earthly "regeneration begins this transformation"
but does not complete it. Thus, as with the Protestant perspective, an intermediate state
between earth and heaven is required. In Catholic doctrine, the intermediate state is
called Purgatory, where the souls of those who have died in a state of grace but without having
yet satisfied the temporal punishment for their respective sins. Purgatory is a "process of
transformation" to fit its residents for heaven.[59] The collection of souls residing in Purgatory is
known as the Church Penitent.

Modernism[edit]
One of the defining changes that occurred at the end of the Middle Ages was the end of the
dominance of Aristotelian philosophy, and its replacement by a new approach to the study of
nature, including human nature. In this approach, all attempts at conjecture about formal and
final causes were rejected as useless speculation. Also, the term "law of nature" now applied to
any regular and predictable pattern in nature, not literally a law made by a divine law-maker,
and, in the same way, "human nature" became not a special metaphysical cause, but simply
whatever can be said to be typical tendencies of humans.
Although this new realism applied to the study of human life from the beginningfor example,
in Machiavelli's worksthe definitive argument for the final rejection of Aristotle was associated
especially with Francis Bacon. Bacon sometimes wrote as if he accepted the traditional four
causes ("It is a correct position that "true knowledge is knowledge by causes." And causes again
are not improperly distributed into four kinds: the material, the formal, the efficient, and the final")
but he adapted these terms and rejected one of the three:

But of these the final cause rather corrupts than advances the sciences, except such as have to
do with human action. The discovery of the formal is despaired of. The efficient and the material
(as they are investigated and received, that is, as remote causes, without reference to the latent
process leading to the form) are but slight and superficial, and contribute little, if anything, to true
and active science.[60]
This line of thinking continued with Ren Descartes, whose new approach returned philosophy
or science to its pre-Socratic focus upon non-human things. Thomas Hobbes, thenGiambattista
Vico, and David Hume all claimed to be the first to properly use a modern Baconian scientific
approach to human things.
Hobbes famously followed Descartes in describing humanity as matter in motion, just like
machines. He also very influentially described man's natural state (without science and artifice)
as one where life would be "solitary, poor, nasty, brutish and short." [61] Following him, John
Locke's philosophy of empiricism also saw human nature as a tabula rasa. In this view, the mind
is at birth a "blank slate" without rules, so data are added, and rules for processing them are
formed solely by our sensory experiences.[62]
Jean-Jacques Rousseau pushed the approach of Hobbes to an extreme and criticized it at the
same time. He was a contemporary and acquaintance of Hume, writing before theFrench
Revolution and long before Darwin and Freud. He shocked Western civilization with his Second
Discourse by proposing that humans had once been solitary animals, without reason or
language or communities, and had developed these things due to accidents of pre-history. (This
proposal was also less famously made by Giambattista Vico.) In other words, Rousseau argued
that human nature was not only not fixed, but not even approximately fixed compared to what
had been assumed before him. Humans are political, and rational, and have language now, but
originally they had none of these things.[63] This in turn implied that living under the management
of human reason might not be a happy way to live at all, and perhaps there is no ideal way to
live. Rousseau is also unusual in the extent to which he took the approach of Hobbes, asserting
that primitive humans were not even naturally social. A civilized human is therefore not only
imbalanced and unhappy because of the mismatch between civilized life and human nature, but
unlike Hobbes, Rousseau also became well known for the suggestion that primitive humans had
been happier, "noble savages".[64]
Rousseau's conception of human nature has been seen as the origin of many intellectual and
political developments of the 19th and 20th centuries.[65] He was an important influence
upon Kant, Hegel, and Marx, and the development of German idealism, historicism,
and romanticism.
What human nature did entail, according to Rousseau and the other modernists of the 17th and
18th centuries, were animal-like passions that led humanity to develop language and reasoning,
and more complex communities (or communities of any kind, according to Rousseau).
In contrast to Rousseau, David Hume was a critic of the oversimplifying and systematic
approach of Hobbes, Rousseau, and some others whereby, for example, all human nature is
assumed to be driven by variations of selfishness. Influenced by Hutcheson and Shaftesbury, he
argued against oversimplification. On the one hand, he accepted that, for many political and
economic subjects, people could be assumed to be driven by such simple selfishness, and he
also wrote of some of the more social aspects of "human nature" as something which could be
destroyed, for example if people did not associate in just societies. On the other hand, he
rejected what he called the "paradox of the sceptics", saying that no politician could have
invented words like "'honourable' and 'shameful,' 'lovely' and 'odious,' 'noble' and 'despicable,'"
unless there was not some natural "original constitution of the mind." [66]

Humelike Rousseauwas controversial in his own time for his modernist approach, following
the example of Bacon and Hobbes, of avoiding consideration of metaphysical explanations for
any type of cause and effect. He was accused of being an atheist. He wrote:
We needn't push our researches so far as to ask "Why do we have humanity, i.e. a fellow-feeling
with others?" It's enough that we experience this as a force in human nature. Our examination of
causes must stop somewhere.[66]
After Rousseau and Hume, the nature of philosophy and science changed, branching into
different disciplines and approaches, and the study of human nature changed accordingly.
Rousseau's proposal that human nature is malleable became a major influence upon
international revolutionary movements of various kinds, while Hume's approach has been more
typical in Anglo-Saxon countries, including the United States.

Natural science[edit]
Main article: Natural science
As the sciences concerned with humanity split up into more specialized branches, many of the
key figures of this evolution expressed influential understandings about human nature.
Charles Darwin gave a widely accepted scientific argument for what Rousseau had already
argued from a different direction, that humans and other animal species have no truly fixed
nature, at least in the very long term. However, he also gave modern biology a new way of
understanding how human nature does exist in a normal human time-frame, and how it is
caused.
Sigmund Freud, the founder of psychoanalysis, famously referred to the hidden pathological
character of typical human behavior. Freud also popularized his notions of the id and the desires
associated with each supposed aspect of personality.
E. O. Wilson's sociobiology and closely related theory of evolutionary psychology give scientific
arguments against the "tabula rasa" hypotheses of Hobbes, Locke, and Rousseau. In his
book Consilience: The Unity of Knowledge (1998), Wilson claimed that it was time for a
cooperation of all the sciences to explore human nature. He defined human nature as a
collection of epigenetic rules: the genetic patterns of mental development. Cultural phenomena,
rituals, etc. are products, not part of human nature. For example, artworks are not part of human
nature, but our appreciation of art is. This art appreciation, or our fear for snakes, or incest taboo
(Westermarck effect) can be studied by the methods ofreductionism. Until now, these
phenomena were only part of psychological, sociological, and anthropological studies. Wilson
proposes that they can be part of interdisciplinary research.
An example of this fear is discussed in the book An Instinct for Dragons,
[67]
where anthropologist David E. Jones suggests a hypothesis that humans, just like other
primates, have inherited instinctive reactions to snakes, large cats, and birds of prey.
Folklore dragons have features that are combinations of these three, which would explain why
dragons with similar features occur in stories from independent cultures on all continents. Other
authors have suggested that, especially under the influence of drugs or in children's dreams, this
instinct may give rise to fantasies and nightmares about dragons, snakes, spiders, etc., which
makes these symbols popular in drug culture and in fairy tales for children. However, the
traditional mainstream explanation to the folklore dragons does not rely on human instinct, but
on the assumption that fossils of, for example,dinosaurs gave rise to similar fantasies all over
the world.

Filipino Core Values, Characteristics and Citizenship Morals

1. 1. FILIPINO COREVALUES, CHARACTERISTICS, CITZENSHIP MORALS A Report
By: DELIZO, Dannuel Mayye S. JUANIA, Faye Nicole M.
2. 2.
3. 3. From the latin word valere which means to be strong and vigorous. Values in a
society give meaning and direction to every individuals life and influence his
humanWHAT behavior. Collectively, the values of IS a society would be theVALUE
standards or principles ? for which an act is judged to be what is right or wrong,
correct or incorrect. From the premise that a human person has to have strength or
valor in every endeavor. Ralph Barton Perry. General Theory of Value (New York:
Longsmans, Green & Co. , 1926)
4. 4. value is an existing realization of desire. -Edgar Sheffield Brightman things,
persons, ideas or goals which are important to life; anything which enables life to be
understood, evaluated, and directed. (Dr. Tomas Q. D. Andres (1986) )
5. 5. the principles on which every member of the Filipino society shouldpersevere to
attain in order to reach the ultimate realization of his Mapua Institute of Technology,
CWTS Module 3
6. 6. In order to understand the Filipino culture and the development of the Filipino
individual, one has to understand the underlying values on which every Filipino
acts.A study on the Filipino values would provide us a deeper
http://planipolis.iiep.unesco.org/upload/Philippines/Philippines
7. 7. The resulting blend of this mixture of influences, which are sometimes conflicting,
is uniquely Filipino in character.Composed of a mixture of different races which
influenced the lifestyle and values being practiced in the Philippine community.
http://www.philippinecountry.com/philippine_culture/philippine_society.html
8. 8. a blend of the rich Christian values of Europethe pragmatic and democratic values
of America spiritual values of Asia. http://www.dole.gov.ph/abudhabi/about.html
9. 9. basic social unit in our society. It is here where values and principles are nurtured
and imbibed. Tradition of close family ties - long been practiced and considered as
our societys foundation. The State recognizes the Filipino family as thefoundation
of the nation. (Article XV, Section 1 of the 1987 Philippine Constitution) Flerida Ruth
P. Romero,, Philippine Family Law @ law.upd.edu.ph

10. 10. Situation where an individualis required to return a favor or service received.
However, the return of such service or favor cannot be translated into monetary
equivalent, and may FRANCIS DANCEL, UTANG NA LOOB: A PHILOSOPHICAL
ANALYSIS
11. 11. Bathala na It reflects the Filipinos dependence on the supernatural being and
on Tendency to move toward the fate. commonly conceivedprocrastination character
of the http://www.bahala-na.co.uk/
12. 12. Hardwork and Industry Pakikipagkapwa-TaoFaith and Family OrientedReligiosity
Joy and Humor Ability to Survive Flexibility and Adaptibility
http://www.crvp.org/book/Series03/III-7/chapter_iv.htm
13. 13. Passivity and Lack of Initiative Extreme Personalism Colonial Etxreme Family
Mentality Centeredness Lack of Discipline Kanya-Kanya Syndrome Lack of SelfAnalysis and Self-Reflection http://www.crvp.org/book/Series03/III7/chapter_iv.htm
14. 14. Filipino Citizenship Values
15. 15. The given set of values is inherently within each Filipino. GOAL: To awaken
these values amongst us and hopefully, later on, inspire us to practice it in our
everyIf carried out, it day lives. as a vehicle can serveand reinforcement towards our
goal ofrealizing social change and progress.
16. 16. THE VALUE THE VALUE OF THE OF CONCERN FOR THE FAMILY VALUE
RESPECT FOR LIFE AND THE FUTURE OF GENERATIONS TRUTH THE VALUE
THE OF THE VALUE VALUE PROMOTION OF OF EQUALITY OF THE COMMON
JUSTICE GOOD THE VALUE OF CONCERN FOR THE
ENVIRONMENThttp://issuu.com/monz54/docs/introduction_to_basicvaluesofgoodciti
zenship
17. 17. Treat life with respect and life itself will reveal its beauty to you.THE VALUE OF
RESPECT FOR LIFE
18. 18. We can get so involved in what we are doing that we forget why we are doing it.
We are so involved in living that we forget the purpose of living. We get so involved in
pursuing the things money can buy that we forget about the things that money cant
buy.THE VALUE OF CONCERN FOR THE FAMILY AND THE FUTURE
GENERATIONS
19. 19. The Truth about Lies (2004) Lies are said in the place of truth Why not prefer to
tell the truth than settle for a lie? There are no half-truths or white lies Its either
you say the truth or tell a lie! A million lies cannot make up a single truth You can
never transform a lie into truth. Its easier to tell the truth than tell a lie With the
truth, you merely have to state the facts: With lies, youd have to cook up a thousand
alibis. Youll know when your lies have caught up with you When you begin to

believe in them as being the truth. In the end, we find but a single truth about lie That
there is No Truth and No Good in Lies.THE VALUE OF TRUTH
20. 20. Justice is giving every man his due.THE VALUE OF JUSTICE
21. 21. Each man may differ in worldly stature, but each one bears the same amount of
dignity aTHE VALUE OF EQUALITY s another and all share one common destiny.
22. 22. The real heroes among us are those who live their lives daily in genuine concern
for the welfare of the others.THE VALUE OF PROMOTION OF THE COMMON
GOOD
23. 23. THE VALUE OF CONCERNFOR THE ENVIRONMENT
Philippine Values is defined by the way of people live their life as an influence of ones
culture. Philippines, having been an archipelago, has not become a hindrance towards having a
single values system throughout the country. In whatever part of the country you may be, one will
find the same hospitality that the Filipinos are known for as well as many other values that have
originated from our forefathers.
The values of Filipinos have been looked upon by foreigners as a weakness instead of strength due
to the nature of how they may be abused and manipulated due to these values. But values are what
make up a certain nation both in growth and unity. Some may see that Filipino values as a hindrance
to the growth of the country and yet others may say that his is what makes our country powerful.
In order to understand these concepts, let us look into the different values of the Filipinos and how
they may be of influence to a persons growth.
Contents
[hide]

1 Filipino Values
o

1.1 Family

1.2 Politeness

1.3 Hospitality

1.4 Gratitude

1.5 Shame

1.6 Flexibility, Adaptability, and Creativity

1.7 Loyalty

1.8 Hard work and Industry

1.9 Resignation
2 Reference
3 Citation

Filipino Values
Family
The Philippines is known to be a family centered nation. The Filipinos recognize their family as an
important social structure that one must take care of. They give importance to the safety and unity of
ones family. The Filipino family is so intact that it is common for members of the same family work
for the same company. It is also common to find the whole clan living in the same area as that the
Filipinos are afraid to be too far from their own family.
People get strength from their family, thus a child may have several godparents to ensure his future
in case his parents will not be there for him. They also do not let their elders live too far away from
them. The Filipinos take care of their elders by taking them into their homes. Unlike the Westerners,
the Filipinos do not send their elders to nursing homes to be taken care of. They believe that when
their elders are unable to live alone, the time has come for them to pay their respects and to be able
to serve their parents just as they were cared for when they were younger.

Politeness
Filipinos are taught to become respectful individuals. This is mainly due to the influence of
Christianity that tells us to honor both our parents and our elders. The use of po and opo when
in conversation with an elder or someone who is older is a manifestation of how Filipinos respect
their elders.

Hospitality
The Filipinos are very hospitable when it comes to their fellowmen. They will invite their visitors to
come into their homes and offer them treats such as snacks and drinks after a long journey. There
are also instances when the Filipinos will serve only the best to their visitors even if at times they
may not be able to afford it. They also go the extremes as to give up the comfort of their own
bedrooms for their guests and to the point of sleeping on floor just to ensure that their guests are
comfortable.

Gratitude

Gratitude or utang na loob is a very popular Filipino characteristic. One does not forget the good
deeds that others may have done to him or her especially at times of great need. This debt of
gratitude are sometimes abused by those who have done well to others as they may ask favors or
things that may either be unreasonable or beyond the means of the one in debt.

Shame
Shame or Hiya is a very common Filipino value. It is said that Filipinos would go to great lengths
in order for one not to be ashamed. Hiya has a great influence on ones behavior for one will do
everything, even if it is beyond his means just to save his reputation as well as the familys. Filipinos
feel pressured to meet the status quo of the society when it comes to economic standing. One
indication of this might be a willingness to spend more than they can afford on a party rather than be
shamed by their economic circumstances.

Flexibility, Adaptability, and Creativity

Filipino's sense of joy and humor is evident in their optimistic approach to life and its travails. The
ability to laugh at themselves and their predicament is an important coping mechanism that
contributes to emotional balance and a capacity to survive. These are manifested in the ability to
adjust to often difficult circumstances and prevailing physical and social environments. Filipinos have
a high tolerance for ambiguity that enables them to respond calmly to uncertainty or lack of
information. Filipinos often improvise and make productive and innovative use of whatever is
available. These qualities have been repeatedly demonstrated in their capacity to adapt to living in
any part of the world and in their ability to accept change.

Loyalty
Loyalty or Pakikisama is another Filipino value. Filipinos are said to be loyal to their friends and
fellowmen in order to ensure the peace in the group. This is manifested in their basic sense of justice
and fairness and concern for other's well being. Filipinos recognize the essential humanity of all
people and regard others with respect and empathy. With this orientation, Filipinos develop a
sensitivity to the nature and quality of interpersonal relationships, which are their principal source of
security and happiness.

Hard work and Industry

The related capacity for hard work and industry among Filipinos is widely recognized. Filipinos are
universally regarded as excellent workers who perform well whether the job involves physical labor
and tasks or highly sophisticated technical functions. This propensity for hard work, which often
includes a highly competitive spirit, is driven by the desire for economic security and advancement
for oneself and one's family. This achievement orientation is further accompanied by typically high
aspirations and great personal sacrifices.