At the end of the unit, you are expected to learn about Justice and Fairness.

You must be able to:

a. analyze the various concepts revolving the ideas of justice and fairness, and provide moral
principles of justice for one's daily life and judgment;

b. identify the moral challenges of globalization, and articulate moral conflicts arising from
Filinnialism; and

c. appreciate the role of religion in a globalized world.

BIG PICTURE in Focus

k analyze the various concepts revolving the ideas of justice and fairness, and provide moral principles of
justice for one's daily life and judgment

◈ METALANGUAGE ◈

Justice – giving each person what he or she deserves or, in more traditional terms, giving each person his
or her due

Fairness – used to refer to the ability to make judgments that are not overly general but that are
concrete and specific to a particular case

Neutrality – involves impartial, even handed treatment and would be exemplified in the family context
by parents who use impartial procedures with all members of the family

Trust – refers to whether individuals have faith in the good intentions of others, typically authority
figures

Standing – refers to whether an authority figure treats a person as a valued member of a relevant group,
for instance, parents who treat their child as a valued member of the family.

Intuitionism – the doctrine that justice must be determined in particular situations by balancing a
plurality of first principles without any priority rules for ordering them is held to be defective because
the way in which we weigh conflicting intuitions may be biased by our own particular situations and
expectations

Perfectionism – a theory ordaining that society be ordered so as to maximize the achievement of human
excellence in art, science, and culture

Civic – of, relating to, or belonging to a city, a citizen, or citizenship, municipal or civil society.

Responsibility – refers to the state or quality of being responsible or something for which one is
responsible such as a duty, obligation or burden.
Citizen – a person owing loyalty to and entitled by birth or naturalization to the protection of a state or
union

Citizenship – a productive, responsible, caring and contributing member of society

◈ ESSENTIAL KNOWLEDGE ◈

Justice and Fairness

The study of justice has been a topic in ethics and philosophy at least since Plato and Socrates, and
philosophical and ethical thinking about justice has shaped the way people see the world. Mankind has
long tried to answer the question, “what is justice?” Yet the question seems to remain as open ever, and
it seems unsure if a final answer can ever be found. Justice has been conceptualized in many different
ways by philosophers and thinkers: as a natural law based on contracts, as an instrument for societal
order for which no universal standard exists, as a consequence of the economic system that is used as a
manipulative instrument to preserve and justify a societal order, or as a result of historical associations
and historical rights (Fellenz & Fortin, 2007).

Justice has been thought about as an attribute of societal order, as a human virtue, or as an attribute of
an act. Arguments about justice or fairness have a long tradition in Western civilization. In fact, no idea
in Western civilization has been more consistently linked to ethics and morality than the idea of justice.
But saying that justice is giving each person what he or she deserves does not take us very far.

Definitions and Concepts

Justice means giving each person what he or she deserves or, in more traditional terms, giving each
person his or her due. Justice and fairness are closely related terms that are often today used
interchangeably. There have, however, also been more distinct understandings of the two terms. While
justice usually has been used with reference to a standard of rightness, fairness often has been used
with regard to an ability to judge without reference to one's feelings or interests; fairness has also been
used to refer to the ability to make judgments that are not overly general but that are concrete and
specific to a particular case. In any case, a notion of being treated as one deserves is crucial to both
justice and fairness.
When people differ over what they believe should be given, or when decisions have to be made about
how benefits and burdens should be distributed among a group of people, questions of justice or
fairness inevitably arise. In fact, most ethicists today hold the view that there would be no point of
talking about justice or fairness if it were not for the conflicts of interest that are created when goods
and services are scarce and people differ over who should get what. When such conflicts arise in our
society, we need principles of justice that we can all accept as reasonable and fair standards for
determining what people deserve.

Tom Tyler has conceptualized procedural justice in terms of the relationships among decision makers
and participants in the decision-making process. For example, he suggested that people evaluate the
procedural fairness of interactions with others along relational dimensions such as neutrality, trust, and
standing. Neutrality involves impartial, even handed treatment and would be exemplified in the family
context by parents who use impartial procedures with all members of the family. Trust refers to whether
individuals have faith in the good intentions of others, typically authority figures. Standing refers to
whether an authority figure treats a person as a valued member of a relevant group, for instance,
parents who treat their child as a valued member of the family. This identity-based, relational model
proposed by Tyler and his associates is based on a substantial foundation of empirical research
demonstrating that people seem to care about relational issues such as being treated with dignity and
respect and having their position heard whether or not their expressions have any influence on decision
outcomes (Lind & Tyler 1988).

Fairness is under the term justice. In order to conclude that there is justice; one should first perceive and
become aware if there is an equity or fairness happening. The idea of fairness is more on individual’s
comparison of the received benefits to the achievement of others in a particular group. While, justice
develops when common good exist in wider population or in the society. The theory of justice as
fairness denies that individuals should receive a greater or lesser share of basic rights and duties
because of their personal achievements or because of their personal contributions to society. So justice
might be fulfilled by a social equality.

Principles of Justice

The most fundamental principle of justice—one that has been widely accepted since it was first defined
by Aristotle more than two thousand years ago—is the principle that "equals should be treated equally
and unequals unequally." In its contemporary form, this principle is sometimes expressed as follows:
"Individuals should be treated the same, unless they differ in ways that are relevant to the situation in
which they are involved." For example, if Jack and Jill both do the same work, and there are no relevant
differences between them or the work they are doing, then in justice they should be paid the same
wages. And if Jack is paid more than Jill simply because he is a man, or because he is white, then we
have an injustice—a form of discrimination—because race and sex are not relevant to normal work
situations.

There are, however, many differences that we deem as justifiable criteria for treating people differently.
For example, we think it is fair and just when a parent gives his own children more attention and care in
his private affairs than he gives the children of others; we think it is fair when the person who is first in a
line at a theater is given first choice of theater tickets; we think it is just when the government gives
benefits to the needy that it does not provide to more affluent citizens; we think it is just when some
who have done wrong are given punishments that are not meted out to others who have done nothing
wrong; and we think it is fair when those who exert more efforts or who make a greater contribution to
a project receive more benefits from the project than others. These criteria—need, desert, contribution,
and effort—we acknowledge as justifying differential treatment, then, are numerous.

On the other hand, there are also criteria that we believe are not justifiable grounds for giving people
different treatment. In the world of work, for example, we generally hold that it is unjust to give
individuals special treatment on the basis of age, sex, race, or their religious preferences. If the judge's
nephew receives a suspended sentence for armed robbery when another offender unrelated to the
judge goes to jail for the same crime, or the brother of the Director of Public Works gets the million
dollar contract to install sprinklers on the municipal golf course despite lower bids from other
contractors, we say that it's unfair. We also believe it isn't fair when a person is punished for something
over which he or she had no control, or isn't compensated for a harm he or she suffered.

John Rawls' Theory of Justice

Harvard philosophy professor John Rawls (1921–2002), has been widely hailed ever since its 1971
publication as a classic of liberal political philosophy — earning its author such praise as being called the
most important political philosopher of the twentieth century, and receiving the National Humanities
Medal in 1999. In presenting the award, President Clinton acclaimed Rawls for having helped a whole
generation of learned Americans revive their faith in democracy itself.

Rawls expresses from the outset of Theory is to devise a theory of justice that can better systematize
people’s judgments about it. In his view, existing political societies are seldom well-ordered simply
because they are characterized by disagreements about justice. An agreed-on theory of justice is
needed, in addition, in order for individuals’ life plans to be fitted together so that nobody’s legitimate
expectations will be severely disappointed.
He claims to have provided a solution to these problems in the form of two principles of justice, the first
of which enjoys priority over the second. The first principle mandates that everyone has an equal right
to the most extensive system of equal basic liberties compatible with a similar system of liberty for all.
The second dictates that inequalities in social and economic goods must arranged to the greatest benefit
of the least advantaged members of society (the difference principle), while being attached to offices
and positions open to all under conditions of fair equality of opportunity.

Rawls dismisses two other rival theories even more briefly the intuitionism and the perfectionism.
Intuitionism, defined as the doctrine that justice must be determined in particular situations by
balancing a plurality of first principles without any priority rules” for ordering them is held to be
defective because the way in which we weigh conflicting intuitions may be biased by our own particular
situations and expectations. While it is not necessarily irrational to appeal to intuition to settle questions
of priority, Rawls urges that we do what we can to reduce the direct appeal to our considered
judgments in order to make agreement among us more likely — as, he maintains, his two principles
(including the priority rule) do. Perfectionism, a theory ordaining that society be ordered so as to
maximize the achievement of human excellence in art, science, and culture, which he associates with
Nietzsche, on the ground that the veil of ignorance, which deprives the parties to the original position of
knowledge of their conceptions of the good (other than the desire to maximize their share of primary
goods) would prevent the parties to the original position from having “an agreed conception of
perfection that can be used” to choose among institutions on that basis. While denying holding that “the
criteria of excellence lack any rational basis from the standpoint of everyday life,” Rawls maintains that
in the absence of a known conception of the good, the parties to the original position have no choice but
to agree on the first principle of justice, maximizing the "greatest equal liberty” for each person to
pursue his vision of the good (whatever it may turn out to be), rather than risk having to accept a lesser
religious or other liberty, if not to a loss of freedom altogether to advance many of one’s spiritual ends
(in case the criterion of perfection that society imposes differs from their own view of the good).

Different Kinds of Justice

There are different kinds of justice. Distributive justice refers to the extent to which society's institutions
ensure that benefits and burdens are distributed among society's members in ways that are fair and
just. When the institutions of a society distribute benefits or burdens in unjust ways, there is a strong
presumption that those institutions should be changed. For example, the American institution of slavery
in the pre-civil war South was condemned as unjust because it was a glaring case of treating people
differently on the basis of race.
A second important kind is retributive or corrective justice. Retributive justice refers to the extent to
which punishments are fair and just. In general, punishments are held to be just to the extent that they
take into account relevant criteria such as the seriousness of the crime and the intent of the criminal,
and discount irrelevant criteria such as race. It would be barbarously unjust, for example, to chop off a
person's hand for stealing a dime, or to impose the death penalty on a person who by accident and
without negligence injured another party. Studies have frequently shown that when blacks murder
whites, they are much more likely to receive death sentences than when whites murder whites or blacks
murder blacks. These studies suggest that injustice still exists in the criminal justice system in the United
States.

Yet a third important kind is compensatory justice. Compensatory justice refers to the extent to which
people are fairly compensated for their injuries by those who have injured them; just compensation is
proportional to the loss inflicted on a person. This is precisely the kind of justice that is at stake in
debates over damage to workers' health in coal mines. Some argue that mine owners should
compensate the workers whose health has been ruined. Others argue that workers voluntarily took on
this risk when they chose employment in the mines.

The foundations of justice can be traced to the notions of social stability, interdependence, and equal
dignity. As the ethicist John Rawls has pointed out, the stability of a society—or any group, for that
matter—depends upon the extent to which the members of that society feel that they are being treated
justly. When some of society's members come to feel that they are subject to unequal treatment, the
foundations have been laid for social unrest, disturbances, and strife. The members of a community,
Rawls holds, depend on each other, and they will retain their social unity only to the extent that their
institutions are just. Moreover, as the philosopher Immanuel Kant and others have pointed out, human
beings are all equal in this respect: they all have the same dignity, and in virtue of this dignity they
deserve to be treated as equals. Whenever individuals are treated unequally on the basis of
characteristics that are arbitrary and irrelevant, their fundamental human dignity is violated.

Justice, then, is a central part of ethics and should be given due consideration in our moral lives. In
evaluating any moral decision, we must ask whether our actions treat all persons equally. If not, we
must determine whether the difference in treatment is justified: are the criteria we are using relevant to
the situation at hand? But justice is not the only principle to consider in making ethical decisions.
Sometimes principles of justice may need to be overridden in favor of other kinds of moral claims such
as rights or society's welfare. Nevertheless, justice is an expression of our mutual recognition of each
other's basic dignity, and an acknowledgement that if we are to live together in an interdependent
community we must treat each other as equals.
Citizen's Responsibility

When it comes to what it takes to be a good citizen, the public has a long list of traits and behaviors that
it says are important. And there is a fair amount of agreement across groups about what it takes to be a
good citizen. Still, there are differences when it comes to which aspects are considered very important
(as opposed to somewhat important), and points of emphasis differ by party identification as well as by
age. Citizenship is the state of being vested with the rights, privileges and duties of a citizen, but it can
also be defined as the character of an individual viewed as a member of society.

Definitions, Historic Roots and Important Concepts

Civic Responsibility is defined as the "responsibility of a citizen" (Dictionary.com). It is comprised of

actions and attitudes associated with democratic governance and social participation. Civic responsibility
can include participation in government, church, volunteers and memberships of voluntary associations.
Actions of civic responsibility can be displayed in advocacy for various causes, such as political,
economic, civil, environmental or quality of life issues.

Civic means, of, relating to, or belonging to a city, a citizen, or citizenship, municipal or civil society.

Responsibility refers to the state or quality of being responsible or something for which one is
responsible such as a duty, obligation or burden.

A citizen is a person owing loyalty to and entitled by birth or naturalization to the protection of a state or
union.

Citizenship means a productive, responsible, caring and contributing member of society."

Civic Responsibility dates to ancient Rome whose citizens wanted to contribute to Roman society. Civic
responsibility may have started with Lucius Quinctius Cincinnatus in 519 BC.

Although Civic Responsibility has existed for centuries in society, it was officially sanctioned as a
blueprint for democracy in 1787 by the ratification of the United States Constitution. The Constitution
declared, "We the people of the United States, in order to form a more perfect union, establish justice,
insure domestic tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general welfare, and secure
the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the
United States."

In the 18 th and 19th centuries and through the 1930s, civic responsibility in America was tied to a
commonwealth perspective. Citizens participated in projects that shaped communities and ultimately
the nation. Due to civic responsibility, citizenship was understood in terms of the labors of ordinary
people who created goods and undertook projects to benefit the public, as opposed to the high-minded,
virtuous and leisure activities of gentlemen. This kind of civic identify helped create an important
balance between pursuit of individual wealth and the creation of public things (Boyte and Kari 1999).

The importance of civic responsibility is paramount to the success of democracy and philanthropy. By
engaging in civic responsibility, citizens ensure and uphold certain democratic values written in the
Constitution and the Bill of Rights. Those values or duties include justice, freedom, equality, diversity,
authority, privacy, due process, property, participation, truth, patriotism, human rights, rule of law,
tolerance, mutual assistance, self restraint and self respect. Schools teach civic responsibility to students
with the goal to produce responsible citizens and active participants in community and government.

Civic responsibility is tied to the philanthropic sector in many ways. By citizen and corporate
participation, nonprofit organizations prosper from their giving of time and money.

Service learning directly relates to civic responsibility and ties to the philanthropic sector by students
learning through the completion of projects within communities. Service learning is a way in which
people learn civic responsibility. Through service learning, citizens participate in projects to help or serve
the needs of other people. By getting their hands dirty and actually doing work, citizens experience the
value and impact of giving to people and learn to be productive members of society. College students
have the opportunity to participate in any civic responsibility.

Volunteering is a form of civic responsibility, which involves the giving of time or labor without the
expectation of monetary compensation. Many people volunteer through local churches, animal shelters
or food banks. Volunteering allows citizens the opportunity to share their skills and talents as well as the
to learn new skills while helping those in need of assistance.
Civic Education is a method in which to teach civic responsibility. According to the Center of Civic
Education, it is a way to promote and enlighten responsible citizenry committed to democratic
principles. Civic education is a means to actively engage people in the practice of democracy.

John F. Kennedy said in his inaugural, “Ask not what your country can do for you; ask what you can do
for your country.”

Therefore, as citizens in a developing democracy we should balance our emphasis on individual rights
and privileges with a much stronger sense of individual, collective and communitarian duties and
obligations. In this way many more citizens can become patriotic, responsible and effective—in solidarity
with our kapwa Pilipino. We can then build a cohesive national community, a working democracy, and a
peaceful, nonkillng, just and humane society.

Citizens of progressive nations like Japan, Korea, China, Taiwan, Singapore, Israel, the Scandinavian
countries, Germany, and the United States of America have a deep sense of their duties and obligations
to the community and the nation.

The proposed CMFP Article V. Bill of Duties and Obligations.

Section 1. Loyalty, obedience, cooperation. It shall be the duty of the citizen to be loyal to the Federal
Republic of the Philippines and to honor the Philippine flag, to defend the State and contribute to its
development and welfare, to uphold the Constitution and obey the laws, pay taxes, and cooperate with
the duly constituted authorities in the attainment and preservation of a peaceful, just, and orderly
society.

Section 2. Correlative duty. The rights of the individual impose upon him or her the correlative duty to
exercise them responsibly and with due regard for the rights of others.

Section 3. Human life, dignity, rights. Citizens shall respect the life and dignity of every human person
and help uphold human rights whenever these are threatened or violated. The State and the citizens
shall prevent and prohibit the killing of humans in any form and for whatever purpose.

Section 4. Duty to work. It shall be the duty of every citizen to engage in gainful work and to work well to
assure himself/herself and his/her family a life worthy of human dignity.

Section 5. Civic, political participation. It shall be the duty and obligation of every citizen qualified to vote
to register and cast his or her vote at every election, to participate actively in other public and civic
affairs, and to contribute to good governance, honesty and integrity in the public service and the vitality
and viability of democracy. Citizens shall enhance their civic efficiency and political effectiveness by their
involvement in people’s organizations, non-governmental organizations, civic and professional
associations, community associations, or political parties, as well as in discussions on public issues.

Section 6. Promote equity, social justice. In their own homes, in the workplace, and in their various
organizations and institutions, citizens shall cooperate in the promotion of equity and social justice for
the good of all.
Section 7. Responsibility of youth. The youth shall assume their responsibility in developing their social,
economic, intellectual and moral well-being. They shall develop their patriotism and

nationalism and their civic and political competence in order to serve the common good and national
interest and their own welfare.

Section 8. Health, ecology, environment. Citizens shall exercise their right to a balanced and healthful
ecology, and contribute to the maintenance of a clean, enjoyable and sustainable environment.

◈ SELF HELP ◈

You can also refer to the source/s below to help you further understand the lesson.

Standford Encyclopedia of Philosophy, Global Justice

https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/justice-global/

Velasquez, M. et al. (n/d): Justice and Fairness

https://www.scu.edu/ethics/ethics-resources/ethical-decision-making/justice-and-fairness/

Tyler T.R., Allan Lind E. (2002) Procedural Justice. In: Sanders J., Hamilton V.L. (eds)

Handbook of Justice Research in Law.

https://link.springer.com/chapter/10.1007/0-306-47379-8_3

◈ LET’S CHECK ◈

Answer the following items.

1. Review questions:

1.1 How do you determine what people deserve?

 1.2 What criteria and principles should you use to determine what is due to a person?
Qualify the answer.

1.3 Articulate an explanative circumstance on justice and fairness are ethically or legally
served.

2. Identify the following elements of strengths and weaknesses of distributive justice. Review your
answer at: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ONaP1sQG-CA

Distributive Justice

Strengths Weaknesses
3. Discuss basically the seven theories of distributive justice, including John Rawls' theory of justice.
Review your answer at: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=I5drG595r6M

Distributive Justice

Theories Basic Concepts

◈ LET’S ANALYZE ◈

Make an action plan how you will perform the eight duties and responsibilities for your country. Follow
the steps at: https://www.projectmanager.com/training/make-action-plan.
◈ Q & A List ◈

Students’ Questions / Issues Professor’s Answers

◈ KEYWORD INDEX ◈

 Justice

 Fairness

 Neutrality

 Trust

 Standing

 Intuitionism

 Perfectionism

 Distributive justice

 Retributive justice

 Compensatory justice

 Civic responsibility
 Citizen

 Volunteering

 Civic education 

BIG PICTURE in Focus

l. identify the moral challenges of globalization and pluralism, and articulate moral conflicts arising from
Filinnialism

◈ METALANGUAGE ◈

Globalization – applies to a set of social processes that appear to transform the present social condition
of weakening nationality into one of globality

Pluralism – the idea that there are many theories about what is “right” and “wrong” (moral norms)
which may be incompatible and/or incommensurable with one's own personal moral norms

Filinnial – short for “Filipino millennials” that are usually spendthrifts due to their propensity to spend
money for luxury goods which left their bank accounts “broke”

◈ ESSENTIAL KNOWLEDGE ◈

GLOBALIZATION AND PLURALISM

The contemporary confluence of globalization and ethical pluralism is at the origin of many ethical
challenges that confront business nowadays, both in practice and in theory. One of the challenges
arising from the development of globalization has to do with respect for cultural diversity. It is often said
that the success of economic globalization tends towards social and cultural homogeneity. To the extent
that cultural diversity is usually seen as a valuable reality, that global trend seems to contradict our
efforts to respect ethical pluralism, both personal and cultural, within society.

Ethical minimalism, despite its emphasis on tolerance and justice, does not take pluralism seriously into
account in present-day society, and ethical minimalism is not suited to balancing the homogenizing
trend of globalization. Certainly ethical norms are necessary, but by no means are they sufficient in
themselves to encourage either justice or tolerance; nor are they sufficient to inspire and encourage
good practices and sound regulations. Instead, virtue-based ethics has the capacity of inspiring and
encouraging good practices. Particularly, virtue-based ethics is able to inspire a serious dialogue about
ethical and legal issues both in the public arena and within organizations (Gonzales 2003).

Definitions and Concepts

Globalization has enormous implications as Sigh (2015) noted. As convergence of technologies

facilitated people to connect, people not only communicated but also started collaborating. A world that
facilitates multiple forms of collaboration in sharing knowledge and work among billions of people
without regard to geography, distance or language poses new challenges and problems for lawmakers
and judges. When billions of people connect and collaborate and generate value in goods and services
horizontally rather than vertically, complex issues are bound to arise. Such disputes emerge in the shape
of challenges, which can be called global. Now global challenges demand global solutions as well.
Individual countries find themselves unable to deal with such problems, and the problems are such that
they cannot be ignored. Handling them together is the obvious and only way to ensure that they are
properly tackled. It would be possible when the entire world’s people have a stake and all enjoy the
opportunity to participate. We all share one atmosphere where overexploitation of the environment in
the industrialized countries can result in ecosystem destruction.

In developing a workable and effective international legal system, participation of all states is required.
Lastly, we are all part of a human community. So we need to consider our actions accordingly. And to do
so from a script that is written afresh every day by billions of human beings with whom we all share our
planet raises demand for the formulation of a global civic ethic grounded in universally shared values
and expressed in interlocking rights and responsibilities. Present paper intends to explore the possibility
of such an ethics (Sigh 2015).

Anderson (2009) have noted Globalization is a social process, while globalism is an ideology that endows
a concept of globalization with a particular concept or value. Most writers on the subject focus on
economic globalization, Steger (2003) acknowledges that the process is broken down into other key
components, including historical, political, cultural, ecological, and ideological aspects – while keeping in
mind its operation as an interacting whole.

Steger then moves on to a definition of the concept – “the term globalization applies to a set of social
processes that appear to transform the present social condition of weakening nationality into one of
globality.” Globalization is not a single process but a set of processes that operate simultaneously and
unevenly on several levels and in various dimensions. Steger examines the history of globalization. While
many commentators maintain that globalization is a relatively new phenomenon, Steger contends that
the answer to the question of whether globalization constitutes a new phenomenon depends on how
far people are willing to extend the chain of causation that resulted in those recent technologies and
social arrangements that most people have come to associate with the fashionable buzzword. In fact,
Steger gives examples of how cultural exchanges can be traced back to the prehistoric period.

Steger examines the historical dimension of globalization. While many commentators maintain that
globalization is a relatively new phenomenon, Steger contends that the answer to the question of
whether globalization constitutes a new phenomenon depends on how far people are willing to extend
the chain of causation that resulted in those recent technologies and social arrangements that most
people have come to associate with the fashionable buzzword. In fact, Steger gives examples of how
cultural exchanges can be traced back to the prehistoric period.

The economic dimension of globalization rests on the emergence of the global economic order,
including the internationalization of trade and finance, and the power of transnational corporations
(TNCs). Steger also examines the history and role of the IMF, the World Bank, and the WTO. Steger
points out that these three institutions enjoy the privileged position of making and enforcing the rules of
a global economy that is sustained by significant power differentials between the global North and
South. Steger goes on to concede that the growing power of TNCs has profoundly altered the structure
and functioning of the international economy. As a consequence, TNCs are extremely important players
that influence the economic, political, and social welfare of many nations.

The political dimension of globalization did an excellent of analyzing the intensification and expansion of
political interrelations across the globe. A discussion of the origins of the modern nation-state system,
which can be traced backed to the seventeenth-century in Europe. Then moves on from there to discuss
hyper globalization and the rise of a “borderless world.” The discussion concludes with a look at the
visible rise of supraterritorial institutions and associations, using the European Union as an example.

The ecological dimension of globalization, Steger begins by acknowledging that the ecological impacts of
globalization are increasingly recognized as the most significant. Steger goes on to note that the scale,
speed, and depth of the Earth’s environmental decline have been unprecedented, and unless people are
willing to change the underlying cultural and religious value structure that has combined with the social
and economic dynamics of unrestrained capital accumulation, the health of Mother Earth is likely to
deteriorate further. Steger does a wonderful job of identifying major manifestations and consequences
of global environmental degradation and recognizes that they are all global issues.

Steger distinguishes between globalization and three types of globalism – market globalism, jihadist
globalism, and justice globalism. Globalization is a social process, while globalism is an ideology that
endows a concept of globalization with a particular concept or value. Steger considers market globalism
the dominant ideology of the time, and believes that there are major ideological claims of market
globalism. When discussing justice globalism, the WTO protests in Seattle in 1999 to highlight this
emerging social justice movement. Steger illustrates the devastating effect that jihadist globalism can
have, highlighting the fact that Osama Bin Laden and Al-Qaeda terrorists fed on the perceived
“Americanization” of the world to justify their actions.

Steger ends his discussion by asking the question, “Will the global fight against terrorism lead to more
extensive forms of international cooperation and interdependence, or might it stop the powerful
momentum of globalizations?” Without giving an answer, it concludes that only time will tell what path
globalization takes. Steger does emphasize that nothing can be accomplished without a moral compass
and an ethical polestar guiding our collective efforts.

Pluralism in Ethics according to Sher (2011) is the idea that there are many theories about what is
“right” and “wrong” (moral norms) which may be incompatible and/or incommensurable with one's
own personal moral norms. International engagement involves working within other societies where
people are likely to be faced with different norms. Deciding when it is appropriate to act under one
norm or another requires careful consideration.

An example of a moral norm may be: “it is wrong to physically harm a child, and those who do so should
be punished.” An ethical dilemma in the international engagement may arise when the moral norms
differ from those of a society regarding:

• Treatment of/value in women and other gender/sex issues

• Treatment of/value in children and the elderly

• The environment, waste, and consumption

• Business practices, loyalty, contractual agreements, and work ethic

• Treatment of/value in animals

• Privacy and community

• Religion, religious dogma and tradition

Ethical pluralism is also known as “value” or “moral” pluralism. It is related but not identical to the
concepts of moral relativism (there exist many moral theories and there is no objective standard by
which they may be judged) and cultural relativism (that norms, values, and practices may be understood
as sensible within their respective cultural contexts).

Relevance of ethical pluralism in one's own moral life with others:

Sustainability. Ethical pluralism suggests the actions may be in opposition to local norms, or might be
expected to act in opposition to one's own norms. Either one of these conflicts may make the work
unsustainable. Example: People may be working on an project involving sexual education for youth. This
may be unacceptable to some locals and thus long-term community investment is threatened.

Cultural Competence. Understanding one's own cultural and ethical norms in addition to those of others
is essential to cultural competence. Those engaged in international engagement should be aware of
similarities, disparities, and how to reconcile differences (neutrality vs tolerance).

Balance and Reciprocity. Those involved in international work must understand and respect other
ethical norms. This respect is necessary in any balanced partnership.

Motivations. It is important to consider one's own vantage, pre-conceived notions, and the norms of
one's ‘import’ to another society. It is also important to consider which moral norms are motivating
people to go, and how those might be challenged by others with differing norms.

Training and Education. There may be multiple ideas of what is “right” and “wrong” about one's
international engagement. e.g. One might believe it is “wrong” for young, relatively uneducated
students to work overseas; another might believe it is “right” for students to gain international
experience.

FILINNIALISM

Overview
A filinnial is a short for Filipino millennials that are usually spendthrifts due to their propensity to spend
money for luxury goods which left their bank accounts “broke.” Another trait that unified most of them
is their narcissistic attitude , making them known as the “Me, Me, Me Generation.” Millennials – Lack
basic literacy fundamentals, very short attention spans, not loyal to organization, demand immediate
feedback and recognition, integrate technology into the workplace, expect to have many employers and
multiple careers, work dress is whatever feels comfortable.

Definitions and Concepts

According to Main (2017), they are teenagers, twenty- and thirty-somethings have been dubbed the
Millennial Generation, or simply Millennials. But what does it mean? And how old is too old to be a
Millennial?

The term Millennials generally refers to the generation of people born between the early 1980s and
1990s, according to the Merriam-Webster Dictionary. Some people also include children born in the
early 2000s.

The Millennial Generation is also known as Generation Y, because it comes after Generation X — those
people between the early 1960s and the 1980s. The publication Ad Age was one of the first to coin the
term "Generation Y," in an editorial in August 1993. But the term didn't age well, and "Millennials" has
largely overtaken it. But the terms basically mean the same thing.

Millennials’ Characteristics

Millennials have been characterized in a number of different ways. On the negative side, they've been
described as lazy, narcissistic and prone to jump from job to job. The book "Trophy Kids" by Ron Alsop
discusses how many young people have been rewarded for minimal accomplishments (such as mere
participation) in competitive sports, and have unrealistic expectations of working life.

A story in Time magazine said polls show that Millennials "want flexible work schedules, more 'me time'
on the job, and nearly nonstop feedback and career advice from managers." Another Time story in May
2013, titled "The Me Me Me Generation," begins: "They're narcissistic. They're lazy. They're coddled.
They're even a bit delusional. Those aren't just unfounded negative stereotypes about 80 million
Americans born roughly between 1980 and 2000. They're backed up by a decade of sociological
research." The article also points out that Millennials may be simply adapting quickly to a world
undergoing rapid technological change.

A 2012 study found Millennials to be "more civically and politically disengaged, more focused on
materialistic values, and less concerned about helping the larger community than were GenX (born
1962-1981) and Baby Boomers (born 1946 to about 1961) at the same ages," according to USA Today.
"The trend is more of an emphasis on extrinsic values such as money, fame, and image, and less
emphasis on intrinsic values such as self-acceptance, group affiliation and community." The study was
based on an analysis of two large databases of 9 million high school seniors or entering college students.

They have also been described in positive ways. They are generally regarded as being more open-
minded, and more supportive of gay rights and equal rights for minorities. Other positives adjectives to
describe them include confident, self-expressive, liberal, upbeat and receptive to new ideas and ways of
living.

Though viewed as more liberal, some Millennials are bucking the trend. A study published March 31,
2017 by the Council on Contemporary Families found that high school seniors increasingly believe that
the man should be the bread-winner in a relationship and a woman should care for the home. "It's been
a steady reversal," said study co-author Joanna Pepin, a doctoral candidate in sociology at the University
of Maryland.

In addition, it seems that this generation may be having less sex that any other generation before it. In a
survey of more than 26,000 American adults, about 15 percent of Millennials between 20 and 24
reported having no sexual partners since the age of 18. Only 6 percent of GenXers (people born in the
1960s) could claim the same. The Youth Risk Behavior Survey by the Centers for Disease Control and
Prevention in 2016 also found that teen Millennials were less sexually active that previous generations.

Millennials are also more likely to use public libraries than other generations, according to the Pew
Research Center.

Generation Me
There is a spirited, if not tiresome, debate about whether Millennials are self-entitled narcissists or
open-minded do-gooders; surely the truth lies somewhere in-between. Generally, however, there does
seem to be more of an emphasis on the self than in previous generations, one reason why this group has
been called Generation Me. Research presented at the 2016 annual meeting of the Society for
Personality and Social Psychology (SPSP) in San Diego found that Millennials themselves do believe that
they are more narcissistic that previous generations, but they don't like it. Also, the uptick in narcissism
is only very slight when compared with other generations.

"We're not talking about two generations ago, people were just completely selfless, and in this
generation we're trying to kill each other to watch the next season of something on Netflix," Joshua
Grubbs, a doctoral candidate at Case Western Reserve University in Ohio. [Millennials See Themselves
As Narcissistic, Too (And It Bothers Them)]

The self-centered life approach may be due to the rise of individualism in society. "There is a very
consistent and reliable trend where all indicators of individualism [have] been on the rise over the
course of the last 100 years," Igor Grossman, a psychologist at the University of Waterloo, told an
audience at the SPSP meeting.

Other scholars have pointed out that the attempt to make generalizations about an entire generation is
a futile effort. Further, some have suggested that discussion of "Millennials" tends to focus on mostly
white youth from suburban areas, ignoring the unique experience of immigrants and minorities.

◈ SELF HELP ◈

You can also refer to the source/s below to help you further understand the lesson.

Main, D (2017). Who are the Millennials?

https://www.livescience.com/38061-millennials-generation-y.html

Mintz, S. (2013). Ethics and Millennials

https://www.ethicssage.com/2013/09/ethics-and-millennials.html
◈ LET’S CHECK ◈

Read each item carefully and identify the correct answer.

_________ 1. An Austrian that defines globalization is an interdisciplinary dimension.

_________ 2. Ethical pluralism suggests the actions may be in opposition to local norms, or
might be expected to act in opposition to one's own norms.

_________ 3. the idea that there are many theories about what is “right” and “wrong” (moral norms)
which may be incompatible and/or incommensurable with one's own personal moral norms.

_________ 4. A set of processes that operates simultaneously and unevenly on several levels and in
various dimensions.

_________ 5. Steger goes on to note that the scale, speed, and depth of the Earth’s environmental
decline have been unprecedented, and unless people are willing to change the underlying cultural and
religious value structure that has combined with the social and economic dynamics of
unrestrained capital accumulation.

_________ 6. Those involved in international work must understand and respect other ethical norms.
This respect is necessary in any balanced partnership.

_________ 7. Globalization rests on the emergence of the global economic order, including the
internationalization of trade and finance, and the power of transnational corporations.

_________ 8. The term globalization applies to a set of social processes that appear to transform the
present social condition of weakening nationality into one of ________.

_________ 9. The visible rise of supraterritorial institutions and associations, using the European Union
as an example of _________ on globalization.

_________ 10. A formal engagement where ethical pluralism is taught.

◈ LET’S ANALYZE ◈

Fill out and complete the items required in the templates.

Millennial Behavior

Strengths Flaws Areas to Improve

1.

2.

3.

4.

5.

Compare the following to identify which one is the most contributing factor of the society.

Generation X Generation Y
◈ Q & A List ◈

Students’ Questions / Issues Professor’s Answers

◈ KEYWORD INDEX ◈

 Globalism

 Historical dimension
 Economic dimension

 Political dimension

 Ecological dimension

 Sustainability

 Cultural competence

 Balance

 Reciprocity

 Motivations

 Fillinialism