Culture and Moral Behavior

Republic of the Philippines
MARINDUQUE STATE COLLEGE

SCHOOL OF INDUSTRIAL TECHNOLGY
Tanza, Boac, Marinduque
Bachelor of Science in Industrial Technology (BSIT)

Level III Re-Accredited by the Accrediting Agency for Chartered Colleges, Universities in the
Philippines (AACCUP), Inc.
UNIT
II

What is Culture?
Culture derives from a French term, which in turn derives from the Latin “colere”, which
means to tend the earth and grow, or cultivation and nurture.
Culture refers to the beliefs, values, behavior and material object, that together form a
people’s way of life. A way of life of group of people who share similar beliefs and customs and
determines how we view the world around us. Culture is also the characteristics and knowledge
of a particular group of people, encompassing language, religion, cuisine, social habits, music
and arts.
What is Moral Behavior?
Moral behavior are actions that produce outcomes for the individuals as members of a
community, or society. It can be applied to the whole global society.
The Agencies of Socialization Affecting our Morality

1. Family – the basic unit in a society. It includes one’ biological or adoptive family of
orientation. The same provides us with our basic needs to survive and develop as a
significant member of the society.
2. School – it may include formal or non-formal educational system that provides a child with
his learning needs.
3. Church – the institution that determines what is specifically considered as right or wrong.
It is composed of believers in the same faith.
4. Mass media – those agencies that are purposive of entertaining, informing and educating
through various channels like the radio, television, printed materials etc,.
Culture in Moral Behavior

There are different sources that might influence the way a person behaves morally. These
include our family, the community we belong, the religion we practice, our school, and even the
virtual world we see- the social media. These factors may, in one way or another, affect our
behavior as moral person.
Modern people are now being exposed to different cultural sources like the family,
communities, school, work places, and religion. Filipinos, in general, spend most of their time
with these groups. Their families taught them the practice of pagmamano as a way of asking for
blessing of the elders and the elders’ way of invoking the aid of the Holy Spirit to descend upon
the person asking for the blessing. Hence, respect for the elders is given great importance. Most
of the formative years of a Filipino are spent with their families, who have unique values and
norms, which have been influence in one’s moral upbringing.
Another significant source of influence is the pop culture or the popular culture. These
include the mainstream media, the social media, movies, and fads. What media has shown to the
people is actually commonly within the moral standards of Filipinos. However, when Filipinos
began viewing shows from other countries with different cultures, the moral perspective of the
Filipinos is becoming influenced by the different moral beliefs of other countries. For this reason,
Filipinos will definitely have a different moral perspective and it is thereby difficult to come up
with a Filipino morality.


Approaches in the Development of Moral behavior
Psychoanalytic Approach
Expresses the idea that when the superego
dominates the individual, he or
she is good because he or she has conscience that tells him or he to be
good.
Learning-Theory Approach
Says that we have been trained and disciplined by our upbringing and
by the examples of our parents into behaving the way we should.
Social-GroupTheory
Claims that we behave the way we do
because people expect us to behave
that way.
Cognitive-Development
Approach
Asserts that to behave morally implies intelligent adaptations to our
environment. It emphasizes the importance of intelligence in moral control. The
more intelligent a person is,
the stronger he or
she is morally.


Attitudes Towards Cultural Variations

A. Cultural Relativism
It is the idea that each culture or ethnic group is to be evaluated on the basis of its own
values and norms of behavior and not on the basis of those of another culture or ethnic group.
The basic principle out of which cultural relativism emerges is a simple one: “Judgments are
based on experience, and experience is interpreted by each individual in terms of his or her own
enculturation” (Herskovits, p. 15). It is simply the process by which a culture is learned.
Cultural relativism is the view that ethical systems and cultural beliefs vary from one
culture to another. It also upheld the idea that said ethical systems are all equal in validity and of
relevance. It comes from the idea that moral standards are product of society. This philosophical
principle started from the Greek philosopher Protagoras of Abdera (490-420 BCE).
Protagoras [Greek: Ipøtayopaç] was born in Abdera, a coastal town in the northern- most hub of
the Aegean Sea (Stumpf & Fieser 2008, 31). He was said to be the oldest and the most influential
among all the sophists who had come to Athens. He spent most of his adult life traveling
throughout the Greek empire, teaching everyone for a fee. He was probably the first Greek to
earn money in higher education and was considered as the most notorious the extremely high
fees he charged. As a teacher, his audience consisted mainly of wealthy men from Athens' social
and commercial elite.
Protagoras is known primarily for three claims:
(1) the man is the measure of all things, of the things that are that they are, and of the things that
are not that they are not,
(2) that he could make the worse argument appear better or the weaker argument appear to be the
stronger, and
(3) That one could not tell if the gods existed or not (Poster).
According to Protagoras, knowledge is limited to the person's

various perceptions. But such perceptions will differ with each person.
Protagoras believed that man's knowledge is measured by what he
perceives and if there is something in different ways, there is no
standard for testing whether one person’s perception is right and
another person’s perception is wrong. This is, nonetheless, tantamount
to saying that everything is true. For Protagoras knowledge is,
therefore, relative lo each person. Inasmuch as knowledge is relative to
each person, moral judgments, consequently, are also relative. One's
own conception of goodness may be different from the others conception of goodness. Laws and
moral rules, therefore, are based upon convention. Each society has its own lands and its own
moral rules. Therefore, no one can say that these laws by which we can judge whether such laws
are true and the others are wrong. This ethical principle is otherwise known as moral relativism.
The Doctrine of Ethical Relativism
In the ethical problems, Protagoras maintained that moral judgments are relative. He
believed that laws and moral rules are based, not upon nature, but upon convention. From this
idea arises the ethical relativism, which is also known as moral relativism. The moral relativists
went on with the idea of Protagoras by saying that there are no universal or absolute moral
principles.


Standards of right and wrong are always relative to a particular culture or society (Timbreza
1993, 18). Given that there is, in fact, a plurality of social groups, with differing mores, the moral
relativists argue that there exist no point from which these norms can be upheld, no universal or
absolute criteria by which they can be criticized. To the moral relativists, one will be considered
too ambitious-if not too arrogant-in claiming that one knows absolute and objective ethical
principles that are true valid, and binding on all peoples.
Examples:
In the case of the Arctic Eskimos. For them, the
practice of letting their wife sleep with a special guest for
a night is considered as an expression of hospitality and
respect. Also, the Arctic Eskimos had the practice of
leaving their old folk in the snow and allowed them to die
of starvation and this was considered as morally
legitimate. Of course, for the Filipinos, such practices are
considered immoral.
On the other hand, for the Jews, it was a moral
obligation to marry his brother's widow while in some
African cultures, to kill twins at birth is morally just and right. In our modern context, there are
other states in America that grants legitimacy to abortion, while there are other states that
consider abortion to be morally illegitimate.
Moral relativists would have the claim that whether an action is regard right or
wrong depends upon the society judging it. They claim that the different sets of moral
principles are of equal worth and nobody can claim that their moral beliefs and culture is
better than that of the others. At the same time, ethical relativism appears to be self
contradictory and inconsistent (Timbreza). Inasmuch as this ethical school of thought
upholds the idea that there is no absolute truth and that truth is relative to the systems of
belief of every culture, they, therefore, should not insist that their theory should not be
accepted by everyone. This is because if everybody would accept their ethical theory, then
it will already be contradicting their belief that there is no absolute truth.
Another issue is the sense of oughtness that one feels towards persons who are
victims of an accident. This sense of oughtness does not depend on one's socio-cultural
considerations or upbringings. Nevertheless, it has almost become a part of every
individual to have always the desire to be of service to those who are in need. This is
actually part of the fulfillment of a person as a person. In this case, whether we are
Christians or Muslims, we seem to be always obliged to lend a helping hand to those who
are in need. This consideration shows that ethical relativism is open to serious doubt and
does not seem to be
correct in all cases.


B. Ethnocentrism
The opposite of ethical relativism is ethnocentrism. Ethnocentrism is the view that one particular
ethnic group is somehow superior to all others. The word ethnocentrism is derived from the Greek word
eqnoç (ethnos), meaning "nation'" or "people" and from the English word center. Ethnocentrism is the
view that a particular ethnic group's system of beliefs and values is morally superior to all others. Aside
from ethical relativism and ethnocentrism, there is also another alternative to the philosophical spectrum:
C. Theocentrism.
The word is derived from the Greek word Ocos (Theos), meaning "God" or "gods, and the English
word center. Theocentrism is the view that God's system of beliefs and values is morally superior to all
others. The followers of theocentrism believe that God's law is the absolute standard by which we are to
judge everyone else's system of beliefs and values.
Both theocentrism and ethnocentrism upheld the idea that there is an absolute
value system. In this regard, both of them contradict cultural relativism because the
latter denies universal moral standard. However, theocentrism is God-centered,
whereas ethnocentrism is man-centered.
D. Xenocentrism
It is the belief that the products styles or ideas of one’s culture are inferior to other
cultures. Characteristics of Culture
a) Culture is learned by individuals as the result of belonging to some particular group.

b) Culture is shared among members of a group
c) Culture is transmitted from generation
d) Culture is dynamic. It is constantly changing
e) Culture is diverse.
Every culture is
different from other
cultures.

How Culture is transmitted?
Acculturation
The process of learning
some
new traits from another
culture.
Strengths of the Filipino Character
Enculturation
The process of learning culture of one’s own group.
Assimilation
Term used for a process in
which an individual entirely
loses any awareness of his
previous group identity and
Social Interaction
a) A typical Filipino has a high regard for others. This is better known as pakikipagkapwa-tao.
Filipinos have a basic sense of justice and fairness and a strong sense of concern for others. They
have a well-developed sensitivity to people's feelings. They also have a good sense of gratitude;
thereby, leading to the development of a good interpersonal relations. When practiced by
everyone, this can be a good foundation for unity among Filipino people.
b) Filipinos have a strong sense of family orientation. The Filipinos consider the family as the source
of Filipino identity. They also consider the family as the source of personal identity, the source of
emotional and material support, as well as the source as to where commitment and responsibility
are learned.
c) Filipinos have also a different sense and perception of joy and humor. Filipinos have a cheerful
and fun-loving approach to life. Because of the ability of man to laugh at their own troubles, they
were able to develop a very important coping mechanism. Despite the life's ups and downs,
Filipinos can still find humor in their life situation
d) Filipinos are also said to be flexible, adaptable and creative. They have a great capacity to adjust
to different situations and to adapt to different circumstances so that no matter how great the
disaster that happen, a Filipino can easily rise up again and cope up more to life's complexities.
e) A typical Filipino is also known for his hard work and his industriousness. This is brought about
by their desire to improve their lives and that of their family as well as their desire to obtain a
more decent and, if possible, a more luxurious life. Such desire brought about the Filipinos to
work very hard.

f) Even before the coming of the Spaniards, Filipinos are already considered as very religious. Their
religiosity was only purified and probably improved by the Spanish friars. Because of this
religiosity, the Filipino will accept his fate and destiny as part of the will of God. He has the belief
that God has a plan for everyone so much so that the tragedies and disasters in life are even
considered as part of the plan of God. Hence, whatever happens in his life, he will consider it as a
will of God and will still produce a good result in the end. From this, Filipinos were able to
develop the value of bahala na, which actually means entrusting one's fate to God and that
whichever may happen, Bathala na, which means, submitting everything to God whom they call
Bathalang Maykapal.
g) Filipino were able to develop patience and they are capable of making use of whatever is available
in the environment. Hence, they have a great ability to survive. (Aguilar, 2012)
The Development of Moral Character

The judgment regarding the morality of an action is based on the person who did the
action. This was basically the belief of Plato, Aristotle, Augustine and Thomas Aquinas. The
goodness of an action can be based on the kind of person who did the action; from the intention
of doing an act; from the character of the moral agent. In order to determine the kind of person
one is, one should base himself on the character that one person possesses.
Etymologically, character comes from the ancient Greek term charakter, which initially
referred to the mark impressed upon a coin. Such mark determines the value of the coin.
Consequently, a person's value will be determined by the character that a person possesses. A
person's character is the mental and moral character that one possesses which makes him different
from the others. In philosophy, the person's character refers to the moral aspect of a person.
In order to give more light to character, Aristotle

often used the term &ên (ethe) in order to refer to his
idea of the character. His idea of character is
etymologically linked to "ethics" and morality
Aristotle's concept of morality is connected with his
Concept of apetn (arête), which Aristotle translated
as excellence. To make the person moral, his action
must be an act done in the most excellent way. For
this reason, the Aristotelian concept of excellence is associated with
function. A human person is considered to be an excellent man if
he is functioning in the most excellent way.
Lawrence Kohlberg was born on October 25, 1927, at

Broxville, New York, USA. Kohlberg was an American psychologist
and educator, who is known for his theory of moral development.
The Stages of Moral Development

1. Pre-Conventional Stage
This stage is also called the Self-Focused stage because this is concerned with concrete
consequences to individuals and it is focusing on pursuing a concrete interest while avoiding
sanctions. At this stage (most nine-year-olds and younger, some over nine), we do not have a
personal code of morality. Instead, our moral code is shaped by the standards of adults and the
consequences of following or breaking their rules. Here, authority is outside the individual and
reasoning is based on the physical consequences of actions. This stage is further subdivided into:
Stage 1: Obedience and Punishment Orientation.
This is the orientation to punishment and reward and to physical and material power. At
age 10, the respotidents say, "Heinz shouldn't steal; he should buy the drug. If he steals the drug.
he might get put in jail and have to put the drug back anyway" (Kohlberg, 7). Hence, at this stage,
what is right for the person to do is to obey the rules and avoid physical damage to persons and
property. The reason for making a moral decision is to avoid punishment (Power, 2018).
Stage 2: Pleasure Orientation or the Instrumental-Purposive Orientation.
This stage is characterized by hedonistic orientation with an instrumental view of human
relations. The emphasis in this stage is placed on the idea of reciprocity. The child respondent
says: "Heinz should steal the drug to save his wife's life. He might get to jail, but he will still
have his wife" (Kohlberg). This response of a child Is an individual, egoistic conception that he
values his wife's life more than the values going to jail for a while. A child even commented: "if
it was a pet he could get a new pet, but it is not easy to get a new wife" The focus in this stage is
placed on the idea of reciprocity, i.e., on the exchange of favors. What is right is one's immediate
interest, and letting others act also in their own interest. An action is considered to be morally
right if it is fair. The reason for acting morally is merely to satisfy one's need and admit the needs
of others in their own self-interest. While the other is after his own, interest, I also have my own
interest. Hence, if I do what is wrong, I might not obtain my own interest. Human relations, in
this stage, is seen as a marketplace, i.e., a place of exchange of interest (Gensler, 189-190).
2. Conventional Stage
This stage is characterized by the Group-Focused stage and it is concerned with fulfilling
role expectations, as well as maintaining and supporting the social order. At this level (most
adolescents and adults), we begin to internalize the moral standards of valued adult role models.
Here, authority is internalized but not questioned, and reasoning is based on the norms of the
group to which the person belongs (McLeod).
Stage 3: Peer and Group Acceptance Orientation.
This stage is the "good boy" orientation as it seeks to maintain expectations and win
approval of one's immediate group. A boy at this stage says, "IfI was Heinz, I would have stolen
the drug for my wife. You cannot put a price on love, no amount of gifts make love, you cannot
put a price on life either" (Kohlberg, 8).
In this stage, what is considered morally right is what pleases or helps others and what is
approved by others. A moral act is that which reinforces mutual relationships such as trust,
loyalty, respect, and gratitude. Here, the reason for helping and for pleasing others is his own
need to be seen by the others as a loyal and caring person, and therefore, a moral person. In terms
of one's relation to


the society, a person in this stage takes the third person's perspective; hence, one should be aware
of shared feelings and group expectations (Kohlberg).
Stage 4: Social Structure Orientation.

At this stage, the individual becomes aware of the wider rules of society, so judgments
concern obeying the rules in order to uphold the law and to avoid guilt (Mcleod). The stage is
characterized by an orientation to authority, law, and duty. The main preoccupation is on how to
maintain a fixed order, whether social or religious. Such order is assumed as a primary value.
At this stage, one respondent says, "When you get married, you take a vow love and
cherish your wife. Marriage is not only love, it is an obligation like a legal contract. But it is also
a contract before God." In this regard, one has already a notion of religious and legal order,
which is obligatory and in which one has a defined place, a role, and that one has entered into
this role and this commits one to certain rules (Kohlberg). Hence, the person is expected to show
respect for laws, authority, and society. They are also required to contribute to the maintenance
of the society and institution. Kohlberg believed that conscience is imperative to the moral law
and to the ethical system. A conscientious person will definitely feel bad if he fails to perform his
duty and will feel worse if, instead of performing one's duty, he becomes the cause of the
destruction of the community.
3. Post-Conventional Stage
Individual judgment is based on self-chosen principles, and moral reasoning is based on
individual rights and justice. According to Kohlberg, this level of moral reasoning is as far as
most people get. Only 10 to 15% are capable of the kind of abstract thinking necessary for stage
5 or 6. That is to say, most people take their moral views from those around them and only a
minority think through ethical principles for themselves. In this stage, it is here that one
examines, adopts, and applies the different ethical frameworks or principles (McLeod).
Stage 5: Social-contract orientation.
This stage puts emphasis on equality and mutual obligation within a democratically
established order. One of the respondents who went from Stage 2 at age 10 to Stage 5 at age 25
responded to the dilemma: "I think he was justified in breaking in because there was a human life
at stake. I think that transcends any right that the druggist had to the drug" At this stage, an
individual may look at morality as a way of recognizing the rights of the individual, the rights of
other individuals, and not interfering with the rights of others (Kohlberg, 9). At this stage, one is
concerned that obligations be based on calculations of overall utility and on what is really good
for all. To a certain extent, there is universality in this good reasoning but still within basic human
society and basic human agreements.
Stage 6: The Universal Ethical Principle.
This stage is focused on the principles of conscience that have logical comprehensiveness
and universality. The highest value is placed on the human life, on equality, and on human
dignity. People at
this stage have developed their own set of moral guidelines which may or may not fit the law.
The principles apply to everyone; hence, universal. The person who has arrived at this stage will
be prepared to act to defend the oral principles even if it means going against the rest of society
in the process and having to pay the consequences of disapproval or even imprisonment. For
Kohlberg. people will rarely
reach this stage
(Mcleod).


From this theory of Kohlberg, ethicists have different opinions. For instance, the dilemma
that he presented to his young respondents may be unfamiliar to them. His subjects, who were
aged between 10 and 16 had no idea about married life and they might not have becen in such a
situation. In such a case, they would never know whether Heinz should steal the drug (Rosen
1980, 260).
Moreover, Gilligan (1977, 492) commented that Kohlberg's theory was based on an all- male
sample, which is, in return, based on abstract principles of law and justice. Gilligan mentioned that this is
definitely different from women's point of view because the latter is based on principles of compassion
and care. Not taking into consideration the point of view of women can have a great impact in creating a
moral theory. Some moralists would also claim that the dilemma presented by Kohlberg is hypothetical.
The question raised to him was: if the respondents were placed in the real situation, would they have the
same decision? Because the dilemma raised is hypothetical, it may not produce a valid result.
Although Kohlberg's theory had criticisms, his work was still a great value because he was able to
connect psychology and philosophy in establishing a moral perspective on human behavior and character.
Moreover, his study was a proof that a human person is capable of making moral decisions and such
decisions can be for the benefit not only of one's self but of the others. At the same time, every human
person can grow to maturity depending on the kind of education one receives or the environment where
one lives in.
Cultural Relativism: It’s Strength and Weaknesses

Strengths Weaknesses
1. What is considered morally right and wrong 1. Cultural relativism might fall prey into the
should be judged based on cultural contexts. idea that universal standards do not exist.
The culture of people becomes the final arbiter There are certain universal oughts that cannot be
of the morality of an individual act. The idea culturally compromised. Human rights precede
of “to each his own” exemplifies this concept. societal practices, particularly those that impede
our growth as individual, and as human beings
as a whole. Cultural relativism is not tenable in
ethics since ethical values invoke universal
absolutes which it categorically dismisses.
2. Cultural relativism is an answer to cultural 2.If universal standards do not exist, so thus
annihilation. If one culture is to be the final morality. The concept of what is morally right
basis of morality, then it would stimulate if and wrong fades into the background of cultural
not encourage the annihilation of all other relativism. As such, people who invoke cultural
cultures which are considered inferior to it. relativism are free to do whatever they want.
3. Cultural relativism promotes multi 3.Cultural relativism gives birth to ethical relativism,
culturalism. It fosters diversity of cultures and which veers away from the idea that there are
keeps individuals from being ethnocentric. The objective moral standards. With this, people who are
distinctiveness of culture is supposed to be ethically wrong by all standards except by their culture,
celebrated and not looked down by people. Thus, can invoke cultural relativism, then we refrain ourselves
cultural relativism dismisses discrimination and from criticizing other cultures, no matter how evil some
finds everyone in the world as our co-equals. of their practices might be, the same way that we
overlook our own cultural flaws. (Rachels, 2003)


Direction: In relation about our topic, write your own thought or point of view about this picture.
_____________________________________________________________________________________
_____________________________________________________________________________________
_____________________________________________________________________________________
_____________________________________________________________________________________
_____________________________________________________________________________________
_____________________________________________________________________________________
_____________________________________________________________________________________
_____________________________________________________________________________________
_____________________________________________________________________________________
_____________________________________________________________________________________
_____________________________________________________________________________________
_____________________________________________________________________________________
_____________________________________________________________________________________
_____________________________________________________________________________________
_____________________________________________________________________________________
_____________________________________________________________________________________
_____________________________________________________________________________________
_____________________________________________________________________________________
_____________________________________________________________________________________
_____________________________________________________________________________________
_____________________________________________________________________________________
_____________________________________________________________________________________
_____________________________________________________________________________________
_____________________________________________________________________________________
_____________________________________________________________________________________
_____________________________________________________________________________________
____________________________________________________________________________________.


The Development of Moral Character

Direction: Read the situation presented below. Make a moral decision on the dilemma presented below.
Mr. Osorio is a professor at a prestigious university in Manila. He teaches Ethics to BS

Accountancy students. Because of his hard work, his great knowledge on the subject, and his wit
and humor, the students very much appreciated him because he makes the class lively and
enjoyable. For this reason, he is known as the best teacher in the university. One day, after a class
discussion on the topic regarding the value of honesty, three students made an admission in class
they were involved in the series of thefts and robberies in the school's canteen and in other offices
of the university. Because of the ethics class, the students felt guilty of their actions and promised
to the class that they are not to do any acts of robbery anymore.
These students told Mr. Osorio about how miserable their lives were and the reason why
they robbed the school was because they wanted to cope with the expenses of the school and use
some money to buy food for the family. However, because of the great amount that they have
taken from the school and the impossibility of paying said amount back to the school, they will
definitely be expelled. Expulsion eventually would mean that the three will not anymore be
included in the list of graduating students and, therefore, the hope of helping their family
financially at the soonest possible time will not be realized.
As an ethics teacher, and being professional at that, it is the responsibility of Mr. Osorio
to tell the administration about the case. After all, the whole class knows already the case.
However, as a human person, it will be an act of charity if he will just let it pass by because, after
all, they promised that they would not be doing it again. Should Mr. Osorio tell the school
administration about the case? Why or why not? Explain your case.
______________________________________________________________________________
______________________________________________________________________________
______________________________________________________________________________
______________________________________________________________________________
______________________________________________________________________________
______________________________________________________________________________
______________________________________________________________________________
______________________________________________________________________________
______________________________________________________________________________
______________________________________________________________________________
______________________________________________________________________________
______________________________________________________________________________
______________________________________________________________________________
______________________________________________________________________________
______________________________________________________________________________
______________________________________________________________________________
______________________________________________________________________________
______________________________________________________________________________
______________________________________________________________________________
______________________________________________________________________________
______________________________________________________________________________
______________________________________________________________________________
______________________________________________________________________________
_____________________________________________________________________________.

Culture and Moral Behavior

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Culture and Moral Behavior

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Republic of the Philippines

MARINDUQUE STATE COLLEGE

Bachelor of Science in Industrial Technology (BSIT)

Bachelor of Science in Industrial Technology (BSIT)

The Agencies of Socialization Affecting our Morality

Culture in Moral Behavior

Republic of the Philippines

Bachelor of Science in Industrial Technology (BSIT)

Approaches in the Development of Moral behavior

Republic of the Philippines

Bachelor of Science in Industrial Technology (BSIT)

Attitudes Towards Cultural Variations

According to Protagoras, knowledge is limited to the person's

Republic of the Philippines

Bachelor of Science in Industrial Technology (BSIT)

Republic of the Philippines

Bachelor of Science in Industrial Technology (BSIT)

cultures. Characteristics of Culture

a) Culture is learned by individuals as the result of belonging to some particular group.

Republic of the Philippines

How Culture is transmitted?

Bachelor of Science in Industrial Technology (BSIT)

The Development of Moral Character

In order to give more light to character, Aristotle

Lawrence Kohlberg was born on October 25, 1927, at

Bachelor of Science in Industrial Technology (BSIT)

Republic of the Philippines

Bachelor of Science in Industrial Technology (BSIT)

Stage 4: Social Structure Orientation.

Republic of the Philippines

Bachelor of Science in Industrial Technology (BSIT)

Cultural Relativism: It’s Strength and Weaknesses

Republic of the Philippines

Bachelor of Science in Industrial Technology (BSIT)

Republic of the Philippines

Bachelor of Science in Industrial Technology (BSIT)

The Development of Moral Character

Mr. Osorio is a professor at a prestigious university in Manila. He teaches Ethics to BS

You might also like