GAWI AND GAWA AND HABITUATION

In Filipino, the words gawi and gawa can give a sense of what philosophers mean by ethical action. Filipinos
distinguish between thoughtless, instinctive mannerisms and reflexes from gawa (action) and gawi (inclination). In
reflecting on how Filipinos use these words, one can understand that human actions are different from mere bodily
movements.

Freedom figures closely into action and inclination. Freedom here means not the ability to act free from outside
influences or the independence from the impediments to one’s wishes. It is the willful act and decision that give form and
shape to the actions and inclinations of people. This freedom is oriented toward the wherefore, the what for, and the
whom for the doings of people.

These are the common aspects of human action that Filipinos understand as action and inclination: that free
human acts are governed by reflection and are freely decided such that they are not determined by internal or external
forces.

However, gawi and gawa are not identical. Gawa refers to the free action that is oriented toward a particular end.
For example, a worker uses his/her free imagination and will to bring about services and products that contribute to the
well-being of society.

As one governed by free decision-making, the creative worker embraces all the information he/she can gather to
effectively realize his/her purpose. A process of discernment accompanies the creative work. The carpenter, for instance,
must learn many details about wood. The carpenter, for instance, must learn many details about wood: its feel, its
hardness, and pliability, as well as its strength. He/She should know about the qualities that will help him/her accomplish
the task at hand very well. Part of this knowledge is the knowledge about the body’s movement in accomplishing this
work. The carpenter should study how heavy or light the hand should move over certain kinds of wood, what tools to
apply so that the wood yields the best piece: a stool, a table, or the wheel of a cart.

The word gawi also refers to a free kind of work. However, instead of focusing on a particular end like a product
or fulfillment, gawi refers to the kind of acts that people are used to accomplishing. Gawi does not only refer to particular
acts of a person. A person’s kagawian or habitual action reveals truth about himself/herself. While the beautiful and the
intricately designed chair are products of a carpenter that has gotten used to being one, in his kagawian , he reveals
himself/herself as good or a bad person. A worker who also produces for the society is judged skilled or unskilled. But a
person is judged good or evil, right or wrong based on kagawian or habituation. Kagawian is the Filipino equivalent of
ethos in Greek and mos or moris in Latin.

ETHICS AND ETHOS

The term ethics comes from the Greek word ethos, which means custom, a characteristics, or habitual way of
doing things, or action that is properly derived from one’s character. The Latin word mos or moris (and its plural mores)
from which is equivalent to ethos

From a purely etymological point of view, ethical and moral are, therefore, synonymous. Also, restricted such
root word considerations, ethics and morality may only be a “simple description of the mores or the way of behaving,
whether of the human person in general or of a particular population.” It seems then that as a field of study, ethics need
not be "normative" in guiding human action and it is even seemingly imperative to preserve an attitude of neutrality that
excludes all judgments of value. Etymologically, ethics is but a survey of patterns of behavior that is done by the human
being in general or a society in particular.

Looking closely, however, human action ought to be understood clearly in a very strict sense. As considered
above, human action has to do with human movements that are ruled by one's freedom. Given that freedom is not only the
independence from what could hinder but also a consideration of the goal of the action, ethics cannot be limited to pure
description. Since goals are inherently directional, they imply normativity.

In the same manner that gawi for the Filipino is different from gawa, Aristotle differentiates between human
actions that are "praxis" and "to poiein." What is important for the human agent who engages in "to poiein," gawa for
Aristotle, is to successfully complete a particular work be it artistic or technical: that the tabletop is smooth, the carvings
are precise, and the chair's legs are balanced. The human person himself/herself is significant only in considering the
result in matters of "to poiein" or gawa. Ethics, on the other hand, not only has such "normative" considerations as to the
end product of the actions.

Ethics, as concerned with "praxis" for Aristotle, properly focuses on the human agent that is revealed through
his/her actions. Ethics is normative with regard to its being a practical science. It does not only limit itself to the
description of human actions but also aims to guide them. Students who study ethics but also aim to the pure description
of human mores but are ushered into disciplined science that guides them in judging and rectifying human patterns of
behavior. Ethics proposes guidelines considerations, and norms to the way of right living and its practice are clarified.

If kagawian is the Filipino equivalent of the Greek ethos and the Latin mor/moris, gawa is "to poiein" and gawi is
"praxis". Ethics for Filipino students is philosophy of human action that allows them to learn the art of living. It is an art
that enables them to be reconciled with their freedom and that which is expected of them (by others and themselves).
Thus, ethics is a way for them to find happiness.

1
 Ethics also considers that which is worthy of a human being. This means that living rightly is not only about
searching for happiness but living as one ought to live as a human being. In living rightly, one receives contentment and
approval both from others and himself/herself, and in living wrongly, he/she deserves blame (from others and from
himself/herself). Such an ethics not only serves as a path to happiness but also reaches out in fullness of reflection for that
action which is an obligation for a human being. The gravity of such an ethical consideration is given voice in the Filipino
saying, madaling maging tao, mahirap magpakatao. The effort in living rightly, though a task, need not exclude the promise
of the gift of happiness. There is no reason to presuppose why a life that is consistent with what the human person ought
to do should not bring him/ her happiness. The Filipino student is, therefore, invited to outgrow kung saan ka masaya
suportahan kita and get to sa dapat mong gawin talaga kang sasaya.

PLATO’S INSIGHT TO THE GOOD

An academic introduction to the discipline of ethics is incomplete without reference to Plato [427-347 BCE).
Even the word "academic" itself harks back to academia, the institution of learning established by Plato for the training of
his followers who later will be called philosophers, lovers of wisdom. Ethics, being a discipline of study in universities that
fall under the umbrella of philosophy, can also trace its root back to Plato as the systematic thinker who grappled with the
question of that which is good.

The context of the life of Plato is not totally unfamiliar with students of today. Athens and Greece went through
an expansion of trade around 600 BCE. This "global" awakening on the part of Greeks like Plato plunged him t an
experience of social, political, and intellectual challenge Given the exchange of different experiences between Greece and
its neighboring countries around the Mediterranean Sea, Plato was interrogated by different points of view. Plato and the
students of today share this "global" challenge; it leads to questions of truth and inquiry into what is good. Given this
pluralism of perspectives, is it valid to ask "what is truly good?"

A serious claim faced by Plato was given voice by a thinker named Protagoras [481?-411? BCE] who said that
"man is the measure of all things." The implications of such a claim sit well with those who easily let go of the validity of
traditional mores and ethos to arrive at a conclusion that is relativistic. This easy relativism holds that man, being the
measure of all things, can only hold on to beliefs and truths that are for himself/herself or his/her society only. It denies
the possibility of ever arriving at truth that can be shared by all. Man, as the measure of all things, came to be understood
simplistically based on the concept that "to each his own."

Socrates [470-399 BCE], on the other hand, taught Plato about the difficulty of coming to a knowledge of the
truth. This difficulty, however, did not mean impossibility for Socrates. He instilled this rigorous questioning to his
students and did not shy away from interrogating even the traditional leaders of Athens. This resulted in his death in 399
BCE off charges of impiety and of misleading the youth with his ideas Socrates, however, is immortalized in the writings of
Plato as the intelligent and courageous teacher who leads his hearers nearer to the truth in the same way that midwives
help in the birthing process of a child.

This confrontation between Socratic inquiry and easy lack of thought is portrayed in the allegory of the cave that
is found in Plato's The Republic.

Glaucon's story in the dialogue best introduces the allegory that is told by Socrates. These two stories are
occasioned by the question about the good and the task of the human person to inquire about it. Glaucon proposes the
story of Gyges' ring (The Republic, Book II, 359-360).

According to Glaucon, a terrible earthquake later resulted in a break in the land and the finding of a metallic
horse that contained a skeleton. A ring was said to be worn by that skeleton. The man who found the skeleton then took
the ring and found out that it had the power to render him invisible. A simple inward turn would make the wearer
imperceptible to others and another turn outwards would allow others to see him again. Free from the fear of shame and
capture, Glaucon concludes his story by saying that the man who found the ring would eventually become evil.

Glaucon's point about the good may not be as crude as the simple claim that each one is left to determine the
good for himself/herself. It is nonetheless sinister in its simplistic presentation of the relationship between the human
person and that which is claimed as good. Glaucon dismisses the topic of the good altogether and proposes to explain the
human persons' ethical actions as the result of fear. It simply is the evasion of shame, incarceration, or retaliation that
spells itself out in "good behavior" of man in society.

Responding to Glaucon's story, Plato, through the character of Socrates, later proposed the "Allegory of the Cave"
(The Republic, Book VII, 514a-520a). A group of people are said to have lived chained facing a wall where shadows are
projected from the objects passing before a fire behind them. The shadows are thought of by these people as the most real
things. Once, a man is dragged out of the cave and made to see reality as it is enlightened by the sun. The freed man has to
accustom his eyes first to things as illuminated at night, then sees what is illuminated during the day as reflected on small
pockets of water. He later on sees the sun itself as the source of light that gives definition to reality. Having perceived true
reality itself as enlightened by the sun, the man then ventures to go back to the cave to free the other prisoners. They,
however, resist him, choosing to recognize the reality they are accustomed to. The man who knows the truth ends up
crucified with burnt eyes.

Plato then has Socrates explain to Glaucon that the sun represents the good. Once it is seen and recognized by
any man who has gone beyond the shadows that good is followed and lived even at the cost of one's life. This, of course, is
a direct negation of Glaucon's aforementioned claim that the actions of humans are only directed by the avoidance of
shame or retribution. Plato directs humanity to the nobility that is reachable through the knowledge of the good. His
confidence in knowing the good as acting upon it reaches out to every age that grapples with the question of what is
proper human action.

2
 This confidence in the human person's ability to know the good and act in accordance with it started the
academic history of ethics. Plato's claim is, however, not only made in the past as they are recorded in dated documents
that survived history. Plato continues to address us today and his voice builds confidence in our own ability to know the
good and act ethically.

Each age, however, has a particular way of interrogating Plato's assertions and further give nuance to what is
known and how to act. Thinkers who come after him, for example, will challenge a necessity that seems to have been so
confidently lodged between knowledge and action. Does knowing the good automatically lead to acting on it? The
wonderful thing about a course in ethics is that the voices of thinkers who spent time researching such questions are still
heard and understood up to our present time and to challenge what we know about the good and how we act pursuant to
it

WHAT IS ETHICS?
Ethics refers to principles that define behavior as right, good, and proper. Such principles do not always dictate a
single “moral” course of action, but provide a means of evaluating and deciding among competing options. The terms
“ethics” and “values” are not interchangeable. Ethics is concerned with how a moral person should behave, whereas values
are the inner judgments that determine how a person behaves. Values concern ethics when they pertain to beliefs about
what is right and wrong. Most values, however, have nothing to do with ethics. For instance, the desire for health and
wealth are values, but not ethical values. (Josephson Institute)

Ethics covers the following dilemmas:

 how to live a good life
 our rights and responsibilities
 the language of right and wrong
 Moral decisions - what is good and bad?

BRANCHES OF ETHICS:
1. Descriptive Ethics (Comparative Ethics)
(a) Descriptive ethics or comparative ethics is the study of people’s views about moral beliefs.
- In other words, it analyses ‘what do people think is right?’ Thus, the study of descriptive ethics involves
describing people’s moral values and standards as well as their behavior.
-analyzes the differences and similarities between the moral practices of different societies and evaluates the
development of the standards behind these practices.

 Ethical Relativism – Moral principles are relative and change from culture and context.
 Ethical Universalism – Moral principles are universally applicable.

2. Normative Ethics
-is the study of ethical action
- it analyses how people ought to act, in terms of morality.
- concerned with the criteria of what is morally right and wrong
- core concept: is how to arrive at basic moral standards and how to justify basic moral standards.
(a) Teleological ethics- the goodness or badness of action is determined by examining the consequences of
that action. (Utilitarianism, Virtue Ethics)
(b) Deontological theories- the goodness or badness of action is determined by examining the action itself.
(Kantianism, Ethical Intuitionism)
3. Applied Ethics
- also called practical ethics
-applies ethics to real-world problems
-focuses on the application of moral norms and principles to controversial issues to determine the rightness of
specific actions.
a. Business Ethics
b. Political Ethics
c. Bio-Ethics
d. Publication/Media Ethics
e. Environmental Ethics, etc.

4. Meta-ethics
-seeks to understand the nature of ethical properties, and ethical statements, attitudes, and judgments
- is reasoning about the presuppositions behind or underneath a normative ethical view or theory.

3
 ETHICAL DECISION MAKING

Ethical decision-making is a process that considers various ethical principles, rules, and virtues or the
maintenance of relationships to guide or judge individual or group decisions.

THE PROCESS OF ETHICAL DECISION MAKING

A. Twelve Questions Model- created by Laura Nash

-This model suggest to asking yourself questions to determine if you are making the right ethical decision
-asks people to reframe their perspective on ethical decision making, which can be helpful in looking at ethical
choices from all angles.

Her model consists of the following questions:

1. Have you defined the problem accurately?
2. How would you define the problem if you stood on the other side of the fence?
3. How did this situation occur in the first place?
4. To whom and what do you give your loyalties as a person and as a member of the company?
5. What is your intention in making this decision?
6. How does this intention compare with the likely results?
7. Whom could your decision or action injure?
8. Can you engage the affected parties in a discussion of the problem before you make your decision?
9. Are you confident that your position will be as valid over a long period of time as it seems now?
10. Could you disclose without qualms your decision or action to your boss, your family, or society as a whole?
11. What is the symbolic potential of your action if understood? If misunderstood?
12. Under what conditions would you allow exceptions to your stand?

B. Josephson Institute of Ethics’ Model

1. Stop and Think

One of the most important steps to better decisions is the oldest advice in the world: think ahead. To do so it’s
necessary to first stop the momentum of events long enough to permit calm analysis. This may require discipline, but
it is a powerful tonic against poor choices. The well-worn formula to count to 10 when angry and to hundred when
very angry is a simple technique designed to prevent foolish and impulsive behavior. But we are just as apt to make
foolish decisions when we are under the strain of powerful desires or fatigue when we are in a hurry or under
pressure, and when we are ignorant of important facts. Just as we teach our children to look both ways before they
cross the street, we can and should instill the habit of looking ahead before they make any decision. Stopping to think
provides several benefits. It prevents rash decisions. It prepares us for more thoughtful discernment. And it can allow
us to mobilize our discipline.

2. Clarify Goals
Before you choose, clarify your short- and long-term aims. Determine which of your many wants and don’t-wants
affected by the decision are the most important. The big danger is that decisions that fulfill immediate wants and
needs can prevent the achievement of our more important life goals.

3. Determine Facts
Be sure you have adequate information to support an intelligent choice. You can’t make good decisions if you don’t
know the facts. To determine the facts, first resolve what you know and, then, what you need to know. Be prepared to
get additional information and to verify assumptions and other uncertain information. Once we begin to be more
careful about facts, we often find that here are different versions of them and disagreements about their meaning. In
these situations part of making sound decisions involves making good judgments as to who and what to believe.

Here are some guidelines:

 Consider the reliability and credibility of the people providing the facts.
 Consider the basis of the supposed facts. If the person giving you the information says he or she personally heard
or saw something, evaluate that person in terms of honesty, accuracy and memory.
 Remember that assumptions, gossip and hearsay are not the same as facts.
 Consider all perspectives, but be careful to consider whether the source of the information has values different
than yours or has a personal interest that could affect perception of the facts.
 Where possible seek out the opinions of people whose judgment and character you respect, but be careful to
distinguish the well-grounded opinions of well-informed people from casual speculation, conjecture and
guesswork.
 Finally, evaluate the information you have in terms of completeness and reliability so you have a sense of the
certainty and fallibility of your decisions.

4. Develop Options
Now that you know what you want to achieve and have made your best judgment as to the relevant facts, make a list
of options, a set of actions you can take to accomplish your goals. If it’s an especially important decision, talk to
someone you trust so you can broaden your perspective and think of new choices. If you can think of only one or two
choices, you’re probably not thinking hard enough.

4
 5. Consider Consequences
-Two techniques help reveal the potential consequences.
 “Pillar-ize” your options. Filter your choices through each of the Six Pillars of Character: trustworthiness,
respect, responsibility, fairness, caring and citizenship. Will the action violate any of the core ethical principles?
For instance, does it involve lying or breaking a promise; is it disrespectful to anyone; is it irresponsible, unfair or
uncaring; does it involve breaking laws or rules? Eliminate unethical options.
 Identify the stakeholders and how the decision is likely to affect them. Consider your choices from the point of
view of the major stakeholders. Identify whom the decision will help and hurt.

6. Choose
It’s time to make your decision. If the choice is not immediately clear, see if any of the following strategies help:
 Talk to people whose judgment you respect. Seek out friends and mentors, but remember, once you’ve gathered
opinions and advice, the ultimate responsibility is still yours.
 What would the most ethical person you know do? Think of the person you know or know of (in real life or
fiction) who has the strongest character and best ethical judgment. Then ask yourself: what would that person
do in your situation? Think of that person as your decision-making role model and try to behave the way he or
she would. Many Christians wear a small bracelet with the letters WWJD standing for the question “What would
Jesus do?” Whether you are Christian or not, the idea of referencing a role model can be a useful one. You could
translate the question into: “What would God want me to do?” “What would Buddha or Mother Teresa do?”
“What would Gandhi do?” “What would the most virtuous person in the world do?”
 What would you do if you were sure everyone would know? If everyone found out about your decision, would
you be proud and comfortable? Choices that only look good if no one knows are always bad choices. Good
choices make us worthy of admiration and build good reputations. It’s been said that character is revealed by
how we behave when we think no one is looking and strengthened when we act as if everyone is looking.
 Golden Rule: do unto to others as you would have them do unto you. The Golden Rule is one of the oldest and
best guides to ethical decision-making. If we treat people the way we want to be treated we are likely to live up to
the Six Pillars of Character. We don’t want to be lied to or have promises broken, so we should be honest and
keep our promises to others. We want others to treat us with respect, so we should treat others respectfully.

7. Monitor and Modify

Since most hard decisions use imperfect information and “best effort” predictions, some of them will inevitably be wrong.
Ethical decision-makers monitor the effects of their choices. If they are not producing the intended results or are causing
additional unintended and undesirable results, they re-assess the situation and make new decisions.

Philosopher’s Approach- philosophers and ethicists believe in a few ethical standards, which can guide ethical decision-
making.

1. Utilitarian approach- says that when choosing one ethical action over another, we should select the one that does the
most good and least harm. For example, if the cashier at the grocery store gives me too much change, I may ask myself, if I
keep the change, what harm is caused? If I keep it, is any good created? Perhaps the good created is that I am not able to
pay back my friend whom I owe money to, but the harm would be that the cashier could lose his job. In other words, the
utilitarian approach recognizes that some good and some harm can come out of every situation and looks at balancing the
two.

2. Rights approach- we look at how our actions will affect the rights of those around us. So rather than looking at good
versus harm as in the utilitarian approach, we are looking at individuals and their rights to make our decision. For
example, if I am given too much change at the grocery store, I might consider the rights of the corporation, the rights of the
cashier to be paid for something I purchased, and the right of me personally to keep the change because it was their
mistake.

3. Common good approach- says that when making ethical decisions, we should try to benefit the community as a whole.
For example, if we accepted the extra change in our last example but donated to a local park cleanup, this might be
considered OK because we are focused on the good of the community, as opposed to the rights of just one or two people.

4. Virtue approach- asks the question, “What kind of person will I be if I choose this action?” In other words, the virtue
approach to ethics looks at desirable qualities and says we should act to obtain our highest potential. In our grocery store
example, if given too much change, someone might think, “If I take this extra change, this might make me a dishonest
person—which I don’t want to be.”

The imperfections in these approaches are threefold:

 Not everyone will necessarily agree on what is harm versus good.
 Not everyone agrees on the same set of human rights.
 We may not agree on what a common good means.