Republic of the Philippines

BOHOL ISLAND STATE UNIVERSITY

Main Campus
C.P.G. Avenue, Tagbilaran City, Bohol 6300
Vision : A premiere S & T University for the formation of a world – class and virtuous human resource for sustainable development of Bohol and the country.
Mission : BISU is committed to provide quality higher education in the arts and sciences, as well as in the professional and technological fields; undertake research and
development, and extension services for the sustainable development of Bohol and the country.

Module II – Culture and the Moral Agent

Lesson 5: Filipino Understanding of Right and Wrong

Learning Objectives:
At the end of this lesson, the students should be able to:
1. describe Filipino traits and values;
2. discuss Filipino norms of morality; and
3. explain the structure of Filipino morality.

Key Reading:
Reyes, J. “Loób and Kapwa: An Introduction to a Filipino Virtue Ethics,” in An International
Journal of the Philosophical Traditions of the East, 25(2), 2015.
doi.org/10.1080/09552367.2015.1043173
This is an introduction to a Filipino virtue ethics which is a relationship-oriented virtue
ethics. The concepts to be discussed are the result of the unique history of the Philippines,
namely a Southeast Asian tribal and animist tradition mixed with a Spanish Catholic tradition for
over 300 years. Filipino virtue ethics is based on two foundational concepts in Filipino culture.
The first is loób, which can easily be misunderstood when literally translated into English as
‘inside’ but which is better translated as ‘relational will’, and the second is kapwa, which is
literally translated as ‘other person’ but is better understood as ‘together with the person’. These
serve as pillars for a special collection of virtues (kagandahang-loób, utang-na-loób,
pakikiramdam, hiya, lakas-ng-loób/bahala na) which are not individualistic virtues in the same
way as most of the cardinal virtues of the Western tradition (i.e. prudence, justice, temperance
and fortitude) but are all directed towards the preservation and strengthening of human
relationships. This introduction to a Filipino virtue ethics is articulated and organized through a
dialogue with Aristotelian-Thomistic virtue ethics.

Introduction
Filipinos have been described as friendly, outgoing, sensitive, easily offended, nosy,
garrulous, direct, hospitable, feisty, irreverent, good natured, clever, witty, gregarious, happy,
generous, easy to laugh, gracious, easy to befriend, casual, fun loving, sensitive and hospitable.
Personal and family honor are stressed, as well as dignity and pride. Education is highly valued
 2

and families make great sacrifices to educate their children. Hiya (shame) is another within
Filipinos that is instilled at an early age. Significantly, shame is the greatest form of disgrace.
These are just examples of Filipino cultural character that developed over centuries in
tandem with and in response to Western culture introduced by the Spaniards and later by the
Americans. And these characters hugely shaped our very unique moral perspective and
choices, the Filipino morality.

Some Traits and Values of the Filipinos

According to Philippines Australia Business Council, there are three main traits underlie
Filipino values and value-orientation. These traits strongly influence Filipinos’ behavior and
decision making, and are the bases of their personal beliefs, and cultural traditions and
practices. In other words, they are the bases for acceptable behavior for the Filipinos. The three
main traits are the following:
1. Personalism is the emphasis Filipinos give to interpersonal relations or face-to-face
encounters. Successful leadership or being a good manager necessitates a personal touch,
and problem-solving is effective if handled through good personal relations.

2. Familialism emphasizes the welfare and interest of the family over those of the community.
The family is the basis of group action and almost all community activity centers on the
family. The family, and not the individual, decides on important matters, and these are
decided on the basis of family, not individual interest. The family honor, and not that of the
individual, is at stake when a family member makes a mistake.

3. Particularism or popularism results from the strong family influence on individual and group
behavior. Individuals strive to promote their own and their family’s interests over community
interests. Being popular among peer groups is highly desirable; hence Filipinos make
special efforts to entertain friends and relatives. Knowing how to entertain people (marunong
umasikaso ng kapwa) is important. Conformity to proper codes of conduct reaps the
rewards of cooperation and assistance; non-conformity is punished by withdrawal of
support.

Value orientation is the way individuals relate to objects, events and ideas. Three main
obligations underlie Filipino value orientation: 1) relational (pakikipagkapwa), 2) emotional
(damdamin), and 3) moral/honor (karangalan). All or one may influence work or social
relationships.
Relational obligations are interpersonal or face-to-face relationships and their resulting
obligations. This is relative to the personalism value in Filipino cultural orientation. The nature of
interpersonal relationships is determined by pakikiramay, pakikisama, bayanihan, and galang.
Pakikiramay means going out of the way to help, without being asked, i.e., unsolicited help.
Pakikisama or smooth interpersonal relations (SIR) means going along with someone’s views,
whether agreeing or not. This enhances camaraderie, trust, confidence, and loyalty. This is
related to bayanihan or reciprocal labor and giving help without compensation. In turn, one can
request help in time of need from those to whom you extended help. And finally, galang or
 3

respect is part of most social encounters. It indicates deference to the opinions of elders, peers,
or those in authority, during important deliberations. Any verbal clashes with older people in
public, or any sign of extreme familiarity with members of higher official status in public
meetings, are signs of disrespect.

Social Values
The great majority of the Philippine population is bound together by common values and
a common religion. Philippine society is characterized by many positive traits. Among these are
strong religious faith, respect for authority, and high regard for amor proprio (self-esteem) and
smooth interpersonal relationships. Filipinos’ respect for authority is based on the special honor
paid to elder members of the family and, by extension, to anyone in a position of power. This
characteristic is generally conducive to the smooth running of society, although, when taken to
extreme, it can develop into an authoritarianism that discourages independent judgment and
individual responsibility and initiative.
Filipinos are sensitive to attacks on their own self-esteem and cultivate sensitivity to
the self-esteem of others as well. Anything that might hurt another's self-esteem is to be
avoided or else one is in the risk of terminating the relationship. One who is insensitive to others
is said to lack a sense of shame and embarrassment, the principal sanction against improper
behavior. This great concern for self- esteem helps to maintain harmony in society and within
one's particular circle, but it also can give rise to clannishness and a willingness to sacrifice
personal integrity to remain in the good graces of the group. Strong personal faith enables
Filipinos to face great difficulties and unpredictable risks in the assurance that "God will take
care of things." But, if allowed to deteriorate into fatalism, even this admirable characteristic can
hinder initiative and stand in the way of progress.
Lastly, a social organization in the Philippines generally follows a single pattern,
although variations do occur, reflecting the influence of local traditions. Among lowland Christian
Filipinos, social organization continues to be marked primarily by personal alliance systems, that
is, groupings composed of kin (real and ritual), grantors and recipients of favors, friends, and
partners in commercial exchanges.

Religion and Filipino Character

Catholicism has a strong influence of the Filipino character. According to Thank God I'm
Filipino: “The Philippines is one the most religious countries in world, particularly in Catholicism
and Islam. Families would encourage and strengthen the values of their children and would at
least have one day a week for worship and at the same time strengthening family ties. Religion
is the foundation of most of the country’s morals and values and sometimes, the church greatly
affects the minds and opinions of the general populace, affecting its decisions. Sadly, this also
applies to the government as they are troubled by whatever the Church’s stand is in every
matter, as people see their opinion to be the “right” one. Thus, many of our politicians go with
whatever the Church says, fearing that they would lose vote if they go against it.
 4

The Philippines is the only Christian nation in Asia and Filipinos have high spiritual
fervor. They observe holy days (business establishments are normally closed on Maundy
Thursday, Good Friday, Easter, All Saints’-All Souls’ Days and Christmas). Sunday is
considered both a religious and a family day. As much as possible, avoid working on that day
because most Filipinos go to church and do things together as a family.
Most Filipinos are Roman Catholics, but there are other large Christian groups
throughout the country especially among the Indigenous ethnic groups in the Autonomous
Mountain Region of Northern Luzon. Most traditional elites are Catholic. In southern and
western Mindanao and the islands of Jolo and Sulu Sea that constitute the Autonomous Region
of Muslim Mindanao, there is a substantial Muslim community, which has been aggressively
pushing for independence through such organizations as the Moro national Liberation Front and
Moro Islamic Liberation Front.
Religion is openly and overtly practiced throughout all aspects of life in the Philippines,
including the work place. Strong beliefs and religious practices and events are not always
matched by social norms and practices. While the Catholic Church makes divorce very difficult,
if not impossible, it is not uncommon for married couples to either drift apart and enter into
common law relationships with new spouses. In business and when exploring informal personal
relationships with colleagues, it is prudent not to try to nail the formal relationships down if they
do not seem to "add-up".
There is widespread misunderstanding and uneasiness regarding the Muslim religious
minority and its demands for independence amongst the majority of Filipinos, especially in
Mindanao. It is therefore wise for expatriates to avoid debate of the Muslim claims for
independence and to check out the current safety of specific itineraries and proposed meetings
when planning business trips and holidays to predominantly Moslem areas of Mindanao.

THE FILIPINO NORM OF MORALITY

(By Fr. Vitaliano Gorospe, SJ)
Another way of looking at the problem of morality in the Philippines is to consider the
actual and prevailing norms of right and wrong among Filipinos. It is quite obvious that there is a
conflict between what they say as Christians and what they do as Filipinos; between their actual
Filipino behavior and their ideal Christian behavior; in short, between what is and what ought to
be.
One norm of morality in the Philippines is based on "group-centeredness" or "group-
thinking." One's in-group determines for the individual what is right or wrong. The individual who
has not yet attained moral independence and maturity will ask: "What will my family, or my
relatives and friends, or my barkada think or say?" "What will others say" usually determines
Filipino moral behavior; it is "conscience from the outside." For instance, parents tell their
daughter who is being courted: "Iha, please entertain your boyfriend at home. Do not go
outside. What will the neighbors say? Nakakahiya naman." Shame or hiya makes the parents
and the girl conform to the social expectations of the neighbors lest they become the object of
‘chismis’ or gossip.
 5

Here again there is a conflict between the individual and social morality, between
internal and external morality. The norm of morality should be internalized so that the mature
individual should form his own moral "conscience from the inside."
Another norm of morality in the Philippines is characterized by the "Don't be caught"
attitude based on shame or fear of the authority figure. The authority figure may be a parent,
teacher, priest or policeman. As one law student puts it:" What's wrong with cheating in the bar
examinations as long as you do not get caught?"
During the war, it is told that a prison official of Muntinglupa addressed his new prisoners
thus: "Here there are no Ten Commandments. You can obey or break the rules as you please.
But God help you if you get caught." This norm of moral behavior also gives rise to a conflict in
the individual between the "don'ts" of the authority figure and "what every else does" in the
latter's absence. As long as a policemen is on duty, Filipino drivers will obey traffic rules but if
there is no policeman, then everyone else tries make puslit or get ahead of the others often
causing a traffic jam.
We find in the Filipino whose norm of behavior is purely external, a split between the
ideal Christian norm of morality and the actual Filipino norm of morality. He will put on the
externals of Christian moral behavior in front of the authority figure while at the same time follow
in "real life" an inconsistent moral behavior when the latter is "at a distance."
The problem for the Filipino individual is to be "aware" that the two inconsistent norms of
morality are allowed to coexist in his personality and life and that he must overcome this split if
he is to become a mature Christian Filipino.
What can be done about the problem of morality in the Philippines? In this respect, the
question of attitudes, whether on the part of the individual or on that of society as a whole, is
quite relevant. The solution to a problem depends to a great extent on one's awareness of the
problem and his attitude towards it.
Let us consider the various attitudes that the Filipino individual or Philippine society can
take towards the problem of morality and religion. The worst possible attitude is not to be aware
of the problem at all. The person who is not aware that he has a cancer or heart trouble will not
see the doctor.
Another wrong attitude is complacency when one is aware but is not concerned. The
individual who feels secure and comfortable with the status quo sees no need for change. Some
individuals see the problem but it is too frightening. Hence they are afraid to make a decision
and initiate change because it is painful and difficult. This is the attitude of timidity. Others try to
escape from their real problems. They skirt confrontation with the real issue in their lives and
hence raise up pseudo problems as camouflage.
Finally a very common attitude is rationalization. People who know they are doing wrong
but do not want to change easily find excesses like "ako'y tao lamang" (I'm but human), "ganyan
lamang ang buhay" (life is like hat), "bahala na" (come what may), or "eveybody is doing it." In
this age of "passing the buck," another excuse for shrinking personal responsibility is the
Filipinism, "I am not the one".
 6

All these attitudes of mind are wrong and without the proper attitude there can be no
solution to the problem. Filipinos will make no progress toward a Christian solution until they
realize that the problem is serious and urgent.

Online Activity:

1. Please watch the video on this YouTube link for a thorough understanding on how our, Filipino
moral perspective has developed: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WZB-J--ymuI

THE STRUCTURE OF FILIPINO MORALITY

(By F. P. A. Demeterio III)

Questions on Fear and Shame

The Filipino morality does not belong to the fear morality type of the primitive man. In his
mild tropical world, where harvest, game and fish abound, and where the rain, and even the
stormy seasons are more or less regular, the Filipino very seldom experiences want and shocks
from entirely unexpected calamities which he may attribute to a prior upsetting of the natural
order that is consequent to an ethical sin committed. The Filipino morality does not also
squarely fit into the shame culture type of the Homeric Greeks. Though the Filipino shares a
tinge of this shame culture, as expressed in his conspicuous word hiya, his shame is anchored
on the opposite pole where its Greek counterpart stands. Whereas the Greek places a highly
perceptible stress on the individual, the Filipino, on the contrary, places the accent on his
community. To state it more precisely, if the Homeric Greek abhors moral evil, it is because evil
deeds tarnish his individual reputation. If the Filipino, on the other hand, abhors moral evil, it is
because he does not want his community to see a tarnished kin-folk in him.
If we are to conceptualize Filipino morality in terms of the primitive and the Homeric
morality types, it would appear as a peculiar mixture of fear and shame moralities. Moral evil for
the Filipino entails fear and shame: fear and shame of upsetting a pre-existent social or
communal order.

The Bridge between Turbulence and Stillness

For developed systems of morality that are closely bound to religions, their criteria for
knowing good and evil are linked to the metaphysical idea of the divine. The scholastic
morality, as an example of a well-developed ethics, acknowledges civil and Church laws as
measures of morality. Yet these man-made laws, in order to be morally binding, must not be at
odds with the natural law which is defined as man’s participation in the eternal law. Eternal law,
lastly, is understood as the “eternal divine plan which ordains and directs all things to their
proper ends.” But even in the shame morality of the Homeric Greeks, the morally good and the
morally evil, are in some way or another, connected with the mythical interventions of their
myriad and anthropomorphic deities.
 7

In the case of the Filipino theology, the native supernatural beings are thought to be
unconcerned with the moral affairs of the mortal folks. As the folklore shows us, what the
diwatas (fairies), the kapres (ogre) and nunos sa punsos (old pixies) hated were not the sinful
man, but the reckless wanderer who, intentionally or unintentionally, had irritated them or who
had raised some disorder in their Sylvanian habitations. Such an aspect of the Filipino
mythology drives home the point that the good and the evil of the Filipino morality are not
founded on the sphere of the sacred.
For the Filipino, the measure of what is good and evil resides in his inter-subjective
views. Such a generally accepted premise among Filipinologists directly entails that the values
of the society determines for him what is morally good and evil. Since values are relative
to a culture, culture now appears as the foundation of Filipino morality. This does not pose
any problem at all if we merely take culture as the “complex whole which includes laws,
customs, beliefs, art, knowledge, traditions, morals, and all other capabilities which are acquired
by man as a member of the society”. In a symposium on Filipino morals by Fr. Dionisio
Miranda, SVD, at the Faculty of Sacred Theology of the University of Santo Tomas, an essential
aspect of culture, not explicit in most of its manualistic definitions was brought out into the open
when he says, “culture, above all, is dynamic culture.” This aspect of dynamism would have
created a sustained mutation and counter mutation in the Filipino’s perception of good and evil.
But in the historical and existential planes no such radical mutations have been observed. There
are quite a number of things that the Filipino valued in the past that are still valued in the
present. The Filipino’s criterion of good and evil, then, is not something founded simply
on a dynamic culture.
The cross-section of a collective psyche is oftentimes compared to an ocean: it topmost
level are the turbulent waves of the dynamically changing culture; at its mid-level are the
underwater currents of attitudes and basic value systems which underlie a culture; and its
lowermost portion are the calm pools of water that lay unperturbed deep beneath the raging
ocean waves, such is the world-view (Weltanschauung), the relatively tranquil foundation of a
culture.
Filipino morality as a peculiar hybrid of fear and shame moralities is ultimately anchored
on the Filipino world-view whose most significant quality as revealed to us by the behavioral
phenomenology and meta-linguistic inquiries of Fr. Leonardo Mercado, SVD, is its being non-
dualistic and harmonizing.

Further Analysis
The bridge between Filipino morality and Filipino world-view reveals that such a morality
is both an intrinsic and extrinsic moral system. Intrinsic in the sense that the world-view presents
itself as an indwelling tendency of the Filipino to be in harmony with the other members of his
community; and extrinsic in the sense that the inter-subjective harmony and social order
determines what is morally good and evil.
The bridge also reveals that the Filipino morality is not an objective morality. Unlike
the ancient Roman citizen, and perhaps the whole block of westerners for that matter, the
 8

Filipino is not so legal minded. Laws might have existed in the pre-colonial Philippines, yet for
the ordinary Filipino those laws seldom matter. The fact the Philippines never had a well-
developed indigenous system of laws partly proves our assertion. Corroborating this would be
the leniency of the indigenous legal system’s sanctions. Banishment and slavery, as some
examples, may sound so harsh, yet historically these seemingly barbed spikes of the native law
were mellowed down by a more elaborate rite of reconciliation for the banished and absorption
of slavery into the more dominant Filipino kinship structure. The existence of an almost
exquisitely fine legal system of the present-day Philippines and its notoriously miserable
implementation are but vestiges of the Filipino’s not so distant past. Such a non-legalistic frame
of mind had, quite naturally, stifled the development of moral objectification.
A crux springs up at this juncture: does moral non-objectivism mean unbridled
subjectivism for the Filipino? A further reflection will show us that Filipino morality is not at all a
subjectivist morality. Though it is non-objective, its subjectivity is rooted not on a right-
oriented individualism but on a duty-centered communitarianism, which in return is
anchored on his harmonizing world-view.
The final description revealed by the bridge between Filipino morality and Filipino world-
view would be the predominance of consequentialism in such a morality. Consequential morality
maintains that specific actions are to be judged from a moral vantage point by considering their
actual effect in the sphere of human living. This means that certain actions are good or evil
because of their effects are either beneficial or harmful to the individual agent and to the society
where that individual belongs. Thus, the actions of the Filipino are judged to be either good or
evil from the point of view of its effects: whether they are constructive of social harmony or not.
Consequentialism in morality, if strictly pursued to its ultimate principles, precludes
situational ethics. It does so because for an individual and for a society, there are always some
actions whose real effects are always, mediately or immediately, beneficial or harmful. Authentic
consequential morality goes either for the actions that immediately result in good effects, or for
the actions that both immediately and mediately produce good effects. The question remains:
does consequentialism in Filipino morality totally preclude situationalism? By considering the
Filipino consciousness for causation, the answer would be no: Filipino morality, to some extent,
is situational. The problem here lies in the Filipino’s basically oriental understanding of
causation, which Dr. Carl Gustav Jung referred to as synchronistic causation. This non-linear
concept of causality acts as blinkers that prevent the Filipino from perceiving the sometimes
prolonged operation of cause and effect. Thus, the Filipino ordinarily sees only the immediate
effects, and very seldom the mediate effects, of his moral acts. For instance, if a Filipino has to
choose between two acts, one of which is a cause of an immediate good effect and a mediate
evil effect, and the other of which is a cause of a morally indifferent immediate effect and a
mediate good effect, most likely he will pick up and opt for the first one with its mediate evil
effect. Such is the entailment of his non-linear perception of causation. Hence, the Filipino’s
imperfect consequentialism, founded on his synchronistic idea of cause and effect, admits the
existence of situationalism.