CHAPTER 3

Ethical Relativism and the Ambivalence

of Filipino Cultural Values

Chapter Objectives

At the end of this chapter, the students should be able to:

1. discuss the theory of ethical relativism;

2. identify and explain the arguments for and against it;

3. recognize the role that culture plays in moral behavior

and development; and

4. situate the theory of ethical relativism in the context of

Filipino cultural traits and values.

Culture and Moral Behavior

t is now a common and well- accepted belief that culture plays

a very influential and crucial role in the development and

I formation of one's moral character. Various studies, especially

in the broad field of the Social Sciences, such as in Sociology and

Anthropology, provide enormous scientific data to support the

major and significant impact that culture contributes to moral

behavior. Apart from genetics, culture is undeniably a major force

to reckon with, if only to have a thorough, genuine and meaningful

multi-disciplinary discussion in ethics.

In fact, for a lot of thinkers, they even go to the extent of

saying that one can never truly separate morality from culiture

Any meaningful and relevant discussion of ethics must include

culture as a major theme. To disregard or treat it as just a minor

and negligible component is to risk getting lost in vague and even

groundless metaphysical generalities. Any discussion of morality

that is not rooted with the living concreteness of human cultural

life is simply unrealistic and even absurd. For some, morality is but
a result of cultural factors.For them Ethics or morality is simply

defined by one's culture. That it is nothing but a mere social

construct.No more,no less.

But is this absolutely and irrefutably true? Is culture all that

there is to consider when we talk about moral development? Is

morality simply a matter of cultural influences? Or, is there

"something"in one's moral behavior that cannot be totally reduced

to cultural factors?

In the history of ethical thought,there is a particular moral

view that claims that morality is mainly,if not totally,dependent

on one's culture, primarily. This kind of framework or philosophy

is known as Ethical Relativism.

Ethical Relativism Defined

Before setting out to examine that theory of Ethical

Relativism, we should define it. Although there are different

specific types or versions of Ethical Relativism,we can say that

generally, it refers to a view or doctrine that ethical values and

beliefs (as to what is right/good and wrong/bad) are relative to the

time,place,persons, situations and societies that hold them (See

Camp et al. 2015:4;Ardales 1987:97-98;Mackinnon 1998:12;

Pojman 1999:28; Thiroux 1995:95).

In short,Ethical Relativism is a theory that holds that there are

no universally valid moral principles; that all moral values are

valid relative to culture or individual choice. For an ethical

relativist,“whether an action is right or wrong depends on the

moral norms of society or the moral commitments of the

individual, and no bsolute standard exists by which differing rules

or commitments can be judged” (Camp, Olen & Barry 2015: 4).

Hence, there are no values that cut across cultural boundaries

and peoples that are not relative to the specific place or context in

which they are held. Morality therefore depends on specific social

or cultural circumstances (traditions, customs,etc.). What is then

morally right or wrong may vary fundamentally from person to

person or culture to culture.

Without a doubt,Ethical Relativism poses a great challenge to

the very foundation of morality. Aside from being a controversial

view, it is also one of the most difficult and complex problems or

issues in ethics. It is, in fact, “arguably the central problem in

ethics, one to which virtually all others eventually lead” (Holmes

1998: 63).

“Ethical relativists, though,are neither skeptics nor nihilistš.

They believe in moral right and wrong. It is just that they contend

that what is basically right for an individual or group may be

wrong for another” (Holmes 1998: 164; Timbreza 1993:18).

Relativism does not,however, try to tell us which acts and

practices are right and wrong. “It only says that no matter how we

answer that question,we must acknowledge that an act or conduct

may be both right and wrong at the same time - say, right in one

culture but wrong____another. To put it more simply, differing

moral views about the same action may be both right at the same

time” (Ellin 1995:35-36; Holmes 1998:16; Pojman 1999:28).

Arguments for Ethical Relativism

There are quite a good number of reasons for believing and

accepting that what Ethical Relativism holds is true. In what

follows,we will present the most commonly mentioned reasons or

arguments,which in one way or the other favor and support the

belief in the philosophy of Ethical Relativism.

1.The Cultural Differences Argument

One of the most often cited reasons to support Ethical

Relativism is the actual existence of moral diversity among cultures. Throughout history many societies
have held beliefs and

practices about morality that are strikingly different from our own.-

For centuries,people have pointed out those different societies

or cultures at least appear to have vastly different moral codes (See

Barcalow 1998:48-49;Curd 1992:171;De Castro 1995:127-130;

Montemayor 1985:6;Pojman 1999:28-29).

Indeed,it is uncontroversially true that people in different

societies have different customs and different ideas about

right/good and wrong/bad. There is no universal or transcultural

consensus on which actions are right and wrong,“even though

there is a considerable overlapping with regards to this"

(Warburton 1995:56-60).

Noted American anthropologist Ruth Benedict(1887-1948),a

pioneering scholar in the field,in her book Patterns of Culture

(first published in 1935),claims that "careful study of the cultural

practices of different peoples supports the idea that what is and is

not behaviorally normal is culturally determined.”

Thus,“acquaintance with the wide diversity of moral beliefs

across societies" may lead us to deny that there really is only one

correct moral code that applies to and binds all societies (Barcalow

1998:48).

The indisputable reality of cultural diversity has been

tremendously influential; it has persuaded a lot of people to adopt a

skeptical stance as to the whole idea of an objective and universal

moral truth(Curd 1992:99). Given the wide disparities of practice

and belief,it seems that Ethical Relativism is consistent with the

facts of cultural diversity.

2.The Argument from Respect

As we have just noted above, Ethical Relativism rooted in

cultural multiplicity seemed to be very appealing to a good number

of people,especially among the youth of today. Part of it’s [powerful drawing power] is due to the fact
that such view has

been thought to promote tolerance" (Timothy & Wong 1996:14).

Accordingly, if moral codes differ from culture and there is no

objective or culturally dependent basis by which to judge the moral

code of any culture,then the moral code of one's particular culture

has no special status compared with the rest.

Moreover,“[no culture] has the right to impose [its] own

[ethical] views [and practices] on anyone else, least of all on

people in different cultures [and traditions]"(Timothy &Wong

1996:14). The appropriate attitude to take is therefore one of

respect and tolerance for moral standpoints different from what

one upholds (Gensler 1998:15).

Tolerance has always been considered as a virtue while taking

a superior stance is usually viewed as the height of arrogance, if

not plain narrow mindedness especially so in this postmodern

world of ours which have seen the fall of many “absolutes” in the

course of humanity's long history.

Through Ethical Relativism, it is believed that people would__

become more accepting of moralities of others, no matter how

these may be radically different from their own. People have to

see and realize that the other side of the fence is not necessarily

wrong. They have to stop this “we're right and they're wrong"

attitude and rather view the other as simply “different.”

3.The Psychological Argument

This argument undermines confidence in the objectivity of

ethics by making us aware of the non-rational ways in which moral

ideas and beliefs are formed and developed in the individual.

Among psychologists, there is considerable agreement about how

this happens; the picture remains remarkably constant,even when

we consider radically different psychological theories.

All these suggest a certain conclusion: Our values are simply

the result of our having been conditioned to behave in a certain way. We may feel that certain actions
are good and others are bad

or evil, but that is merely because we all had been trained and

conditioned to have those feelings,beginning when we were still

little children usually through parental rearing.

Thus,“if we have been trained and brought up by our parents

or elders differently,most certainly we would have different moral

values and principles, and we would definitely feel just as strongly

about them"(Curd 1992:99-105).

In other words, all of us human beings acquire our moral

beliefs by a process of psychological conditioning. “Thus,if we

had been conditioned differently,we would have different moral

beliefs. The conclusion becomes inevitable:our moral beliefs are

neither true nor false, right nor wrong, for there is no such thing as

objective truth in ethics” (Curd 1992:103). Moral truth is relative

to one's own psychological upbringing,nothing more,and nothing

less.

The Psychological Argument is, without doubt, impressive.

All of us, consciously or unconsciously, have been subjected in

one way or the other, to some sort of a “psychic manipulation” by

our "Significant Others.” Hence, the argument if it is sound,

provides valid evidence that some kind of ethical relativism is true.

4.The Conformity Argument

"Some people accept Ethical Relativism because they

somehow think that people should conform with and embrace the

ethical code of their respective societies or cultures” (Barcalow

1998:54). In fact some even went as far as believing that it is their

duty to do so. As social beings by nature, it is but natural for

people to easily affiliate and conform to the accepted ethical

standards of the particular group that they belong.

Through cultural relativism, it is thought that people would

come to be more accepting of their own societal norms. Their

belief gives a good basis for a common morality within a culture-

in fact, a kind of a democratic basis where “diverse ideas and principles are pooled in,thus insuring that
the norms/rules that a

certain society would eventually accept have a wide and solid

support"(Gensler 1998:12). This then provides the central validity

or justification of the morality of the group,whatever it may be.

5.The Provability Argument

Finally,another reason to believe that what Ethical Relativism

holds is indeed true is the undeniable fact of moral dispute

occurring between and among groups as well as individuals.

The usual experience of people having a great difficulty in

knowing what is the morally “right thing' to do in a particular

situation has led to a general attitude'of skepticism on the

possibility of determining, much worse establishing a universal

and definite moral standard (See Popkin & Stroll 1993:48-49).

'The main point of contention in this line of argument is this:

“If there is such thing as objective or universal truth in ethics, we

/should be able to prove that some moral opinions are true and

others false. But in fact we cannot prove which moral opinions are

true and which are false./Therefore,there is no such thing as

objective truth in ethics” (Rachels as cited in Curd 1992:101)

Critical Evaluation of Ethical Relativism

1.On Cultural Diversity

Because of cultural diversity, many people think morality is,

just as obvious as it is relative to culture. If people differ in the

clothes they wear,the kind of food they eat and the language they

speak,why cannot they also differ in their moral beliefs? If the

former is not universal, why should morality be universal?

No doubt, there is an enormous fact of cultural diversity, and

many societies have radically different and sometimes conflicting

moral codes. Cultural relativism is indeed a sociological and

anthropological fact And facts can never be disputed. Arguing

though that cultural relativism is an indisputable fact, "it does not by itself establish the truth of ethical
relativism”(Pojman

1999:38).

The point or rather the whole question here is this: Does the

fact of cultural relativism necessarily imply ethical relativism? Is

the fact that cultures vary in beliefs and practices tantamount to say

that there is no morally right or wrong conduct and practices in the

objective sense of the term?

Cultural diversity as a sociological_____anthropological fact is

in itself neutral to making any value or moral judgment. It does

not necessarily deny the objectivity of moral values. What merely

it is saying is that cultures do vary in so many ways. It does not

categorically say whose or what culture or cultures is/are doing and

practicing what is right.

“The problem with the reasoning that morality is simply a

product of culture is that - a product of culture can express

objective truths. So too,a moral code be a product of culture and

yet still express objective truth about how people ought to live"

(Gensler 1998:16).

Is this not a contradiction? If morality is relative to one's

culture, is this very statement subject also to this same relativity?

"If everything is relative,then the very truth of relativism would

also be relative”(Montemayor 1985:6).

In here, the logic of relativism self-destructs.It clearly suffers

a dose of its own medicine. In the words of a prominent Filipino

philosopher:

Ethical relativism appears to be self-contradictory and

inconsistent....If the moral relativist insists on the legitimacy

of his view, then he/she is proposing a theory that must be

accepted by everyone... which is against what he / she is

teaching.It seems then, that one who styles oneselfas a

moral relativist encounters difficulty in being self-consistent

and in acting in accordance with one's own moral

claim....(Timbreza 1993:19) 2.On the Argument from Respect

Some people have come to accept Ethical Relativism because

they believe that people should not judge other people from other

cultures or societies on the basis of their own moral standards.

Besides, they think that this is the attitude of mature and

enlightened minds, the kind that can render respect and tolerance

in the face of something unfamiliar and even contradictory.

It is true to a point that if there is no independent way of

criticizing any other culture as what the relativists do believe, then

we ought to be tolerant of the moral beliefs and practices of others.

One of the most famous proponents of this particular position

is the anthropologist Melville Herskovits.He argues even more

explicitly than Benedict that the belief in ethical relativism entails

“intercultural tolerance” (As quoted in Pojman 1999:34).

The major contention in here seems to be that “if people think

Ethical Relativism is true,they will be more tolerant of moral

differences than they would otherwise be"(Holmes 1998:177).

Well,it is not difficult to see that if one believes that his or her

culture is not morally better than the other,he or she could likely

become more accepting of the differences of cultural beliefs and

practices.One cannot simply afford to show arrogance if one has

this certain level of consciousness.

The main question here, however is how we do really know

that this would be necessarily the case? Are we really that certain

that if one accepts the theory of Ethical Relativism,he or she

becomes automatically more tolerant and respectful of the culture

of others? Is there hard empirical evidence to support this

particular contention? Or is this just pure speculation which does

not really have the solid backing of a scientific proof?

To truly establish, beyond any iota of doubt,that belief in

Ethical Relativism necessarily translates into becoming more

tolerant of other cultures,one would have to do an actual

experimentation(in the context of a scientific rigor) of those who claimed to embrace Ethical Relativism
and find out whether these

people are in fact more tolerant than those who do not accept the

theory(See Holmes 1998:178).

Another argument against the issue on toleration is that

acceptance of it involves one in some sort of a contradiction.

While tolerance is definitely a virtue, it cannot be practiced

consistently.

Why? If morality simply is relative to each culture, then what

if the culture in question does not have toleration as part of its

moral code? This would naturally mean that the members of that

culture have no moral obligation to practice toleration.

Not only do moral relativists offer no basis for criticizing

people who are intolerant, but they also cannot criticize anyone

who espouses what they might regard as a brutal practice,like

Hitler's genocidal policy during the Second World War.

Moreover,to take the position of the relativists with regard to

moral standards and principles is to court disaster. Allowing every

individual or group to set their own standard as a gesture of respect

and tolerance will most likely lead to eventual conflict and

disorder, what with numerous existing standards. In this scenario,

it is likely that the law of the jungle where “might is always right"

prevails (Ardales 1987:98).

Finally,we might insist that tolerance is either not always

good or always a virtue.A lot of people would argue that tolerance

should be tempered with a sense of outrage in the face of extreme

evil.

3.On the Psychological Argument

As what we have discussed,the Psychological Argument is

undoubtedly very impressive. Hence, if it is proven to be logically

sound, it will definitely add to the file of arguments stacked in

favor of Ethical Relativism. However,as Rachels systematically points out in the article

Moral Skepticism (See Curd 1992:99-104),the Psychological

Argument contains a serious flaw.

According to him,“even granting that the truth of the premise,

that we do acquire our moral beliefs by a process like the one

psychologists described,the conclusion that if we had been

conditioned differently,we would have different moral beliefs,

thus, there's no such thing as objective moral truth, does not

follow, hence unsound and invalid" (cited in Curd 1992).

He notes that the argument is transparently fallacious.

It is not because the premises are false. The premises are in

fact true: we do acquire many ofour early beliefs... through

a system of positive and negative reinforcements. The

argument is fallacious because, even ifthe premises true, the

skeptical conclusion does not follow from them. The question

of how we acquire our beliefs is logically independent of,

and separate from, the question of whether there are

objective facts to which those beliefs correspond. (As quoted

in Curd 1992:103)

Obviously, how one acquires one's belief does not necessarily

undermine its truthfulness or validity. The Psychological

Argument is indeed guilty of committing the so-called genetic

fallacy.Just because something comes from a dubious source, it

(one's belief) does not necessarily follow______it is false or

erroneous.

Moreover,the Psychological Argument is guilty of another

(though not so obvious) mistake. It is guilty of the fallacy of

misrepresentation. It simply overstates its case.

It tries (though not good enough as we are about to see) to

deceive us into believing that the matter of social

conditioning/training is all that there is in the person's moral or

ethical development. It fails to give due consideration to other,

perhaps equally powerful if not more powerful and significant factors that have contributed,in one way
or the other, to a greater

or lesser extent, to the formation and building of the individual's

sense of morality.

One of the most important and crucial of all these other factors
(in fact for the Existentialist philosophers this is the most

important, if not the sole element) is the exercise of the person's

freedom of choice or free will.

This implies that the person's morality is a primary function of

his/her own free volition. What one is-is nothing but a result of

the decisions that he/she constantly makes. The human person then

becomes the sole creator of his/her values, nothing more and

nothing less. One's moral development or formation, therefore,is

entirely a matter of decision, not condition.

This last counterpoint to the Psychological Argument paints

an extreme picture to the whole scenario. We may not be solely

and mainly (again, this one is also very much debatable) the

product of our childhood conditioning but, to disregard totally the

specific role that our early psychological upbringing played in the

formation of our moral values and behavior, is also committing the

fallacy of oversimplification.

4. On the Argument from Conformity

I think that of all the arguments forwarded in defense of

Ethical Relativism, the Argument from Conformity is seemingly

the easiest to destroy and annihilate. Let me state a couple of

reasons why.

First, according to one form of Ethical Relativism (i.e.,

conventionalism), whatever a society believes to be right is right

for that particular society.

What is considered as “good” is what the majority,as the

major constitution of a society, approves or acknowledges as good.

Likewise,what the majority says as “bad” is bad. Thus, morality is

simply dependent of what the majority wants or decides. What is good and bad is reducible to a kind of
social contract or a matter of
group consensus.

The obvious problem with this view is that it makes the

majority as the only true and legitimate voice of what is moral or

not.It is them that makes or decides what is good and bad. Ergo, it

reduces the minority to the side of falsehood or error. "For when

we talk about the moral code or ethical beliefs of a society,it

would only mean the moral code or the moral beliefs and stand of

the majority in a society” (Barcalow 1998:56).

To say for instance that a society believes that abortion is

immoral, simply means that that majority of the members of that

particular society believe that the act in question is immoral. Ifa

society believes that slavery is right, that simply means that the

majority of the people in that society believe that it is right.

The logical implication of this is very clear and somewhat

terrifying: The majority is always right! They can never be wrong!

This claim has terrible consequences that perhaps most of us find

too difficult to accept.

Try to imagine a group that believes and accepts racial

superiority(the Aryan race during Hitler's time easily comes to

mind) as morally right,then it(the majority's belief) is morally

right. If a society judges infanticide (as ancient Greek and some

other primitive cultures once believed) as morally acceptable,then

it is morally acceptable.

If the argument from conformity is valid, then,all that we

have to do is to take the word of the majority as gospel truth or

some kind of a dogma and be assured that we are already in the

ight. We should just openly accept and embrace what the

majority of our society had come to ngept and embrace,and that

Would save us from the risk of falling into the pit of erroneous
moral judgment. But most of us know (are we guilty here of the fallacy of the

majority?) that the majority is not always right. We know for a fact

that the minority can also be correct in moral matters.

We just have to take a serious look at history to see the

presence of the so-called moral reformers (or rebels if you wish).

The list is quite long:Socrates,Mahatma Gandhi,Martin Luther

King,Jr., to name a few. If the majority is always right, then all

these and the many other moral reformists are simply wrong.

Another problem confronting the argument from conformity is

the undeniable reality of subgroups. Again, according to ethical

relativism,whether a person's moral beliefs and claims are true,

depends on what is approved and accepted by the majority in that

person's society or group (cultural or whatever).

The issue here is “how can one define the boundary or scope

of what really constitutes a group?” In reality, people belong to

numerous subgroups. One can be a member of a religious group, a

fraternity or sorority, a professional group, an ethnic group, a peer

group, and many more.

Clearly,the argument from conformity has ignored the

subgroup problem (See Gensler 1998:14-15;Pojman 1999:35;

Warburton 1995:61). People can belong to overlapping societies or

groups. In fact we all do.

What makes matters worse is that,some of these groups do

not only overlap but at times also conflict with one another. It

would be easy if we all belong to a single homogenous group.

However,the world is not like that.Instead,our world is a diverse

mixture of overlapping groups and communities, and people do not

always adhere to the rule of the majority.“The world is a lot more

complicated than that. We are all multicultural to some extent"

5.On the Provability Argument

Its plausibility mainly hangs on how strict and rigid we should

take the whole question of “proof” in matters pertaining to

morality(See Barcalow 199:63). If we take proof as we ordinarily

construe it to be in day-to-day,“normal”conversation,then we

would venture to say that moral issues can be “proved.” But if we

take it to mean “proof”in the standard scientific sense, then, we

would say otherwise.

The fact that human beings disagree with each other on certain

fundamental issues, is nothing but just common occurrence.“But

unlike the disputes between scientists about the age of the universe

or the constitution of matter, which can be settled in principle

through the empirical method of observation and experimentation,

ethical disputes seem to be far from being resolved” (Curd

1992:171-172).

One will only think of perennial moral issues which have not.

been settled with finality like euthanasia, abortion, divorce,

homosexuality, capital punishment and the like. Far from seeing

the definite end of the various disagreements and conflicts

regarding the morality behind all these, they instead continually

bother and confuse us even more.

Thus, the conclusion that morality can never be proved seems

to be a logical necessity. One will only have to try to “prove"one's

ethical viewpoint to another to find out how difficult and

frustrating the entire activity is.

However, if we really follow more carefully the

aforementioned argument, we can see that it contains some

objectionable features. First,let us examine the contention that

ethical issues are complex and difficult to determine.

Granting, for the sake of argument, that indeed we are

uncertain about the morality of some of our actions and decisions,

and cannot really “prove” them beyond any reasonable doubt.This

does not mean that it has no answer whatsoever.“Even if there were no solid way to know moral truths,
it would not follow that

there are no such truths”(Curd 1992:101-102;Gensler 1998:17;

Mackinnon 1998:15).

It may be that some truths are forever hidden from us ordinary

and limited mortals. But the very statement that they are hidden

paradoxically confirms that they exist.

Moreover, and a point of significance, the very act of

discussing whether it is ever possible to resolve moral disputes, is

itself a “proof” that an “answer” exists. For moral disagreements

presupposed that there are, in the first place, moral disagreements

to resolve (Holmes 1998:170-171).

If there are moral disagreements existing, then it is implied

that there is “something”independent of the disagreements which

serves as some kind of a basis or gauge, thus, making the

disagreements possible. An objective theory “allow[s] us to

account for the strong feeling that there are genuine disputes about

moral matters” (Popkin & Stroll 1993:51).

Conclusion

As we see, Ethical Relativism is not just a naïve and simple

moral theory. Its arguments and justifications are firmly rooted in

good number of poits. This probably explains its persistent and

perennial appeal and popularity to the contemporary mind,

especially to the young, to the so-called “millennials,” who have

become too suspicious and even impervious to the moral absolutes

adhered to and preached zealously by the older generation.

Admittedly, one"can understand the appeal of Cultural

Relativism...despite its shortcomings. It is an attractive theory [for

sure] because it is based on genuine insight: that many of the

practices and attitudes we find natural are only cultural products.

Keeping this thought in mind is important if we want to avoid

arrogance and be open to new ideas. These are [indeed]important

points [that should] not be taken lightly"(Rachels & Rachels

Indeed,Ethical Relativism looks formidable,especially at first

glance,but upon closer examination,reveals that it too,contains a

number of complications and inconsistencies (Rachels 2007:27).

But, in spite of its glaring and subtle flaws and shortcomings,

Ethical Relativism is not really refuted (as in totally and

categorically debunked and undermined). What the previous

presentation only accomplished,if at all,“is to show that Ethical

Relativism is not as reasonable or as sound as many of us might

have thought and believed” (Rachels 2007:27).

Of course,to be fair,Ethical Relativism does contain some

important and valuable truths. Truths which are difficult to ignore.

But definitely,not the whole truth.Thus,in the end, it is clear that

the reasonable thing to do is to take and seriously consider the

theory's good points, and learn from,and be cautious of its

concomitant weaknesses.

Ethical Relativism and the Ambivalence of Filipino Values

Now it's time to put the above discussion in the Philippine

setting,particularly in the context of the cultural values and traits

of the Filipino. It has löng been commonly observed by direct

personal and collective experience that Filipinos, as a people, have

certain particular and distinct cultural traits and characteristics that

can be aptly (though not so neatly) described as “ambivalent.”

This ambivalence or incongruence seems to be a product of a long

and complex confluence of factors brought about by our equally

complex history as a people and as a nation.

For so long a time we all know that we Filipinos,have been

influenced to a large extent, and in various ways, by a number of

foreign colonizers throughout our history. These varied and

complex influences,admittedly,have become very much a part of

who we are,and who we have become as a people-for "better or

for worse.”

Admittedly,there has been so much that has been said about

the negative aspect of the Filipino traits and values as pointed out by Prof. Emeritus Emerita Quito (the
first Filipina who obtained a

Doctorate in Philosophy abroad). These negative side of the

Filipino cultural character,as mentioned by Dr.Quito,have been

conveniently made as an excuse for our "weak character." They

have been also made as the “culprits,” the “scapegoat”of our

failures” -both individually as well as collectively.

Now,we cannot help but ask: “Are we really, as in totally, the

kind of people and character-the image that are usually and

commonly projected to the world, a rotten,hopeless and “damaged

culture?” (as one foreign writer once sadly and tragically described

us). Are the Filipinos, as a people, only good at entertaining and

serving the world as singers, boxers, as well as domestic helpers?

In the reading that follows, Prof Quito tries to “take a second

and closer look at these so-called negatives in the Filipino psyche,

to determine whether there might be a positive aspect, a saving

face, a silver lining behind the dark clouds.”