Summary of Patricia Licuanan’s

STRENGTHS AND WEAKNESSES OF THE FILIPINO MORAL CHARACTER

(Excerpted from “A Moral Recovery Program: Building a People, Building a Nation”)
Used for class study and reflection purposes only-not for circulation

STRENGTHS

1. Pakikipagkapwa-tao : Opening yourself to others and feel one with others with dignity and -
Respect life as fellow human beings
- Sense of fairness and justice
- Concern for others
- Ability to empathize with others
- Helpfulness and generosity
- Practice of hospitality
- Sensitive to other feelings and trust
2. Family Orientation : A genuine and deep love for family.
- Commitment and responsibility
- Honor and Respect
- Generosity and Sacrifice
- Sense of trust and Security
3. Joy and Humor : Filipinos have a cheerful and fun-loving approach to life and its up and
down, Pleasant Disposition, a Sense of Humor and Propensity for happiness that contribute not
only to the Filipino charm but also to the Filipino Spirit.
- Laughing or smiling at those we love and hate.
- Tend to make joke about our good and even bad fortune
- Smiling and heads up even in the most trying of times
- Emotional balance and optimism
- Healthy disrespect for power and office.
4. Flexibility, Adaptability and Creativity
- Easy to adapt, blend to other culture, practice other tradition, speak and study other languages
and even diff. environment or climate)
5. Hard Work and Industry : Capacity for hard work given to raise one's standard living of a
decent life for one's family.
6. Faith and Religiosity : Faith in God - accepting reality to comprehend as a human created
by God. "Pampalakas-loob"
7. Ability to Survive

WEAKNESS

1. Extreme Personalism
- always trying to give personal interpretation to actions (Cow fave or Mahilig sa "baka' ")
- thank you with "but" (compliment-criticism-compliment)
2. Extreme Family Centeredness
- Very strong family protection whether it is in good or bad condition and situation (consentidor)
(overprotective)
3. Lack of Discipline:
- Very relaxed attitude but POOR Time Management (the famous Filipino Time – “always late”)
- Impatient and unable to delay gratification or reward
- Love to take short-cuts or 'palusot' system
- Carelessness
4. Passivity and Lack of Initiative : Strong reliance to others fate (Makapag-Asawa ng
Mayaman - or Manalo sa Lotto) (Mayaman-Mapera-Abroad naman si Mommy and Daddy/Lola
and Lolo or Tito or Tita or Pinsan or Ninong etc.)
- Yeah the famous PINOY PRIDE. It is all because of the race (nationality/blood) not by
person's attitude, hard-work, dream, and perseverance etc.
- Claiming someone achievement even they are not representing the same flag just because of
ethnicity.
- Very complacent (relax) but their rarely is a sense of urgency (It's OK we have 1 day left to
finish, just relax)
- Strong personality but Lack of Self-Confidence and strong determination to achieve goals
- Good at start but NO Sense of Continuity (sometimes no direction at all or no plan at all)
- Too patient without any plan or action (matiisin) "Bahala na System" - No matter what, at least
we tried (paconsuelo).
- Doubt and Debate or Argument or Objection first than to study, discuss until planning and
action
5. Colonial Mentality : Patriotism vs Active awareness - (mas maganda and magaling kasi ang
ibang bansa)
- To much appreciation to other nationality and foreign products than native one (local vs
imported)
- Lack of LOVE and Appreciation on what they have
- Open outside but Side-open or Close inside (it's OK and Best to RECEIVED more than to
Share)
6. Kanya-kanya Syndrome : Self-serving attitude that generates feeling of envy and
competitiveness towards others (status vs prestige).
- Personal ambition but insensitive to common good (people & own country)
- Crab mentality (Hilahan and Inggitan System)
- Lack of appreciation resulting unhealthy competition
7. Lack of Self Analysis and Reflection
- Superficial and flighty or dreamy

THE MANY FACES OF THE FILIPINO

Many of our strong points are also the sources of our weakness.

As a people, we are person-oriented, and relationships with others are a very important part of
our lives. Thus, we are capable of much caring and concern for others. On the other hand, in
the extreme our person orientation leads to lack of objectivity and a disregard for universal rules
and procedures so that everyone, regardless of our relationship with them, is treated equally.
Our person orientation leads us to be concerned for people, and yet unfair to some.

Our family orientation is both a strength and a weakness, giving us a sense of rootedness and
security, both very essential to any form of reaching out to others. At the same time, it develops
in us an in-group orientation that prevents us from reaching out beyond the family to the larger
community and the nation.

Our flexibility, adaptability and creativity is a strength that allows us to adjust to any set of
circumstances and to make the best of the situation. But this ability to "play things by ear" leads
us to compromise on the precision and discipline necessary to accomplish many work-oriented
goals.

Our sense of joy and humor serves us well in difficult times. it makes life more pleasant, but
serious problems do need serious analysis, and humor can also be destructive.

Our faith in God and our religiosity are sources of strength and courage, but they also lead to an
external orientation that keeps us passive and dependent on forces outside ourselves.

There are other contradictions in the many faces of the Filipino. We find pakikipagkapwa-
tao and the kanya-kanya mentality living comfortably together in us. We are other-oriented and
capable of great empathy; and yet we are self-serving, envious of others, and unconstructively
critical of one another.

We also find the Filipino described alternately as hardworking and lazy. Indeed we see that we
are capable of working long and hard at any job. However, our casual work ethic as well as our
basic passivity in the work setting also is apparent as we wait for orders and instructions rather
than taking the initiative.

ROOTS OF THE FILIPINO CHARACTER

The strengths and weaknesses of the Filipino have their roots in many factors such as:
(1) the home environment,
(2) the social environment,
(3) culture and language,
(4) history,
(5) the educational system,
(6) religion,
(7) the economic environment,
(8) the political environment,
(9) mass media, and
(10) leadership and role models.

For detailed explanation of the ideas above, please read the whole article by Patricia B.
Licuanan
 4.
A Moral Recovery Program: Building a People--Building a Nation
Patricia Licuanan

The events at EDSA in February 1986 not only ousted a dictator, but also demonstrated to the
world and to ourselves our great strengths as a people. At EDSA we saw courage, determination
and strength of purpose; we saw unity and concern for one another; we saw deep faith in God; and
even in the grimmest moments, there was some laughter and humor.
We were proud of ourselves at EDSA and we expected great changes after our moment of
glory. Today, sometime after, we realize that most of our problems as a nation still remain. We
may have ousted a dictator, but that was the easy part. The task of building a nation is so much
more difficult. Now, with EDSA only an inspiring memory, we are faced with our weaknesses.
Self-interest and disregard for the common good rears its ugly head. We are confronted with our
lack of discipline and rigor, our colonial mentality, and our emphasis on porma (form). Despite
our great display of people's power, now we are passive once more, expecting our leaders to take
all responsibility for solving our many problems.
The task of building our nation is an awesome one. There is need for economic recovery.
There is need to re-establish democratic institutions and to achieve the goals of peace and genuine
social justice. Along with these goals, there is a need as well to build ourselves as a people. There
is need to change structures and to change people.
Building a people means eliminating our weaknesses and developing our strengths; this starts
with the analysis, understanding, and appreciation of these strengths and weaknesses. We must
take a good look at ourselves--objectively with scientific detachment, but also emotionally (i.e.,
lovingly) and, when appropriate, with disgust. We must view ourselves as might a lover viewing
a loved one but also as might a judge capable of a harsh verdict. We must not be self-flagellating,
but neither can we afford to be defensive.
We must change, and for this understanding ourselves is the first step.

Strengths of the Filipino Character

Pakikipagkapwa-Tao (regard for others). Filipinos are open to others and feel one with others.
We regard others with dignity and respect, and deal with them as fellow human beings.
Pakikipagkapwa-tao is manifested in a basic sense of justice and fairness, and in concern for
others. It is demonstrated in the Filipino's ability to empathize with others, in helpfulness and
generosity in times of need (pakikiramay), in the practice of bayanihan or mutual assistance, and
in the famous Filipino hospitality.
Filipinos possess a sensitivity to people's feelings or pakikiramdam, pagtitiwala or trust, and
a sense of gratitude or utang-na-loob. Because of pakikipagkapwa-tao, Filipinos are very sensitive
to the quality of interpersonal relationships and are very dependent on them: if our relationships
are satisfactory, we are happy and secure.
Pakikipagkapwa-tao results in camaraderie and a feeling of closeness one to another. It helps
promote unity as well a sense of social justice.
Family Orientation. Filipinos possess a genuine and deep love for the family, which includes
not simply the spouses and children, parents, and siblings, but also grandparents, aunts, uncles,
cousins, godparents, and other ceremonial relatives. To the Filipino, one's family is the source of
personal identity, the source of emotional and material support, and the person's main commitment
and responsibility.
Concern for family is manifested in the honor and respect given to parents and elders, in the
care given to children, the generosity towards kin in need, and in the great sacrifices one endures
for the welfare of the family. This sense of family results in a feeling of belonging or rootedness
and in a basic sense of security.

Joy and Humor. Filipinos have a cheerful and fun-loving approach to life and its ups and
downs. There is a pleasant disposition, a sense of humor, and a propensity for happiness that
contribute not only to the Filipino charm, but to the indomitability of the filipino spirit. Laughing
at ourselves and our trouble is an important coping mechanism. Often playful, sometimes cynical,
sometimes disrespectful, we laugh at those we love and at those we hate, and make jokes about
our fortune, good and bad.
This sense of joy and humor is manifested in the Filipino love for socials and celebrations, in
our capacity to laugh even in the most trying of times, and in the appeal of political satire.
The result is a certain emotional balance and optimism, a healthy disrespect for power and
office, and a capacity to survive.

Flexibility, Adaptability and Creativity. Filipinos have a great capacity to adjust, and to adapt
to circumstances and to the surrounding environment, both physical and social. Unplanned or
unanticipated events are never overly disturbing or disorienting as the flexible Filipino adjusts to
whatever happens. We possess a tolerance for ambiguity that enables us to remain unfazed by
uncertainty or lack of information. We are creative, resourceful, adept at learning, and able to
improvise and make use of whatever is at hand in order to create and produce.
This quality of the Filipino is manifested in the ability to adapt to life in any part of the world;
in the ability to make new things out of scrap and to keep old machines running; and, of course, in
the creative talent manifested in the cultural sphere. It is seen likewise in the ability to accept
change.
The result is productivity, innovation, entrepreneurship, equanimity, and survival.

Hard work and Industry. Filipinos have the capacity for hard work, given proper conditions.
The desire to raise one's standard of living and to possess the essentials of a decent life for one's
family, combined with the right opportunities and incentives, stimulate the Filipino to work very
hard. This is manifested most noticeably in a willingness to take risks with jobs abroad, and to
work there at two or three jobs. The result is productivity and entrepreneurship for some, and
survival despite poverty for others.

Faith and Religiosity. Filipinos have a deep faith in God. Innate religiosity enables us to
comprehend and genuinely accept reality in the context of God's will and plan. Thus, tragedy and
bad fortune are accepted and some optimism characterizes even the poorest lives.
Filipinos live very intimately with religion; this is tangible--a part of everyday life. We ascribe
human traits to a supernatural God whom we alternately threaten and thank, call upon for mercy
or forgiveness, and appease by pledges. Prayer is an important part of our lives.
The faith of the Filipino is related to bahala na, which, instead of being viewed as defeatist
resignation, may be considered positively as a reservoir of psychic energy, an important
psychological support on which we can lean during difficult times. Thispampalakas ng loob allows
us to act despite uncertainty.
Our faith and daring was manifest at EDSA and at other times in our history when it was
difficult to be brave. It is seen also in the capacity to accept failure and defeat without our self-
concept being devastated since we recognize forces external to ourselves as contributing to the
unfolding of events in our lives.
The results of the Filipino's faith are courage, daring, optimism, inner peace, as well as the
capacity to genuinely accept tragedy and death.

Ability to Survive. Filipinos have an ability to survive which is manifested in our capacity for
endurance despite difficult times, and in our ability to get by on so little. Filipinos make do with
what is available in the environment, even, e.g., by eking out a living from a garbage dump. This
survival instinct is related to the Filipinos who bravely carry on through the harshest economic and
social circumstances. Regretfully, one wonders what we might be able to do under better
circumstances.

Weaknesses of the Filipino Character

Extreme Personalism. Filipinos view the world in terms of personal relationships and the
extent to which one is able personally to relate to things and people determines our recognition of
their existence and the value. There is no separation between an objective task and emotional
involvement. This personalism is manifested in the tendency to give personal interpretations to
actions, i.e., to "take things personally." Thus, a sincere question may be viewed as a challenge to
one's competence or positive feedback may be interpreted as a sign of special affection. There is,
in fact, some basis for such interpretations as Filipinos become personal in their criticism and
praise. Personalism is also manifested in the need to establish personal relationships before any
business or work relationship can be successful.
Because of this personalistic world view, Filipinos have difficulty dealing with all forms of
impersonal stimuli. For this reason one is uncomfortable with bureaucracy, with rules and
regulations, and with standard procedures--all of which tend to be impersonal. We ignore them or
we ask for exceptions.
Personal contacts are involved in any transaction and are difficult to turn down. Preference is
usually given to family and friends in hiring, delivery of services, and even in voting. Extreme
personalism thus leads to the graft and corruption evident in Philippine society.

Extreme Family-Centeredness. While concern for the family is one of the Filipino's greatest
strengths, in the extreme it becomes a serious flaw. Excessive concern for the family creates an in-
group to which the Filipino is fiercely loyal, to the detriment of concern for the larger community
or the common good.
Excessive concern for family manifests itself in the use of one's office and power as a means
of promoting the interests of the family, in factionalism, patronage, and political dynasties, and in
the protection of erring family members. It results in lack of concern for the common good and
acts as a block to national consciousness.

Lack of Discipline. The Filipino's lack of discipline encompasses several related

characteristics. We have a casual and relaxed attitude towards time and space which manifests
itself in lack of precision and compulsiveness, in poor time management and in procrastination.
We have an aversion to following strictly a set of procedures, which results in lack of
standardization and quality control. We are impatient and unable to delay gratification or reward,
resulting in the use of short cuts, skirting the rules (thepalusot syndrome) and in foolhardiness. We
are guilty of ningas cogon, starting out projects with full vigor and interest which abruptly die
down, leaving things unfinished.
Our lack of discipline often results in inefficient and wasteful work systems, the violation of
rules leading to more serious transgressions, and a casual work ethic leading to carelessness and
lack of follow-through.

Passivity and Lack of Initiative. Filipinos are generally passive and lacking in initiative. One
waits to be told what has to be done. There is a strong reliance on others, e.g., leaders and
government, to do things for us. This is related to the attitude towards authority. Filipinos have a
need for a strong authority figure and feel safer and more secure in the presence of such an
authority. One is generally submissive to those in authority, and is not likely to raise issues or to
question decisions.
Filipinos tend to be complacent and there rarely is a sense of urgency about any problem.
There is a high tolerance for inefficiency, poor service, and even violations of one's basic rights.
In many ways, it can be said that the Filipino is too patient and long-suffering (matiisin), too easily
resigned to one's fate. Filipinos are thus easily oppressed and exploited.

Colonial Mentality. Filipinos have a colonial mentality which is made up of two dimensions:
the first is a lack of patriotism or an active awareness, appreciation, and love of the Philippines;
the second is an actual preference for things foreign.
Filipino culture is characterized by an openness to the outside--adapting and incorporating the
foreign elements into our image of ourselves. Yet this image is not built around a deep core of
Philippine history and language. The result is a cultural vagueness or weakness that makes
Filipinos extraordinarily susceptible to the wholesome acceptance of modern mass culture which
is often Western. Thus, there is preference for foreign fashion, entertainment, lifestyles,
technology, consumer items, etc.
The Filipino colonial mentality is manifested in the alienation of the elite from their roots and
from the masses, as well as in the basic feeling of national inferiority that makes it difficult for
Filipinos to relate as equals to Westerners.

Kanya-Kanya Syndrome. Filipinos have a selfish, self-serving attitude that generates a feeling
of envy and competitiveness towards others, particularly one's peers, who seem to have gained
some status or prestige. Towards them, the Filipino demonstrated the so-called "crab mentality",
using the levelling instruments of tsismis, intriga and unconstructive criticism to bring others
down. There seems to be a basic assumption that another's gain is our loss.
The kanya-kanya syndrome is also evident in personal ambition and drive for power and status
that is completely insensitive to the common good. Personal and in-group interests reign supreme.
This characteristic is also evident in the lack of a sense of service among people in the government
bureaucracy. The public is made to feel that service from these offices and from these civil servants
is an extra perk that has to be paid for.
The kanya-kanya syndrome results in the dampening of cooperative and community spirit and
in the denial of the rights of others.
 Lack of Self-Analysis and Self-Reflection. There is a tendency in the Filipino to be superficial
and even somewhat flighty. In the face of serious problems both personal and social, there is lack
of analysis or reflection. Joking about the most serious matters prevents us from looking deeply
into the problem. There is no felt need to validate our hypotheses or explanations of things. Thus
we are satisfied with superficial explanations for, and superficial solutions to, problems.
Related to this is the Filipino emphasis on form (maporma) rather than upon substance. There
is a tendency to be satisfied with rhetoric and to substitute this for reality. Empty rhetoric and
endless words are very much part of public life. As long as the right things are said, as long as the
proper documents and reports exist, and as long as the proper committees, task forces, or offices
are formed, Filipinos are deluded into believing that what ought to be actually exists.
The Filipino lack of self-analysis and our emphasis upon form is reinforced by an educational
system that is often more form than substance and a legal system that tends to substitute law for
reality.

The Many Faces of the Filipino

From this discussion of the strengths and weaknesses of the Filipino, it is clear that there is
much that is good here, but there is also much that needs to be changed. Many of our strong points
are also the sources of our weakness.
As a people, we are person-oriented, and relationships with others are a very important part
of our lives. Thus, we are capable of much caring and concern for others. On the other hand, in the
extreme our person orientation leads to lack of objectivity and a disregard for universal rules and
procedures so that everyone, regardless of our relationship with them, is treated equally. Our
person orientation leads us to be concerned for people, and yet unfair to some.
Our family orientation is both a strength and a weakness, giving us a sense of rootedness and
security, both very essential to any form of reaching out to others. At the same time, it develops in
us an in-group orientation that prevents us from reaching out beyond the family to the larger
community and the nation.
Our flexibility, adaptability and creativity is a strength that allows us to adjust to any set of
circumstances and to make the best of the situation. But this ability to "play things by ear" leads
us to compromise on the precision and discipline necessary to accomplish many work-oriented
goals.
Our sense of joy and humor serves us well in difficult times. it makes life more pleasant, but
serious problems do need serious analysis, and humor can also be destructive.
Our faith in God and our religiosity are sources of strength and courage, but they also lead to
an external orientation that keeps us passive and dependent on forces outside ourselves.
There are other contradictions in the many faces of the Filipino. We find pakikipagkapwa-
tao and the kanya-kanya mentality living comfortably together in us. We are other-oriented and
capable of great empathy; and yet we are self-serving, envious of others, and unconstructively
critical of one another.
We also find the Filipino described alternately as hardworking and lazy. Indeed we see that
we are capable of working long and hard at any job. However, our casual work ethic as well as our
basic passivity in the work setting also is apparent as we wait for orders and instructions rather
than taking the initiative.
Roots of the Filipino Character

The strengths and weaknesses of the Filipino have their roots in many factors such as: (1) the
home environment, (2) the social environment, (3) culture and language, (4) history, (5) the
educational system, (6) religion, (7) the economic environment, (8) the political environment, (9)
mass media, and (10) leadership and role models.

The Family and Home Environment. Childbearing practices, family relations, and family
attitudes and orientation are the main components of the home environment. Childbearing in the
Filipino family is characterized by high nurturance, low independence training, and low discipline.
The Filipino child grows up in an atmosphere of affection and over protection, where one learns
security and trust, on the one hand, and dependence, on the other. In the indulgent atmosphere of
the Filipino home, rigid standards of behavior or performance are not imposed, leading to a lack
of discipline. Attempts to maintain discipline come in the form of many "no's" and "don'ts" and a
system of criticism to keep children in line. Subtle comparisons among siblings also are used by
mothers to control their children. These may contribute to the "crab mentality."
In a large family where we are encouraged to get along with our siblings and other relatives,
we learn pakikipagkapwa-tao. In an authoritarian setting we learn respect for age and authority; at
the same time we become passive and dependent on authority.
In the family, children are taught to value family and to give it primary importance.

The Social Environment. The main components of the social environment are social structures
and social systems such as interpersonal religious and community interaction. The social
environment of the Filipino is characterized by a feudal structure with great gaps between the rich
minority and the poor majority. These gaps are not merely economic but cultural as well, with the
elite being highly westernized and alienated from the masses. This feudal structure develops
dependence and passivity.
The Filipino is raised in an environment where one must depend on relationships with others
in order to survive. In a poor country where resources are scarce and where the systems meant to
respond to people's needs can be insensitive, inefficient, or non-existent, the Filipino becomes very
dependent on kinship and interpersonal relationships.
Sensitivity about hurting established relationships controls our behavior. We are restrained
from making criticisms no matter how constructive, so standards of quality are not imposed. We
have difficulty saying no to requests and are pressured to favor our family and friends. That trying
to get ahead of others is not considered acceptable exerts a strong brake upon efforts to improve
our individual performance. The struggle for survival and our dependence on relationships make
us in-group oriented.

Culture and Language. Much has been written about Filipino cultural values. Such
characteristics such as warmth and person orientation, devotion to family, and sense of joy and
humor are part of our culture and are reinforced by all socializing forces such as the family, school,
and peer group.
Filipino culture rewards such traits and corresponding behavioral patterns develop because
they make one more likable and enable life to proceed more easily.
Aside from emphasizing interpersonal values, Filipino culture is also characterized by an
openness to the outside which easily incorporates foreign elements without a basic consciousness
of our cultural core. This is related to our colonial mentality and to the use of English as the
medium of instruction in schools.
The introduction of English as the medium of education de-Filipinized the youth and taught
them to regard American culture as superior. The use of English contributes also to a lack of self-
confidence on the part of the Filipino. The fact that doing well means using a foreign language,
which foreigners inevitably can handle better, leads to an inferiority complex. At a very early age,
we find that our self-esteem depends on the mastery of something foreign.
The use of a foreign language may also explain the Filipino's unreflectiveness and mental
laziness. Thinking in our native language, but expressing ourselves in English, results not only in
a lack of confidence, but also in a lack in our power of expression, imprecision, and a stunted
development of one's intellectual powers.

History. We are the product of our colonial history, which is regarded by many as the culprit
behind our lack of nationalism and our colonial mentality. Colonialism developed a mind-set in
the Filipino which encouraged us to think of the colonial power as superior and more powerful.
As a second-class citizen beneath the Spanish and then the Americans, we developed a dependence
on foreign powers that makes us believe we are not responsible for our country's fate.
The American influence is more ingrained in the Philippines because the Americans set up a
public school system where we learned English and the American way of life. Present-day media
reinforce these colonial influences, and the Filipino elite sets the example by their western ways.
Another vestige of our colonial past is our basic attitude towards the government, which we
have learned to identify as foreign and apart from us. Thus, we do not identify with government
and are distrustful and uncooperative towards it. Much time and energy is spent trying to outsmart
the government, which we have learned from our colonial past to regard as an enemy.

The Educational System. Aside from the problems inherent in the use of a foreign language in
our educational system, the educational system leads to other problems for us as a people. The lack
of suitable local textbooks and dependence on foreign textbooks, particularly in the higher school
levels, force Filipino students as well as their teachers to use school materials that are irrelevant to
the Philippine setting. From this comes a mind-set that things learned in school are not related to
real life.
Aside from the influences of the formal curriculum, there are the influences of the "hidden
curriculum" i.e., the values taught informally by the Philippine school system. Schools are highly
authoritarian, with the teacher as the central focus. The Filipino student is taught to be dependent
on the teacher as we attempt to record verbatim what the teacher says and to give this back during
examinations in its original form and with little processing. Teachers reward well-behaved and
obedient students and are uncomfortable with those who ask questions and express a different
viewpoint. The Filipino student learns passivity and conformity. Critical thinking is not learned in
the school.

Religion. Religion is the root of Filipino optimism and its capacity to accept life's hardships.
However, religion also instills in the Filipino attitudes of resignation and a pre-occupation with
the afterlife. We become vulnerable also to being victimized by opportunism, oppression,
exploitation, and superstition.
 The Economic Environment. Many Filipino traits are rooted in the poverty and hard life that
is the lot of most Filipinos. Our difficulties drive us to take risks, impel us to work very hard, and
develop in us the ability to survive. Poverty, however, has also become an excuse for graft and
corruption, particularly among the lower rungs of the bureaucracy. Unless things get too difficult,
passivity sets in.

The Political Environment. The Philippine political environment is characterized by a

centralization of power. Political power and authority is concentrated in the hands of the elite and
the participation of most Filipinos often is limited to voting in elections.
Similarly, basic services from the government are concentrated in Manila and its outlying
towns and provinces. A great majority of Filipinos are not reached by such basic services as water,
electricity, roads, and health services. Government structures and systems--e.g., justice and
education--are often ineffective or inefficient.
Since the government often is not there to offer basic services, we depend on our family, kin,
and neighbors for our everyday needs. The absence of government enhances our extreme family-
and even community-centeredness. We find it difficult to identify with a nation-family, since the
government is not there to symbolize or represent the state.
The fact that political power is still very much concentrated in the hands of a few may lead to
passivity. The inefficiency of government structures and systems also leads to a lack of integrity
and accountability in our public servants.

Mass Media. Mass media reinforces our colonial mentality. Advertisements using Caucasian
models and emphasizing a product's similarity with imported brands are part of our daily lives.
The tendency of media to produce escapist movies, soap operas, comics, etc., feed th Filipino's
passivity. Rather than confront our poverty and oppression, we fantasize instead. The propensity
to use flashy sets, designer clothes, superstars, and other bonggafeatures reinforce porma.

Leadership and Role Models. Filipinos look up to their leaders as role models. Political leaders
are the main models, but all other leaders serve as role models as well. Thus, when our leaders
violate the law or show themselves to be self-serving and driven by personal interest--when there
is lack of public accountability--there is a negative impact on the Filipino.

Goals and Strategies for Change

Goals. Based on the strengths and weaknesses of the Filipino, the following goals for change
are proposed. The Filipino should develop:

1. a sense of patriotism and national pride--a genuine love, appreciation, and commitment to
the Philippines and things Filipino;
2. a sense of the common good--the ability to look beyond selfish interests, a sense of justice
and a sense of outrage at its violation;
3. a sense of integrity and accountability--an aversion toward graft and corruption in society
and an avoidance of the practice in one's daily life;
4. the value and habits of discipline and hard work; and
5. the value and habits of self-reflection and analysis, the internalization of spiritual values,
and an emphasis upon essence rather than on form.
Kohlberg's Stages of Moral Development
simplypsychology.org/kohlberg.html

Saul McLeod, updated 2013

Lawrence Kohlberg (1958) agreed with Piaget's (1932) theory of moral development in
principle but wanted to develop his ideas further.

He used Piaget’s storytelling technique to tell people stories involving moral dilemmas. In
each case, he presented a choice to be considered, for example, between the rights of
some authority and the needs of some deserving individual who is being unfairly treated.

One of the best known of Kohlberg’s (1958) stories concerns a man called Heinz who lived
somewhere in Europe.

Heinz’s wife was dying from a particular type of cancer. Doctors said a new drug might save
her. The drug had been discovered by a local chemist, and the Heinz tried desperately to buy
some, but the chemist was charging ten times the money it cost to make the drug, and this was
much more than the Heinz could afford.

Heinz could only raise half the money, even after help from family and friends. He explained
to the chemist that his wife was dying and asked if he could have the drug cheaper or pay the
rest of the money later.

The chemist refused, saying that he had discovered the drug and was going to make money
from it. The husband was desperate to save his wife, so later that night he broke into the
chemist’s and stole the drug.

Kohlberg asked a series of questions such as:

1. Should Heinz have stolen the drug?

2. Would it change anything if Heinz did not love his wife?

3. What if the person dying was a stranger, would it make any difference?

4. Should the police arrest the chemist for murder if the woman died?

By studying the answers from children of different ages to these questions, Kohlberg hoped
to discover how moral reasoning changed as people grew older. The sample comprised 72
Chicago boys aged 10–16 years, 58 of whom were followed up at three-yearly intervals for
20 years (Kohlberg, 1984).

1/6
Each boy was given a 2-hour interview based on the ten dilemmas. What Kohlberg was
mainly interested in was not whether the boys judged the action right or wrong, but the
reasons given for the decision. He found that these reasons tended to change as the
children got older.

He identified three distinct levels of moral reasoning each with two sub-stages. People can
only pass through these levels in the order listed. Each new stage replaces the reasoning
typical of the earlier stage. Not everyone achieves all the stages.

Level 1 - Pre-conventional morality

At the pre-conventional level (most nine-year-olds and younger, some over nine), we don’t
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.

Authority is outside the individual and reasoning is based on the physical consequences of
actions.

• Stage 1. Obedience and Punishment Orientation. The child/individual is good in order

to avoid being punished. If a person is punished, they must have done wrong.

• Stage 2. Individualism and Exchange. At this stage, children recognize that there is not
just one right view that is handed down by the authorities. Different individuals have
different viewpoints.

Level 2 - Conventional morality

At the conventional level (most adolescents and adults), we begin to internalize the moral
standards of valued adult role models.

Authority is internalized but not questioned, and reasoning is based on the norms of the
group to which the person belongs.

• Stage 3. Good Interpersonal Relationships. The child/individual is good in order to be

seen as being a good person by others. Therefore, answers relate to the approval of
others.

• Stage 4. Maintaining the Social Order. The child/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.

Level 3 - Post-conventional morality

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 10-15% are capable of the kind of abstract thinking necessary for stage 5 or 6 (post-
conventional morality). That is to say, most people take their moral views from those
2/6
around them and only a minority think through ethical principles for themselves.

• Stage 5. Social Contract and Individual Rights. The child/individual becomes aware
that while rules/laws might exist for the good of the greatest number, there are times when
they will work against the interest of particular individuals.

The issues are not always clear-cut. For example, in Heinz’s dilemma, the protection of life
is more important than breaking the law against stealing.

• Stage 6. Universal Principles. 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.

E.g., human rights, justice, and equality. The person will be prepared to act to defend these
principles even if it means going against the rest of society in the process and having to
pay the consequences of disapproval and or imprisonment. Kohlberg doubted few people
reached this stage.

Problems with Kohlberg's Methods

1. The dilemmas are artificial (i.e., they lack ecological validity)

Most of the dilemmas are unfamiliar to most people (Rosen, 1980). For example, it is all
very well in the Heinz dilemma asking subjects whether Heinz should steal the drug to save
his wife.

However, Kohlberg’s subjects were aged between 10 and 16. They have never been
married, and never been placed in a situation remotely like the one in the story. How should
they know whether Heinz should steal the drug?

2. The sample is biased

According to Gilligan (1977), because Kohlberg’s theory was based on an all-male sample,
the stages reflect a male definition of morality (it’s androcentric). Mens' morality is based on
abstract principles of law and justice, while womens' is based on principles of compassion
and care.

Further, the gender bias issue raised by Gilligan is a reminded of the significant gender
debate still present in psychology, which when ignored, can have a large impact on the
results obtained through psychological research.

3. The dilemmas are hypothetical (i.e., they are not real)

In a real situation, what course of action a person takes will have real consequences – and
sometimes very unpleasant ones for themselves. Would subjects reason in the same way if
they were placed in a real situation? We just don’t know.

The fact that Kohlberg’s theory is heavily dependent on an individual’s response to an

artificial dilemma brings a question to the validity of the results obtained through this
research. People may respond very differently to real life situations that they find
themselves in than they do with an artificial dilemma presented to them in the comfort of a
3/6
research environment.

4. Poor research design

The way in which Kohlberg carried out his research when constructing this theory may not
have been the best way to test whether all children follow the same sequence of stage
progression. His research was cross-sectional, meaning that he interviewed children of
different ages to see what level of moral development they were at.

A better way to see if all children follow the same order through the stages would have
been to carry out longitudinal research on the same children.

However, longitudinal research on Kohlberg’s theory has since been carried out by Colby et
al. (1983) who tested 58 male participants of Kohlberg’s original study. She tested them six
times in the span of 27 years and found support for Kohlberg’s original conclusion, which
we all pass through the stages of moral development in the same order.

Problems with Kohlberg's Theory

1. Are there distinct stages of moral development?

Kohlberg claims that there are, but the evidence does not always support this conclusion.
For example, a person who justified a decision on the basis of principled reasoning in one
situation (post-conventional morality stage 5 or 6) would frequently fall back on
conventional reasoning (stage 3 or 4) with another story. In practice, it seems that
reasoning about right and wrong depends more upon the situation than upon general rules.

What is more, individuals do not always progress through the stages and Rest (1979) found
that one in fourteen actually slipped backward. The evidence for distinct stages of moral
development looks very weak, and some would argue that behind the theory is a culturally
biased belief in the superiority of American values over those of other cultures and
societies.

2. Does moral judgment match moral behavior?

Kohlberg never claimed that there would be a one to one correspondence between thinking
and acting (what we say and what we do) but he does suggest that the two are linked.
However, Bee (1994) suggests that we also need to take account of:

a) habits that people have developed over time.

b) whether people see situations as demanding their participation.

c) the costs and benefits of behaving in a particular way.

d) competing motive such as peer pressure, self-interest and so on.

Overall Bee points out that moral behavior is only partly a question of moral reasoning. It is
also to do with social factors.

4/6
3. Is justice the most fundamental moral principle?
This is Kohlberg’s view. However, Gilligan (1977) suggests that the principle of caring for
others is equally important. Furthermore, Kohlberg claims that the moral reasoning of
males has been often in advance of that of females.

Girls are often found to be at stage 3 in Kohlberg’s system (good boy-nice girl orientation)
whereas boys are more often found to be at stage 4 (Law and Order orientation). Gilligan
(p. 484) replies:

“The very traits that have traditionally defined the goodness of women, their care for and
sensitivity to the needs of others, are those that mark them out as deficient in moral
development”.

In other words, Gilligan is claiming that there is a sex bias in Kohlberg’s theory. He neglects
the feminine voice of compassion, love, and non-violence, which is associated with the
socialization of girls.

Gilligan concluded that Kohlberg’s theory did not account for the fact that women approach
moral problems from an ‘ethics of care’, rather than an ‘ethics of justice’ perspective, which
challenges some of the fundamental assumptions of Kohlberg’s theory.

References
Bee, H. L. (1994). Lifespan development. HarperCollins College Publishers.

Colby, A., Kohlberg, L., Gibbs, J., & Lieberman, M. (1983). A longitudinal study of moral
judgment. Monographs of the Society for Research in Child Development, 48 (1-2, Serial
No. 200). Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

Gilligan, C. (1977). In a different voice: Women's conceptions of self and of morality.

Harvard Educational Review, 47(4), 481-517.

Kohlberg, L. (1958). The Development of Modes of Thinking and Choices in Years 10 to

16. Ph. D. Dissertation, University of Chicago.

Kohlberg, L. (1984). The Psychology of Moral Development: The Nature and Validity of
Moral Stages (Essays on Moral Development, Volume 2). Harper & Row

Piaget, J. (1932). The moral judgment of the child. London: Kegan Paul, Trench, Trubner &
Co.

Rest, J. R. (1979). Development in judging moral issues. University of Minnesota Press.

Rosen, B. (1980). Moral dilemmas and their treatment. In, Moral development, moral
education, and Kohlberg. B. Munsey (Ed). (1980), pp. 232-263. Birmingham, Alabama:
Religious Education Press.

How to reference this article:

McLeod, S. A. (2013). Kohlberg. Retrieved from www.simplypsychology.org/kohlberg.html
5/6
6/6