Freedom and

Morality
Freedom and
Moral Acts
 Introduction
• In Kant philosophy, freedom is defined as a concept which is involved
in the moral domain, at the question: what should I do?
• In summary, Kant says that the moral law is only that I know myself as
a free person. Kantian freedom is closely linked to the notion of
autonomy, which means law itself: thus, freedom falls obedience to a
law that I created myself. It is therefore, respect its commitment to
compliance with oneself.
 Kant's Morality and
Freedom
• To act freely is to act autonomously. To act autonomously is to act
according to a law I give myself. Whenever I act according to the laws of
nature, demands of social convention, when I pursue pleasure and
comfort, I am not acting freely. To act freely is not to simply choose a
means to a given end. To act freely is to choose the end itself, for its own
sake.
• This is central to Kant's notion of freedom. For Kant, acting freely
(autonomously) and acting morally are one and the same thing.
• The capacity to act autonomously in this manner gives humans that
special dignity that things and animals do not have. Respecting this
dignity requires us to treat others not as means to an end, but as ends in
themselves.
• To arrive at a proper understanding of Kant's notion of moral law and the
connection between morality, freedom and reason, let's examine these
contrasts:
 Kant's Morality and
Freedom
1. Duty vs. Inclination (morality) — Only the motive of duty, acting
according to the law I give myself confers moral worth to an action. Any
other motive, while possibly commendable, cannot give an action moral
worth.
2. Autonomy vs. Heteronomy (freedom) - I am only free when my will is
determined autonomously, governed by the law I give myself. Being part
of nature, I am not exempt from its laws and I'm inclined or compelled to
act according to those laws. My capacity for reason opens another
possibility, that of acting according to laws other than the laws of nature:
the laws I give myself. This reason, "pure practical reason", legislates a
priori - regardless of all empirical ends.
3. Categorical vs. Hypothetical Imperatives (reason) — Kant
acknowledges two ways in which reason can command the will, two
imperatives. Hypothetical Imperative uses instrumental reason: If I want
X, I must do Y. (If I want to stay out of jail, I must be a good citizen and
not rob banks). Hypothetical imperative is always conditional.
 What is Categorical
Imperative?
This question can be answered from the idea of a law that binds us as rational
beings regardless of any particular ends.

Here are two main formulations of the Categorical Imperative:

1. Act only on that maxim whereby you can at the same time will that it
should become a universal law. "Maxim" is a rule, a principle that gives
reason to action. This is a "universalizing test" that checks whether my action
puts my interests and circumstances ahead of everyone else's. My action will
fail the test if it results in a contradiction.
Example: I want a loan, but I know I won't have money to repay it. I'm
considering making a promise I know I can't keep. Can I make this a
universal law, the law that says "every time one needs a loan and has no
money to repay it, one should make a false promise"? Imagine everyone then
acting according to this maxim. We quickly realize that this would result in
negating the whole institution of promise-keeping. We arrive at a
contradiction.
 What is Categorical
Imperative?
2. "Act in such a way that you always treat humanity, whether in your own
person or in the person of any other, never simply as a means, but always at
the same time as an end."

For Kant, human existence has in itself an absolute value - it is an end in

itself and the only ground of a possible categorical imperative.
 The Role of Freedom
in Morality
• The personal aspect of morality which might more properly be called
ethics— is about the cultivation of virtue: the development of character
traits so that choosing the good becomes a matter of habit. But a person, in
order to be truly virtuous, must be free to cultivate the virtues, or not.
• The interpersonal aspect of morality is more about rule following. These
rules are important because, they prevent us from "colliding" with each
other. They permit us to live together in harmony, and they also make us
recognize, apart from the mere consequences to ourselves, the rights of
others. Here too, liberty is essential.
• Having a final end does not obviate the need for liberty. Freedom remains
essential. Freedom is so precious that God will not override it, even when
we badly misuse that freedom. In other words, we can't get where we're
going if we're not free to walk the road. Thus, freedom is essential to a
genuinely good human life at all the levels of morality.
 Freedom: The
Foundation of Moral Act
• Freedom is humans' greatest quality and it is a reflection of our creator.
Freedom is the power rooted in reason and will, to act or not to act, to do
this or that and so to perform deliberate actions on one's own
responsibility. Having freedom means having responsibility. Every action
you choose further determines our character.
• Are animals free? Do they have freedom? What separates human from
animals? Reason (Intellect) and will (moral action). Freedom is a power
rooted in reason and will, to act or not to act. Good and evil are forged in
freedom. To the degree that a person reaches higher level of freedom, he
becomes capable of higher levels of morality. The sinful person becomes
slave.
• The existence of freedom is a central premise in Catholic morality. Our
secular culture greatly exalts freedom. Yet it also questions whether
freedom really exists.
 Freedom and Free
Will
• While the existence of freedom is a central premise in Catholic morality,
we are not all equally free.
• There are many possible limits to our freedom: both external and internal.
• External freedom is a freedom from factors outside ourselves that limit or
destroy our free will. Internal freedom is a freedom from interior factors
that limit our free will.
 Requirement of True
Freedom
• True freedom is dependent upon truth, "You will know the truth, and the
truth will set you free" (John 8:32). Example, lying to a teacher or to
friends.
• True freedom is oriented toward the good. We should not understand
freedom as the possibility of doing evil.
• Evil enslaves us and diminishes our ability to be free.
• True freedom requires responsibility. There is no such thing as
irresponsible freedom.
 Human Acts vs Acts
of Humans
• Human acts make use of his knowledge and free will. Example: love your
enemy, pray to God, sacrifice for others.
• Acts of human do not make use of his intellect or will knowledge. His
action is natural. Examples of acts of human are breathing, blinking, and
sneezing.
• True freedom liberates us to develop our God-given talents in a
responsible way so we can live our lives for others and for God. True
freedom serves what is good, just and true.
• Man is created by God as a human Person who can begin and control own
actions. He is meant to seek God and gain perfection by clinging to him.
• Until man attains God, he can choose to do good or evil, to grow in
perfection or to sin. Because human acts are free, they are worthy of praise
or blame. By constantly doing good, man grows in freedom. Doing evil
leads man into a "slavery of sin" (Rom 6:17).
 Human Acts vs Acts
of Humans
• A person is responsible for his voluntary acts. By progress in virtue, in
knowledge of good, and in self-discipline, he gains greater mastery. Man's
responsibility and imputability can be lessened or nullified by ignorance,
fear, habits, or inordinate attachments or other factors.
• A person is not responsible for an evil act if he did not will it and did not
intend it as a means to an end. For example, a person might incur death
while trying to help another. A person is responsible if they could have
avoided the evil as a drunk driver killing someone.
• Every human person must recognize the right of freedom in others.
Exercising freedom, especially in moral or religious matters, is an
inalienable right of the human person. This must be pF0tected by civil
authorities within the limits of public order.
 Human Acts vs Acts
of Humans
• A good intention can never turn an evil act into a good one. A good purpose
cannot justify evil means. However, an evil intention can make a good act
into an evil one, such as giving alms to gain praise.
• Only the act and the intention make an act good or bad. The circumstances
can increase or diminish the goodness or evil. For example, stealing a large
amount of money increases the evil, while fear of harm can lessen a person's
responsibility. Circumstances can never make an evil act into a good one.
• An act is good when the object, the intention, and the circumstances are all
good. A good act is vitiated by an evil intention like praying in order to be
seen as good.
• Some acts are evil in themselves as fornication and are always wrong to
choose. Therefore, the person's intention and the circumstances, such as
pressure or duress, cannot change a morally evil act, such as murder;
blasphemy, or adultery, into a morally good act. We cannot do evil so good
will come from it.
Culture and
Morality
 Introduction
• In a review essay on morality and culture, Mary Douglas pointed out that
there exists little communication between anthropologists writing on
morals and the (Western) moral philosophers. Anthropological findings
enter the ethical discussions as “exotic examples." She expects this
situation to last for quite some time.
• Two conversations are running parallel: one the philosophers', about the
rational foundation of ethics, another the anthropologists', about the
interaction between moral ideas and social institutions. The conversations,
as they are set at the present time, seems will never converge.
 Introduction
• Anthropologists are confident that they are speaking about the role of
culture in human life and societies.
• Moral philosophers are sure that they are discussing moral issues. So far
so good. But the problem begins when anthropologists turn to the
investigation of the morality of a culture and when philosophers try to
account for the role of culture in the formation of morality.
• The central difficulty has to do with the way the relation between morality
and culture is perceived.
• In fact, the problem is more fundamental than Douglas assumes.
According to her, it is possible to reduce the gap between anthropologists
and philosophers if the latter were to give up some of their (culturally
determined) views on morality. True, but this is not the whole story. The
anthropologists have difficulties too while accounting for the morality that
philosophers speak about.
 What is Culture?
• Culture is derived from the Latin word "cultura" or "cultus" which means
care or cultivation.
• Culture as cultivation implies that every human being is a potential
member of his own social group. He is endowed with certain innate
qualities to make use.
• However, he cannot develop these inborn talents without the other people.
He/she needs other people who can provide him/her with the needed
opportunities so he/she can translate these potentialities into realities
called achievements.
• These accomplishments not only help him achieve self-actualization but
also make him/her a contributing member of his society.
 What is Culture?
• Anthropologist Edward B. Tylor, an Englishman, developed one of the
classic definitions of culture. He said, "Culture is that complex whole
which includes knowledge, belief, law, art, moral, custom, and other
capabilities and habits acquired as a member of society."
• In other words, culture refers to the totality of the humanly created world,
from material culture and cultivated landscapes, via social institutions
(political, religious, economic etc.), to knowledge and meaning, something
that human has created and learned in a society.
• His theory defines culture in descriptive terms as the "complex whole"
that makes up social ideas and institutions.
 What is Culture?
• In Tylor's view, culture includes all aspects of human activity, from the
fine arts to popular entertainment, from everyday behavior to the
development of sophisticated technology. It contains the plan, rules,
techniques, designs and policies for living.
• On the other hand, sociologists defined culture as the entire way of life
followed by people, and everything learned and shared by people in
society. (Hunt, et. al, 1994).
• According to Landis (1992), culture is a complex set of learned and shared
beliefs, customs, skills, habits, traditions, and knowledge common to
members of society.
 The Influence of Culture
in Moral Development
• Culture has been with us since the dawn of human existence. Significant
as it is, a culture considerably shapes its members on how they live and
relate within themselves and with other cultures (Bretzke, 2004).
• Culture is a social environment in which a person is born and wherein he
or she lives together with other persons. Hence, culture has a great impact
in the development of the human person in varied ways; may it be in
physical, knowledge, thought, relationship, religious or moral
development.
• Moreover, culture is a person's social heritage that has been passed from
one generation to the next basically through the relationship that binds the
society together.
 The Influence of Culture
in Moral Development
• Therefore, culture functions to mold and establish a social identity that
brings people as well to the knowledge of common objectives which
members would try to achieve. Culture, indeed, provides norms, customs,
laws, and moral demands that are to be followed. So to speak, in general,
in a culture there is consistency and systematic patterns of behavior
(Palispis, 2007).
• In general, culture plays a vital role the development of the human person.
In every aspect of the human person, the cultural background can be very
visible. In particular, culture has an essential influence on the moral
development of the human person since morality is just one of the cultural
aspects.
 At this point let us particularize how
culture influences the moral development
of the people. The points below are the
following:
1. Culture is always social and communal by which the relationship of
the people towards one another and their experience as a people are
the culture's meadow. It is in this relationship and communal
experience that culture influences the moral development of its
members.
2. The culture defines the normative principles and behaviors of the
society. It defines which particular principle and behavior that should
be kept that would serve the best interest of the community. There
would be a definition on what are the principles and behaviors also
that should not be promoted or rejected. This kind of influence of
culture in moral development is best seen in terms of relational level.
 At this point let us particularize how
culture influences the moral development
of the people. The points below are the
following:
3. Moreover, a culture, as best exemplified in the experience of the people,
develops restrictions and sets boundaries and limitations as they jive and
relate with one another, These restrictions and boundaries serve as
projection among themselves, These would create an atmosphere of
promoting the welfare of the community.
4. As culture helps in generating the character and identity of its people, it also
includes their moral character. Culture conditions the mind the way people
think and the way they perceive the world and their relationship with one
another.
5. The culture identifies the authorities or the governing individuals or groups.
They are the symbol of guidance and control. In many cultures, men are
always regarded as the leaders who oversee the order of the community and
give guidance, which is true in patriarchal societies. Through their roles and
responsibilities in the community within the given culture, may it be
patriarchy, matriarchy or whatever; people submit themselves to their
authorities.
Dynamics of
Culture
 Introduction
• The cross-cultural relationship is the idea that people from different
cultures can have relationships that acknowledge, respect and begin to
understand each other's diverse lives.
• People with different backgrounds can help each other see possibilities
that they never thought were there because of limitations, or cultural
proscriptions posed by their own traditions. Traditional practices in certain
cultures can restrict opportunity because they are "wrong" according to
one specific culture. 
 Introduction
• The concept of cultural relativism as we know and use it today was
established as an analytic tool by German-American anthropologist Franz
Boas in the early 20th century.
• We recognize that the many cultures of the world have their own beliefs,
values, and practices that have developed in particular historical, political,
social, material, and ecological contexts and that it makes sense that they
would differ from our own and that none are necessarily right or wrong or
good or bad, then we are engaging the concept of cultural relativism.
 Cultural Relativism
• Cultural relativism is the ability to understand a culture on its own terms
and not to make judgments using the standards of one's own culture. The
goal of this is promote understanding of cultural practices that are not
typically part of one's own culture. 
• Cultural relativism is considered to be more constructive and positive
conception as compared to ethnocentrism. It permits to see an individual's
habits, values and morals in the context of his or her cultural relevance
not by comparing it to one's own cultural values and by deeming these the
most superior and greater of all.
• Cultural relativism is a method or procedure for explaining and
interpreting other people's culture. It offers anthropologists a means of
investigating other societies without imposing ethnocentric assumptions
(Scupin, 2000).
 Cultural Relativism
• Cultural relativism is widely accepted in modern anthropology. Cultural
relativists believe that all cultures are worthy in their own right and are of
equal value. Diversity of cultures, even those with conflicting moral
beliefs, is not to be considered in terms of right and wrong or good and
bad.
• Cultural relativism is closely related to ethical relativism, which views
truth as variable and not absolute. What constitutes right and wrong is
determined solely by the individual or by society. 
• Marriage practices of Muslims should not be judged based on the culture
of the Roman Catholics is one example. The celebration of fiesta in the
Philippines should not look into by other nation as too much religiosity.
 Advantages of
Cultural Relativism
1. It is a system which promotes cooperation.
2. It creates a society where equality is possible. 
3. People can pursue a genuine interest.
4. Respect is encouraged in a system of cultural relativism.
5. It preserves human cultures.
6. Cultural relativism creates a society without judgment. 
7. Moral relativism can be excluded from cultural relativism.
8. We can create personal moral codes based on societal standards with
ease. 
9. It stops cultural conditioning.
 Disadvantages of
Cultural Relativism
1. It creates a system that is fueled by personal bias.
2. It would create chaos.
3. It is an idea that is based on the perfection of humanity.
4. It could promote a lack of diversity.
5. It draws people away from one another.
6. It could limit moral progress. 
7. It could limit humanity's progress. 
8. Cultural relativism can turn perceptions into truth. 
The Filipino
Way
 Introduction
• Our culture is a big reflection of our great and complex history. It is
influenced by most of the people we have interacted with. A blend of
Malayo-Polynesian and Hispanic culture with the influence from Chinese,
Indians, Arabs, and other Asian cultures really contribute to the customs
and traditions of the Filipinos.
• Filipino is unique compared to the other Asian countries, and beliefs
applied every day in the life of the Filipinos reveal how rich and blesses
the culture the people have.
 The Filipino Customs
and Traditions
• When children or young people greet or say goodbye to their elders they
typically do so by taking the right hand of the elder with their right hand
and place the back the elder’s hand lightly on their forehead. It is a way of
giving respect to the elders and it is believed that is also a way of receiving
blessing to the elders. “Mano po” is the term used when kissing the hands
of elders.
• Mano is a Spanish word for “hand” while po is used at the end of the
sentence when addressing elders or superiors.
• The Filipinos are one of the most hospitable people you may find
anywhere.
 Unique Filipino Trait
• Having close family ties
• The Bayanihan
• Courtship
• Religion
• Superstition
• Marriage and Wedding Customs
• Death/Burial
• Society/Community
• Christmas in the Philippines
• Fiestas
• Living with parents
 Characteristics of
Filipino Culture
• The Filipino people are very resilient
• Filipinos take pride in their families
• Filipinos are very religious
• Filipinos are very respectful
• Filipinos help one another
• Filipinos value traditions and culture
• Filipinos have the longest Christmas celebrations
• Filipinos love art and architecture
• The Filipinos are hospitable people
 Filipino Family
Values
• The family is the center of the social structure and includes the nuclear
family, aunts, uncles, grandparents, cousins and honorary relations such as
godparents, sponsors and close family friends. People get strength and
stability from their family. As such, many children have several
godparents.
• The Filipino family consists of many traditional values that have been
treasured and passed on for many generations already. These values are
incredibly beneficial. Hereunder are the following traditional values:
 Traditional Filipino
Family Values
• Paggalang (Respect)
• Pakikisama (Helping Others)
• Utang na Loob (Debt of Gratitude)
• Pagpapahalaga sa Pamilya (Prioritizing Family)
• Hiya (Shame)
• Damayan System
• Compassionate
• Fun-loving Trait
 Social Values of the
Filipinos
• High regard for amor propio (self-esteem)
• Smooth interpersonal relationships
• Personal alliance system
• The Compadre system
• Utang-na-loob
• Suki Relationship
• Friendship
 Weaknesses of the
Filipino Character
• Passivity and lack of initiative
• Colonial mentality
• Kanya-kanya syndrome
• Extreme personalism
• Extreme family centeredness
• Lack of Discipline
• Lack of self analysis and reflection
• Ningas cogon
• Gaya-Gaya Attitude