Moral Relativism, Universalism/absolutism and the Teaching of the Church on Catholic Morality

Fr. Damianus Abun, SVD, MBA, PhD.

Divine Word College of Vigan, Divine Word College of Laoag

International Academy of management and Economics

 

Abstract: ethical relativism is the thesis that moral judgements are relative to the culture and individual preferences. It claims that there is no universal morality as pointed out by moral universalism/absolutism.  Moral universalism is the meta-ethical position that ethics or morality applies universally, that is for all similarly situated individuals, regardless of culture, race, sex, religion, nationality, sexuality or other distinguishing features. Catholic Church teaches that moral law is universal across people in varying cultures and in fact is rooted in natural human condition. All adult persons are capable of knowing the truth. John Paul II insisted that no matter how separated someone is from God, in the depth of his heart, there always remains a yearning for absolute truth and a thirst to attain full knowledge of it.  

 

Key Words: Relativism,  Universalism,  Absolutism,  Catholic, Ethics.

Introduction

I remember a discussion four years ago in our doctoral class at the International Academy of Management and Economics, (IAME) Makati. The topic of discussion was about moral philosophy. During the discussion we got into conflict of ideas. My mind, my ideas were influenced by Moral theology, the teaching of church which I uphold. My opponents, though they were Catholics, based their opinion on moral relativism. They insist that morality is relative but I stand my ground that morality is universal and absolute. I understand their stand on ethical relativism but they do not understand my stand on universality of morality. Finally we ended the discussion with no reconciliation. They told me, “we should not bring religion into discussion on morality and I told them, we should not become relativist and become moral indifference”. That represents majority Catholics today?    

 This discussion reminds me that people, particularly Catholics, are very much influenced by popular concepts on morality which is ethical relativism. Personal freedom and independence are their moral rule; it is no longer their religion, the teaching of the Church, the teaching of Christ. Such view approves the opinion of Nietze, a supporter of relativism, that God is dead so we can rule our own life; no outside force takes control of our life. Within this crisis, the power of the church to teach morality has become a challenge and a demand. The crisis should not discourage the church but it should encourage the church to talk more about morality. It is not to control but to guide its people to the right path according to the teaching of Jesus Christ and to lead them to eternal salvation. Jesus said, “I am the way, the truth and the life” (Jhn: 14:6). Thus those who believe in Jesus Christ must have a common moral concept of what is good and what is bad, what is right and what is a wrong. Thus universal morality is required to be applied to all. Thus, it is the role of the Church to interpret moral laws for all people beyond cultural boundaries and personal preferences.   

This article will present three arguments, the ethical relativism, universalism/absolutism and the teaching of the Church on Christian morality as an answer to relativism. We should know the difference. This is to guide moral agents particularly Catholics to know the kind of morality they follow and to live in their life. After having a clear stand on what morality is to be followed, and then other morality needs to be set aside. They can choose only one kind of morality. It can not be both or we can not be moral indifference. We can not use two roads to travel at the same time; we can choose only one at a time. But before going into these three arguments, we define first what morality is.

 

Morality Defined. 

 

Morality can be classified as descriptive and normative morality. Descriptive morality refers to a code of conduct put forward by a society, group, or individual for her/his own behaviour. While normative morality refers to a code of conduct that would be put forward by all rational persons.

When morality is taken in its descriptive sense, it refers to an existing code of conduct put forward by a society, group or individual to provide a guide for behaviour of that particular group or society. Such definition leads to a denial that there is a universal morality, one that applies to all human beings across culture (Kurt, 1958). Since morality is put forward by a society, thus many anthropologists claim that morality, like law, applies only within a society and thus it is different from society to society or even from group to group, individual to individual. What is considered “good” or “bad” in one society may not be considered “good or bad” in other society.  Many philosophers refuse to adopt morality in its descriptive sense; however some philosophers do such as Protagoras, Baruch Spinoza, and David Hume. These philosophers are interested moral relativism and claim that it is the only kind of morality there is (Westermarck, 1960). They deny the universal morality or absolutism. 

On the other hand, when morality is taken in its normative sense, it means that there is a universal code of conduct that all rational being put forward for governing the behaviour of all rational moral agents. They deny that every society has a code of moral conduct; there is only one moral standard. Universal morality bases its claim on the natural law theory (Hauser, 2006). The natural law theories of morality claim that it is possible for any normal adult in any society to know the general kinds of actions that morality prohibits, requires, discourages, encourages and allows. They also claim that morality applies to all persons and known to all rational persons (Gert, 2004). Rational persons refer to those persons to whom morality applies. This include all normal adults with sufficient knowledge and intelligence to understand what kinds of actions of morality prohibits, requires, discourages, encourages, and allows and with sufficient volitional ability to use morality as guides for their behaviour.

Following the normative sense of morality, it becomes clearer that morality is an informal public system applying to all rational persons, governing behaviour that affects others and the lessening of evil or harm as its goals. Consequently, public system guarantees that it is never irrational to act morally and since it is an informal system, it has no authoritative judges and decision procedures that provide a unique guide to action in all moral situations. When there is disagreement needed to be settled, societies use political and legal systems to supplement morality. However, it does not mean that everyone always agrees on all of their moral judgments but only that all disagreements occur within the framework of agreement. For informal public system such as morality, fully informed moral agents can, within limit, disagree in their moral judgements. But when disagreement is recognized, those who understand that morality is a public system regard how one should act as morally irresolvable, and the problem is transferred to the political or legal system (Wren, 1990).                              

Moral Relativism

Relativism is a concept that all points of view are equally valid. No one can force or impose opinion on others as correct one to be accepted. Points of views are relative. The message is that we need to respect other’s opinions. In morality, this refers to the concept that all moralities are equally good. In epistemology, it implies that all belief systems are equally true. Thus, no one should impose his beliefs on others.

            There are three kinds of relativism namely descriptive, meta-ethical and normative relativism. Descriptive relativism is a descriptive position that there exist fundamental disagreements about the right course of action even when the same facts obtain and the same consequences seem likely arises.  This implies that different cultures have different ways of doing things to achieve the same ends. On the other hand, meta-ethical relativism holds that truth or falsity of moral judgement is not objective or universal but relative to tradition, convictions, or practices of a group of people. Meta-ethical relativism believes that people in one society /group do not hold the same moral standards and the term “right” or “wrong”, “good or bad” do not stand to universal truth but they are societal and personal preference. While normative relativism argues that there is no universal moral standards applied to all people and to all cultures. It implies that there are no universal moral standards to judge behaviours of people as to whether they are good or bad, right or wrong. Thus, we need to tolerate the behaviours of others; even they are against my own moral values and cultural moral values. Such view leads to the idea that morality is a product of personal opinion and thus people have their own moral rule and society or cultures can not overrule individual supremacy. Nietze (1900) acknowledged that morality is not bad, it is good for the masses, however, it should be left to them. People should follow their own “inner law”, as he said “become what you are’. Nietze further argued that the death of God would eventually lead to the loss of any universal perspectives on things and along with it any coherent sense of objective truth. Instead, we would only retain our own multiple, diverse and fluid perspectives.    

            The above opinions are originated in the argument of a Greek Philosopher such as Protagoras who provides an early precursor to modern Moral Relativism. Protgoras claims that man is the measure of all things (Plato, 1591). The idea of Protgoras was somehow supported by the Greek historian, Herodotus (484-420, B.C) as cited by Isaac Littlebury (1912). Herodotus argued that each society typically regards its own belief system and way of doing things as better than others. Herodotus also pointed out that much of what is believed to be “fact’ is actually “opinion”. Such opinions had influenced David Hume (1985) in the early modern era. Hume denied that morality has any objective standards and suggested that the universe remains indifferent to our preferences and our troubles. Latest anthropologist, Edward Westermarck (1862-1939) claimed that all moral ideas are subjective judgement that reflects one’s upbringing. He pointed to the obvious difference in beliefs among societies, which he said provided evidence of the lack of any innate, intuitive power and of any universal of absolute beliefs.           

Points to Learn and to review from Relativism  

          The views of moral relativism have influenced the views of many people of modern generation on they look at others, their cultures and how they deal with each others. Relativism teaches us to understand and respect one another despite differences including moral issues. One can not judge the act of other people as immoral because there is no common moral standard as basis for such judgement. Morality is diverse. A person or society can not claim to be better than others. We can not pass judgement on practices in other cultures when we do not understand them. We have to tolerate one another even you can not understand what they are doing. Thus, if we can not judge them, neither can they judge us. So mind your own business, not others Reasonable people sometimes may differ on what is morally acceptable. Therefore morality become individual or group business, not society as a whole.

Ideas mentioned above may mislead and convince us that moral relativism is a right moral standard to be applied by individual persons. Thus, the humanists and relativists are happy to embrace moral relativism. However, we need to examine critically their argument and ponder whether moral relativism can be applied to everybody.

            Despite those positive points, we also examine their flaws. First, the source of moral relativism is subjective personal motive. The question is what their motive of preferring moral relativism is. It is their deepest desire for happiness. In their mind, moral absolutism would make them unhappy by making them feel guilty. They call absolutism as unloving and uncompassionate. They are not aware that the absolute moral law exist not to minimize but to maximize happiness and therefore it is compassionate. Relativism assumes that feelings/sentiments are the standards for judging morality. But the claim in traditional morality is the opposite: that morality is the standard for judging feelings (Kreef, 2010).

Second, another argument given by relativists is that moral relativism is empirical fact. Morality is based on the fact, experience. Fact and experience are varied. This means that different cultures and societies have very different moral values. They claim that moral rightness is a matter of obedience to cultural values. However, the absolutists/universalists deny that it is always right to obey your culture’s values. Absolutism has trans-cultural standards by which he can criticize a whole culture’s values. That is why he could be progressive and radical while the relativists can only maintain status-quo having no higher standards than his own culture. It is only the believer in the old fashion-natural moral law who could be a social radical and progressive. It is only the absolutists can condemn the 9/11 attacks as immoral act. The relativists could only say let them examine what they are doing (Kreef, 2010).

Third, related to argument on freedom, moral relativism claim that they alone guarantees freedom and moral absolutism threatens freedom. People often wonder how they can be truly free if they are not truly free to create their own values.   Experience will teach us that we are free to create some alternative rules or codes such as dress code, hair code, etc. But we are not free to create alternative moral values. We can not make murder, rape, killing right or making justice, charity, and love wrong. We can not find moral obligation to rape or to kill.      

Fourth, finally, the challenge of relativism morality is how we live together harmoniously with differing and conflicting values? What would bind us together if we do not recognize one truth? How can a leader lead a society in one direction if all members do not agree each other? There will be no peace and unity if we recognize different truth and moral values. No ideas can be met in discussions and no common agreement will be followed. Thus, consequently, United Nation will never declare human rights as universal moral values if all nations will not agree and the Catholic Church will never pronounce its morality on certain actions. That kind of life is an illusion. It denies our inner desire of harmony which can be gained through common understanding that we find in universalism or absolutism.     

Universal Morality/Absolutism

            If the relativism morality claims that morality is individual and cultural dependence but universal morality is individual and cultural independent, it applies to all rational human beings and beyond culture. Moral universalism is the meta-ethical position that ethics or morality applies universally, that is for all similarly situated individuals, regardless of culture, race, sex, religion, nationality, sexuality or other distinguishing features.  

            The application of the universal morality would be: if an action is right or wrong for others, it is also right or wrong for us” “If something is rights for you and if it is wrong for you, then it is right or wrong for me”.  Within this concept, all rational being has the same concept of what is good and bad, right and wrong and thus it is easier to judge other people’s behaviour and other culture.

            Universal morality is taken from its normative sense of morality When morality is taken from its normative sense, then it does not need to have two features that are essential to morality as defined by descriptive sense, that it be a code of conduct that is put forward by a society and that it accepted as a guide to behaviour by the members of that society. It is possible that morality in its normative sense has never been put forward by any particular society or group or individuals. It claims that it is possible for any normal adult to know what is good and bad, what is right and wrong. It further argues that morality is known to all. But how do people know whether it is right or wrong, good or bad? There is no written existing law to determine or to judge behaviour but it comes from reason. Each individual possesses reasons, each has a conscience. Thus judging behaviour is based on natural law.

            Natural law is as strong as and binding as physical law such as gravity and energy. Natural law does not depend on our interpretation or feelings but they exist independently. Rape is wrong regardless the intention and outcome behind it. It does not matter how angry we are, it is inherently wrong. Rape can not be argued as right and wrong depend on certain circumstances or cultural aspects. The truth is that rape is wrong. The truth can not have it both ways, truth can only be one. Truth has and never will change. Our opinion is not the truth; our status does not give us the truth, truth is the truth and exist independently. Morality must be based on absolute truth, not relative truth. Relative truth will tell us that an act is relative to the context, situation, culture and the person. It comes down to two opinions. A person may judge rape as wrong or immoral but others may judge it as moral and a person can not impose a moral judgement on others. Thus, how are they going to reconcile? It is only when they admit that there is a natural law, one which is above personal opinion and beliefs, one which is unchanging, can they claim that an action morally right or wrong.

According to universalists, morals are inherent in the law of nature, the nature of humanity. They regard actions as inherently or inarguably moral or immoral. It does not need other person to tell someone that certain act is immoral or moral because from the act alone can be judged whether it is immoral or moral and all adult rational moral agent know whether it is moral or immoral. Moral universalists might be, for example, judge slavery, death penalty or rape to be absolutely and inarguably immoral regardless of the beliefs and goals of a culture that engage in this practices. Thus, an action can be judged either good or bad, right or wrong, it can not be both ways, regardless of the circumstances in which they occur.

 

Points to Learn and to Review from Universalism/Absolutism

Universalism morality assures us of certainty, security and protection. We are not living under the shadow of clouds. What we think, it is right, good or bad, then we can be assure that the same opinion is upheld everywhere. There is only one truth. The position of one or a group embodies that truth. Within these moral standards, all persons, society beyond boundaries of culture can be one and judge actions against humanity as immoral. Thus, all people across culture can condemn the act of Hitler as a crime against humanity. Such act can not be considered moral in one place and immoral in other place, but the world had condemned it as crime against humanity, no mater the reason behind it.      There is always common agreement when it comes to issues on morality. We can use the slogan like: “everything for everyone” and nothing for our self”, “what we defend, we defend for everyone”, “your struggle is our struggle” under universal morality.  Consequently, society can live harmoniously without conflicting moral values. No society is considered better than the others in term of moral values.

However, it has been always criticized that universalism morality is not giving moral agents a freedom to exercise moral judgement. It disregards the cultural values that have been existing long time. Some have argued that without free will, the universe is deterministic and therefore morally uninteresting. Thus, if all moral choices and moral behaviour are determined by outside forces, there can be no need for any person to ponder morality (LaFollette, 1991).   The main question is that how we come to know what absolute morals are. The authorities who are quoted as source of absolute morality are all subject to human interpretations. And for them, for moral to be truly absolute, they would have to have a universally unquestioned source, interpretation and authority. Thus, the critics say, there is no conceivable source of such morals; there will never be universal agreement on what those morals are. However, Catholic Church has the answer. It has the authority to pronounce and interpret moral issues affecting human life through its magisterium.       

 

Veritatis Splendor: An Answer to Moral Relativism and Catholic Morality

Personal freedom has become the rule of life today. People are becoming independent and try to see everything from their own perspective, not according to the common perspective. No common moral standards being followed. Gone are the days when the old folks were so strict in educating their children to follow what is right and avoid what is wrong, do what is good and avoid what is bad. In those days, people were clear with their values and lived accordingly. They were guided only by one truth. Time has passed and now people become relative, and even becoming morally indifferent. Everything is relative, no absolute truth. Truth is not only one but many, according to personal preferences, cultural values and situation in which an act occurs. People define an act whether it is moral or immoral not on common moral standard but based on their own personal preferences and cultural perspective. This kind of perspective has influenced the life of Catholic post war in Europe. The European replaced the absolute moral values with moral relativism.

Pope Benedict XVI pointed out that  after about 1960, Europeans massively abandoned many traditional norms rooted in Christianity and have replaced them with continuously evolving relative moral rules. People play with their own rules according to their own perception. What they think is good for them, it is their moral rule. In their view, sexual activity is separated from procreation, which led to a decline in the importance of the families and to de population. Currently the population vacuum in Europe is filled by immigrants, by Muslims from Islamic countries who attempt to establish absolute value which stands at odds with moral relativism. What had happened in Europe long time ago, now is being practiced by many all over the world including Asians particularly Filipinos. The situation causes concern for the Catholic Church which pushes Catholic Church to respond. And the most authoritative response to moral relativism from Roman Catholic perspective can be found in Veritatis Splendor or the Splendor of Truth. (John Paul II, 1993).

The duty of the magisterium to answer moral question was emphasized by Pope Paul VI in his encyclical letter, Humane Vitae. Pope Paul VI (1969) emphasized that no member of the faithful could deny that the Church is competent in her magisterium to interpret the natural moral law. It is in fact indisputable that Jesus Christ when He communicated His Divine power to Peter and other apostles and sent them to teach all nations His commandments and constituted them as the authentic guardians and interpreters of the whole moral, not only law of the gospel but also natural moral law. For natural law, too, declares the will of God and its faithful observance are necessary for men’s eternal salvation. Thus, it is within the role of the Church, John Paul II wrote his Veritatis Splendor.             

The Encyclical  answers the questions around man’s ability to discern good, the existence of evil, the role of human freedom, human conscience, mortal sin and the role of the magisterium of the Catholic Church. In response to the claim of relativism morality that there is no universal moral truth, Pope John Paul II argued that moral truth is knowable to all persons. The moral law is universal across people in varying cultures and in fact is rooted in human condition. John Paul II insisted that no matter how separated someone is from God, in the depth of his heart, there always remains a yearning for absolute truth and a thirst to attain full knowledge of it. He continues to say that the splendor of truth “shines deep within the human spirit”. 

John Paul II argued that to ask about the “good” simply means to turn toward God, the fullness of goodness. He emphasized that the magisterium of the Catholic Church has authority to pronounce definitely on moral questions. Even more, John Paul taught that the Church is Christ’s particular response to help answer everyone questions of what is right and what is wrong. Consequently, what is pronounced “good”, evil, by the Church, that is moral absolute for all Catholic and that is binding to all the follower of Christ? One catholic can not proclaim his own version of the “good” and the “evil”. Catholics have only one truth.

Against the criticism of humanists and relativist group that the Catholic Church is deterministic and does not allow human freedom to exercise moral judgment, John Paul reiterated that there is no true conflict between human freedom and God’s law. He pointed out that the true end of human freedom is growth as a mature person into how each is created by God. God’s law governing human behaviour is not opposed to human freedom but rather it protects and promotes that freedom. Such idea lead us to conclusion that exercising human freedom is to lead us to perfection as God is perfect. So long freedom is for human perfection is moral. However, Pope John Paul II cautions us that freedom is not absolute. Merely deciding for oneself that one may do something is not all true substitutes for determining whether something is good or bad.

John Paul II, welcomes the role of human reason in discovering and applying the natural law, however, he reminds us that God still remains the true author of moral law. Human reason will not supersede the elements of the moral law that are of divine origin and that would be the death of freedom if reasons overtake divine law.  In relation to human act, the encyclical argues that certain acts are intrinsically evil. This means that certain acts are always wrong and that there are never circumstances in which they must permitted if done knowingly and intentionally. The ends do not justify the means. There are certain acts so destructive to the human person that there are no extenuating circumstances that would allow them. John Paul based his opinion on the teaching of Pope Paul VI in the encyclical Humanae Vitae concerning contraception that there are no circumstances in which the practice is elicit.

 

Conclusion

       The different theories of morality are caused by different perception of morality. Such theories have caused division in human society and so we have moral relativists who claim that morality is relative to the person, situation, culture and moral universalists /absolutists who claim that there is a common or universal moral standards for everybody and culture. Moral values are beyond the boundary of culture and individual preferences. What is moral in one society, the same is applied to all rational moral agents everywhere.   

The effect of these moral perceptions upon the life of people is great. It influences the moral behaviour of each individual. Thus, we have problems of double moral standards in society and conflict of moralities. People have no idea of what kind of morality they have to follow, either moral relativism or absolutism. Amid such situation, there is a need to have an authority to interpret morality and impose it to everybody. The Catholic Church has answered to such problem through its Veritatis Splendor or the Splendor of Truth. It is answer to moral relativism and confirmation of moral universalism or absolutism. Veritatis Splendor emphasizes that moral truth is knowable to all rational person, it is universal to all people in varying cultures and that there is no true conflict between human freedom and God’s law. Human freedom must lead the person to perfection as God is perfect. And that God is still the author of moral law and God’s law are beyond culture or universal. If the motive of moral relativism is their deepest desire for happiness, thus the motive of Christian morality is their deepest desire for ultimate happiness, eternal salvation.

Finally our life should not be guided only by our feelings and pure reason but beyond that it should be guided by God’s law. The fulfilment of God’s law is in Jesus Christ, as our way, truth and the life. Living the life of Jesus Christ in our life is a way of living moral life and living moral life will lead us to eternal salvation, ultimate happiness, not temporary happiness as claimed by relative morality.  

 References:

 

Baier, Kurt. 1958. The Moral Point of View. Ithaca, New York: Cornell University Press.

Gert, Bernard. 2007. Common Morality: Deciding What To Do, New York: Oxford University Press

Hauser, Marc. 2006. Moral Mind: How Nature Designed Our Universal Sense of Right and Wrong. HapperCollins: New York.

Hume, David. 1985. A Treatise of Human Nature. London: Penguin.

Isaac Littlebury. 1912. THE Story of Herodotus, Vol.I, Third Edition. University of Michigan: USA

Kreef, Peter. 2010. A Refutation on Moral Relativism. http://www.peterkreef.com

LaFollette, Hugh. 1991. The Truth of Ethical Relativism: Journal of Social Philosophy: New York University.

Nietze, Frederich, Wilhem. 1900. Beyond Good and Evil. Project Gutenberg. http://informations.com/etexts/gutenberg/dirs/etex03/bygdv10.htm

Paul, John, II Pope. 1993. Veritatis Splendor. http://www.vatican.va/holy_father/john_paul_ii/encyclicals/documents/hf_jp-ii_enc_06081993_veritatis-splendor_en.html

Paul VI, Pope. 1969. Humanae Vitae. http://www.vatican.va/holy_father/paul_vi/encyclicals/documents/hf_p-vi_enc_25071968_humanae-vitae_en.html

Plato. 1591. Protagoras. Eris Etext Project (translated by Benjamin Jowett). http://informations.com/etexts/philosophy//400BC-301 BC/Plato-Protagoras.      

Westermarc, Edward. 1960. Ethical relativity. Paterson, N.J: Littlefield, Adams.

Wren, T.E., editor. 1990. The Moral Domain: Essays on the On Going Discussion between Philosophy and the Social Sciences. MIT Press.    

                

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

       

 

 

 

 

 

 

Solving Environmental Problems is Changing Cultural Perception toward Environment.

Fr. Damianus Abun, SVD, MBA, PhD.

Divine Word College of Vigan, Ilocos Sur, Philippines

College of Business.

Abstract:

This paper argues that solving environmental problems is complex because it is not a matter of introducing strict laws on environment. Laws will be always considered as an external burden to be followed. Awareness has to be awaken because the problem is coming from the mind which has been shaped by the culture. Therefore it is not a matter of laws but it is more than laws, it is about culture that has influenced the attitude and behavior of people toward environment. Changing cultural perceptions is one basic fundamental option in solving the environmental problems.

Key Words: Culture, attitude, human behavior, environmental disaster, instrumental value, intrinsic value, anthropocentricism.

Introduction

Environmental problems have become a serious concern for all human being on the planet. Why is it becoming serious concern? People have seen the connection between the environmental disaster and quality of human life. Climate change is one of the effects environmental disasters. Climate change is not a small issue but  a serious issue that threatens human life.    

Many activities or programs are initiated or introduced by the government and non-government agencies in order to address the climate change, to prevent further deterioration of climate. Projects on tree planting, waste management, recycling and solar power have been introduced. However, these activities are not common yet, in the sense that not all people are planting trees, implementing proper waste management, recycling and having a solar energy, but they are using ordinary fossil oil, and people in other parts of the world are still cutting trees and mining. Sources of water become scarce because of logging and mining. Thus climate change is still the main concern up to this moment.

Activities and programs related to environmental protections have been done, however many of those activities are curative but not preventive. Preventive measures must be done but those measures are not only limited to environmental laws and projects but there must be environmental education. The focus of environmental education should emphasize the balance concept of nature which is rooted in the culture and hopefully such education will lead to the change of perception toward the environment and change of behavior toward the environment. 

The concern for the environment and concern for quality of life is the main factor why the researcher takes his time to write this paper. The paper would like to prove that cultural perception matters to environmental problems.

 

Cultural Perception and Human Behaviors

The behavior of a person can tell many hidden things because through his/her behavior people can see or tell what his culture is. The behavior is a manifestation of culture. Therefore what I mean with the culture is the way he/she thinks, looks, beliefs or perceives about things. Thus, culture affects the attitude and attitude affects the behavior. What he/she believes, thinks or perceives, naturally it becomes his/her attitude toward the world or things or environment. Thus attitude and behavior do not operate independently but it is formed and influenced by the existing culture.

 Robert. W. Amstrong (1996) in his examination of the cultural variables suggests that there is a relationship between cultural dimensions such as Uncertainty Avoidance and Individualism as prescribed by Hofstede’s cultural dimensions and ethical perceptions. This finding supports the hypothetical linkage between the cultural environment perception and the perceived ethical problem variables posited in Hunt and Vitell's General Theory of Marketing Ethics (1986). Such study only to prove that there is relationship between culture and attitude and behavior of a person toward anything. Culture affects the way people behave ethically.

         The influence of culture is not only limited to individual behavior but also organizational behavior or society. In functionalist thinking, culture is considered a component of an integrated social system which promotes the effectiveness of the organization and the well-being of all its stakeholders. Culture refers to the assumptions, beliefs, goals, knowledge and values that are shared by members of the society. British anthropologist Edward Burnett Tylor (1874) attempted to define culture as inclusively as possible. Tylor in 1874 described culture in the following way: "Culture or civilization, taken in its wide ethnographic sense, is that complex whole which includes knowledge, belief, art, morals, law, custom, and any other capabilities and habits acquired by man as a member of society. Culture represents the high-information “ideal factors” in a system that exerts significant and partly independent influence on human events or human behaviors. When an individual is faced with an ethical dilemma, his or her value system will color the perception of the ethical ramifications of the situation (Racelis, 2009). Such argument strengthens the position of culture to influence the behavior of a person toward other people, things or environment. In this case, culture matter much on the way how human behaves.   

Another important factor of human behavior is their “core faith”. This faith can be through religion, philosophy and culture or personal belief and often affects the way a person can behave. Many people belief some sort of belief in a higher power, which makes religion a large importance in society (Nones, 2012). It is only natural for something that plays such a large role in society to have an effect on human behavior (Spilka, 1996) Morals are another factor of core faith that affects the way a person behaves. Emotions connected to morals including shame, pride, and discomfort and these can change the way a person acts. Most importantly, shame and guilt have a large impact on behavior (Tangney, 2007). Lastly, culture highly affects human behavior. The beliefs of certain cultures are taught to children from such a young age that they are greatly affected as they grow up. These beliefs are taken into consideration throughout daily life, which leads to people from different cultures acting differently. These differences are able to alter the way different cultures and areas of the world interact and act (Triandis, 1994).

Culture does not only affect the belief and values of people but it also affects their attitude. It appears to be seen as the culture affects the attitude and attitude affects the behavior of a person.   An attitude is an expression of favor or disfavor toward a person, place, thing, or event (Wyer, 1965).  In this case, attitude does not only affect the behavior of a person to another person but it can also affect his/her behavior toward things or environment.  The interesting thing about an attitude and human beings is that it alters between each individual. Everyone has a different attitude towards different things. A main factor that determines attitude is likes and dislikes. The more one likes something or someone the more one is willing to open up and accept what they have to offer. When one doesn’t like something, one is more likely to get defensive and shut down. An example of how one's attitude affects one's human behavior could be as simple as taking a child to the park or to the doctor. Children know they have fun at the park so their attitude becomes willing and positive, but when a doctor is mentioned, they shut down and become upset with the thought of pain. Attitudes can sculpt personalities and the way people view who we are. People with similar attitudes tend to stick together as interests and hobbies are common. This does not mean that people with attitudes do not interact, because they do. What it means is that specific attitudes can bring people together (e.g., religious groups). Attitudes have a lot to do with the mind which highly relates to Human behavior. The way a human will behave depends a lot on how they look at the situation and what they expect to gain from it.( Kecmanovic, 1969).  Positive attitudes are better than negative ones as negativity can bring on negative emotions that most of the time can be avoided. It is up to humans to make sure their attitudes positively reflect the behaviors they want to show. This can be done by assessing their attitudes and properly presenting them in society.

Definitely, attitude and behaviors are parts of culture. Change in attitude and behavior or belief or values require change in culture. Culture change is difficult. Culture change requires people to change their attitude and behaviors. It is often difficult for people to unlearn their old way of doing things, and to start performing the new behaviors consistently. However, it does not mean to say that culture cannot be changed; it can be changed if members of society are willing to change their attitude and behaviors, belief and values. A closer look at instinct driven behavior might help us understand this viewpoint better. For this, we can look at animal behavior, which is mostly controlled by instinct. In the case of humans, they can choose to ignore even such basic instincts, and put more thought and analysis in their behavior. They can also choose to do things in radically different ways. In this understanding, culture can be changed if people want to.

In relation to environmental problems, environmental problem is seen as behavioral problem because it is caused by human behavior. Thus, it is a cultural problem. Since problem is rooted in the culture that affects the attitude and behavior, then solving environmental problem requires changing of culture. Changing culture means changing the way how we view, value, perceive environment or nature. Negative culture toward environment must be changed into positive culture toward environment. Definitely it is an ethical issue. 

Solving Environmental Problems is A Cultural Perception Change.  

As I have mentioned earlier that environmental problems is caused by human behavior. Such human behavior is influenced by the culture which in turn affects the attitude of man on how they view environment and finally such view affects their behavior toward environment. Definitely the solution to the environmental problems must be radical change in cultural perceptions on the environment. Old ways of perceiving environment as merely instruments to human welfare must be revisited or changed. Without changing cultural perceptions, then no amount of laws that prohibits behavior, definitely environmental problems will continue.   

The researcher proposes the following recommendation on how to solve environmental problems:

1.      New way of interpreting the bible, Genesis, 1:27-31.    

It is time to say “mea culpa”. I say “mea culpa” directly means that I acknowledge I have done wrong and I have to confess that is my sin. My sins are that I have seen nature in its instrumental values, not in its intrinsic value. I have taken the genesis message as dominion, not as a steward.         

It has been the argument used by the Capitalists to justify their manipulation to the environment and it is originated from the Bible, particularly in the book of Genesis. Some philosopher’s views were also originated from bible. For example, Aristotle (Politics, Bk. 1, Ch. 8) maintains that “nature has made all things specifically for the sake of man” and that the value of nonhuman things in nature is merely instrumental. Generally, anthropocentric positions find it problematic to articulate what is wrong with the cruel treatment of nonhuman animals, except to the extent that such treatment may lead to bad consequences for human beings. Immanuel Kant (“Duties to Animals and Spirits”, in Lectures on Ethics), for instance, suggests that cruelty towards a dog might encourage a person to develop a character which would be desensitized to cruelty towards humans. From this standpoint, cruelty towards nonhuman animals would be instrumentally, rather than intrinsically, wrong. Likewise, anthropocentrism often recognizes some non-intrinsic wrongness of anthropogenic (i.e. human-caused) environmental devastation. Such destruction might damage the well-being of human beings now and in the future, since our well-being is essentially dependent on a sustainable environment ( Passmore 1974, Bookchin 1990, Norton, Hutchins, Stevens, and Maple (eds.) 1995).

 The destruction of environment would tell us that human beings have taken Gen 1; 27-31 as an instruction of an absolute power to use and misuse or to exploit when God tells us to have dominion over the animals and to fill the earth and subdue it. Such situation has been lamented by Pope Benedict XVI when he said that God’s original command to have dominion over the earth has been sorely corrupted. He further said that the task of “subduing” was never intended as an order to enslave it but rather as a task of being guardians of Creation and developing its gifts, of actively collaborating in God’s work ourselves (Benedict, 2008).

Previous Pope, John Paul in his Sollicitudo Rei Socialis reminds us about our understanding of the dominion granted by God. The dominion granted to man by God is not an absolute power or a complete freedom to use and misuse or to dispose of things as one pleases. The limitation imposed from the beginning by the Creator expressed symbolically by the prohibition “not to eat the fruit of the tree, for the day you eat of it, you will die (Gen. 2:17).

John Paul II (2001) continued to emphasize that our respect for creation stem from respect for human life and dignity. Thus all human beings should realize their specific responsibility to care for the nature. Each person should recognize that the world is created by God and we are steward of the nature. We must be responsible stewards of God’s creation. Humans are to use the earth, not to abuse it and in doing so become co-creators with God in the process of the formation of a new heaven and new earth. In Gen, 2: 15, it says, “Yahweh God took man and placed him in the Garden of Eden to till it and take care of it”. Such instruction indicates that dominion of human being over the earth is not absolute but co creator and stewards. 

2.      Adopting Eastern Views on Man and Nature.

Eastern philosophy of man views man not in isolation. Man is part of the greater reality. If the western look at man as individual who is independent from society or separate individual while the Eastern look at man as part of something greater.  He is a part of a bigger part. Living wisely means an individual finds his true place in that greater reality and conforms to it. He lives in harmonious relationship with the greater part or reality. The greater reality is not only referring to society or environment but the divine reality. He seeks to lose himself in that greater reality and such reality is divine reality which is called Brahman. Brahman is the origin and support of the phenomenal universe.  Brahman is sometimes referred to as the Absolute or Godhead which is the Divine Ground of all being. Brahman is the only thing which is truly real and everything else is only real to the extent that is part of Brahman.  Brahman is just like a great sea and other being in the world are just a drop of water into that sea. Such drops do not have distinct individual existence but exist as drops of water in a great sea. They are elements of something greater.  It is the reality of all realities, the soul of all souls, one without a second, the constant witness of the changing phenomena of the universe. (Swami Adiswarananda, 2012.)

Such view refers reality as God/ Brahman. This view found its partner in western view through Baruch Spinoza (Bento Spinoza, Baruch/Benedict Spinoza). He considered universe, nature as God. God is nature and nature is God.  Spinoza claims that the things that make up the universe, including human beings, are God's "modes". This means that we and everything else are, in some sense, dependent upon God and everything else are equal. All are coming from the same source and one is not better than the other. They all are good in themselves. As Spinoza puts it that  everything that happens follows from the nature of God, just like how it follows from the nature of a triangle that its angles are equal to two right angles. Since God had to exist with the nature he happens to have, nothing that has happened could have been avoided, and if a particular fate for a particular mode is fixed by God, there is no escaping it, (Geoff Pynn, 2012). 

 

Adopting such view on man and nature, it definitely tells us that man is not a subject and the world is object to be used but both subject. The relationship between man and nature must be between subject and subject. Nature and man are one. Man and nature are the modes of God's presence, and are dependent on God. Both are part of the greater reality which is Brahman. Both are part of God. In this case, man and nature are divine in nature because both are part of such greater reality which is Brahman. Man gets its meaning by living in harmony with such greater reality.  

3.      New Way of Building a Relationship with the Nature.

We might be familiar with the idea of Martin Buber. Martin Buber argued that all real living is meeting. In the meeting, there is always a relation and this relation is not only man to man but man to the world and to God.  How we can open ourselves to the world, to others and to God. Therefore he proposed a kind relationship which is I-You and I-It relationship. But one kind of these relationships is not really intended for one or the other. It depends on how we relate ourselves to others, to the world and to God.

I-You (Thou) or Ich-Du relationship. I - You (Thou) relationship is a relationship between man and man or subject to subject (Buber, 1965). This is a genuine relationship because the objective of such relationship is not for the advantage of one party but it is mutual. We deal with the other as a subject or a person who is distinctive.  Therefore, according to him, we take stand either to relate or not relate ourselves. We can take our place against whatever confronts us and address it as you or we can take ourselves apart from it and view it as an object (it). In this case, there is possibility that relationship (I-You)  which is supposed to be a genuine relationship and only between subject to subject or man to man can turn into a manipulative relationship which is I-It relationship. In this case the purpose of going into building relationship or dialogue is only for self interest.

While I-It relationships is a relationship between subject and object. But this relationship can be used in human relationship. In the I-It relationship, the subject is in the position to use, manipulate, and control the other. The other is used as an object. In this case one is being used by the other for his self-interest. There is no mutual benefit in this kind of relationship. In terms of relationship of man nature, it simply people accept that it is I-It relationship. Man is simply using the nature as object of manipulation for his self interest.  

New way of building relationship with nature must be a relationship of I-You. Nature must be seen as subject, as an independent and distinctive from human. Thus the relationship between man and nature must be a relation of subject to subject, both are equal. Not only that nature and man are both the creation of God but both relationships benefit each other. Nature benefits from man and man benefit from nature.  Therefore relationship with the nature must be mutual relationship. Man takes care of the nature as mandated by God and nature gives life to man. Man has to respect nature because the natural environment and/or its various contents have certain values in their own right so that these values ought to be respected and protected in any case. The manipulative relationship which only benefits one side can produce disaster on the part of human being.

4.      Nature should not be viewed as instrument or pure object.

 

Western philosophers have seen nature or environment as a separate entity from man. Unlike the Eastern philosophers view nature and human being as one. Both are pare part of greater reality. As a consequence of that concept, people maintain harmony and respect toward the environment. In this case, it emphasizes more on intrinsic value than instrumental value. People respect nature because they have their own value in themselves regardless of whether they are useful or not to other ends. Because the intrinsically valuable is that which is good as an end in itself, it is commonly agreed that something's possession of intrinsic value generates a prima facie direct moral duty on the part of moral agents to protect it or at least refrain from damaging it ( O'Neil 1992 and Jameson 2002 for detailed accounts of intrinsic value).

 As a consequence of Western views are looking at environment as an object to be used, to be manipulated for human interest.   The reflection of Western view of environment can be found in their literature on environmental ethics in which they emphasize the instrumental value of nature. Instrumental value of environment is the value of things as means to further some other ends. For instance, certain fruits have instrumental value for bats who feed on them, since feeding on the fruits is a means to survival for the bats. However, it is not widely agreed that fruits have value as ends in themselves (Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy, 2008). Another example, a certain wild plant may have instrumental value because it provides the ingredients for some medicine or as an aesthetic object for human observers. Many traditional western ethical perspectives, however, are anthropocentric or human-centered in that either they assign intrinsic value to human beings alone (i.e., what we might call anthropocentric in a strong sense) or they assign a significantly greater amount of intrinsic value to human beings than to any nonhuman things such that the protection or promotion of human interests or well-being at the expense of nonhuman things turns out to be nearly always justified (i.e., what we might call anthropocentric in a weak sense) (Stanford Encyclopedia, 2008)

 

5. Consumerism.

The question is what is wrong with consumerism? Consumerism is a social and economic order that encourages the purchase of goods and services in ever-greater amounts. In economics consumerism refers to economic policies placing emphasis on consumption. In an abstract sense, it is the consideration that the free choice of consumers should strongly orient the choice what is produced and how. In many critical contexts, consumerism is used to describe the tendency of people to identify strongly with products or services they consume, especially those with commercial brand names and perceived status-symbolism appeal, e.g. luxury car designer clothing or expensive jewelry. Consumerism can take extreme forms such that consumers sacrifice significant time and income not only to purchase but also to actively support a certain firm or brand (Eisingerich, et.al, 2010). Definitely consumerism is good for the economy because economy is also depending on the consumption. The more people consume, the better the economy is. However, even though consumerism is not all bad but the effect of consumerism is great.  Consumerism can have a great impact to the environment. All raw materials are taken from the environment and all the waste of unused materials are going back to the    environment. The environment has to be destroyed in order to get the materials      through mining activities or logging activities and waste will be thrown back to the   environment. The immediate consequence is climate change. The ozone layer protects    day-by-day due to pollution like nitrogen oxide, sulfur dioxide, lead, particular matter and carbon monoxide. Apart from the depletion of ozone layer, these emissions    of gases also cause several health problems. Keeping a check on these emissions is the solution to protect the ozone layer (Raham Gafar, 2012). Definitely, to solve environmental problem is to change lifestyle which is part of culture.      

Conclusion

Environmental problem is actually a behavioral problem which is influenced by the existing culture. Definitely environmental problem is a cultural problem. Solving environmental disaster is not just a matter of introducing new laws on protecting environment but it is a change of culture which affects belief, attitude, values and behaviors of people. This is an area which environmentalists have not taken into consideration in their efforts to prevent environmental disasters. Thus, it is time to revisit the existing culture and old views on how people view environment or nature must be renewed or changed.      

References

Amstrong, W. Robert. The Relationship between Culture and Perception of Ethical Problems in International Marketing, Journal of Business Ethics (1996)

Volume: 15, Issue: 11, Pages: 1199-1208

Adiswarananda, Swami. 2012. HINDUISM: THE ULTIMATE REALITY. Ramakrishna-Vivekananda Center, New York.

Aristotle. 1948. Politics, trans. E. Barker, Oxford: Oxford University Press

Benedict XVI. 2008. Message of His Holiness to the Beloved People of Australia and to the Young Pilgrims Taking Part in World Youth Day. http://www.vatican.va/holy_father/benedict_xvi/message/pont-messages/2008/documents/hf_ben-xvi_mes_20080704_australia_en.html.

Bookchin, M., 1980. Toward an Ecological Society, Montreal: Black Rose Books.

Buber, Martin. 1965. Daniel: Dialogues on Realization. London: Mcdonald. Ed. Nahum Glatzer. 

Eisingerich, Andreas B.; Bhardwaj, Gunjan; Miyamoto, Yoshio (April 2010). "Behold the Extreme Consumers and Learn to Embrace Them". Harvard Business Review 88

Ghaffa, Raham.. 2012. Environmental Problems and Solutions. http://envirocivil.com/environment/environmental-problems-and-solutions.

Geoff Pynn, 2012. Introduction to Pinoza's Ethics , Northern Illinois University. USA.

 

  Spilka, B., & McIntosh, D. N. (1996). The psychology of religion. Westview Press.

John Paul II. 2001. General Audience. http://www.vatican.va/holy_father/john_paul_ii/audiences/2001/documents/hf_jp-ii_aud_20010117_en.html.

Hunt, D. Shelly and. Vitell, J. Scott. 1986. The General Theory of Marketing Ethics:

A Revision and Three Questions.  http://sdh.ba.ttu.edu/JMacro06%20-%20A%20general%20theory%20of%20marketing%20ethics-A%20revision%20and%20three%20questions--PAGE%20PROOFS.pdf

 

Jamieson, D. 2002.  Morality's Progress: Essays on Humans, Other Animals, and the Rest of Nature, Oxford: Clarendon Press.

Kant, Immanuel. 1963. “Duties to Animals and Spirits”, in Louis Infield trans., Lectures on Ethics, New York: Harper and Row.

KECMANOVIC, D. (1969). The paranoid attitude as the common form of social behavior. Sociologija, 11(4), 573-585. Retrieved from http://search.proquest.com/docview/60877639?accountid=12347 (registration required)

"'Nones' on the Rise: One-in-Five Adults Have No Religious Affiliation". Pew Forum on Religion & Public Life. October 9, 2012. Retrieved December 20, 2012. http://www.pewforum.com

Norton, B., Hutchins, M., Stevens, E. and Maple, T. L. (eds), 1995. Ethics on the Ark, Washington: Smithsonian Institution Press.

O'Neill, J., 1992. “The Varieties of Intrinsic Value”, Monist 75: 119-137

Passmore, J., 1974. Man's Responsibility for Nature, London: Duckworth, 2nd ed., 1980.

Racelis, A. Racelis. 2009. Relationship between Employee Perceptions of Corporate Ethics and Organizational Culture: An Exploratory Study. College of Business Administration, University of the Philippines, Philippines. http://apmr.management.ncku.edu.tw/comm/updown/DW1006213442.pdf

Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy. 2008. Environmental Ethics.  First published Mon Jun 3, 2002; substantive revision Thu Jan 3, 2008

Tangney, J. P., Stuewig, J., & Mashek, D. J. (2007). Moral emotions and moral behavior. Annual Review of Psychology, 58, 345.

Triandis, H. C. (1994). Culture and social behavior. McGraw-Hill Book Company

WYER, R. S. J. 1965 . Effect of Child-Rearing Attitudes and Behavior on Children’s  responses to Hypothetical Social Situations. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 2(4), 480-486.

Tylor, E.B. 1874. Primitive culture: researches into the development of mythology, philosophy, religion, art, and custom.  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Culture

 

Geoff Pynn, 2012. Introduction to Pinoza's Ethics , Northern Illinois University. USA.