CHAPTER 2 GOING DEEPER INTO THE GHETTO I.

INTRODUCTION But alas, ethics is far

complicated than the simple intricacies posed in the previous chapter, for it is one thing to have
the conscious effort to pursue the good, and another to actually know what is the good. Can we
agree to a singular overarching parameter of what moral is? Or is morality exclusively
dependent on our cultural differences which, although inevitable as to presence, is nevertheless
overwhelming as to influence? Is there an absolute good, or is it relative upon the individual
pursuing the act? In the first place, what is good? What is right? Are we even required to be
good? In other words, is it a natural tendency, an innate value, for human beings to pursue the
good; or is it just an artificial social construct built solely for the purpose of keeping us from
ripping out each others internal organs and falling into a perpetual state of war and chaos? In
this chapter, we will dig deeper into the complexities that we have set fire in the immediately
preceding chapter as we examine further ethical schools of thought throughout history, and its
modern-day implications. II. ETHICAL RELATIVISM: Who are we to judge? Lebron James have
been both a famous and infamous figure in the sport of basketball of recent memory. Some
consider him as one of the greatest athlete to have ever played the game, placing him high up
in the pedestal of other basketball legends like Michael Jordan, Magic Johnson, Wilt
Chamberlain, Julius Irving and Larry Bird. However, others see him as nothing more than a
haughty, pretentious, arrogant player who is nowhere near the Olympus of basketball gods - as
is manifested in the many harsh write-ups and cruel memes about him that have stormed and
dominated the façade of social media. Which is which then? Is there a truth that is acceptable to
everyone, or is it simply a matter of opinion – (kaniya-kaniyang pananaw at walang basagan ng
trip)? The once upon a time prominence that the Earth enjoyed as the center of the universe
was later debunked by heliocentric theorists, which placed the Sun at the center, not of the
universe, but only of the Solar System. The idea that the Earth was flat was embraced by
almost everyone in the ancient world as an absolute truth, only to be shamed for being false by
those who ushered in scientific proofs that it is rather round – or oblique spheroid to be more
technical. One of the biggest mankind feat of our generation is the moon landing of the Apollo
expedition. Still resonating through our historical chronicles are the words “One small step for
man, one giant leap for mankind”. But recently, doubts have been cast upon its authenticity.
Conspiracy theorists believe that it was a fluke, and was only staged for the purpose of besting
America’s space-rival back then – the USSR. If such a big kind of global spectacle can be faked,
what else cannot be? How can we be sure about anything then? …as a matter of fact…
Moon-Landing: Real or Hoax? You can tell Apollo was faked because… the American flag
appears to be flapping as if “in a breeze” in videos and photographs supposedly taken from the
airless lunar [Link]'s response... "the video you see where the flag's moving is because
the astronaut just placed it there, and the inertia from when they let go kept it moving," said
spaceflight historian Roger Launius, of the Smithsonian's National Air and Space Museum in
Washington D.C. You can tell Apollo was faked because... only two astronauts walked on the
moon at a time, yet in photographs such as this one where both are visible, there is no sign of a
camera. So who took the picture? NASA's response... the cameras were mounted to the
astronauts' chests, said astronomer Phil Plait, author of the award-winning blog Bad Astronomy
and president of the James Randi Educational Foundation. In the picture above, Plait notes,
"you can see [Neil's] arms are sort of at his chest. That's where the camera is. He wasn't holding
it up to his [Link] can tell Apollo was faked because... the astronauts made no such
exclamation while on the moon, and the black backgrounds of their photographs are curiously
devoid of stars. NASA's response... the moon's surface reflects sunlight, and that glare would
have made stars difficult to see. Also, the astronauts photographed their lunar adventures using
fast exposure settings, which would have limited incoming background light. "They were taking
pictures at 1/150th or 1/250th of a second," Bad Astronomy's Plait said. "In that amount of time,
stars just don't show up." The lunar lander known as the Eagle rests peacefully on the moon's
surface in a picture taken mere hours after the July 20, 1969, moon [Link] was faked
because... the shadows in the photographs don't all point in the same direction. You can tell
because... if the sun is the only light source, then all shadows should point in the same
direction. But they don't. NASA's response... "The shadows aren't parallel," Plait said. "You
have to remember that the moon's surface is not flat. It's curved. That's why the shadows
appear to go in different directions."You can tell Apollo was faked because... the module is
shown sitting on relatively flat, undisturbed soil. According to skeptics, the lander's descent
should have been accompanied by a large dust cloud and would have formed a noticeable
crater. NASA's response... the lander's engines were throttled back just before landing, and it
did not hover long enough to form a crater or kick up much dust, the Smithsonian's Launius
said. "Science fiction movies depict this big jet of fire coming out as [spacecraft] land, but that's
not how they did it on the moon," he added. "That's not the way they would do it now or anytime
in the future." A moon-landing picture shows astronaut Buzz Aldrin standing on the footpad of
the Eagle's ladder, his bent knees suggesting that he's about to jump up to the next rung. You
can tell Apollo was faked because... Aldrin is seen in the shadow of the lander, yet he is clearly
visible. Hoax subscribers say that many shadows look strange in Apollo pictures. Some
shadows don't appear to be parallel with each other, and objects in shadow appear well lit,
hinting that light was coming from multiple sources—suspiciously like studio cameras. NASA's
response... there were multiple light sources, Launius said. "You've got the sun, the Earth's
reflected light, light reflecting off the lunar module, the spacesuits, and also the lunar surface."
are three main types: literal optical illusions that create images that are different from the objects
that make them, physiological ones that have effects on the eyes and brain of excessive
stimulation of a specific type (brightness, tilt, color, movement), and cognitive illusions where the
eyes and brain make unconscious inferences.” Moving circle? Is this really a square? Straight
Rope? © Brainhackers, [Link] Accessed on
March 2, 2016.“Nothing is ever for sure, that is the only thing I am sure of,” as one of the
characters in the movie A Beautiful Mind succinctly puts it. The conundrum of relativism likewise
spills over to the issue of morality. Is there one absolute ethical standard that everyone ought to
follow, or is morality nothing more than a matter of opinion – of an individual, of the majority, of a
cultural milieu, of a generation? Let us try to shake our overly protected moral convictions…
…tickle your imagination… You saw a young boy, approximately 14 years of age, hurriedly
running away from a much older guy. There was a smear of grimace outlined in the face of the
young boy, while an infinity of disorderly interweaving contours in the older guy’s that manifested
his rage. The young boy was caught anyway. It turned out that he stole the wallet of the
evidently angry victim. But there was no trace of any remorse – although this time, it was bigger,
wider. Should he be condemned for the act? Some, especially the victim, would probably
answer in the affirmative – as stealing, at least as far as most ethical standards would concede,
is morally wrong. But consider this… He grew up in a community where theft, robbery, murder,
and other crimes, are a commonplace – a regular occurrence. His father was a notorious
pickpocket and thief; his mother was a drug dependent; His brothers were themselves burglars,
who taught him how to steal things without getting caught. He lived in the streets where morality
is blurred and rendered almost nugatory by the growl of an empty stomach and the beckon of
survival. Should he be faulted for having such a loose sense of morality? Or maybe we must
first ask, who are we to judge? Let us examine another, more complicated, dilemma. Of late, our
airwaves, frequencies and spreadsheets have been bombarded with news regarding terrorist
attacks – as if such incidents have become a mundane day-to-day occurrence. The international
community has been throwing jabs and strikes… condemnation and pieces. But downright evi
relentless fear despite the wic However, from spectacle, the heroic undert While from o are
martyrs o in turn, earn eternal rewar to this belief gained consci Again, who are To put it si
righteousness and w there are no abs times. Accordin to act in a certa belongs. “Thi the
prerogative the end of the c are as many div it as their busi One of the is culture. Whe it creates
a dem defines most o determines a g Cultura deal w Someti *Pojman, Phil Wadsworth, 1973,
condemnation against these acts, together with its every bits and pieces. But while most
consider these acts as immoral and downright evil, they nonetheless continue to linger –
slithering relentless fear into our streets and homes. How can it still survive despite the
widespread denunciation? However, from the perspective of the main protagonists to this
spectacle, these are not acts of terror – on the contrary, these are heroic undertakings, virtuous
deeds, and religious engagements. While from our vantage points they are terrorists, from theirs
they are martyrs of faith – whose deaths are revered and lauded, and in turn, earn for them a
place in paradise with 72 virgins and eternal rewards. And most of them have already been
indoctrinated to this belief as early as that point in their existence that they have gained
consciousness. It is their culture. Again, who are we to judge? To put it simply, “ethical relativism
is the doctrine that the moral rightness and wrongness of actions varies from society to society
and that there are no absolute universal moral standards binding on all men at all times.”
Accordingly, it holds that whether or is not it is right for an individual to act in a certain way
depends on or is relative to the society to which he belongs.40 This being the case, it seems
that every person is robbed from the prerogative of passing judgment upon another person’s act
because at the end of the day, morality is relative on the person doing the act. There are as
many diverse ethical standards as there are human beings who sees it as their business to
consider what is good or right for them. One of the main factors that propel the acceptance of
ethical relativism is culture. Whether we like it or not, culture diversifies our belief systems – it
creates a demarcation line between societies and among human beings. It defines most of your
concepts, shapes an ample of your perspectives, and determines a greater chunk of your
behavior. Culture clash, and when they do, we must decide how to deal with the resulting
conflicts, including moral conflicts. Sometimes, as in the case of terrorist attacks, the clashes…
40 Pojman, Philosophical Traditions, 420, citing John Ladd, Ethical Relativism, (Belmont, CA:
Wadsworth, 1973).
course, the most convincing statement of such a reading of homosexuality. It is presented as
one of the major means to the good life, and it was generally so regarded in Greece at that
[Link] cultural attitude toward homosexuals has not always been on such a high ethical
plane, but it has been very varied. Among many American Indian tribes there exists the
institution of the berdache, as French called them. These men-women were men who at puberty
or thereafter took the dress and the occupations of women. Sometimes they married other men
and lived with them. Sometimes they were men with no inversion, persons of weak endowment
who chose this role to avoid the jeers of women. The berdaches were never regarded as
first-rate supernatural power, as similar men-women were in Siberia, but rather as leaders in
women’s occupations, good healers in certain diseases, or, among certain tribes, as the genial
organizers of social affairs. In any case, they were socially placed. They were not left exposed
to the conflicts that visit the deviant who is excluded from participation in the recognized
patterns of his society.44 It seems, therefore, that the even plainest concept such as being
“normal” is nothing more than a cultural definition and construct. That being the case, it would
not be surprising that most of our moral standards are also culturally charged – i.e., heavily
influenced by our cultural backgrounds. And the fact that diversities between cultures are
sometimes poles apart, is there really any point at comparing them? Are there cultures that are
better than others? Or should we leave moral judgments and ethical considerations to each
culture? 44 dialogue to establish, philosophically, the ideal state, a state that would stand as a
model for all emerging or existing societies currently functioning during Plato’s time and
extending into our own times. And we are to meet the criteria of any proposed changes in the
policy of effecting justice in any state whose would have about more than that the ideal state:
the Republic. – [Link]

…as a matter of fact… Several groups of INDIANS OF THE NORTHWEST COAST OF

AMERICA, mainly the Kwakiutl of Vancouver Island, accepted the practice to murder a man to
acquire the rights to his name, his special dances, his personal crests, and his symbols.
Similarly, when a loved one died, the mourners would search for someone of equal rank in a
neighboring tribe, announce their intention of killing that person, and then proceed to do so. In
this way, they vanquished fate and the pain of sorrow not by reacting passively, but by striking
back. Another interesting culture is that of DOBU ISLAND OFF THE COAST OF NEW GUINEA.
A Dobuan’s entire life was spent in vicious competition. The rule of virtually every social
enterprise was CHEAT YOUR NEIGHBOR. (To them), the virtuous man, the respected man,
was the one who succeeded in injuring his rival in some way. Unlike the Northwest Coast Indian,
the Dobuan who wished to rob or kill someone did not announce his plan but pretended
affection and performed his treachery in secret or by surprise. The sorcery that the Dobuans
practices on one another was, in their view, made more potent by closeness to the victim. So
institutionalized had this practice become that the Dobuans had a special term for it: wabuwabu,
the achievement of personal advantage in a situation in which others are victimized. Typical
examples of wabuwabu were promising to trade the same valuable possession to several
traders and breaking an engagement for marriage after obtaining the unrelenting settlement for
the father of the betrothed. Given the usual property emphasis on the treatment of others, it is
not surprising that the Dobuans scorned laughter and refrained from pleasurable activities or
expressions. Another interesting culture is that of the IK TRIBE OF CENTRAL AFRICA. The Ik
acknowledged no moral or social obligation to anyone or anything. Their standard of value is the
self, their rule of life, to do whatever they wish. At age 3, children are put out of their parents’
huts and thereafter sleep in the open, rain or shine. To survive, they gather in bands and form
not friendships but temporary alliances, which are betrayed whenever convenience dictates. Not
surprisingly, children learn to cry tears of malice… anger typical desire evokes when a beat he
put a b and hu reaction If ethi question ev “whether a society in w society but no universa all
peoples a practices ca can be no co agreement o In the co more of an that most pe on individu
strands of et so fond th do. Couple with one’s de wielder. People First, e and ur d esirabl much o
no one univers - CF. Ruth Bene Macmillan, 1991).- Manuel Vela decision-making/eth

in the foreseeable future. Fourth, some people hold that everything is relative, and for them,
ethical relativism is just a corollary of a more general relativism about all beliefs and just moral
Finally,we often feel that we have no right to make more judgement about other people because
we ourselves have led far from
Perfect moral lives . Ethical relativism is often a way of saying " don't judge me and I won't judge
you”