This module aims to analyze the nature of mores and values in ethics. It discusses the in- terplay between the individual as a free moral agent, and his/her society or environment, as well as the process of value experience, including the difference between values and moral values. In broad strokes, it gives a background on the nature of morality and the mores which are the subject matter of ethics. It examines the nature of mores, including the development of the notion of what is 'right' in our culture. The module also examines the notion of freedom as it relates to morality, together with the wide range of values and moral values, including the nature and basis of the choices that we make.

1. HUMAN FREEDOM
WHAT IS FREE WILL?
BROADLY SPEAKING, FREE WILL REFERS TO THE CAPACITY OF HUMAN
BEINGS TO CHOOSE AMONG ALTERNATIVES, OR ACT IN CERTAIN SITUATIONS
INDEPENDENTLY OF NATURAL, SOCIAL, OR DIVINE RESTRAINTS.
IN OTHER WORDS, FREE WILL IS THE CAPACITY OF HUMANS TO MAKE
CHOICES THAT ARE GENUINELY THEIR OWN.
HENCE, WE CAN SAY THAT A PERSON HAS FREE WILL IF SHE IS ABLE TO
CHOOSE WHATEVER SHE WISHES.

2. FREE WILL, FREEDOM OF ACTION AND LIBERTY
-FREE WILL IS NOT THE SAME AS FREEDOM OF ACTION.
-FREE WILL IS THE CAPACITY OF A PERSON TO CHOOSE,
-FREEDOM OF ACTION REFERS TO THINGS THAT PREVENT A PERSON FROM
DOING SOMETHING, THAT IS, FROM REALIZING A CHOSEN ACTION.
-FOR EXAMPLE, A PRISONER MAY HAVE THE FREE WILL TO CHOOSE TO GO
TO THE PARK, BUT HE DOESN’T HAVE THE FREEDOM OF ACTION TO DO SO,
THAT IS TO ACTUALLY GO TO THE PARK BECAUSE HE IS IMPRISONED.
-FREE WILL IS ALSO NOT THE SAME AS POLITICAL OR SOCIAL FREEDOM, BETTER
KNOWN AS LIBERTY.

3. BROADLY SPEAKING, LIBERTY IS THE ABILITY TO DO AS ONE PLEASES; IT IS A
GIVEN RIGHT, PRIVILEGE, OR IMMUNITY.
JUST BECAUSE YOU WILL BE IMPRISONED FOR KILLING A PERSON DOES NOT
MEAN THAT YOU CANNOT CHOOSE TO, OR ACTUALLY DO, SO.
HERE ONE DOES NOT HAVE THE LIBERTY TO KILL A PERSON (SIMPLY BECAUSE
ONE DOES NOT HAVE THE RIGHT TO DO SO), BUT ONE CAN STILL, INSIDE
ONESELF, CHOOSE TO KILL THAT PERSON, OR EVEN ACTUALLY DO SO.
AS YOU CAN SEE, FREE WILL IS MORE FUNDAMENTAL THAN, MEANING IT COMES
BEFORE, FREEDOM OF ACTION AND LIBERTY.

4. FREE WILL AND MORAL RESPONSIBILITY
FREE WILL ALWAYS COMES WITH MORAL RESPONSIBILITY; THAT
IS, THE OWNERSHIP OF ONE’S GOOD OR BAD ACTION AND ITS
CONSEQUENCES.
THIS MEANS THAT IF A PERSON MAKES A CHOICE THAT IS
MORALLY GOOD, THEN SHE DESERVES THE RESULTING REWARDS ;
WHILE IF SHE MAKES A MORALLY BAD ONE, THEN SHE PROBABLY
DESERVES THE RESULTING PUNISHMENTS OR WHATEVER
CONSEQUENCES.
BECAUSE OF FREE WILL, THEREFORE, HUMAN BEINGS ARE
RESPONSIBLE FOR THEIR ACTIONS AND THEIR CONSEQUENCES.

5. Culture and Moral Behavior
Filipino Morality
References and Resources
• The Filipino Way
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WZB-J--ymuI&t=47s

6. WHAT IS CULTURAL RELATIVISM?
CULTURAL RELATIVISM IS THE VIEW THAT THERE ARE NO UNIVERSAL TRUTHS
IN ETHICS; MEANING THAT THERE IS NO ABSOLUTE MORAL STANDARD FOR
JUDGING AN ACTION AS GOOD OR BAD, RIGHT OR WRONG.
THIS IS BECAUSE MORALITY, ACCORDING TO THIS VIEW, IS CULTURE-BOUND. IT
IS ONE’S CULTURE THAT DETERMINES WHETHER ONE’S ACTION—AT LEAST IN
THAT PARTICULAR CULTURE OR SOCIETY—IS GOOD OR BAD.

7. AND SINCE THERE ARE MANY DIFFERENT CULTURES AROUND THE WORLD, IT FOLLOWS
THAT THERE ARE ALSO MANY DIFFERENT MORALITIES. EACH SOCIETY HAS ITS OWN
MORAL BELIEFS AND PRACTICES, SOME OF WHICH, IF NOT ALL, MAY NOT BE SHARED BY
OTHER SOCIETIES. WHAT IS CONSIDERED RIGHT BY ONE CULTURE MAY NOT BE
CONSIDERED SO BY ANOTHER, AND VICE VERSA.
TAKE FOR EXAMPLE HERODOTUS’ ACCOUNT OF THE “CALLATIANS”, AN ANCIENT INDIAN
TRIBE, WHO BELIEVED THAT EATING THE BODY OF THEIR DEAD ANCESTORS WAS GOOD.
WHILE THE ANCIENT GREEKS CONSIDERED CREMATION AS THE PROPER WAY OF
DISPOSING THE DEAD. ONE DAY, KING DARIUS OF PERSIA, ASKED SOME GREEKS AND
CALLATIANS WHO WERE IN HIS COURT WHAT IT WOULD TAKE FOR EACH OF THEM TO
TRY THE OTHER’S BURIAL PRACTICE. DISGUSTED, BOTH THE GREEKS AND CALLATIANS
THOUGHT IT WAS HORRIBLE TO DO SUCH A THING.

8. NOW BECAUSE THERE IS NO UNIVERSAL MORAL STANDARD, CULTURAL
RELATIVISM CONSIDERS ALL CULTURES AND MORALITIES AS EQUAL. NO ONE
CULTURE AND MORALITY IS CORRECT, WRONG, SUPERIOR OR INFERIOR TO
ANOTHER (OTHERWISE IT WOULD SUPPOSE THAT THERE WAS AN ABSOLUTE
STANDARD OF RIGHT OR WRONG BY WHICH WE JUDGED THAT PARTICULAR
CULTURE OR MORALITY AS SUCH).
IT IS THEREFORE WRONG, ACCORDING TO THIS VIEW, TO JUDGE THE BELIEFS AND
PRACTICES OF OTHER CULTURES, ESPECIALLY USING OUR OWN STANDARDS—A
PRACTICE KNOWN AS “ETHNOCENTRISM.” INSTEAD, WE SHOULD STRIVE TO
UNDERSTAND THEM ON THEIR OWN TERMS AND ADOPT AN ATTITUDE OF
TOLERANCE.

9. THAT THE CALLATIANS ATE THE BODIES OF THEIR DEAD
ANCESTORS IS THEREFORE, FOLLOWING CULTURAL RELATIVISM,
EQUALLY GOOD AND RIGHT AS THE GREEKS’ CREMATION OF THEIRS—AT
LEAST IN AND ACCORDING TO THEIR RESPECTIVE CULTURES. NEITHER
OF THEM SHOULD JUDGE THE OTHER’S PRACTICE AS WRONG OR
INFERIOR. RATHER, THEY SHOULD TRY TO UNDERSTAND EACH OTHER
FROM THEIR PROPER CULTURAL CONTEXT AND BE TOLERANT TOWARDS
EACH OTHER.

10. THE UNTENABILITY OF CULTURAL RELATIVISM
1. THE CULTURAL DIFFERENCES ARGUMENT
-DESPITE BEING A CONVINCING VIEW, CULTURAL RELATIVISM HOWEVER HAS ITS
LIMITATIONS.
-THE FORM OF ARGUMENT USED TO SUPPORT THIS VIEW (THE CULTURAL
DIFFERENCES ARGUMENT) IS NOT AS SOUND AS IT APPEARS TO BE.
-BRIEFLY, THE CULTURAL DIFFERENCES ARGUMENT STATES THAT:
PREMISE: DIFFERENT CULTURES HAVE DIFFERENT MORAL CODES.
CONCLUSION: THEREFORE, THERE IS NO OBJECTIVE “TRUTH” IN MORALITY.
RIGHT AND WRONG ARE ONLY MATTERS OF OPINION, AND
OPINIONS VARY FROM CULTURE TO CULTURE.

11. -FROM A LOGICAL POINT OF VIEW, THE CULTURAL DIFFERENCES ARGUMENT IS A
NON SEQUITUR—
AND IS THEREFORE INVALID. THIS MEANS THAT ITS CONCLUSION DOES NOT
FOLLOW FROM ITS PREMISE.
-IF WE THINK ABOUT IT, EVEN IF THE PREMISE OF THE ARGUMENT IS TRUE (FOR IT
IS INDEED A KNOWN FACT THAT DIFFERENT CULTURES HAVE DIFFERENT MORAL
CODES),
-IT DOES NOT AUTOMATICALLY FOLLOW HOWEVER THAT THE CONCLUSION THAT
THERE IS NO OBJECTIVE TRUTH IN MORALITY IS ALSO TRUE.

12. TO HELP EXPLAIN THIS, LET US TAKE A SIMILAR ARGUMENT FROM GEOGRAPHY.
-BEFORE, SOME PEOPLE BELIEVED THAT THE EARTH IS FLAT, WHILE OTHERS
ARGUED THAT IT IS SPHERICAL.
-DOES IT FOLLOW, THEN, FROM THE MERE FACT THAT THEY DISAGREE, THAT
THERE IS NO OBJECTIVE TRUTH IN GEOGRAPHY?
-WE WOULD NEVER DRAW SUCH A CONCLUSION BECAUSE WE KNOW THAT
SOME PEOPLE’S BELIEFS ABOUT THE WORLD MIGHT SIMPLY BE WRONG.
-ALSO, THERE IS NO REASON TO THINK THAT IF THE WORLD IS ROUND
EVERYONE MUST KNOW IT.
-SIMILARLY, THERE IS NO REASON TO THINK, THEREFORE, THAT IF THERE IS AN
OBJECTIVE MORAL TRUTH EVERYONE MUST KNOW IT.

13. 2. CULTURES ARE MORE SIMILAR THAN THEY APPEAR
-CULTURAL RELATIVISM EXAGGERATES THE DIFFERENCES BETWEEN CULTURES
TO THE POINT OF DISREGARDING THEIR MANY SIMILARITIES.
-OFTENTIMES WHEN WE EXAMINE EVEN THEIR MOST APPARENT DIFFERENCES,
WE WILL DISCOVER THAT CULTURES AROUND THE WORLD ARE NOT REALLY THAT
DIFFERENT FROM EACH OTHER THAN THEY APPEAR TO BE.
-FOR EXAMPLE, HINDUS DON’T EAT COWS. THE HINDUS DO NOT EAT THESE
ANIMALS TO RESPECT THE SPIRIT OF THEIR ELDERS WHO MAY BE IN THEIR
BODIES.

14. THE VALUE OF RESPECT FOR ONE’S ELDERS IS NOT UNIQUE TO HINDU INDIANS.
ALL, IF NOT MOST, CULTURES AROUND THE WORLD SHARE THE SAME VALUE,
ALTHOUGH THEY MAY EXPRESS IT DIFFERENTLY.
-ALONG WITH RESPECT FOR ONE’S ELDERS, OTHER VALUES SHARED BY
CULTURES AROUND THE WORLD INCLUDE PROTECTION OF CHILDREN, TRUTH
TELLING, PROHIBITION OF MURDER, ETC.
-INDEED, ALL, IF NOT MOST, SOCIETIES SHARE THE SAME VALUES.
-IT IS OFTEN ONLY IN THE EXPRESSION OF THESE VALUES—IN THEIR BELIEFS
AND PRACTICES—THAT THEY DIFFER FROM EACH OTHER.
-CULTURAL RELATIVISM TENDS TO EXAGGERATE THESE APPARENT
DIFFERENCES, OVERLOOKING THEIR MANY AND DEEPER SIMILARITIES.

15. MORAL DEVELOPMENT
KOHLBERG’S STAGES OF MORAL DEVELOPMENT
-EACH OF US HAS UNIQUE WAYS OF RESPONDING TO MORAL SITUATIONS.
-IN THE FAMOUS HEINZ DILEMMA, FOR EXAMPLE, SOME OF YOU MAY HAVE
SAID THAT HEINZ WAS RIGHT FOR STEALING THE DRUG BECAUSE SAVING HIS
WIFE IS MORE IMPORTANT THAN PROTECTING THE PHARMACIST’S PROPERTY;
WHILE OTHERS, HOWEVER, MAY HAVE ARGUED THAT HE WAS WRONG SINCE
THERE ARE OTHER—MORE LEGAL—WAYS OF SAVING HIS WIFE ASIDE FROM
STEALING.

16. ONE PSYCHOLOGIST WHO TRIED TO EXPLAIN WHY WE HAVE DIFFERENT
PERSPECTIVES AND DECISIONS EVEN IN SIMILAR MORAL SITUATIONS WAS
LAWRENCE KOHLBERG.
-HE CONDUCTED A STUDY IN THE 1950S USING STORIES OF MORAL DILEMMAS.
HE ASKED PEOPLE WHAT THEY WOULD DO AND WHY IF THEY FOUND
THEMSELVES IN SIMILAR SITUATIONS.
-HE THEN ANALYZED THEIR ANSWERS AND CAME UP WITH HIS STAGE THEORY
KNOWN AS THE STAGES OF MORAL DEVELOPMENT.

17. WHAT IS KOHLBERG’S STAGES OF MORAL DEVELOPMENT?
-KOHLBERG’S STAGES OF MORAL DEVELOPMENT IS A THEORY
BASED ON THE WORK OF SWISS PSYCHOLOGIST JEAN PIAGET THAT
EXPLAINS THE DEVELOPMENT OF MORAL REASONING IN INDIVIDUALS.
-ACCORDING TO KOHLBERG, MORAL DEVELOPMENT FOLLOWS A
SERIES OF SIX PROGRESSIVE STAGES, EACH OF WHICH IS MORE CAPABLE
OF RESPONDING ADEQUATELY TO MORAL DILEMMAS THAN PREVIOUS
ONES.

18. THESE SIX STAGES, IN TURN, CAN BE GROUPED INTO THREE GENERAL LEVELS:
THE PRE-CONVENTIONAL, CONVENTIONAL, AND POST-CONVENTIONAL.
FOLLOWING PIAGET, KOHLBERG ARGUED THAT IT IS RARE FOR SOMEONE TO GO
BACK TO AN EARLIER STAGE OF MORAL DEVELOPMENT, SINCE THE
UNDERSTANDING IN EACH STAGE IS RETAINED IN LATER ONES. MOREOVER, AN
INDIVIDUAL CANNOT SKIP ANY STAGE, FOR EACH STAGE PROVIDES A NEW AND
NECESSARY PERSPECTIVE, MORE COMPREHENSIVE AND DISTINCT THAN, BUT
INTEGRATED WITH, PREVIOUS ONES.

19. LEVEL 1: PRE-CONVENTIONAL LEVEL
-THIS LEVEL OF MORAL REASONING IS ESPECIALLY COMMON AMONG
CHILDREN AND EVEN IN ANIMALS. INDIVIDUALS AT THIS LEVEL JUDGE THE
MORALITY OF AN ACTION BY ITS DIRECT CONSEQUENCES. THEY CONFORM TO
RULES IN ORDER TO AVOID PUNISHMENT OR RECEIVE REWARDS.
-PEOPLE AT THE PRE-CONVENTIONAL LEVEL ARE EGOCENTRIC, MEANING
THEY ARE SOLELY CONCERNED WITH THEMSELVES. THEY THINK THAT WHAT IS
RIGHT IS WHAT ONE CAN GET AWAY WITH OR WHAT IS PERSONALLY SATISFYING.

20. STAGE 1: PUNISHMENT AND OBEDIENCE ORIENTATION
-INDIVIDUALS IN THIS STAGE FOCUS ON THE DIRECT
CONSEQUENCES OF THEIR ACTIONS ON THEMSELVES. THEY OBEY IN
ORDER TO AVOID PUNISHMENT.
FOR EXAMPLE, A CHILD IN THIS STAGE WILL CONSIDER AN ACTION
MORALLY BAD BECAUSE HE ENDED UP BEING PUNISHED THE LAST TIME
HE DID IT.

21. STAGE 2: INSTRUMENTAL PURPOSE ORIENTATION
-THIS STAGE CAN BE BEST DESCRIBED BY THE EXPRESSION, “WHAT’S IN IT
FOR ME?”
-IN THIS STAGE, INDIVIDUALS CONSIDER ANY MORAL BEHAVIOR GOOD IF IT
SERVES THEIR INTEREST OR IS CONVENIENT. THEIR FOCUS IS SOLELY ON
RECEIVING REWARDS OR SATISFYING PERSONAL NEEDS, WITHOUT ANY REGARD
FOR OTHERS.
-IF AT ALL THEY’RE CONCERNED WITH OTHERS, IT IS BECAUSE OTHER
PEOPLE FURTHER THEIR OWN INTERESTS OR THEY GET SOMETHING IN RETURN.

22. LEVEL 2: CONVENTIONAL LEVEL
-THIS LEVEL IS TYPICAL OF ADOLESCENTS AND ADULTS.
-AT THIS LEVEL, INDIVIDUALS ACCEPT SOCIETY’S CONVENTIONS OF RIGHT AND
WRONG USUALLY WITHOUT ANY QUESTION.
-THEIR FOCUS SHIFTS FROM SELF-INTEREST TO RELATIONSHIPS WITH OTHER
PEOPLE AND WITH SOCIETY AS A WHOLE.
-INDIVIDUALS STRIVE TO OBEY RULES SET BY PARENTS, PEERS, AND THE
GOVERNMENT IN ORDER TO WIN THEIR APPROVAL OR TO MAINTAIN SOCIAL ORDER.

23. STAGE 3: GOOD BOY/NICE GIRL ORIENTATION
-INDIVIDUALS IN THIS STAGE ENTER SOCIETY BY CONFORMING TO SOCIAL
STANDARDS.
THEY TRY TO BE A "GOOD BOY" OR "GOOD GIRL" IN ORDER TO LIVE UP TO
SOCIETY’S EXPECTATIONS, HAVING LEARNED THAT BEING REGARDED AS GOOD
MAKES OTHER PEOPLE LIKE THEM.
-THEY START TO JUDGE THE MORALITY OF AN ACTION BY EVALUATING ITS
CONSEQUENCES TO THEIR RELATIONSHIPS, WHICH NOW BEGIN TO INCLUDE
THINGS LIKE RESPECT, GRATITUDE, AND THE "GOLDEN RULE".
-

24. LEVEL 3: POST-CONVENTIONAL OR PRINCIPLED LEVEL
-AT THE POST-CONVENTIONAL LEVEL, INDIVIDUALS HAVE A WIDER VIEW OF
MORALITY. THEY MOVE BEYOND THE PERSPECTIVE OF THEIR OWN SOCIETY AND ATTEMPT
TO ASSUME THAT OF ALL INDIVIDUALS.
-THEIR MORALITY, THEN, IS DEFINED IN TERMS OF UNIVERSAL PRINCIPLES AND
VALUES THAT APPLY TO ALL INDIVIDUALS AND SITUATIONS.
-ALSO, THEY HAVE THEIR OWN MORAL PRINCIPLES AND START TO REALIZE THAT
THEIR MORAL VIEWS MAY NOT BE THE SAME AS SOCIETY’S, AND VICE-VERSA.
-BECAUSE OF THIS, THEY BELIEVE THAT ONE CAN DISOBEY SOCIETY’S RULES IF THEY
ARE INCONSISTENT WITH ONE’S OWN PRINCIPLES.
-THEY BELIEVE THAT RULES ARE NOT ABSOLUTE ORDERS THAT MUST BE OBEYED
WITHOUT QUESTION.

25. STAGE 4: LAW AND ORDER ORIENTATION
-INDIVIDUALS IN THIS STAGE TAKE INTO CONSIDERATION A LARGER PERSPECTIVE,
THAT OF SOCIETY.
-THEIR MORAL DECISION MAKING HAS NOW MOVED BEYOND THE NEED FOR
INDIVIDUAL APPROVAL AND THE CONSEQUENCES TO THEIR RELATIONSHIP WITH OTHERS.
-THEY BELIEVE THAT RULES AND LAWS MAINTAIN SOCIAL ORDER THAT IS WORTH
PRESERVING.
-MOST ACTIVE MEMBERS OF SOCIETY REMAIN IN THIS STAGE, WHERE MORALITY IS
STILL PREDOMINANTLY DICTATED BY AN OUTSIDE FORCE.

26. STAGE 5: SOCIAL CONTRACT ORIENTATION
INDIVIDUALS IN THIS STAGE VIEW THE WORLD AS HOLDING DIFFERENT OPINIONS,
RIGHTS, AND VALUES.
-BECAUSE OF THIS, THEY RESPECT EACH PERSPECTIVE AS UNIQUE TO EACH PERSON
OR SOCIETY.
-THEY REGARD LAWS AS SOCIAL CONTRACTS RATHER THAN RIGID ORDERS—TOOLS
THAT CAN BE MODIFIED TO IMPROVE HUMAN WELL-BEING.
-HENCE, THEY BELIEVE THAT RULES SHOULD BE CHANGED ESPECIALLY WHEN THESE
ARE INCONSISTENT WITH INDIVIDUAL RIGHTS OR DO NOT PROMOTE THE INTERESTS OF THE
MAJORITY. THIS CAN BE ACHIEVED BY MAJORITY DECISION AND COMPROMISE.

27. STAGE 6: UNIVERSAL ETHICAL PRINCIPLE ORIENTATION
-IN THIS STAGE, THE RIGHT ACTION IS DETERMINED BY ONE’S SELF-CHOSEN ETHICAL
PRINCIPLES OF CONSCIENCE. THESE PRINCIPLES ARE ABSTRACT AND UNIVERSAL IN
APPLICATION, MEANING IT TAKES THE PERSPECTIVE OF EVERY PERSON OR GROUP THAT
COULD POTENTIALLY BE AFFECTED BY THE DECISION.
-INDIVIDUALS IN THIS STAGE SEE AN ACTION NEVER AS A MEANS BUT RATHER
ALWAYS AS AN END IN ITSELF; THIS MEANS THAT THEY ACT BECAUSE IT IS RIGHT, AND NOT
MERELY BECAUSE IT AVOIDS THEM PUNISHMENT, OR IS IN THEIR BEST INTEREST, OR IS
EXPECTED, LEGAL OR PREVIOUSLY AGREED UPON.
-ALTHOUGH KOHLBERG INSISTED THAT STAGE SIX EXISTS, HE FOUND IT DIFFICULT TO
IDENTIFY INDIVIDUALS WHO CONSISTENTLY DEMONSTRATED ITS PRINCIPLES. HE ALSO
CLAIMED THAT SOME INDIVIDUALS MAY NEVER REACH THIS STAGE.

28. CRITICISMS
-THOUGH STILL A THEORY, MANY LATER STUDIES HAVE CONFIRMED THE BASIC
IDEAS OF KOHLBERG’S STAGES OF MORAL DEVELOPMENT, IDEAS SUCH AS THE
GENERAL SEQUENCE OF ITS STAGES AND THEIR CUMULATIVE COMPREHENSION OF
SUCCEEDING STAGES.
-SOME SCHOLARS, ON THE OTHER HAND, HAVE CRITICIZED IT AS TOO
“ANDROCENTRIC”, SINCE IT WAS NARROWLY BASED ON THE RESPONSES OF WHITE,
UPPER-CLASS MEN AND BOYS; AND ALSO AS CULTURALLY BIASED, BECAUSE ITS
HIGHEST STAGES OF MORAL REASONING PRIMARILY REFLECT THE WESTERN IDEAL
OF JUSTICE BASED ON INDIVIDUALISTIC THOUGHT.

29. NOTEPLEASEFINDTIMETOVIEWTHELINKSONEACHTOPIC
PART II – THE MORAL AGENT
HUMAN FREEDOM
-WHAT IS FREE WILL? WHAT IS FREE WILL? HTTPS://WWW.YOUTUBE.COM/WATCH?V=DIISKPHXOES
FREE WILL, FREEDOM OF ACTION AND LIBERTY
FREE WILL AND MORAL RESPONSIBILITY
CULTURE AND MORAL BEHAVIOR
FILIPINO MORALITY THE FILIPINO WAY HTTPS://WWW.YOUTUBE.COM/WATCH?V=WZB-J--YMUI&T=47S
CULTURAL RELATIVISM
WHAT IS CULTURAL RELATIVISM? HTTPS://WWW.YOUTUBE.COM/WATCH?V=FMCWUT5BFOG
THE UNTENABILITY OF CULTURAL RELATIVISM
MORAL DEVELOPMENT
KOHLBERG’S STAGES OF MORAL DEVELOPMENT HTTPS://WWW.YOUTUBE.COM/WATCH?V=JN-RTNHBJWS

30. WHAT IS FREEDOM ?
WHAT LIMITS FREEDOM?