FOREGROUND
If we want to make this world a better place, with more justice and freedom for people, ethics is a subject of great importance. Everybody seems to agree on that. Ethics, as a set of moral principles, that start from some general values regarding humanity and must end up influencing our behavior in each small decision. We must not let ethics in the background, or in second place, we must actively seek it, with all the intention of developing it more and more. If people do that, it will reflect in human life in general. Hence we must search, look into things, not run from the problems that may appear, we must face this dilemmas, think about them, look around, find out what we think is wrong in our society. Off course we must be merciful, but to be neutral before injustice is not an act of love.
And we must have the conscience that ethics must go beyond the laws of the courts. Off course this law is important and necessary. It is subject to discussion, and that is good, we must perfect this law democratically, but knowing that it will always have it’s limitations. It exists to prevent certain abuses and leave mankind free to pursuit happiness and the general good, but it won’t take us all the way towards this happiness. That is not it’s role.
If we think the role of the law is to take us all the way towards our goals, we will end up being tyrannical or conformist. Tyrannical, if we think the role of the law is to solve everything but it still didn’t, so we must make it more and more rigid, controlling more and more, until we get to a dictatorship. Or conformists, if we think the law we have already handles all the problems, and all we have to do is follow it.
In this case, we will think that we do enough if we don’t disobey the constitution, and we will not look in a critical way at the world, the market machine and the human relations, that rule the world. We will think that the world’s system, when it doesn’t disobey the constitution, is perfect, and there will never be anything unethical in submitting to it and taking your reward without thinking too much. But this machine is made of people, and the people are the ones who hire, fire, put you up or down. And the human ethic is not ready, it is still under construction: this is proved by the problems that appear everywhere all the time, with or without crimes established by law.
If we never submit this world to an ethical exam that goes beyond the law of the courts, nothing will ever get better. For example, capitalism has it’s thousand tricks. Tricks to push a product to someone who doesn’t really need it and could improve his condition if he spent the money in something else, tricks of not letting people realize your real intention in a given moment so you can profit later and a thousand things like that. In our culture, what makes more success: if someone tells a trick he created to take something from someone without disobeying the law or if someone speaks about a new scruple that emerged in his conscience and makes him hesitate a little to gain money in a certain way?
If we want the common good for people, we must seek the common good for people. There is no easy way for that, I think, but we must ask ourselves if mankind is sincerely pursuing that. I think that in the culture we live today, the business culture, that teaches success, the common good appears as a toll inspector between you and your goal, which is your own individual wellness. You pay the toll and you can go ahead towards your real goals.
Many people seem to believe that there is nothing wrong in that, because they were convinced by a theory that says that one’s profit is always good, because it makes the money circulate and this can’t ever be bad. But our intentions when we do business define “where” the money will circulate, and where it won’t.
So, as in the world nothing is easy, I believe mankind will only achieve the common good when it really become mankind’s goal, not a mere toll inspector. It’s not about telling you exactly what you must do, and if you have clear in your conscience that you are really doing for the neighbor, you shouldn’t care too much if the others see it or not. It’s about remembering that we must ask exactly what is the target we’re aiming at.
Because if we want the world to change, we must somehow change the world. Charity is very good, but it’s not enough. We must work for a world where charity is less and less necessary, and charity is not what shapes the planet we live in, what shapes the planet is the world of business and work, so if there is not more and more ethics in this world, more and more concern with the common good, the planet will never get that better.
Everybody says that each one must give his contribution to a better world. And we know that each one must give his contribution within his possibilities. We all don’t have the same possibilities of contributing.
A man that never learned anything other than handling a hoe, for instance. Maybe he ends up happy if he simply raises his children out of crime, and who will judge him for that? Now, from the president of the United States, we don’t expect only that he takes care of his family. The contribution that is required of him is much bigger, and rightly so. Hence each one can contribute in a different level. And we, that are neither the hoe guy nor the president of the United States, must reflect and find our level of contribution.
What to say then about the contribution that the ones who are greatly rich can give? I personally don’t understand a billionaire complaining about a crisis. Who have more power to do something than them? They say they create jobs, well, then, if that’s their contribution, it should be their priority. And if it was their priority, then when society has problems with employment – and we have – they should be the first to accept the responsibility for the fact that the system is not giving enough work for people.
The government is bad? Well, when we say that we all must give our contribution, I think it is pretty clear for everybody that we must do something for the world despite the fact that the governments are bad, and not to expect that the changes come necessarily from the governments. The governments get in the way and there are too many taxes and difficulties? Maybe, but if somebody live in a place where he was able to make billions and keep these billions in his bank account, then I think he is not with his hands and legs tied, in the bottom of a well.
I’m not a communist, off course I don’t think anybody should take anything from anybody by force. It is not right and History shows that no good thing comes from doing this. Neither do I know about the life of all billionaires, I don’t know any personally, I just reserv myself the right to say that, if a good number of them put the common good really in the foreground of their decisions, obviously a lot would change.
But off course the billionaires are not the only guilty ones, especially in a world where so many people wants to be like them.
I believe we have to work on our mentality. What are the things we value the most? What are the attitudes we really admire? Think about it, talk about it. Work so that the ethics develop more and more, because it still hasn’t reach it’s goal.
I’m in favor of free iniciative, I don’t want an economy totally centralized by the government. Also, I know that everybody needs to have a profit, and I know an entrepeneur has many challenges. I always like a thousand times more to see business opening than closing, I swear. But we have to remember that none of us invented the food, so we must always think if we are being fair in our relations with the others.
Off course it is very convenient for a capitalist to say that everybody that thinks different is a communist, and vice-versa, but I think there is a mist over what “capitalism” and “communism” really mean. I don’t see “capitalism” as just “buy and sell”. The official definition of capitalism is a system of free commerce, but the ideology that says that “the movement of money is inevitably good” gained so much strength that today few people see any other way to think about commerce. The ones who defend capitalism nowadays, are defending this ideology. That’s why when I say “capitalism” I’m refering to this ideology, this belief in the natural goodness of the movement of money.
In the same way, “communism” is not simply to believe that there is inhumanity in the world of business, and that the rich have a moral duty. No, communism is to believe in a communist revolution and a communist form of government.
In fact, all these “isms” teach you to do things that don’t look right in the moment but that would be justified at some point in the future. In capitalism, by the natural goodness of money. In communism, by the revolution. Every “ism” says that the ends justify the means. But would you bet on someone who says: “Put the world in my hand because I represent the people”? And would you trust a fellow who says: “I would do absolutely anything for money as long as it is not a crime established by law”?
I hope you’ve noticed that I’m not speaking as if I knew exactly and in details what it is that mankind should do, as if I had the exact solution for each problem. I’m talking about the things I see, and the basic things that I believe, but I don’t think there is a magical solution. For instance, I see that there is a system that works in a cetain way, but I am not the kind that judges someone for having a job “inside the system”. See, I’ve always been inside and I’ve always been outside. It’s up to each of us to check if he is working for the other, doing the best for the growth of the people around him, inside the possibilities that are given him at each moment.
To me, what’s left to do is to believe that it is possible, not easy, but possible, to do things with love for the neighbor, not beting this love in a theory that says that some magic will happen there in the far future, after all the future will always be a mistery, but to believe in a goodness that our eyes can see. If we don’t believe that goodness has an efficacy when applied to all levels of human activities, then we have no faith at all in goodness, and in the human being. And if we have no faith, then why do anything at all?
ABSOLUTE VALUE
Why are there so many depressed people? Why we seem so anxious all the time? Why sometimes we can’t get in a better mood? Maybe some of this anxiety is natural, a part of the human condition, and will always exist. But we’re certainly anxious beyond measure, and certainly the world we built don’t help us to relax.
The rule of this world is competition above all. And this competition implies that many are going to lose. We end up finding only natural that some will stay behind, for not being competent enough. We surf this competition wave, we think we are building a world based on efficiency, but deep inside we all have this ghost on our heels, this fear of being the next to stay behind.
This culture of classifying people based on their “efficiency”, their productivity, seem to come from the strange marriage of two theories from seemingly very different origins. One is a theory that calls itself Christian, and that says that material success is a sign that God is pleased with you. This theory is born of a theory that tried to understand the naturally indecipherable mystery of predestination.
To me, saying that material success is a sign of God’s blessing is the same as saying that the rules of God and the rules of the world are the same, that is, that the effort required to achieve prosperity in the world and the effort required by God to show your faith are the same thing. I don’t think you should criticize someone simply because he or she achieved some kind of prosperity, but to have success in the world and to please God are two different things. God’s ways are much more mysterious than the world’s ways and sometimes incomprehensible, as the Bible shows.
The other one is a theory that called itself scientific. It was born of a scientific theory. The theory of the evolution of species – with which I don’t agree, but that’s another story – said that the environment makes some kind of selection of the “fittest”, only the better adapted survive, and this way the species evolve. It didn’t take long before people started wanting to apply this principle to society, saying that the society evolved the same way, with the “less fit” staying behind, and that this is something positive. In fact, this theory didn’t have long life in the scientific world, but I think it made a big damage in our culture. A lot of people embarked on that, and still today this idea is very much alive in our collective unconscious.
But besides the cruelty of taking a theory about animals and applying it to society, the idea in itself makes no sense. We are not in the jungle, collecting our food. We live in a society where everything in interconnected. Each one of us feeds, dresses and etc. from the work of the other. There isn’t an isolated and self-sufficient world of the “very competent”. If there are “incompetents” working around, we are all benefiting of their work too, including the “super-competent” ones. So if somebody is excluded after decades of work, he is excluded after the world benefited from his work, maybe a work that no “genius” would like to do. And we have to remember that, in this world, to be excluded means, many and many times, to be eliminated.
Maybe the “religious” theory doesn’t say that you should let the other behind, and the “scientific” one doesn’t say that God is the one that determinates things this way, but somehow these ideas got together, one closed the holes of the other, and our present culture, a culture where the productive efficiency, the competence, is such a higher value that it determinates even the very dignity of the person. The person’s right to live.
This culture is anything but merciful. Since mercy is needed for justice to exist, this culture is also not fair. And why? Because what is traded in the world is not only merchandise. We only think of the material world. But can’t an unemployed person who lives as a favor do any good in the world? And doesn’t a person in a leading position have, besides of a great opportunity to do good, a great opportunity to do the opposite too?
It’s one thing to help someone to find a job, another thing to condemn this person with your tongue and eyes, and sink her even more. Besides, the positions in the productive chain are transient. Someone who is unemployed today maybe is not tomorrow, and vice-versa. I think the real value of a person will only be defined in the end of his life, and will be decided in the other side.
We must remember that the idea of defining the value of a human being based on his or hers “social utility” is a central idea in all the oppressing regimes in history – you can pick any one, from any “ideology”, even the most sinister. If the value of a person is given by his “social utility”, this value in a certain moment can be zero. And from the human point of view, it could never be zero.
Yes, it is good to be useful, it is good to work, but this scale that defines who has and who has not the right to live is terrible. To put the functioning of a social system above the very value of humanity is the same as saying the we have a scheme in mind of how the things should work, and we believe that it will only be worthy to protect everybody when this scheme is functioning a hundred percent. Being so, what takes us to praise this system is definitely not the love for mankind. Maybe it’s the love an idealized humanity that exists in your mind, but not for the humanity that is actually there.
Honestly, I think that it is necessary to establish the human life as an absolute value. On this matter I have to make a stand: I’m one of the people that believe that, to start, we should establish that nobody here starves, nobody here freezes. Really, establish by law, in a legal and democratic way of course, that the minimum should be guaranteed.
A lot of people are against this. But, in a democracy, if the majority of people want to live in a world where nobody starves, then it is fair to use the government money for that, as it is fair to use it to build roads, hospitals and pay the police.
There are people who think that this would make people become lazy. I think we can have more faith than that in the human being. I don’t think the human being is so lazy. Just take a picture of New York a hundred years ago and a picture of it now. Mankind as a whole have been producing a lot, relentlessly, and is not owing any demonstration of effort. Why not give a vote of confidence? I believe most people prefer to work. Think of how the techniques evolve, in a fantastic and unbelievable way, since the beginnings of mankind. We are not this animal that only wants to do the minimum.
We don’t know how the future is going to be, we don’t know in details how it all should work, but we know that, for the world to get better, humanity must engage in some kind of general common project, not an authoritarian and detailed project, but a common goal that everything gets better for everybody. Simply see ourselves all in the same boat. Is it really the better way to make people engage in a project, calling all them lazy and threatening with elimination? And, although this calvinist darwinism of ours is not so old, the human being always lived with the threat of exclusion, of elimination, and until now we could never see ourselves all in the same boat.
I think that every time you go out helping strangers, it is possible that at some given point someone take advantage without really needing it. But we have to think what matters the most. If what really matters is to help, we should put it in first place.
Anyway, most of people is not against helping. So much so that we believe in charity. This is really very good, but I think we would obtain an even better result if we don’t wait people bite the dust to lend a hand.
We have to think on the general context. What is going to be better for humanity. Would a world without the threat of exclusion really be less efficient? I sincerely don’t think so. We have to remember that this is a world made of people, a world of human relations. If our “efficiency” defines our value as a human being, then at each problem that appear in our work, and problems appear all the time, it’s our very dignity that is in stake at each step. It gets hard for the person, and for humanity, to develop in a healthy and creative way in such a situation.
In the end, who judges the efficiency are the other people, and what ends up happening is a war climate, with everybody just being defensive. If, in the world of work, what waits for us at each corner is the possibility of exclusion, of elimination, then anything can be a trap. To admit we don’t know something can be something dangerous. To assume a mistake can be deadly. Sometimes it’s better to leave everything as it is and hope that nobody finds the mistake, of if they do, don’t find the guilty. Someone in a leading position can ask for help, but, for someone in an “inferior” level, ask for help can a lot of times be like admit a defeat. For the sake of “safety”, it can be better not even try something new and expose yourself to the risk of failing and being victim of judgement. Better not be the one who is going to risk and take a step ahead.
Sometimes the exaggerated competition can even lead to frankly dishonest attitudes. I’m not saying that this is all that goes on in the world of work, there are good things too, of course, but, in general, the fear of being excluded is real and have a bad consequence to our lives. Be defensive is natural. After all, who would like to be unemployed, in a couch, looking to the ceiling, being judged by the universe? Or maybe even starve?
In this way, precisely our obsession with efficiency, which leads us to judge the dignity of people at each step, can get in the way of efficiency itself. It’s very seldom that creativity exists for real in toxic environments. People sometimes are led to invest in a certain political game, of being nice to the “right people”, more than to learn new things, because this political game demands effort. I admit we can’t change these things overnight, but I believe that if we start to live our mentality of “selection of the fittest” behind, together with our idea that the integrity of a person can be totally emptied all of a sudden, if we believed that the person has an absolute value in his or herself, the fear would decrease a lot, and things would start to change.
Of course humanity must keep working, and trying to do it’s best, I just think that we can be more merciful with one another. I don’t think that I’m talking about a too vague idea. I really do believe that, if we changed our way to judge one another, that would make a difference in the practical world. Before saying that everybody is lazy, we should ask ourselves if we are doing the most so that people feel valued.
The cooperation between people would be bigger, if we all weren’t so defensive. For instance, sharing knowledge and information would happen more naturally. With everybody defensive, many people tend to don’t want to “hand it on a plate” to anyone that asks. The person uses the justification that the other must “go after it and learn for himself” as if it was a way of strengthening the world of production, but in general it is only an excuse, because deep inside the person is afraid and needs to protect his or her position, and is not going to really help anybody.
We always hear stories of strong people who moved up in the world, and we use these stories to judge the others. This whole idea of rewarding the strongest can seem beautiful to many people, but imagine a competition, a competition of strength and courage, where the winner wins a big prize. It may sound nice. But now imagine that the losers are executed. It’s not a healthy competition, to say the least. I used this extreme example, of course, to show that maybe we should think things over.
A more merciful world can be a dream nowadays, but I think it is a dream that is worth chasing. This dream is distant from the way things work nowadays, and naturally it is not easy, but we should try to start somewhere. After all, we don’t need only to eat bread, we should try to be happy.
We always say, for instance, that we shouldn’t leave the people we love aside because of work. When we say that, the image in our minds is the image of someone who is doing very well in his job but willingly goes after “more and more”. That exists, but in most of the cases people live their loved ones aside because they are being demanded by a system that brings huge moral condemnations to who, at some point, is not “competent” enough.
We need something more than this. How are we going to strengthen our spirit, how are we going to live for today, how are we going to transcend a little the worries with material things, inside a system that defines the person’s dignity itself, according to arbitrary standards of productive efficiency?
LADY ACCLAMATION
We know that living according to other people’s opinion is not a good idea. By the way, to live without being based on other people’s opinion is one of the things that everybody says they do but few people really achieve it, because it’s hard, like living for today, being totally sincere with yourself, things like that. But, at least in theory, we agree that we shouldn’t live looking for acclaim from others. And why? Because living for acclamation is a trap. Other people’s opinion simply doesn’t represent the true. In theory, we know that.
But, in this case, by logic we should know that we also shouldn’t measure other people by the opinion that the folks around have of them. There is too much gossip, lies. And also too much self-interested compliment, too much praise for people who don’t deserve it. That the voice of people is not the voice of God is a biblical, historical – and, if you’re and adult, also empirical – fact.
If we want the justice in the courts to be blind, we too shouldn’t give, in our own mind, preference for the ones who have some kind of honor and glory in society. Because there are no guarantees that these things are really connected to virtue. Shouldn’t we be always willing to hear the many sides of any question, impartially?
This matters of honor, fame and glory shouldn’t influence the justice inside nor outside the courts. But when it is the word of a person against the word of another, it’s scary to even think of saying something that goes against someone who has popularity, someone who is praised all around. We know very well that society will not be impartial.
And it should be. We are tired of hearing stories of extremely “honored” people, that had the admiration of many, and were caught doing extremely wrong things. Why do we never learn anything from those lessons? Why do we always say “oh, who could ever have guessed”, and we go ahead without reassessing our way of seeing the world? Without becoming more impartial?
I’m not saying you shouldn’t admire nobody. I’m saying that we should not give anyone any preference or have any prejudice based on society’s opinion.
We should not forget that, in this world, popularity is power. If many people fight for it in the small day to day world, just imagine the people who play the game in a much higher level, a level where it is possible to influence many, but many, people. We live in a world where image is power, and, being so, many people will invest a lot in it, including money.
We should have the eye especially open when it comes to people who seem to be in a hurry to gain popularity. In the fight for popularity, being sincere, speaking the truth, can be very risky. Who struggles for popularity builds a little kingdom. He makes alliances, surrounds himself with followers. There is too much to lose when speaking the truth means to risk your image before society.
The higher the level of popularity that the person is aiming at, the more she has to play this kind of game. In general, there are no unanimities in this world, and, in the level of political game, people choose a definite public to captivate. Many may even not care of looking bad for some people, as long as they always have the support of a certain group. And, for this definite public, they sell some kind of image of perfection. Of course the guy will not say he is perfect. That would make people think he is conceited. He may even speak of some flaws he have, but these are very well chosen flaws for the people to say “look how humble he is”, and, deep inside, keep thinking that he is, in many aspects, perfect. Or is it impossible? Or isn’t the human being capable of doing so? Sometimes, a person who has a great power of influence can even convince others that he is persecuted and wronged for the fact that he is not an unanimity, although not being an unanimity – is there any? – and being persecuted are obviously two completely different things.
Many times our superficial culture leads us to believe in whoever say the prettiest words. But if we try to look deeper, we will see that no liar gets to the top saying only lies. Nobody wins nobody’s heart saying that the sun is yellow. The art of deceit consists basically in mixing up lies with small truths. Both in the high level power games and in the more trivial levels.
Even good things like charity can be used simply to gain support. It’s sad, but it is true. By the way, both charity and courageous deeds, like a person that risks herself and save someone from drowning or something like that, are things that can come, and do come, from people from the most diverse origins and thoughts, and this teaches us two lessons. First, of course, that we must be careful with our prejudices. And second that, even though is good to do good things, we must not believe in people who try to use these things to push any other idea.
But then we must never believe in nobody? I’m not saying that, the fact is that we must always have an open eye and not be carried away by beautiful and superficial words and images, we must always try to see the whole picture. Not being win over so easily, look to see what’s behind the speeches. Stop thinking that people who are well regarded but in fact are not that good, and people who are seen negatively but in fact are innocent, are some kind of exception, when history – and also the Bible – say things are not exactly like that.
To a lot of people, thinking this way seems like losing the ground, falling in emptiness. But it isn’t, it’s only about becoming more critical. And, of course, not being afraid of not admiring someone that almost everybody admires. We have to remember that denying instant admiration to someone is not an injustice. You’re not taking anything from that person. Anyway, if the person is really nice, she supposedly is not doing whatever she is doing to gain admiration.
We have to remember, for instance, that, although having charisma is not any crime, it is also not a guarantee of character. Sometimes we even get to be sure that a person is good just because he appears every day in our television smiling and saying beautiful things. Some people say we are bitter when we don’t praise famous people that everybody praises. But we are not doing any wrong, like betraying a friend or turning our backs to someone who really needs us. We have all the right to be selective, even minimalist, in the choice of things and people thar influence us.
Because a lot of people want to influence you. When someone influences a lot of people, when someone is extremely popular and have the sympathy of a lot of people, he can use this influence in many ways. He doesn’t necessarily need to apply for government or something like that. If you preach an opinion or a vision of the world that is favorable to the interests of certain powerful people, people that have money, this people can reward you.
And since influence is a powerful currency, the game is not only about gaining popularity, it may also be important to destroy other people’s reputations. To prevent other people, contrary to you, from gaining influence. There are always people who can help someone to do that, in exchange of something. Influence is a valuable asset in politics, in commerce and in life, and, being so, the fight is hard.
And why is it that people think that the voice of the people is the voice of God? Maybe we think that, since two heads think better than one, then when most people think something, it is probably true. But people in general don’t think freely. The information that gets to people suffer a lot of interference, there are many interests in stake, and, to escape the sea of lies, gossip, omission of information and prejudices, we need to really avoid being influenced by too many people and run the risk of not being well regarded for your opinions. A lot of people, really a lot, when they realize that the majority of people think in a certain way, they simply go for the ride. So, this majority that has a certain opinion is not necessarily the sum of free individuals, but a wave influenced by people who work actively to convince others of whatever it is. It was always like that, I think.
Does it mean by any means that I am in any way against democracy, against the system of choosing authorities by voting, for instance? No way. Especially when you think of the alternatives. Let’s continue choosing what represents the best option in a given moment, but I think also that it is necessary to see things in other ways. To see that the changes will not germinate “up there”, in the rooms of the power. Society must change first, and then that will reflect “up there”. Because, if it is true that we are influenced by these waves of opinion controlled by powerful people, it is also true that we can change that. If we are influenced by people who act with no ethics, it’s because our values are also distorted. It’s because our eyes get too charmed with the shine of words and attitudes that aim only at fast popularity.
And, in fact, we would make a better use of democracy if we stopped looking for these earthly “messiahs”. We would discuss the political situation better, focusing on the matters, on the important issues instead of focusing only in the “important people”. We would see our possibilities of contributing to the debate, not limiting ourselves in just choosing one of the “sides” that are offered to us. I think this would benefit, in politics, the one who want to do, patiently, a good job, with no desperation to get to the top.
Also in life, many times we are too influenced, in our opinions, choices and attitudes, by these people who have big popularity, who are praised out there. We should trust more in our own ability to make choices. Our own capacity of learning with the experiences of mankind through History and the experiences we accumulated in our lives. Believe more in our judgment capacity. And have the courage to not always follow the majority of people. We would be more free, more impartial, and we would make a fairer world.
And we must seek humility, in us and in others. A lot of people talk about humility as if it were the right way to respond to a compliment and things like that. This is called education and is very good. But humility is something more profound, and that don’t fit with certain games we play. I think humanity should seek that.
THE NON-AUTHORIZED CREDITORS
Sometimes we have something to say to someone about his or her life. A lot of time we have this willing. I think that when it is about justice, when the person is being unjust to someone or someone is being unjust to her, many times it may be that the right thing to do is to say something indeed. But when the matter doesn’t have to do with justice or injustice, I think we should think more before we say anything.
I’m going to give two examples, but there are many more. First, when we question a child or a young person for having few or no friends in a certain stage of his life. Having friends is good, and the person may – and probably will – make friends in the future, but to be an introvert or extrovert is not a matter of character, of honesty or moral, it is just a matter of personality. But the criticism is felt by the person as if her own dignity was in check.
Just as when we criticize someone for giving up something. Many times we put the person’s willpower, or her courage, in doubt, when it may have nothing to do with that. The person may have just reevaluated a situation. Nobody has to be born knowing anything. Maybe, when the person started a project, she thought that the cost, in terms of what she would have to give up to accomplish that, was some, but later she found out she would have to give up much more, and she concluded it wasn’t worthy. Or maybe the person found out a new passion. Maybe you know that person very well and you know that what is leading her to give up is an unfounded fear or something like that and that the project is really important to her, and then you can argue. But the majority of criticism comes from people who don’t even know the situation in details, they are just reproducing a speech they heard somewhere else, that “the strong never give up”.
A lot of times, the justification we have to criticize is this, that we want to help the other to “perfect” himself, to be “stronger”. Our culture has a well defined image of this “strong” person. A “winner”. But the cruelty is that, with this image of a “winner” in mind, it isn’t hard for people to identify a “loser”. We call someone weak because of matters that have nothing to do with morals.
In our culture, the “winner” is simply someone who always come out “on top”. Everybody wants to give this impression. That they always come out on top, they don’t give up, they are strong, they make success, they have friends. But this is a superficial image. Doing the right thing and being “on top” not always coincide in this life. After all, what are we talking about? On top of what? How? Not giving up what? Being strong to confront what and who? Give up or don’t give up of what in exchange of success and other people’s acceptance? The true purpose of someone’s life is much more important than this image of victory, and it’s up to him or her to judge if he or she is living this purpose.
So why are we demanded to show these “victories”? Why these demands have so much strength, if they are not directly connected to questions of justice or moral? Why is it that ideas that have no reason of being endure in our mentality with such insistence?
I think that sometimes people demand of others what was demanded of them. Like a system of ideas that survive of it’s own inertia. It seems that there are many reasons to criticize someone. There may be the legitimate wish to help, or the wish to feel useful, or to feel like a defender of important values. Or sometimes we can criticize someone to affirm ourselves to a group of people, or we can even put someone down to dump our own frustrations. Yes, we know that the human being, in his inside, is subject to the impulses of good and bad forces. That’s why you need to take care if your system of ideas opens too many breaches to put down other individuals without much reason.
Of course the system itself tells us who is safer for us to point our finger to, who are the people we can criticize without much problem. We’re gonna have the tendency to criticize certain people when we know that other people are going to agree. Then, in the end it’s just a matter of fitting into a group. The group determines that we must criticize this and that person, and, of course, it will be people that don’t fit so well into the desires, expectations and priorities of the group.
It seems that the system favors these demands for adaptation. Maybe this is why our culture encourages that we demand certain things of people. Maybe the system doesn’t want that a lot of people live their lives “out of the script”, free from empty social pressure.
These pressures will always be felt like moral pressure. A lot of times the group will value morally what is priority to the group, like having many friends. But being lonely is not a moral flaw. Now, making gossip can bring a lot of trouble and injustices. But maybe the group doesn’t care so much for that.
When we feel the criticism as an attack to our own dignity, this pressure has an enormous weight. If we see ourselves through the eyes of the others and we believe even for a second that we are terrible persons, it can be very hard to get out of this hole later. Besides, deep inside we may have fear of being excluded, abandoned by the world.
And so, because of this pressure, people can sometimes take the easiest path, or at least the fastest. We can adapt to the wish of others at any cost, or cultivate a superficial image of strength, of victory. Our demonstrations of strength are, in general, very superficial. Some are brave to confront the weaker, others brag of material achievements and so on.
The great injustice that can happen in this process is to think that victory, any victory, is a virtue in itself. We can think it’s normal that someone loses in a situation without having done nothing wrong, without having done evil to anyone. “After all, that’s what happens when you’re weak”. Yes, we can get to this point. When probably the real strength is precisely the one that is used to defend the others.
We must take care in order not to value a superficial image of “strength” in our society. Imagine a society where “winning” is always a moral merit, doesn’t matter “what” and “how”.
To prevent ourselves of taking this road of victory at any cost, of superficial demonstrations of strength, of the desire to always impress the others, we have to stop demanding from each other that we fit in an arbitrary mold of behavior, that’s not based on justice or any other really important thing. We need to focus on the principal things, on Good, not to give continuity to old prejudices and injustices. And to stop demanding from people things they don’t owe us.
