What do you think?
Rate this book
192 pages, Kindle Edition
First published October 5, 2015
It needs to be said that, generally speaking, there is little in the way of clear awareness of problems which especially affect the excluded. Yet they are the majority of the planet’s population, billions of people. These days, they are mentioned in international political and economic discussions, but one often has the impression that their problems are brought up as an afterthought, a question which gets added almost out of duty or in a tangential way, if not treated merely as collateral damage. Indeed, when all is said and done, they frequently remain at the bottom of the pile. This is due partly to the fact that many professionals, opinion makers, communications media and centres of power, being located in affluent urban areas, are far removed from the poor, with little direct contact with their problems. They live and reason from the comfortable position of a high level of development and a quality of life well beyond the reach of the majority of the world’s population.
When human beings place themselves at the centre, they give absolute priority to immediate convenience and all else becomes relative. Hence we should not be surprised to find, in conjunction with the omnipresent technocratic paradigm and the cult of unlimited human power, the rise of a relativism which sees everything as irrelevant unless it serves one’s own immediate interests. There is a logic in all this whereby different attitudes can feed on one another, leading to environmental degradation and social decay.
The culture of relativism is the same disorder which drives one person to take advantage of another, to treat others as mere objects, imposing forced labour on them or enslaving them to pay their debts. The same kind of thinking leads to the sexual exploitation of children and abandonment of the elderly who no longer serve our interests. It is also the mindset of those who say: Let us allow the invisible forces of the market to regulate the economy, and consider their impact on society and nature as collateral damage. In the absence of objective truths or sound principles other than the satisfaction of our own desires and immediate needs, what limits can be placed on human trafficking, organized crime, the drug trade, commerce in blood diamonds and the fur of endangered species? Is it not the same relativistic logic which justifies buying the organs of the poor for resale or use in experimentation, or eliminating children because they are not what their parents wanted? This same “use and throw away” logic generates so much waste, because of the disordered desire to consume more than what is really necessary. We should not think that political efforts or the force of law will be sufficient to prevent actions which affect the environment because, when the culture itself is corrupt and objective truth and universally valid principles are no longer upheld, then laws can only be seen as arbitrary impositions or obstacles to be avoided.
[V]aluing one’s own body in its femininity or masculinity is necessary if I am going to be able to recognize myself in an encounter with someone who is different. In this way we can joyfully accept the specific gifts of another man or woman, the work of God the Creator, and find mutual enrichment. It is not a healthy attitude which would seek “to cancel out sexual difference because it no longer knows how to confront it”.
No se puede sostener que las ciencias empíricas explican completamente la vida, el entramado de todas las criaturas y el conjunto de la realidad. Eso sería sobrepasar indebidamente sus confines metodológicos limitados. Si se reflexiona con ese marco cerrado, desaparecen la sensibilidad estética, la poesía, y aun la capacidad de la razón para percibir el sentido y la finalidad de las cosas[141]. Quiero recordar que «los textos religiosos clásicos pueden ofrecer un significado para todas las épocas, tienen una fuerza motivadora que abre siempre nuevos horizontes […] ¿Es razonable y culto relegarlos a la oscuridad, sólo por haber surgido en el contexto de una creencia religiosa?»[142]. En realidad, es ingenuo pensar que los principios éticos puedan presentarse de un modo puramente abstracto, desligados de todo contexto, y el hecho de que aparezcan con un lenguaje religioso no les quita valor alguno en el debate público. Los principios éticos que la razón es capaz de percibir pueden reaparecer siempre bajo distintos ropajes y expresados con lenguajes diversos, incluso religiosos.