Truth and morality

“Someone had to denigrate Joseph K., because without doing anything wrong, he was arrested one morning.” So it begins the operation, Kafka’s famous novel that, from the very first line, presents us with a moral problem: an innocent man has been arrested by the authorities; He will likely be found guilty, even if he did not commit a crime. In the book, we discover the difficulties faced by the protagonist in finding out the reasons for his prosecution or who sued him; the impossibility of questioning a fragmented evaporation force into multiple inaccessible states; In short, the formation of the modern state as an amalgamation of offices and unscrupulous life managers. Beneath it all lies a terrifying message: morals don’t matter, so much so that Joseph K. Now, immersed in a different political paradigm, a theoretical heir to human rights, we witness an even more troubling reality: morality not only matters but is also a symptom of credulity, deserving of ridicule because it symbolizes the opposite of what it is. It must be a successful resume: single, in constant competition with another to trample on.

When Trump claimed it He can start shooting in the middle of Fifth Avenue, kill people and not lose votesreally hitting the key to the social evil resulting from taking the representatives of the citizens as themselves influencers That in order to sell their product (chairmanship), they only need to prove their expertise in marketing. This phenomenon is hotly debated among the left – who are losing the battle – and often propose a politics of emotion based on strong slogans to combat the backflows that devour us. But I, though acknowledging the strategic differences they represent, refuse to substitute some values ​​and stop attacking the lie, because it would play by the rules of corrupt right, and thus lose the game. Betting on a habitable planet is different from the cult of personalities whose homicidal policies will start fires and accelerate desertification. It is not right to encourage those who harm public health and thus cause death and huge amounts of pain. Nor is it morally correct, as I have heard from some progressives, to assert: “Let everything burn, no one to represent me, after the disaster we may start again from the ashes”; Not because, turning to ashes, someone suffered, and this is unbearable.

In recent days, we have seen a network campaign based on hashtag #Feijoomentiroso prompted by his dishonest performance in the debate, and later, when he was questioned by journalist Silvia Intxaurrondo. In his lack of apology, Viggo acknowledged a certain “inaccuracy”, which is the equivalent of the famous “alternative facts”. Trump’s circle uses it or calls the attack on the Capitol, an attempted coup, “legitimate political rhetoric.” What’s interesting here is that for the first time in a long time, a lack of manners when lying or going on a yacht with a drug dealer is beginning to affect the PP candidate, as if, all of a sudden, some principles buried in the pages of philosophy manuals were going to rise in the face of an emergency. Less elective than existential. Professor Jorge Reichmann asserts that “the maintenance of irrational beliefs, against available evidence, is a moral offence” and added that it should be reprehensible not only among those who lead institutions, but also among heartless citizens willing to deposit a ballot in the ballot which necessitates closing the future. Rebuking someone’s behavior does not mean hating that person, but rather making them aware of their responsibility in the lives of others.