When we look at the current situation in the world, it is not difficult to see that what is decisively in crisis is modern reason with its devastating imperialism. Contrary to what its most ardent prophets think, after the crisis/implosion of unbridled so-called “real socialism”, neoliberal capitalism was by no means the solution of the future, nor the magic, decisive and definitive word of Story. . The proof is that to pretend that all of humanity lives by the standards of the most developed technocratic world would be to put an end to the very possibility of continuing History. The model of the countries of the northern hemisphere, it must be emphasized that it has already been implemented in other places, cannot be extended to the whole world, that is, it cannot be universalized , otherwise there will simply be no future for the planet. And, not being universalizable, it is not ethical.
The ecological crisis, of which the poor end up being the main victims and also, in the struggle for survival, one of the great causes, places us before the crisis of our civilization, which has sought to organize the common house of humanity on the basis of the ideology of unlimited progress. It is therefore urgent to change course, which implies putting an end to exacerbated anthropocentrism and recognizing and respecting the value of nature and of all beings in the ecosystem, starting with poor and exploited men and women. . A socio-ecological conversion is essential, in the sense of a transformation of the development model on which modernity is based. If it is the current development model that generates both the ecological crisis and the structural injustice in the world, then the construction of the common house of humanity requires a new ethical consciousness – see the link between ethoswhich also means habitation, den of the animal, and where ethics comes from, and oikoswhich means house, articulating ethics, economy (law, government of the house) and ecology (treaty of the house, which we understand better today as being the common house of all) -, allied to a new politico- global culture, for a global economic-ecological framework of a new order, within the framework of an authentic eco-humanism, proposed by Pope Francis – let us say in parentheses that, if it were not for many other great reasons, Francis would go down in history because of his encyclical Laudato Ifwhere the concept of “integral ecology” appears, which shows that the degradation of the environment and the degradation of the social world go hand in hand.
To pretend that all of humanity lives by the standards of the most developed technocratic world would be to put an end to the very possibility of continuing History.
Today, we are aware that everything and everyone is interconnected and interdependent. This, at least, should have taught us the pandemic: we infect each other and therefore either we are saved together or we are all lost. I can only agree with the philosopher Peter Sloterdijk when, with others, he advocates a universal “Declaration of Dependence”, signed by all. Thus, given the relationships that really exist between all and the indissoluble link with the ecological catastrophewe realize for the first time that faced with the common threat of which we are all the objects, it is imperative that humanity, if it wants to have a future, becomes common subject of responsibility for life. Or the humanity as a whole becomes the subject of his future and the responsibility of life in general or there will simply be no future for anyone. In simple and cynical terms: if we do not want to be in solidarity with each other for reasons of ethics and humanity, let us be, at least, for reasons of enlightened selfishness.
Globalization inevitably brings up vast questions and arouses passions, which do not always allow for calm and rational debate. Once again, the theologian Hans Küng wanted to contribute to this debate which, according to him, is based on four theses: globalization is: 1. “inevitable”; of them. “ambivalent (with winners and losers); 3. “incalculable” (it can lead to an economic miracle or a debacle), but also – and this is the most important for me – “dirigible“. This means that economic globalization precisely requires globalization in the ethical field. A minimum ethical consensus is required in terms of values, attitudes and criteria, a ethos world to a global society and economy. It is the global market itself that demands a global ethosalso to safeguard the different cultural traditions from the overwhelming global logic of a kind of “metaphysics of the market” and of a total market society.
Who can responsibly accept that morality in the economic domain is identified with the insatiable increase of profit? It has become clear that the invisible hand of the market that would work in favor of all citizens is nothing more than “a myth refuted by reality”, as is the idea that socialism leads all men to “paradise well-being,” wrote Hans Kung. Thus, the market economy short we must oppose the social and ecological market economy.
The sense of economy and politics can only be at the service of life. It is a policy for life (vitalpolitik, according to Peter Rüstow), who knows that unlike a competition policy, which is oriented solely towards efficiency, it takes into account many other factors, since, to be well-being, a good society, a happy life, for human beings, including capitalists, economy is not enough. O homo sapiens does not identify purely and simply with the homo economicus.
Priest and professor of philosophy.
Write according to the old spelling