Denes Martos - Nine Almost Forgotten Virtues

For quite a while now, I increasingly feel certain irritation when almost everywhere I hear the universal complaint that "we have a crisis of values". Not that I disagree. What bothers me rather is that, usually, people who bitterly complain about the lack of values in our post-modern world do not bother to specify what values they are actually talking about. They seem to take for granted that everybody knows what is missing. The unavoidable consequence of this is that those people, who lack what is missing to begin with, do not have a clue of what is being talked about.

With this modest essay I only wish to somehow fill that gap – at least up to a certain extent. But let me set something straight: what I hereby propose is not a set of norms and standards to be followed, but rather a set of concepts on which to think about. What I have done here is to consider them, reflect upon them, and draw my own conclusions. I would be very flattered, and more than satisfied, if this would help you to do the same.

Aside from this initial comment, I must also be honest, both with myself and with all of you, and quote my sources. It was not me who discovered these Nine Noble Virtues. Neither was it me who collected them. They come from a work by John Yeowell and John Gibbs-Bailey dating back to the 1970s. These authors systematized the ethical and moral code of the peoples of Northern Europe basing their work on the traditions contained in the Havamal of the Poetic Edda, the Icelandic sagas and Germanic folklore. And there is something very important that should also be mentioned: the intention of these authors was to recreate and restore the Pagan religion to which these rules referred; to the extent that they even founded Neopagan congregations, some of which still exist in some way or another.

Regardless of the sympathy I feel for the values Yeowell and Gibbs-Bailey codified, I must state clearly and categorically that I do not share their purpose. There can be no doubt that all religions contain an ethical and moral code. But in my opinion, this still does not mean that such an ethical and moral code can be reconverted to a religion. In other words: you can build a moral code from a given religion; what I think you cannot do is to rebuild a religion taking its moral code as a starting base. Even less so if it is a dead religion. And the reason for this is because religion – any religion – is much more than its moral code. And although it may be possible to rebuild the part from the whole, to rebuild the whole from one of its parts seems, to me at least, a task destined to carry such a large margin of error that, considering the nature of the subject in question, the risks involved become unacceptable – at least as far as I am concerned.

Besides, I do not see why there should be any compelling reason to do it. Historic Christianity and the Church as an institution may indeed deserve substantial criticism. In fact, the harshest and deepest criticism I know has come from their own faithful followers and not so much from their opponents. But nowhere have I found anything that renders the Nine Noble Virtues incompatible with the teachings of Jesus of Nazareth. I really do not believe that any sincere and authentic Christian would feel ashamed of being honourable, truthful, loyal, disciplined, persevering, hard-working, independent, brave or supportive. For that same reason, I do not see any essential incongruence between any of these values and the four traditional Christian cardinal virtues of prudence, justice, fortitude and temperance. Or even the three theological virtues of Faith, Hope and Charity.

However, putting theological issues aside, it still remains a pending assignment to merge all these values into one great and comprehensive ethical and moral system, adapting them to the language of our times, making them understandable to the people of this century and applicable in our present environment. That would be a task well worth the effort. Unfortunately, given my own limitations, I suppose I must leave such a synthesis to others more qualified than I.

HONOUR

Honour is external conscience
and conscience is internal honour.
Arthur Schopenhauer

I realize that to talk nowadays about honour sounds almost like an anachronism. Certainly, honour is not the latest trend. It is a value we have almost entirely forgotten. The word “honour” is barely even pronounced these days. However, we can often see how a lot of people give ostentatious speeches about “human dignity”. Leaving now aside the fact that most people understand such dignity as they best please – usually just to make some demand – the point is that no one takes the trouble to explain what exactly that dignity consist of, and upon which foundations it rests.

Essentially, the concept of honour is based on respect. Simply put, the honour of a person means for someone to be what he is and to be acknowledged and respected for what he is. My honour rests upon me being what I am, and upon the respect and acknowledgment my peers show for what I am. The bottom line is that people should behave in a way that allows them to respect themselves and, at the same time, respect those who respect themselves.

However, it would be a mistake not to distinguish between honour and reputation, fame or notoriety. For a person of true integrity, reputation is nothing but the consequence of an intrinsic honorability acknowledged by his peers. People of spotless reputation are honoured; people who are distinguished by exceptional honorability are paid homage. And this applies to opponents and even to declared enemies. During World War I, when the British managed to shoot down Manfred von Richthofen – the legendary German flying ace known as “The Red Baron” for the colour of the plane he flew – they gave him a full military funeral. Australian airmen served as pallbearers, and an honour guard fired a salute. Allied squadrons stationed nearby presented memorial wreaths.

It happens to be that not only is honour based on respect, it also inspires respect; and for men of honour this respect goes beyond all borders and barriers. There are no barriers for the acknowledgment of honour even among people who believe in different sets of values. The Teutonic Knight or the Spanish gentleman would have paid homage to the Japanese Samurai even if they do not necessarily share his code of honour that imposed upon him ritual suicide upon the death of his Lord. The poor will respect the rich if the rich are honest, and the rich will respect the poor if the poor are honest. Among people of honour, the weak and the powerful will respect each other because honour surpasses established hierarchies and social or economic status. Honour and respect are values that cannot be constrained within conventional structures. They go beyond all social, economic or political structures because they are embedded in the noblest part of our human predicament. And this nobleness imposes recognition, even among people of different cultures or civilizations.

And this does not mean that the members of this fellowship are “equal” in the sense of today's egalitarianism. In bygone times, people would have said that they are “peers”. Honour does not make us equal. It makes us equally respectable.

The difficulty of explaining and defining honour rests mainly on the fact that it is a highly self-referential value. At the end of the day, it is either explained by itself, or it becomes very hard to describe. Trying to explain honour to a corrupt or greedy and self-centered person is very much like trying to explain colours to the blind, or music to the deaf. That is why everything that implies honour quickly becomes circular: we are worthy of respect if we behave with honour, and we become honourable by respecting our own dignity and acting respectably.

One essential thing that needs to be understood is that dignity is not an attribute that can be automatically assigned to anyone, as many claim, or at least pretend to argue. It is a sad and bitter truth, but there are unworthy people. Because dignity has to be exercised; respect is first to be deserved and then to be earned. Respecting others and respecting the dignity of others is, of course, a highly recommendable practice. But, what are we to do with those who do not respect even themselves? What dignity are we to respect in those who have no dignity at all? Is it possible to pay homage to someone who has no honour whatsoever?

Another vital quality of honour, just like many of the other values we will see, is that it establishes a two-way road. It is a value that dwells within us, and that is recognized in others. However, although the road has two ways this does not mean that you can expect the traffic to flow automatically. The value will be there within you, only if it is nourished and exercised. And it will be recognized in others only if their behaviour is such as to allow for a similar value to be inferred or deduced. Honour without its corresponding behaviour is mere bragging. If I say the proverbial “my son, do what I say and not what I do” perhaps I might be giving a good advice, but that will not turn what I do into honourable behaviour.

Whether we all have – or do not have – the same capacity of being honourable is something open to debate and discussion. As for me, and I admit that this may sound quite odious, I must confess that I do not believe that all human beings have the same capacity for honour. Throughout my life I have met people so unworthy and so deprived of even the most elemental notion of honour, that not even with the greatest good will on Earth can I manage to imagine how they could have possibly followed a different path. There are people who say that honour and dignity come from education and environment. I do not believe that. I really cannot believe that. In any case, either our whole education is one enormous failure, or there is very little it can do about honour and dignity. Choose whichever option you like, but the pervasive corruption and dishonesty of our present civilization – and this is something that raises bitter complaints everywhere – clearly proves that, in terms of decency, we have not achieved a great deal with our educational system.

I believe that the practice and exercise of honour would be much more encouraged by a good system of rewards and punishments, rather than by sophisticated educational theories. And please do not get me wrong: I am not thinking about brutal punishment, public floggings, death penalties, nor any brutality of the sort. What I have in mind is a system that promotes honorability and that sets almost insurmountable barriers to dishonesty. As long as we continue rewarding speculators, swindlers and gross opportunists with the highest positions in society, and as long as we continue to punish simple honest professionals and workers with the lowest degrees of social status, there is little hope that we will ever be able to build a society based on honour and respect for true dignity. It may be just a personal opinion, but I really do believe much more in a good selection criteria, rather than in the alleged unlimited educability of human beings.

In the old days people used to say that we have honour because honour is an “endowment of the soul”. However, the individual could lose it by staining it with his actions, being that God is the sole judge, donor and protector of honour. At the same time, Western culture has always made a distinction between “honour” and “honorific” considering the latter to be something acquired and even inherited, being the King its judge, donor and protector.

By the late 19th Century, Roque Barcia would say in his “Dictionary of Spanish Synonyms”: “... honour is a present, intimate, honorific; it is ours. It is the asset we will pass on to our children. Honorifics are traditional, historic, inherited honours; they are the asset we received from our forefathers. Thus honour is a virtue; honorifics are a sort of «raison d’état», almost a hierarchy. Honour is something you have. Honorifics are something you receive.” ([1])

From all we have seen, I think it becomes quite clear that honour is not a guaranteed possession. It is not something you have no matter what you do in life. It can be lost, and in fact, past generations thought it was like virginity: either you have it or you do not, and you can lose it only once. Maybe today we would not be so strict. Considering the way things are around the world, I think we should be a bit more understanding and admit that even an honorable person can have a moment of weakness, or make a serious mistake he will not feel particularly proud of for the rest of his life. But in any case, let us not exaggerate this indulgence and tolerance. Because dishonesty happens to be a ramp on which it is very hard to climb back up if you allow yourself to slide down. Take a step down the path of corruption and dishonesty, and if you manage to undo it immediately, maybe – and only maybe – you will manage to continue being an honourable person. However, if you take a second step you will probably have lost your honour forever. Dishonour is a bottomless pit from which there is no way out. At least not without help. And it would be good to remember what we just said about who is the donor of honour according to Western tradition.

Once honour is lost, self-respect and respect for others goes with it. Having lost all kind of respect, people lose their dignity. Among many other reasons, that is why I said before that there are unworthy people. A dishonest person is not worthy of respect, and a person not worthy of respect is an unworthy person. Essentially it is just rock-solid logic. There is no way around it. It is useless to throw speeches about a theoretical “human dignity” allegedly resident within anyone, because of the mere fact that a being belongs to a zoological class called Homo sapiens. There are people who have thrown away their dignity, or who do not have even the slightest idea of its existence, and society does not gain anything by being tenderly consenting with them. In addition: our current experience and even 10.000 years of History prove that this criterion only triggers a decay that can become irreversible very easily.

Please understand me: it is not a question of being inhumanly cruel with unworthy people. The issue is only to block them out of the higher positions of social stratification in a decisive and definitive way, especially from those positions involving functions that concern the whole social organism, or at least a considerable amount of human beings. I do not think that the corrupt and the dishonest forcibly deserve stoning, hanging or public strangling. But I do believe they deserve the disdain they inspire, and I positively do not think they deserve to be rewarded with the highest levels of status in our civilization; especially not those levels from which they can later make decisions affecting all of us.

Finally, there is also a relationship we cannot overlook, and that is the relationship between honour and duty.

To fulfil our obligations is not equivalent to doing our duty. To fulfil an obligation is a matter or responsibility. To fulfil a duty is a matter of honour. Responsible people fulfil their obligations; people of honour do their duty.

Although, initially, it might not seem so, the difference is enormous. An obligation is something we owe to others. Duty is something we owe to ourselves. An obligation can be demanded and many times supposes reciprocity or repayment. A duty is something that is expected from us regardless of whether there is – or is not – any compensation. It is what we do “just because”. Because we are how we are, and we are what we are. Or it is what we do not do, simply because people of honour do not do such things. Duty is ruled by our conscience. Obligations are ruled by laws, common use, custom and assumed commitments.

That is why Seneca used to say “law often allows what honour forbids”. The meaning of duty is much wider and, by far, more imperative than any obligation. And not only in the restrictive sense of Seneca's quote, but in the much more crucial way of positively demanding a given attitude or a given behaviour. In terms of duty, it is generally far more essential what duty commands than what it forbids.

A doctor’s duty is to try to cure a patient. To do it consciously to the best of his knowledge and ability, and taking all appropriate cares is his obligation. But it is also his duty to consider the patient as a suffering human being and not only as a chance to collect fees for useless consultations. However, it is his obligation to maintain confidentiality.

In any case, honour always resides in what makes us proud, or in what we believe we can be proud of. Not in order to brag about it in front of others and boast unnecessarily. It is simply what intrinsically belongs to us and satisfies us; it is what describes us and we are pleased how it describes us; it is what represents us and we find it satisfactory that it does.

Our honour is in what we truly are. It defines how we wish to see ourselves and how we wish to be perceived, acknowledged, respected and treated by others. Simultaneously, it also defines how we wish to perceive others in order to acknowledge them, respect them and treat them honourably.

And no matter what certain people may say, these categories do not depend on fashion or the latest craze.

TRUTH

Truth is what it is,
and it remains being true
regardless of how you look at it.
Antonio Machado

It is almost impossible to carry
the torch of truth through a crowd
without charring somebody's beard.
Georg Christoph Lichtenberg

My way of joking is to tell the truth.
It is the funniest joke in the world.
George Bernard Shaw,
John Bull's Other Island (1907) act 2

When Jesus of Nazareth was sent to Pontius Pilate, after hearing Him say “I was born for this and I came to the world for this: to testify to the truth”, ([2]) Pilate suddenly asked “What is truth?”. The drama of the scene is that he had it right there in front of his face. But he did not see it. He did not recognize Truth in a person who embodied it to the point of letting Himself be crucified for it.

And yet, somehow he managed to understand it, at least to a certain extent; because otherwise it would not make sense that after putting this question – maybe in a rather sarcastic and sceptic tone – he went out to tell the Jews: “I found no guilt in Him”. In this way, Pilate ended up telling a positive truth. For, as we all know the defendant whose crucifixion they demanded was absolutely innocent.

Every person of honour has the duty to abide by the truth. Of being truthful. And being truthful does not mean to know and understand the absolute truth of all things. It simply means to recognize, accept and affirm what is, as it is and as you know it. Pontius Pilate did not grasp the theological Truth represented by Jesus of Nazareth. But he did understand the truth of His innocence and he was truthful by stating it. He did give in to the circumstantial pressures, but that belongs to another context and I have dealt with that elsewhere. ([3]) The point is that keeping to the truth means to keep to what is, just the way it is; without additions nor restrictions; in the entire and complete wholeness in which it appears before us.

I realize that this goes against current mainstream opinion. It happens to be that nowadays there is a trend towards exaggerated relativism. As if an illegitimate extrapolation from the theory of relativity could justify relativism in everything we know and perceive. Even truth itself. André Maurois went as far as saying that the only absolute truth was that truth is relative. And that is wrong, no matter how many times some intellectuals repeat it and regardless of how widely it is upheld as a sort of proof of generous tolerance.

To begin with, truth sustains itself. It does not depend on opinion. It does not depend on someone discovering, proclaiming or accepting it. It is not affected even if somebody denies it. Just to give a rough and surely not entirely appropriate example: two plus two will still be four even if the whole world does not realize it and even if someone insists drearily in maintaining that it is five. What is does not need anything but its own condition to be. Relativism pretends to make us believe that the whole Universe is nothing but a set of relative phenomena whereas reality shows that events – at least some of them – can be relative, but the Universe is in spite of that relativity, and it would continue being the same (given that there is no other) if events were to interact differently. I myself would surely be different if I had received a different education or lived in a different environment, or if I had been born and raised in a different country. But I would not be someone else. I would still be who I am. Perhaps – and only perhaps – I simply would be who I am in a different way.

Furthermore: absolute truth exists. What today is called “relative truth” is nothing but a wrong expression to indicate a personal interpretation, or a partial knowledge, or even a wrong perception of absolute truth. In fact, if you think seriously about it, it is not too hard to understand that if there is no absolute truth, then there would be no “relative” truths either. And even if there could be such thing as a relative truth in an absolutely relative world, then this relative truth would not make any sense at all. You would not have anything with which to judge against. An absolutely relative Universe would be absolutely incomprehensible.

What today we call “relative” truth – and I insist: we do it in quite an improper way because the relationship is never clear (relative to what?) – is nothing but a more or less perfect and accomplished, or a more or less partial and imperfect approximation to that absolute truth which eludes us in most difficult or far-reaching issues.

To acknowledge that truth exists, to accept the presence of truth and sustain truth just as it appears to us, that is precisely what allows us to be truthful.

Now, as we have seen, since in order to be truthful it is not necessary to understand the absolute truth of all things, being truthful does not mean being free of every possible error. However, this still does not mean that truthfulness need be disguised – or “relativized” – forcibly with adjectives in order to achieve political correctness and social acceptability. Truth does not require that we excuse ourselves for expressing it by saying that it is only “our” truth; as if it were a costume suited to fit anyone. As if it would be possible that there could exist something like “my” truth, “your” truth, “his/her” truth, and all the respective plurals. By simple and elemental mathematical logic, if A is equal to John's B and John's B is equal to C, then if Peter's B is not equal to John's B it also will not be equal to A or C. It is of course quite possible for both John's and Peter's “B's” to contain or represent partial aspects of A and C. But in that case, the error is at the beginning, and we should not then say that A is equal to John's or Peter's B.

Nowadays this kind of underestimation by using possessive pronouns is widely used as a kind of discretion and modesty. Actually, it is plain cowardice, if not poorly disguised hypocrisy. We should never excuse ourselves for being truthful. Because being truthful means nothing but to acknowledge, accept and affirm what is, exactly as it is understood and known by us; without pre-judgment, preconditions, omissions or additions. To be truthful means to state reality exactly as we have lived, known and experienced it. There is no reason to apologize or to belittle yourself for that.

No doubt, while being truthful we can still make mistakes. But to apologize in advance, given the possibility that perhaps we can make a mistake, that is something that makes no sense and only undermines our own convictions. Really truthful people are committed to truth. Consequently, they do not have any trouble at all in amending and correcting their mistakes adhering to a truth that is superior to the original. On the contrary: usually it is the lie that you must try to hide or disguise with false modesty. And when that lie is in danger of collapsing, it has to be bolstered, in which case what you usually do is resort to additional lies even greater than the first one. In this way what you achieve is a mistake that grows instead of waning.

I freely admit that I can make mistakes. Of course I can! But I am not too worried about that because, if I am committed to truth, then as soon as I realize my error or as soon as somebody points it out to me, I will immediately and without pretext correct it. I would worry only if I were to compromise in lies. Because when those lies are discovered I will have no choice but to try to defend myself by expanding them and adding arguments in order to maintain their credibility.

Also, among many other things, this is why, in the words of Sophocles, truth is more powerful than reason; or, as Miguel Unamuno agreed: “to be true” is much more important than “to be right”. More than 2000 years ago, the Greek sophists already knew that reason can be quite tricky when it comes to truth. It will always be possible to find good arguments to defend a lie. Sophists – at least most of them – were experts in defending false thesis with flawless arguments. That is why somebody who is right, is not necessarily also truthful. He might be right, but he will not necessarily be on the side of truth.

Consequently, even though the duty of an honourable person towards truth does not require a full knowledge of absolute Truth, it does however indeed imply the obligation of not resorting to falsehood in order to be right. Pontius Pilate yielded to the crucifixion of Jesus of Nazareth because of the political pressures which he was exposed to. That was his crime or, if you prefer: his serious fault. But he did not find Him guilty and he ordered the crucifixion of an innocent Man clearly stating that He was innocent. That was his merit. Some Orthodox Christians hold Pilate and his wife Claudia Procula as saints. As for me personally, that might be a slight overstatement; but the line of reasoning behind the criteria is not too hard to grasp.

We are not truthful solely when we have acquired a universal truth. We are truthful when we honestly and sincerely give testimony of our experiences and of the knowledge we have gained from them. On the contrary, we are untrue when our testimony does not match our behaviour or when it goes against our real beliefs.

A person of honour, committed to truth, simply does not preach what he does not believe, does not take credit for something he has not done, nor does he behave contrary to what he proclaims.

LOYALTY

What love does not bind,
is not properly bound.
And what loyalty does not protect
no oath will shield.
Ernst M. Arndt

Loyalty and truth preserve the king,
and he upholds his throne by righteousness.
Proverbs 20:28

The loyalty of dogs
wouldn’t surprise us so much
if it were more common among humans.
Sigmund Graf

Loyalty is the invisible yet indestructible bond that exists among people of honour committed to truth.

In general, loyalty is thought of as fidelity that people of lower rank owe to their superiors. As a matter of fact, it can be that too, but never only that. Loyalty is not just a commitment of the ruled, but a duty on the part of the ruler as well. It compels the ruled to faithfully follow the leadership of the ruler, but exactly by the same token, it compels the ruler to share the fate of those he rules while being personally accountable for the decisions he makes and the directives he orders.

In this way, loyalty is another two-way road. It is true that the boss, the chief, the manager, the highest rank in charge, may – and has to – demand the loyalty of his subordinates, employees or collaborators. But it is not less true that he can – and must – expect loyalty from them only if he is also loyal to those he leads and for whom he has assumed the responsibility of leading.

However, it remains true that loyalty is also the elder sister of fidelity. In broad terms, faithfulness is the constant habit of loyalty. We say someone is faithful when he is constantly loyal; when he has managed to make of loyalty a way of life. The difference lies in that loyalty is a disposition born out of a sense of honour, whereas faithfulness is a behaviour in accordance with such a disposition. In other words: loyalty is an ethical imperative; faithfulness is its associated moral value. A person of honour is loyal by principle, and faithful to his moral responsibilities by duty.

The other major difference is that, while loyalty is a bond and a commitment among people, faithfulness is a bond that can be established among people, but also amongst people and an idea, a religion, a moral code, a promise, as well as with institutions; for example: the Nation, the State, the community. That is the reason why those who live according to the precepts of a Church are called “the faithful” of that Church. It is the same reason why someone who stands firm to his codes is called “faithful” to his beliefs.

Within the sphere of a family, faithfulness is about maintaining and standing by the promises given when the family was founded. Many people believe that this only means restricting sexuality to the two persons who have married.

Although there are very good arguments to uphold the thesis that monogamy based on sexual fidelity offers several practical advantages, as for a family, sexual exclusivity is not the main nor sole factor that holds together the human core formed by parents and children. However, in order to really understand this, the first thing that should be grasped is that “couple”, “marriage” and “family” are not interchangeable terms. These words do not mean the same thing. The concepts they represent are neither equal nor equivalent.

A couple is merely the union of two persons. Two human beings who decide to live together – or to share their life totally or partially, – and mate, constitute a couple. In this sense, human beings are not too different from many animals that also mate; some occasionally, some until their offspring reach a certain maturity, and some species are even known to form permanent monogamous couples. However, animal monogamy is not as strict as some people would romantically like to believe. Genetic studies have shown through DNA analysis that the offspring (up to about 30%) of reputedly monogamous animals come from a different father than the one raising them since birth. ([4])

It’s just that human marriage is much more than a couple. It is the union of two beings who have made mutual vows. Vows in which each should be able to trust the other. Given such vows, each partner has committed to the duty of a whole series of obligations that can vary from culture to culture, from one community to another, or from one congregation to another. These ethno-cultural differences may (or may not) include sexual exclusivity, but in any case vows go way beyond sex. It is a gross misinterpretation to believe that religions which admit polygamy – for instance, Islam – exempt from all responsibility the man who has more than one woman.

In marriage, spouses promise each other mutual help; mutual aid; mutual care. Besides love, of course, marriage as an institution is founded upon vows: vows of protection, understanding, tolerance, and good will. True infidelity in marriage rests in breaking any of these vows. It resides in letting the other down and essentially, that is the real act of disloyalty. Breaking a promise, failing to keep your word, that is what really constitutes what we normally call infidelity. And the more sacred the promise, the more grave the infidelity will be. And this is because the higher the level of trust a person has on a promise, due to the sacred character of the assumed wedding commitments, the more serious the infidelity will be.

Nonetheless and in spite of all its importance and sacramental nature, marriage is still not a family. A family is marriage and children. By which the first thing that happens is that duties and obligations increase and multiply. With children one assumes the duty to nourish, protect, educate, raise, guide and help them develop in harmony. And the list is light years away from being exhaustive. When a marriage becomes a family, it ceases to be a commitment among two to become a commitment among many.

To put it somehow: couples can go along with a room; spouses can put up with a house. Families need a home.

In the building and maintenance of that home, there is a load of commitments – explicit and implicit – the fulfilment of which is only possible among people who are essentially loyal, and who due to that loyalty, also know how to be faithful to those commitments.

Going to a different subject, with all that we have seen, it is not really hard to realize that loyalty is the most solid foundation of what we commonly call trust. Although there might be – and in fact there are – several other factors that generate trust, loyalty is probably the elemental layer upon which all others rest in some way or another.

And trust is a key element to every social organism, even beyond the existence or nonexistence of a coherent and exhaustive system of codes and written laws. Even Francis Fukuyama, one of the firmest supporters of the current socio-economic system, admits that: “Trust is the expectation that arises within a community of regular, honest, and cooperative behaviour, based on commonly shared norms, on the part of other members of the community”. [...] “Not just any set of instantiated norms constitutes social capital; they must lead to cooperation in groups and therefore are related to traditional virtues like honesty, the keeping of commitments, reliable performance of duties, reciprocity, and the like.” ([5])

Current economic operators have realized and have had to end up admitting that, practically, written laws and signed contracts are not that reliable, especially in a world exposed to great changes and more or less severe crises. And that is because sharply delimited rulings have very severe restrictions. Casuistry is ultimately based on our experience of past events and in our ability to foresee future cases. And in the ability of anticipating the future we are not precisely good or effective, to say the least.

It is a proven fact that, sooner or later, reality always overcomes and shatters our most carefully calculated forecasts. Reality is always ahead of us. No matter how precise the small print at the bottom of the contract may be; in due time – sometimes surprisingly soon in our days – the events of the real world can very easily render it inapplicable. Among other things, that is why Plato used to say that the best republic is not the one that has many laws, but the one that works reasonably well with very few. Something has to be really wrong with people if every single expected behaviour has to be written, described and thoroughly regulated. In most cases, if you do not behave in a given way by your own initiative, then it is quite useless to write a law commanding you to do so.

Then, paraphrasing E. M. Arndt, if something is not guaranteed by honour, truth and loyalty, then it will not be warranted by any law or contract either.

DISCIPLINE

The world is preached so much falseness because nowadays
everyone talks about the right of freedom of conscience
without having been subject to any form of discipline.
Mahatma Gandhi

If what distinguishes society of anarchism
is just discipline; precisely discipline
is what determines freedom.
Anton S. Makarenko

Let us start with something obvious: in a world that shows a clear tendency towards leniency almost on the verge of anarchy, discipline is a strongly undervalued concept. Many people even reject the word itself. Yet, sooner or later reality shows us that any pursuit of complex goals – whether they be just personal ones or the goals of an entire culture or civilization – is completely impossible to achieve without discipline. There may be many ways to achieve something; but most things cannot be achieved in just any way you please.

Discipline is not the forced submission to the more or less whimsical will of somebody else. Essentially, discipline is nothing more than a method. A method of doing things or, if you prefer, a procedure.

Contrary to what some military theorists would have you believe, being disciplined does not mean that you have to follow blindly any order given by a superior in command. Precisely expressed, that would only be mere obedience. Essentially, what military discipline teaches is just to obey; to do what you are told as you are told to do it. In a military environment this is necessary, useful and even fundamental. But it is not necessarily nor easily transferred to civilian life.

In broad generic terms, being disciplined is just being methodical and orderly in our actions. In essence, discipline is only a method of action; a rule of behaviour.

Originally and as a concept, discipline comes from training or instruction and it relates to the process of teaching and learning. The idea behind the concept is that the teacher shows the student a path that the latter has to follow in an orderly manner and by stages in order to reach the intended knowledge or skill.

For over 10.000 years, this has worked reasonably well in the schools of every known culture, and it also works just as well in daily life nowadays. If you do not have any objectives you will live simply drifting along. And if you do not like to go just with the current and you set yourself specific objectives, you will soon learn that most of these objectives cannot be achieved in any way you please.

When you want to do something, there is always a way, a method, a best practice for doing it. Of course, there can be many ways and many paths to follow in order to achieve a given goal. But however it might be, there are not an endless number of paths, and the waypoints are not set at random.

Besides, among all the various and possible methods there is always one which is more appropriate, or more efficient, or which is better suited to our possibilities, abilities and skills. And finally, for a whole series of complex objectives, currently we still have one and only one path for the simple reason that nobody has yet discovered a better one. The good news is that there is a vast space to investigate and discover; several routes remain to be explored. However, the bad news is that investigation, exploration and discovery are not possible without discipline either.

It is true that many times a way can be made just by walking it through. But not by loafing around without proper compass nor destination.

Today discipline is an unpleasant word. To a certain extent, this may come from the system of rewards and punishments that practically is always associated with discipline. The master who guides a student along a path – be he a teacher, a parent or a guide – has no choice but to implement some form of punishment if the student wanders away, and some form of reward if he stays on course. This is specially so when the student is still a child and his reasoning capacities are not yet properly developed. Teaching a two-year-old to stay away and not to touch a hot stove can require – in a well controlled situation of course – that one allows the child to burn his fingers just a little. This does not mean that there is no other way, but given the case, it could well be that it is the most successful and effective.

When our eldest son was about two years old there was a winter during which my wife and I had to be constantly on alert. Every now and then the little scoundrel would insist on trying to touch that blessed stove that gave out such pleasant warmth. Since it seems that stubbornness is inheritable, my son turned out to be at least as bull-headed as his father and there was no way to make him give up. Until one night I had had enough, and I saw the little gnome coming pointing with his small finger at the stove and I said to myself: “if he touches it, he is going to burn his finger. Well, OK, let him burn his finger this time; it is still better that he learns it this way and not by burning his whole hand, or even worse, his face”. So, clenching my teeth, I let him go on. Eva, my wife, looked at me with an expression of “are-you-sure-you-know-what-you-are-doing?” but I reassured her with a confident look (without much success, I admit) and things just followed their course. Well, what had to happen, happened: my son finally succeeded in touching that darned stove and naturally gave out a cry that shook our hearts. But exactly at the same time he was burning his finger I jumped and pulled him away from the thing, and told him just one single word: “Hot!”.

The little rascal ran around for a couple of days showing everybody the blister on his finger and commenting the concept of “hot” in his unique childish jargon. But from that day on, our educational system became notoriously simplified, at least as far as heat risk was concerned! It was enough to show him the iron, the kitchen or the grill and say “hot”. After that, our son would not even dare to touch those objects. We had to let him learn by experience. And he did learn. Admittedly, the hard way; but he learned.

You may argue that the method is cruel. My reply would be that real life can be much crueler. The child who has not learnt to respect fire and heat is a sure candidate to be a child who spills a boiling pot of water all over himself, or a child who starts playing with matches and ends up setting the whole house on fire. And please don’t tell me I am exaggerating. I have been working as a risk analyst for decades and I might have a professional bias just as all colleagues in the field have. I admit it; but these things have happened in the past and, unfortunately, they still do. And much more often than you may think. If you don’t believe me just visit the website of the American Burn Association and take a look at the fact sheet. ([6]) Or get hold of 911 emergency statistics.

The point is that, if you do not abide by discipline, you will expose yourself to getting burned more than once. The discipline demanded by a teacher who teaches methodically – as severe and strict as it might seem – will always be much lighter and less cruel than the pitiless discipline life will end up imposing upon you in one way or another.

Yes, there are many ways to live life. But perhaps the worst and most unsuccessful of all is by constantly surrendering to the moment’s whim.

In order to avoid the unpleasant flavour that discipline has acquired, many are claiming lately that “true” discipline – the allegedly “good” discipline – would be self-discipline, i.e.: the discipline which you willingly impose upon yourself and by which you willingly abide. As for this, my recommendation would be: do not throw away the idea, but don’t get too fond of it either. At the end of the day, this may be just a way of trying to dodge the issue as it becomes quite obvious if you look at it closely. Actually what self-discipline preachers are speculating about is the possibility of avoiding the punishment that comes with indiscipline, being that nobody is so closed minded or so a masochistic as to punish himself (or at least very few people are). If you believe this, you are fooling yourself and you are just turning self-discipline into self-deception.

Of course, nobody can deny that it is theoretically possible to impose upon oneself a method and an order as a rule of behaviour. But whoever thinks this is a “light” version of discipline is really wrong. Given an act of indiscipline, punishment meted out by a superior or a teacher will be a penalty. In the case of self-discipline, the punishment imposed by life is failure.

Discipline has to do with method and order; not with somebody demanding method and order. Whether it is required by a teacher, a higher-ranking individual, or yourself, the essence of the method and order will not change a single bit. And if you behave without method and without order, you will fail in nine out of ten attempts to achieve any goal.

Self-discipline as an arbitrary exercise of personal freedom is a deception then sooner or later, in one way or another, life always punishes those who do not respect it and who think they can fool life by circumventing its rules and laws with tricks. You will never find a more ruthless judge or executioner than life itself when you seriously offend it by contravening its nature.

Consequently, there is no such thing as “bad” discipline imposed by others and self-imposed “good” discipline. Discipline is always one and indivisible, no matter whom imposes it or who demands it. Its intrinsic value is given firstly, by the objectives pursued; and secondly, by the effectiveness and efficiency with which those objectives are achieved.

PERSEVERANCE

Most of the time, luck is nothing but
a generic concept to describe capacity,
intelligence, effort and perseverance.
Charles Kettering

If you add a little to a little,
and then do it again,
soon that little shall be much.
Hesiod

If you try to hit the moon with a stone
you will not succeed; but you will end up
knowing how to use a sling.
Arab Proverb

W hile discipline implies method and order in the pursuit of objectives, perseverance implies steadiness and continuity in the pursuit of those same objectives. In other words: behaving without order and method is being undisciplined; changing objectives arbitrarily all the time is being inconstant.

The difference does matter, since many times discipline is understood as perseverance and vice-versa. However, to a certain extent the confusion may be justified since often both virtues go together; as well as their respective vices. Generally speaking, a disciplined person is also persevering and an unstable person will hardly be disciplined. Nevertheless, in this case as in many others, similarity does not necessarily mean sameness.

It is important to be committed to a method and a procedural order in order to pursue an objective. But achieving and fulfilling that objective is not less vital. Let's not forget that discipline is just a method, a way, a path that with more or less obstacles will lead to an objective. Staying firmly on the path means “to be on the right track”: Granted: this is a lot already. But unfortunately, it is far from being enough. Because to achieve success you have to walk that “right track” right to its very end. Here is where you need perseverance, steadiness and persistence. Here is where you have to be like a bulldog biting a bone and not letting it go until it is crushed. Being on the right track is no big deal if we never reach the goal because we are changing goals and tracks all the time.

Theoretically there are many of these “right tracks” to choose from and every single one of them may lead to an objective we may consider worthy or desirable. The problem arises when we have to admit that it is impossible to tread all paths in a lifetime so there, at some point along the way, we will be forced to make a decision. And, as we all surely know, decisions almost always imply exclusions.

For example, when we choose a profession, we are unavoidably discarding all other professions that we could have also chosen. If we decided to be carpenters we will have discarded being mechanics, marble workers or electricians. If we choose medicine we will have excluded agronomy, science, law, and all those other careers beyond medicine. Truly serious – and sometimes even critical – is that, while we make decisions and choose options as we live, our possibilities narrow and decrease. For that reason, first choices are almost always the most crucial in life, and it is really sad to see how poorly our current culture prepares us to make them.

One of the most tremendous and unfortunate mistakes introduced by egalitarianism is to make us believe that all options are available for everyone; that, theoretically, anyone can (or should be able to) be – or do – anything. There is a gross misunderstanding here which, as a rule, comes from a demagoguery that is as foul as it is perverse. One thing is to have certain professions, activities or jobs monopolized by a social sector and thus banned from the rest, be it by law or as a matter of fact. Another and a very different thing is to claim that in a truly free society absolutely all options should be available and any person should be able to choose and become whatever that given person fancies to desire.

To begin with, it is simply not true that all options can be allowed. Every civilization and culture has always forbidden those options which were considered harmful or detrimental. At a minimum, it has always discouraged activities considered dangerous for the social organism itself. We are social creatures and we make our decisions within a social context. In that social context there will always be options regarded as lawful or unlawful – by whatever criteria they have been ruled or established.

Besides, it is also untrue that – even within lawfulness – anyone can choose any objective in life, because there is something called talent, vocation, calling, natural ability, or whatever you may like to call it, and this, in one way or another, sets limits to what we can become or do.

It is true that most people may manage to learn to play the piano by following the required discipline. It is highly possible that, say, 85% of us could manage to play “For Elise” acceptably well. But if you believe that by playing “For Elise” more or less well you are already a pianist who can play Beethoven, then you are just fooling yourself and you risk realizing your mistake sooner rather than later. Just try playing the first movement of Beethoven’s Concerto No. 5 and you will see what I mean. And as soon as you try Rachmaninoff's Concerto No. 3, then you will surely find yourself with a whole series of decisions you will need to make regarding your limitations. This leads us to something we all really know: statistically speaking, it may be possible that almost anyone of us can learn to play the piano. But not anyone can become a pianist. And if you have no real God-given talent for it, if you stubbornly insist in the attempt, you may end up like the young respectable lady who tried to impress Chopin by playing his “Minute Waltz”. After she finished, the Maestro thanked her with his best courteous smile for the delightful quarter of an hour he had the pleasure to experience...

The point of the anecdote is something to keep in mind when it comes to evaluating the value of perseverance. If you persevere pursuing an objective for which you have no talent or skill, you then risk the fiasco of spending your life chasing a dream that, at least for you, is unreachable. Do not confuse perseverance with stubbornness. Not yielding and not giving up at the first obstacle is a virtue indeed. But constantly hitting a wall and eventually smashing your head against it is, to say the least, pure nonsense.

The secret of the difference rests in the virtue of truthfulness applied to our own self. Or to put it differently: in being honest with yourself in the first place. At some point in our lives we all have to be honest with our own conscience and admit that we have a talent for certain things and that we do not have it for many other things. So, all options will never be open to all of us.

It is wrong to believe that, always and necessarily, everything is just a matter of preference. We are not always talented for the things we like. Although personal preference and inclination are usually somehow related to our abilities, this is not always and automatically the case.

I did not pick the previous example of the piano and the pianist at random. In our current society the media misrepresent – sometimes hideously – the ideal goals that our youngsters are supposed to pursue. Many teenagers feel inclined to music, but once you look at it closely, it soon becomes abundantly clear that this attraction has less to do with art than with fame, distinction, popularity, fortune and that sort of magic aura that surrounds rock stars promoted by these same media. In this way, a kid who simply “likes” music – and who could very well have absolutely no physical skills nor a fine ear whatsoever for music – ends up dreaming that he will become the lead guitar in a world-famous band. The sad and bitter truth is that most of these young people are irremediably wasting their time by setting themselves music as an objective. A good deal of them end up exercising the harsh discipline of the art only after achieving some sort of recognition and the vast majority quits halfway or even before. And this also holds true, or is quite similar, in other fields such as sports, fashion, journalism and in even far more strict disciplines like economy, business administration, public relations and others. Face it: we are lying to our youth. We are shamelessly telling them blatant lies. We keep making them believe in the mantras of “it’s easy” or “everyone can do it” and, afterwards, ridiculous as it may seem, many people show bewildered surprise at the enormous number of girls and boys who become totally disoriented.

Let’s stop lying to them and you will see how disorientation gradually disappears. Our youth are neither indifferent, nor perverse, nor vicious, nor lazy. Our girls and boys are simply intoxicated by all heaps of lies with which we, grownups, have been feeding them for, at least, the past 30 years.

This is why, unfortunately, today it is very common to see that the first decision a young person makes is not the best one. This is also why nowadays we have no choice but to permit a certain degree of flexibility in questions that relate to perseverance. It is, and continues to be true that changing haphazardly is a behaviour leading nowhere. But it is not less true that chasing the wrong objective is one of the most certain ways of ruining your own life.

In this regard, what should be understood is that in one way or another excellence always prevails and is acknowledged in the end. That is something worth betting on. In broad terms, it does not matter so much what you do. What truly matters is that you are really good at whatever it is that you choose to do or to be. You don’t necessarily have to be the best in the world in your trade; although you can still aspire to the top place if you have exceptional talent and you develop it through discipline and perseverance. But however it might be, it is not really that important if you are a musician, a doctor, an electrician, a lawyer or a construction worker. What truly matters for you is to be a good musician, a good doctor, a good electrician, a good lawyer or a good construction worker.

And this you will attain only with perseverance. By walking the path of discipline from beginning to end. No cheating, no shortcuts allowed. Overcoming obstacles with effort and persistence. Exploiting your talents and your true skills to the fullest. Trust me: there is no other way. Whoever tells you otherwise is lying. We will always hear about the born genius who “leaped” over obstacles with enviable ease but even geniuses have to walk the way. In Argentina, we had a truly brilliant cardiologist; his name was René Favaloro and he is credited with having invented coronary bypass surgery. When asked how he achieved his success, his answer was short. He simply said: “10% inspiration and 90% perspiration”. That 90% of sweat is made of perseverance.

And if you are worrying about money, fame or prestige, my humble advice is that – if you are truly good at what you do – you may as well stop worrying. I know more than one mechanic who earns three times as much as a mediocre lawyer, and I could even tell you the story about a maintenance electrician of a very important company who had more prestige and reputation than the moron of the Plant Manager – a true engineer with all his papers and credentials – who still struggled to understand why by just switching only two wires it was enough to invert the axial rotation of a three-phase motor.

Alright, granted: that particular case was a bit extreme and worthy of being logged in the Guinness Book of World Records, or at least in Ripley's “Believe It or Not”. But undeserved status is a tall diving platform, and those who jump from it soon discover that the pool in which they are diving has no water.

WORK

Work is a natural title
to the property it creates,
and the legislation which
does not respect this principle
is inherently unfair.
Jaime Balmes

Keep doing some kind of work,
that the devil may always find you employed.
St. Jerome

I am a great believer in luck,
and I find that the harder I work
the more I have of it.
Stephen Leacock

There is a very old socialist aphorism that says: “every person has the obligation to produce at least the equivalent of what he consumes”.

I have always considered it a good aphorism. However, I agree that, should we try to implement it, we would surely run into a whole series of troubles because all too often it is terribly difficult to establish that equivalence and, last but not least, also because there are many ways of production and many and very different products. Certainly, it is not easy to translate this aphorism into something practical and viable in the real world. All the same and in spite of its drawbacks, it still is an excellent principle as far as I am concerned, because essentially, what it says is that no one has the right to be a parasite.

Ultimately and in a strict sense, work is the activity through which we provide for ourselves and for our loved ones. In other words, all the way from the days of Paradise till today work is what has allowed us to support our family.

Nevertheless, this conception of work, however true, soon becomes too narrow; especially if we consider the vast complexity of the socio-economic structure of today’s world.

For example, if we analyze work from a socio-economic point of view, we will come to the amazing conclusion that in actual fact we never – or almost never – work for ourselves. Most of the time we work for others. Let me ask you to do something: sit in any room and look around you. Once you have taken a good look at each and every object you see, ask yourself just two simple questions:

If you carry out this exercise thoroughly I guarantee you’re in for a big surprise. In fact, most likely, you will never manage to come up with the full list that answers the second question.

You don’t believe me? Try it out with a most simple case. Take that curtain by the window. And I will even give you a head start by assuming that it was you who made it. Alright: we have the person who made the curtain. But, who weaved the fabric? How many people worked in the factory that made the yarn? How many were involved in the dyeing? If the yarn is made from natural fiber, who sowed the cotton? Who harvested it? Who brought it to the factory? And if it is synthetic, who prepared the chemicals? Who supervised the process? Who manufactured the machine that transformed the chemicals in yarn? Who packed the finished spools?

And I will drop it here because I don’t want to bore you unduly, but I could keep on asking who manufactured the cardboard box where the spools were packed, who manufactured the truck that transported those boxes and even who built and maintained the road used by the truck. Sometimes it seems incredible, but even a simple curtain requires the coordinated work of dozens of thousands of people and hundreds of different professions. Quite some time ago, together with a friend we tried to compile a list of all that is needed to enable any of us to board and travel on a bus. We had to give up. The list became so long and complicated that in no time it became impossible to deal with.

What is the point in all this? – you may ask. Well, it is quite simple actually: we do not only spend our lives working for others, but we also live consuming other peoples’ work. Long gone are the days when craftsmen made their own tools, who got their own raw materials and who manufactured in a single integrated process the object of their craft. And yet, if we give it a second thought, we would find that even these craftsmen worked for those around them because they would not keep most of the manufactured objects to themselves. They would barter or trade them with the members of the community.

In today’s societies, this phenomenon is multiplied exponentially. Everyone's work is interrelated with, and relies on, many other kinds of work performed by a huge amount of people. The point is that we do not work for ourselves, even when we do it to provide for ourselves and our family, or for those for whom in a way or another we are responsible. The point is that in our globalized post-modern society we have reached the point where everybody depends on everyone, and – among many other things – this turns social organization into something far more fragile, complex and sensitive than most people would ever imagine.

All of the above does not invalidate the concept of work as an activity intended to provide for our needs. Quite the opposite: it turns it into something more essential since, as we have seen, the people who in one way or another rely on our job are much more in number than those who are directly within our innermost circle of responsibilities. To the individual aspect of work we must add a social dimension, or to put differently: the sphere of individual work is contained in a social sphere that surpasses it.

Moreover, the concept of work goes even beyond the concept of economic production. As a virtue or a value, the emphasis rests upon what we could call “industriousness”, or “occupation”. If you allow me the wordplay, I would say it is what makes it preferable to be occupied in the solution of a problem rather than to be preoccupied by the existence of the problem itself. This broader concept of work may become important because it includes many activities that normally lie outside the scope of economics. For example, fairly often a young person may be asked: “Do you work or are you studying?”. In my youth, more than once I was impolite enough to question back: “Why? Do you think study is fun and games?”. (OK; granted: at that time I didn’t say exactly “fun and games”, but for now I will spare you the English equivalent of my angry teenager Argentinean slang…). Whoever has studied more or less seriously knows that study is not about carousing around the clock. Like any other occupation, it requires a good deal of dedication, effort, discipline and perseverance. In essence, study, art, philosophy, theology and a whole lot of other not precisely profitable activities constitute an “occupation” – a “labour” – like any other paid job in the market. They require that 90% of perspiration Dr. Favaloro spoke about, necessary to achieve any goal.

In this way the concept of “worker” actually covers a much broader range of professions, jobs and occupations than those normally considered by a petty, narrow and biased conception of industriousness. The industrial worker is not the only one who works. The proletarized office clerk is not the only person who works. The supervisor, the foreman, the manager and the director work too. And so does the artist, the designer, the researcher, the philosopher who honestly seeks explanations for many things, the priest who really has a calling and who serves his faithful with love and dedication. All those who have a goal in life and who constantly carry out their activity with discipline in order to achieve that goal, do work. The artificial division of society in hostile classes has narrowed our perspective on the subject. All those who work hard, with discipline and perseverance, pursuing a defined and worthy objective are, actually and by strict definition: workers.

And please do come up now with the argument that, by that token, thieves and robbers also work. That’s beyond the point. Leaving aside the fact that many criminals end up working more than they would if they were honest, what we are considering here is how useless and counterproductive it is to divide, classify and stratify different types and styles of work based solely on their socio-economic value. Down deep, like Boris Pasternak used to say, at work you not only make what you imagined; you also discover what you are made of.

But even within the boundaries of work that can effectively be traded for money in the labour market, in an enormous amount of cases – whether implicitly or explicitly – we overlook the fact that any production process involves bringing together at least eight quite different kinds of work.

If you remove a single step of this sequence, any production, anywhere around the world, will become impossible. Consequently, don’t be amazed if you end up realizing that even work presupposes rank, order and discipline.

FREEDOM

Freedom is not about doing
what you want,
but about doing what you must.
Ramón de Campoamor

Liberty means responsibility.
That is why most men dread it.
George Bernard Shaw

Only freedom
which is subject to Truth
leads human beings to true well-being.
Pope John Paul II

Thanks to freedom of speech
today it is possible to say
that a certain politician is a good-for-nothing
and nothing happens.
Neither to us nor to the politician.
Jaume Perich

In his Zarathustra, Nietzsche, with one of those wonderfully precise strokes that every now and then flowed from his pen, points out that there is a big difference between being free “of” something and being free “to” do something. If I ask myself “what am I free « of » ?” I am only inquiring about my hindrances. On the other hand, if I ask “what am I free « to » do?” I am inquiring about my possibilities and opportunities. As you can see, there is clearly a huge difference.

There is something unquestionable from a historical, anthropological, psychological, and even archaeological point of view: human beings are social creatures. Already the most primitive beings of the Homo gender considered by science, individuals who lived dozens of thousands and maybe even millions of years ago, lived in groups. We don’t know about a single culture or civilization made up of isolated individuals. Consider this for just one second: a society of hermits would be impossible, even biologically.

Hermits as loners have always and everywhere been an uncommon phenomenon, far off the statistical average of the species. The solitary man on a deserted island – an allegory so dear to some 19th century writers – is an artificial intellectual abstraction. Rousseau's “noble savage” is a character that may have many virtues but, look at him as you may, it has a small and irreparable flaw: he never existed.

Therefore, if freedom is to be understood in absolutely socio-political terms, then 10.000 years of known History compel us to conclude that absolute freedom is nothing but a mental construct with no actual reference to any civilization or culture. If we want to conceive freedom in terms of “free of...” - free of coercion, free of oppression, free of exploitation, free of dependence, etc. – then the most we can expect is to achieve a reasonable and justified graduation of precisely the restriction, or limitation, of that absolute freedom. In socio-political terms, absolute freedom simply does not exist. And it does not exist because it cannot exist. It is totally and entirely impossible to build, not to say a society, but even the most elemental human community on the ground of the absolute freedom of each and every one of its members.

The mistake made by all who exaggerate the actual possibilities of socio-political freedom – and that goes without exception for all political doctrines we inherited from 19th century – is to think that there is only a single layer of command in society: the State; and also that there is only one layer of obedience: the People, society; i.e. all the rest. According to this view, the State (or whoever occupies it) commands and everyone else obeys, and supposedly this would explain the entire series of tensions and opposed intentions in that dialectical relationship so dear to Marxists. From this, then, arises the controversy on issues such as how do rule those that rule, why do those who are ruled obey, who grants authority to those who rule, over what domains and to what extent is that authority extended? And a long series of related issues the mere enumeration of which would require a good many pages.

Actually, the whole conception is wrong from the very beginning. No wonder that, of course, the discussion that derives from it quickly drifts into pure abstraction, if not into a utopian irrationality impossible to build in the real world. And it is wrong mainly because it is incomplete. A civilized society of human beings is never as childishly simple as the socio-political theories of 150 years ago conceived it. In fact, one of our main problems is that we keep dragging along those theories and, after various very debatable attempts to update them, in the 21st century we still insist on trying to rule Society with those more than outdated preconceptions.

The truth is that in every society with a certain level of complexity, there are a huge number of people who command and obey at the same time. Even in relatively simple tribal societies made up of only some hundred members, we can see how the chieftain may command – and he actually does in certain circumstances. But only in certain circumstances; because in others he follows closely the advice of the tribe's medicine man. And the elders, who obey in certain matters, then gather in Council and make decisions that the entire community will follow.

In our post-modern societies the picture is not as different as many often suppose. When the doctor diagnoses the mechanic with an illness and prescribes specific medication, the mechanic obeys: he goes to the drugstore, buys the medication and follows the treatment. But when the doctor's car stops running it is the mechanic who repairs the breakdown and advises the doctor on how best to avoid breaking the same part again. And now it is the doctor who obeys the mechanic.

There are similar examples by the dozen. The Corporate manager makes decisions and commands within the Company, but on the street he will have to obey the instructions of the traffic police. The police officer may command on the streets, but he will have to obey the sergeant who is his superior. The sergeant will command the police officer, but he will obey the judge. The judge will dictate sentence and put a criminal in jail, but he will obey the laws enacted by the legislator. The legislator will enact laws, but the day his tooth starts hurting he will do well in following the dentist's advice. The dentist can be really bossy at his job, but at home maybe it is his wife who calls the shots...

Is there any point in going further? It is obvious that we could fill pages and more pages with examples to show that even in the freest society you can imagine, at the end of the day we all end up commanding and obeying at the same time.

However, the scenario changes completely if we stop considering freedom as a right, or as a privilege that makes us “free of” bondage or dependency, and we start considering it as a power that enables us to access certain options, possibilities or opportunities.

Some might be surprised, but by this criteria society increases our individual liberties, as opposed to the previous approach that assumes them to be restricted by social bondage. And this for a very simple reason: association multiplies the possibilities of an individual. When overall possibilities increase, the available options and alternatives increase correspondingly. In this way we find that the member of a society is freer than the isolated individual, because he has more opportunities to choose from. Society offers a much wider range of options than the ones available for a person living alone on a deserted island.

At this point we run into something that I fancy calling the “Crusoe Paradox”.

Robinson Crusoe – that typically British version of the man-alone-in-a-deserted-island – was less free than any of his contemporary Europeans. This fictional character, lonely, lost in an uninhabited island, with only a native servant at his disposition (a British gentleman without at least one native servant is unthinkable, even in fiction), had less possibilities of real option and action than any of his contemporaries who lived in London, Amsterdam, Paris, Berlin or Rome. The ideal Robinson Crusoe could lay down to sleep wherever he wanted, but outdoors, exposed to rain and even to ants. He could have a hut, but he had to build it himself without nails, hardware, curtains or glass. Just imagine the problem posed by a simple door hinge on a deserted island. And bear in mind that he would have been forced to fall down a tree – without sophisticated tools – to get the wood for that door. True: he could have sailed; but he would have had to build himself a ship without even dreaming of having brass, sails, varnish, or wood that did not come from the trees of his lonely island.

The depiction of this ideal Robinson Crusoe might seem very romantically free to some dreamy spirits, but the fact is that the man could have died in just a couple of days from a simple appendicitis. Look at it from wherever you want, twist it around as much as you like: in terms of real options and possibilities, Crusoe was by far less free than any of us today.

Keeping this in mind, it is now possible to understand and define freedom in terms of self-sufficiency or independence.

We are free as long as we have real alternatives of choice and we can actually choose among them. The example I have used many times to show the point is: if my culture has not developed the airplane, what advantage do I get from the fact that no one forbids me to fly? Without airplanes I will not be free to fly even if no one forbids it. But, reciprocally, if my culture has developed airplanes but airlines charge for tickets an amount that I simply cannot afford, then I end up in the same situation. In that case I still do not have real freedom to fly; even if it is not forbidden, even if in the Constitution there happens to be somewhere a paragraph expressly granting me the right to fly whenever and wherever I want to.

Let us summarize: freedom is not a right somebody grants nor a license an authority may give. It is a power you effectively can exert. I am free to do or to be something as much as I effectively can do it, or be it. The rest is literature.

Now, the options and alternatives that a society can offer do not fall on it from heaven. They are created, built, constructed, and manufactured. And the builders are the very members of that society. Today, we have the ability to fly, not because of a gift from the gods of Olympus, but thanks to the effort, the work and the talent of men like Otto von Lilienthal and the Wright brothers – among many, many others. We have the ability to cure many diseases thanks to men like Pasteur, Koch, Salk, Favaloro and so many others. We have the possibility of having electricity thanks to Gilbert, Otto von Guericke, Volta, Faraday, Ampere, Edison and many more. Our present possibilities are merely objectives accomplished by our forefathers.

By the way, just because of this I believe we thus owe more respect and gratitude than what we are paying them today.

Be as it may, the beauty about all of this is that – perhaps to a lesser degree than great inventors, innovators, creators and discoverers – all of us can contribute to that process by pursuing our objectives to the extent of our capacities. If we do useful work, consciously and well, directly or indirectly we might be contributing to the availability of greater and better options for all of us as well as for the coming generations.

And this does not necessarily mean that we have to settle for lesser accomplishments. To begin with, it is absolutely unarguable that the vast majority of great inventions and discoveries ended up being possible due to small innovations or improvements which, by themselves, may have seemed modest, but without them, the great accomplishment would have been practically impossible. The internal combustion engine would never have been developed if seemingly modest devices – such as the crankshaft, the gear or the pulley – had not have been invented before. On the other hand, Dante Alighieri might have the unquestionable merit of writing the Divine Comedy. Many times however, I wondered if he could have written it by scratching on clay tablets like the Sumerians did. Let's agree: it would have been rather troublesome without ink and paper. And besides, who took care of doing Dante's laundry? Who cooked for him? Who took care of him when he was sick? The person refilling his ink pot did not contribute in some of way to the Divine Comedy? Is it not a bit unfair that we do not know the names of all those who, in different ways, contributed to make that great work of art possible at all?

Quite likely it is. It is quite possible that sometimes fame and justice travel on different highways. Anyhow, the fact remains that all of us contribute – or at least can contribute – to the increase of available options and, through this, to the increase of our true scope of freedom.

And the best of all is that, at that rate and considering all we have said so far, we certainly can be independent. Because, in this sense, being independent no longer means doing entirely without others. We have already seen that this is impossible even in small communities. From this point of view, being independent, simply means not being a burden on others. It means not living at the expense of others. True and real independence is about not being a parasite of others’ work, giving absolutely nothing in return.

It is true that in a society as complex as ours, actually possible independence is limited if we are to consider it in absolute terms. Even the most “independent” professional or free lancer works for one or several clients and he depends on the assignments he can get from them as much as from the money they pay him for his services. And, trust me, from my own experience I can say: a hysterical client who does not know what he wants can be ten times worse than the most unbearable of employers.

The question then, is not if we are independent free lancers or just employees. In one way or another we are all “hired”, and the independence about which employees sometimes dream of is mere illusion, at least to a large extent. It is not true that being an independent professional you can organize your life the way you please, work whenever and as much as you want, or take holidays at leisure. All that is pure fantasy. Clients impose meetings at specific times; sometimes they require impossible deadlines; in the middle of the project they change their requirements twenty times; they pay whenever they want, and if you are not there when they need you, by the time you are back from your holidays they have given the job to someone else and you have one client less in your portfolio. Independence as imagined by some people is nothing but wishful thinking that reality very soon dispels.

However, even so and in spite of all this, there is an independence that is possible and real. It is the independence of those who have deep and thorough knowledge of their trade or profession; of those who are really good at what they do and consequently have earned solid prestige. This kind of people will always have a job. Of course: they will have their ups and downs; they will go through crisis and times of better bounty. There is nothing in the world that can effectively grant you a life without troubles. But those who are good at what they do will always be able to provide for their needs without being a burden for others.

Because excellence awards independence and enables you to earn what you own by your own effort.

We cannot be free or independent by violating our own nature as social beings, or by breaking the most fundamental rules that enable social life in the first place. But we can achieve it by respecting these factors and by building our lives in pursuit of our own objectives, without depending on what others can spare, or stealing others’ work in order to survive.

Freedom is not a right to be claimed or demanded. Ultimately, it does not even make much sense to try to guarantee it by law. Freedom is a power nobody gives away as a gift.

As Goethe said: “He alone deserves liberty and life who daily must win them anew”.

BRAVERY

Moral excellence comes as a result of habit.
We become just by doing just acts,
temperate by doing temperate acts,
brave by doing brave acts.
Aristotle

You have to know what you want.
When you know it, you must have the courage to state it.
Once you've stated it, you must have the will to make it happen.
Georges Clemenceau

Courage cannot be counterfeited.
It is one virtue that escapes hypocrisy.
Napoleon Bonaparte

Courage is like an umbrella.
It’s when you need it the most
that you don’t have it.
Fernandel

At some point everyone feels fear. At some stage in life we all have to make decisions in a frame of uncertainty. Courage is precisely the ability of conquering fear and uncertainty in the pursuit of an objective.

That being so, it may be convenient to specify some aspects of courage. For instance and most obviously: being brave does not mean being free of fear. Any normal individual feels fear or is afraid of something. There are even ancient fears that act upon us just like instinct does and trigger quick reactions to withdraw, step back or even run away. There are those who feel terribly uncomfortable in the dark; others who have an almost uncontrollable phobia towards reptiles or spiders; others who cannot tolerate heights; most people are really frightened by fires or floods. Many of these reactions have a biological explanation (e.g. vertigo); others are atavisms of our species (e.g. the fear of certain animals); others are due to complex psychological mechanisms. The origin and possible cause of our fears is multiple and diverse. People unable to experience fear are not brave; they are fearless. And these people can become very dangerous, both to themselves as well as towards others.

On the other hand, it is not unusual to confuse fear with our natural reaction against the unknown. This reaction is not fear: it is pure and simple caution. When we suddenly face something unknown which does not look particularly friendly or safe, our instinct of self-preservation acts automatically and puts us in a shields-up attitude.

Moreover, sometimes we call courage something that is nothing but sheer custom. Put a steel beam on the floor and walk on it. Maybe you will find it tricky to maintain your balance but you will hardly feel any fear at all. Now, raise the beam, let’s say three or four feet above ground, and walk on it again. You will feel different, believe me. Raise it again, say 12 yards, and probably you will not dare to walk on it. Put it at the 50th floor of a building under construction and you will not step on that beam for anything in the world.

Among people who work in the construction industry, there are some who walk over these beams every day. Are these workers necessarily braver than any of us? Not really. They just got used to it. If every day you would walk on that beam and progressively raise it a few inches day by day, after some months or years it is quite likely that you would regard doing that at the 50th floor as the most natural thing in the world. The first time we drive a car in the hellish traffic of a big city we might feel so insecure that we would pay to have eyes on the back of our head. Ten years later we remain calm in the heaviest rush hour traffic anyone can imagine. Eventually and given the circumstances, we may feel compelled to shout the appropriate road-folklore expressions at other drivers; but fear will be gone.

In fact, as any occupational safety and health specialist knows, habit, routine, the getting-used-to, make people behave in ways that are not brave, but fearless and even irresponsible. After working many years in a profession quite often the worker will think that the safety helmet and the fall harness equipment are only for “sissies”. Labour accident statistics and even professional sickness data refer extensively to these situations and behaviour.

Our first natural and normal reaction when in danger is to flee. It might not be something that flatters our ego, but it is what our self-preservation instinct dictates, an instinct we share with practically all other animals. Normally, in the presence of danger – or anything perceived as such – every animal flees. Rats only fight when they are, or feel, cornered. A snake in the middle of the road will try to escape first. Furthermore: escape is practically the only defence mechanism available to many species.

The situation becomes quite different, however, under certain conditions. It is quite unlikely that someone will not fight to defend his own life. It is not very flattering, but many people behave like rats: if they can, they will run; if they are cornered, they will fight. Could we call this courage? I don’t think so. It is clear that in such cases all we have is only that already mentioned instinct of self-preservation and survival at work.

But sometimes something extraordinary happens: it is when contradicting that ancient instinct all of the sudden someone rises in defence of, not of his own life, but that of others. I mean: this is extraordinary because it even contradicts Darwin’s theory about self-preservation and selection of the fittest. A stronger individual rises to fight for the weaker. That breaks all rules of evolutionism! An individual stands up and risks his life for all who did not dare. When we accept risk and fight because there is a threat to the integrity or the safety of our children, our family, our community, our Nation, our culture, we stop behaving as our animal instincts dictate us to behave, and start behaving as only human beings are capable of. That is the hallmark of the brave.

True courage is the ability to master our doubts and fears and to make firm decisions in dangerous situations. Our ability to use that courage and put it at the service of others is bravery. In other words: courage is always self-referential, bravery is not. Courage is our ability to conquer our fears. Bravery is that same ability put at the service of those in need. The bull-fighter, the Formula One race driver, the trapeze artist, those are what we would call courageous daredevils. The warrior who fights for his nation, the doctor who fights off an epidemic, the policeman and the fire-fighter, those are brave people.

Extending the issue, it may be worth pointing out that there is also an often overlooked and unique form of bravery and courage. Sometimes it is referred to as “civil courage”. It is the courage displayed not when our lives or physical integrity are at stake, but our honour, and we risk our reputation, our social position, our rank, our economical means or our privileges. It is the courage required to still do the right thing even when, for one reason or another, it is not socially or economically “convenient” to do so.

It is the case of the journalist who dares to say and publish the truth although he may get into big trouble for it. It is the case of the accountant who refuses to sign a false balance sheet. It is the case of the politician who resorts to a drastic measure because it is necessary, in spite of losing points at the polls and votes in the next election. “Civil courage” is the bravery of those who stand firm in their principles and their own convictions even when confronted with the mockery and criticism of the corrupt and the mediocre.

For society and culture, in the long run, probably this is the most important type of bravery. Most of us will have died without ever having to step on a battlefield, without having to go into a house on fire to rescue one of its occupants and without having to engage in a gunfight with a gang of criminals. While working in a normal profession, under normal circumstances, it is rather difficult for us to have to face any of these situations.

On the other hand, the possibility of betraying our principles and ideas for economical or social gain is a situation we may have to face more than once. That is when we will have to prove that we have the moral courage to keep faithful and firm in our position, provided the situation involves only ourselves. If it also involves others we will have to prove whether we have the moral bravery to stand up for those ideals and fight for them.

Having that said, it certainly is worth noting that the old Spartan advice of “all in its proper measure” also applies here. Having courage and being brave does not necessarily mean that you have to live making suicidal proposals. To expect that fearlessness and stubbornness will always yield good results would be to demand too much of optimism.

What we should have clear in our mind are our own limitations. It is not a matter of sacrificing the well-being and safety of our entire family for the sake of fighting windmills in the name of a beautiful Utopia. Neither is it a question of committing suicide proclaiming an inconvenient truth in the wrong place and at the wrong time just to see how stupid the company's CEO will look. Nobody is going to earn the National Award for Honest Behaviour by sawing off the branch where he sits. Many times you will have to learn to just shut up and wait. Many times it will be a matter of knowing how to find the right argument at the right time. What matters, then, is to stay firm looking for that moment and to be able to make the most of it when life gives you the opportunity.

All too often, justice in this world is a train which comes by rarely, stopping only at certain stations and allowing on board only those individuals who were patient enough to wait for it on the platform.

SOLIDARITY

There is no true peace
without fairness, truth, justice and solidarity.
Pope John Paul II

Perhaps, all that is needed
to open roads for solidarity in the world
is the cooperation of just one more person.
Kurt Kauter

I am convinced that today’s consumer society,
blinded by the market, will be replaced by another
which shall be characterized by the transcendental fact
that social justice and solidarity cannot be neglected.
Rene Geronimo Favaloro

One of the cruel facets of nature is that it does not like the weak. In general, nature’s logic is that the strong survive and the weak perish. Whatever romantic advocates of universal pacifism might say, the truth is that the panther will still prey on gazelles and we ourselves will continue slaughtering calves and lambs for our barbecues. It may not be a very kind aspect of Mother Nature, but she has an indisputable predilection for excellence: she gets quite expediently rid of the useless, the deformed, the degenerate and she promotes quite powerfully the strong, the healthy, and the well-built. Probably, we should not exaggerate this in Darwinian terms, but the fact can be observed directly. Only those who have deliberately decided to shut their eyes do not see it, and only those who have deliberately decided to shut down their minds try to explain it away.

In spite of this, as everybody knows, good old Mother Nature has her paradoxes. For example, many times she rewards cowards with survival. Bravery can become anti-selective in biological terms. Brave people are exposed to shorter lives, therefore, statistically they may mate fewer times than the cowardly. Darwin could never explain why we did not become a species of frightened weaklings.

On the other hand, nature has also had the whim of allowing the existence of beings whose role in the general context I have never been able to fully understand. Can anyone tell me what role in nature do flies, mosquitoes and snakes have? Alright, I know: flies and mosquitoes are what frogs feed on. But then: what is the point of frogs? OK, frogs are eaten by snakes. But then and again: what is the purpose of snakes? This is a small and eternal debate I have with my environmentalist friends, but as far as I am concerned a swamp doesn’t get more beautiful or more useful due to frogs that eat mosquitoes and snakes that eat frogs. I accept it as the fickleness of Mother Nature and I trust she knows what she is doing. But, quite honestly, it really does not move my heart at all.

However it may be, there is one thing that holds true: in biological terms, human beings are among the most extraordinary and complex creatures on Earth.

Oceans of ink and mountains of paper have been used to debate on whether man is “good” or “evil”. The controversy between the anthropological optimism of Rousseau and the anthropological pessimism of Hobbes is by no means over; even though today the politically correct standpoint – at least officially – is optimism. Honestly, I think that man's inherent goodness or evil is not – or at least should not be – an anthropological discussion, nor even a “philosophical” one in its usually understood terms. Because, essentially, it is a metaphysical question, and ultimately, a theological issue.

I could not really say if man is good or evil by nature. What I do know is that man is a dangerous animal.

We are dangerous. More than ten thousand years of History prove that we are capable of killing, slitting throats and exterminating our own species; and that is something no other creature has done nor does. We are the only ones capable of killing just for the sake of it and without this constituting an exceptional and occasional behaviour observed only in some statistically irrelevant cases of other species. Murdering, burning, plundering, raping are inherent to our historical behaviour. We devastate our environment and build artificial environments that alter the planet's ecological balance. In a few years, we have been capable of annihilating what nature took millions to build. We empty lakes to irrigate our crops and we create other lakes where there were none to power our hydroelectric dams. We love God but we are capable of executing others who love Him differently, or under another name. The West has even seen the massacre between people who loved the same God with the same name.

Human beings are dangerous animals. Let them loose and they will end up committing atrocities beyond imagination. I do not know – honestly: I really do not know – if man is good but does not know how to behave, or is essentially evil and can only be redeemed by a higher instance. Be as it may, the proven fact is that man needs limits; man needs structures for orientation and support. Without limits man goes astray and gets lost. If I had to design a socio-political system for man, I would bet neither on his kindness nor or on his evilness. I would be glad to settle for a system that keeps his dangerousness at bay.

However, just like nature has its whims, so does man. The same being capable of committing all those atrocities so morbidly collected in our History books is also capable of building cathedrals, composing symphonies, writing poetry, painting beautiful landscapes, performing music, reflecting upon himself, developing geometries in several dimensions, exploring the secrets of the atom, diving into genetics to investigate the bricks life uses to build itself, running hospitals to take care of the sick and even do charity to help those in need. Sometimes, the truly incomprehensible thing is that the being I have just described is the same being we were just referring to.

Man is a dangerous creature but, fortunately enough, there is a noble side to him: man is capable of being supportive. Undoubtedly, man is a living contradiction. Put him in front of another member of the species and you will never know if he is going to kill him or help him. In historical and statistical terms the chances are almost 50-50. But, in any case, the good news is that there is at least a 50% on which it is worth to risk a bet.

I honestly admit that this coexistence of opposites in man bewilders me. Beyond the realm of religion I would not be able to find either explanation nor remedy for it. But, staying on profane ground, I would say that a fairly efficient approach to this ambivalence may be found in the structures and limits just mentioned, that can contain and hold the individual, thus allowing for the development – or at least the expression – of his nobler side.

There are probably few more dangerous things than a group of frightened human beings, or a group of people who feel threatened. When man feels insecure and at risk, he is capable of the most incredibly stupid and savage things in order to achieve a sense of power that makes him feel more secure. Now, take that same group of savage human beings and organize them into a socio-political and economical system with solid structures, clear relationships, a well defined chain-of-command and a set of strict but fair laws. Add to it an effective and efficient administration and that same group is capable of surprising the whole world with its achievements and successes. Please don’t think I am making this up. Something quite similar happened when Rome was invaded by the barbarians. The original barbarians burned and plundered Rome. Their descendants built Gothic cathedrals over most of Europe.

The key to this resides in those internal relationships that enable life in common. Just as a well established association multiplies the real possibilities of individuals – giving them a greater scope of real freedom – a well organized social organization with strong foundations increases the scope of security. Not only does it reduce risks and minimize or eliminate threats, but – and this is perhaps even more essential – it reduces considerably the overall perception of risk. In other words: a good socio-political organization not only offers better security but it also offers a better feeling about security.

In this environment solidarity can grow and develop. Otherwise, it would only arise seldom and exceptionally in certain times of crisis, and only among very few people.

Solidarity is not an obligation of the rich towards the poor. Pushing the argument a bit further, I would even dare to say that solidarity has nothing to do with wealth or poverty. Sometimes the rich are caring among themselves and many times the poor are caring among themselves. Solidarity is the ability that we have to help others and to know how to accept the help of others. Even though many fail to understand it: solidarity is also a two-way road. Not only do you have to know how to give. You also have to know how to receive.

We have a long standing tradition consistent with the idea of the powerful being able to command but under the condition of protecting those who obey and of aiding those in need. However, this does not justify a merely passive attitude by those protected and aided. Today the general idea seems to be that the rich have an obligation to help the poor and the rulers have the duty to yield before any whim of the crowd. As a result, the poor end up believing that they have a right to receive aid in idleness and, consequently, the masses feel they have a right to demand any nonsense promised by a demagogue.

And this is wrong. This is not how solidarity works. The protection received creates a duty of loyalty and the aid received creates a duty of reciprocity. He who is not loyal to the one who protects him does not deserve being protected, and he who is not willing to help those who help him does not deserve being helped.

Solidarity is not about receiving without giving anything in return. It is true that the one who gives has to give without speculating about what he may receive in return. A speculative gift is not solidarity, but a bribe. Precisely because solidarity is selfless, precisely that is why it creates a duty for those who receive it. Without this reciprocity solidarity becomes a charity which will do nothing but encourage the parasitism of the useless, the bums and the free-riders.

This currently popular and widespread thesis of the rich having an obligation to help the poor is based on false arguments. Explicitly or implicitly, the arguments of lachrymose humanitarianism or demagogic populism claim that the rich owe their wealth to an allegedly undeserved “luck”, be it by sheer chance or by some mysterious heavenly “election”. And when it is not so, it is directly assumed that the rich have made their fortunes through money-laundering or its equivalent.

Of course, it is not a question of being naive and trying to defend that which cannot be defended. As we have already seen, considering the current system of punishment and reward that prevails in our societies, these assumptions become not so unreasonable in a good number of cases. However, it would still mean distorting the very essence of the issue to make high-sounding speeches about solidarity on these grounds. Be it only because this line of thought conceals very poorly its prime motivation which is none other than envy. In the same way, most of those who so vociferously claim for justice, disguise very poorly their thirst for revenge.

Unfortunately, it is true and we have to admit that in our socio-political system selfishness and greed are better rewarded than nobleness and rectitude. Today, a smart and skilful individual who at the same time is inconsiderate, opportunist, arrogant and cruel has ten times better chances of becoming rich than an individual with opposite values. That is also why, in general, the wealth of a person is not considered proportional to his merits. To put it differently: many believe that rich people do not deserve being rich and, somehow, this is then used to justify envy.

There would be at least two things to note about this. First of all, we should define the term “rich”. Because it happens to be that some envious pygmies do not only consider great tycoons as “rich” – some of whom would be unable to stand a thorough audit – but they put in the same bag all those who do not happen to live in a shack. There are a great number of people who own some property, who live relatively well and look “rich” in the eyes of certain political activists. But those same activists take great care never to acknowledge that these people have what they possess because they have broken their backs working over a whole lifetime. And even if such an individual does not have the strict morals of a Benedictine monk, this does not mean that his possessions are not worth the work, the dedication and the perseverance invested in earning them. In any case, we would have to see how strict the morality of the envious who criticize him actually is.

Secondly, I believe we should learn to differentiate among those who impose, support and maintain an unfair social order, from those who day-by-day only do their best to survive, earn a living and eventually thrive in this essentially iniquitous system. We should be able to better distinguish between those who impose the rules of the game from those who only sat down at the table to play. Let's admit at least that not everyone has the calling to be a revolutionary; just like not everyone has the capacity of being a revolutionary.

Be it as it may, solidarity is not the virtue of the Robin Hoods of Society. Beyond the justice and injustice of the system in which we live, solidarity is a behaviour we can all take on by helping those in need, and helping those who help us. A relationship of solidarity is not a relationship where one who has much gives to one who has little; it is a relationship where everyone gives what he can. The powerful will give protection and the weak will return loyalty. The rich man will give the opportunities he can build and the poor man will seize them to overcome his poverty with his work and showing gratitude in return. And you can always lend a hand to those who help others.

Let us help those who need us. Let us help those who help us, and let us help those who help others.

[1] )- Translated from: Roque Barcia, Diccionario de Sinónimos Castellanos, Editorial Sopena, Buenos Aires, 1967. Page 275

[2] )- John 18:37

[3] )- Denes Martos, Los Deicidas at www.denesmartos.com.ar

[4] )- David Barash y Judith, “The myth of monogamy”. W. H. Freeman, 2001

[5] )- Francis Fukuyama, Social Capital and Civil Society, The Institute of Public Policy, George Mason University, October 1, 1999. Retrieved from http://www.imf.org/external/pubs/ft/seminar/1999/reforms/fukuyama.htm on Jan, 01, 2010.

Introduction