Imagine that you …
lived a long time alone,
in a small apartment,
and, because you have always lived alone,
you have acquired practices that have to do with
with its convenience,
with your pleasure,
ease in organizing life …
But there, for some reason, someone will live with you.
You will share that same space with someone.
And you quickly realize
that some things you did you can keep doing.
They do not disturb their coexistence,
but other things, if you keep doing,
you will grieve the one who lives with you.
How do we start from the premise that all
has to give equal chance of happiness to those who live,
you will not be able to do exactly as you did
when he lived alone.
We call it ethics
the difference between what you would do if you were alone in the world
and what do you do because there’s someone on your side
who has as much right to live happily as you.
Well, I imagine you realize: it’s not a ready-made table
that those two people will read,
but it is a permanent interaction,
identifying what they want for that coexistence
and what can not be accepted in there.
Those two may need
of rest, of rest and of silence,
which becomes for them the greatest value of coexistence.
But those two
may need fun, excitement and intensity,
and this is also the greatest value for living together.
It is up to them to identify what is fundamental to them.
Ethics is the identification of fundamental values
so that those two can have equal chances of happiness
and can live happily in that coexistence of that space.
That goes for those 2 people,
worth for 5 people in a family,
50 people in a classroom,
50 thousand people in a small town,
200 million people in one country,
or all mankind.
Ethics is the art of coexistence
and respect for equal chances of happiness
for all those who interact.
There is no table ready, and the values are contradictory.
You know that transparency is fundamental for coexistence.
Transparency is a great value of coexistence.
Thanks to transparency, we reduce maracutaia,
diminishes the lie, reduces cynicism, hypocrisy,
inequality.
So transparency, it matters to us,
but secrecy and confidentiality, which are the opposite of transparency,
are also fundamental for our coexistence.
Without confidentiality, the priest does not confess,
the counter does not count,
the auditor does not audit,
the teacher does not apply proof,
the public tender is not carried out,
the psychoanalyst does not analyze,
the judge does not judge.
Then realize:
if transparency is fundamental,
secrecy, which is its opposite, is also.
Ethics is the identification in that space that is our interaction
of what matters most to us.
So it is much more than a ready-made table
which divides “respectful” and “non-respectful.”
We are all invited to have a more important ethical training,
to reflect lucidly on the kind of society we want for ourselves,
if we want a silent society,
in which rest is the highest value.
If we want a vibrant society, where intensity is the greatest value.
And, of course, identifying what is fundamental for us,
we will know how to diagnose behaviors that we can not tolerate,
mischievous and undue behaviors,
behaviors that seek to bring
advantage for those who act, but destroy the coexistence,
destroy the values that guarantee happiness for all.
Ethics is the victory of coexistence over the root canal.
But, as we will have to think, how will we have to identify
what matters most to us, of course there will be anguish,
there will be doubt about what is most valuable, what is more important,
and therefore every ethical life is inseparable from the fear of repentance,
the fear of not having thought right,
the fear of not having contributed to the construction of a more just society.
Anguish will accompany us.
The more lucidity we have,
the more we realize how hard it is to know what we want.
So I was talking about it in my little school,
I’ve never given such a large auditorium class,
but there at the university the auditoriums were large,
and a young woman raised her hand,
a young woman with aesthetic capital,
gleaming topography, an incredible young woman,
she raised her hand and said,
“Oh, professor, thank you for the concept of anguish, I was always distressed.
I have never been able to clearly identify the limits of my action
It’s what I want for my life.
I always had doubts.
Thank you then. I learned today that I am superangustiada,
and now I know even the word for the feeling that has always accompanied me. “
Then I picked it up and said, “Wow, such a beautiful girl,
here at university he had everything to take a more naive view of life.
Do not you want to give me an example of your anguish? “
Then she said, “Professor, my boyfriend is studying up here.
I do journalism, he studies at Polytechnic, he does mechatronics.
You can imagine the little guy, but I like him.
Wow, we’ve been dating for a while, professor,
and now, in June, has Corpus Christi, it’s ‘bag full week’,
we, here in the Communication, do the JUCA,
University Games of Communication.
This year was in Guaxupe, and I told my boyfriend: ‘Come with me,
Let’s play, let’s have fun, let’s enjoy having no class … ‘
He could not go, Professor.
He said he was finishing a robot, “she said.
“There were only two antennas left so the robot would be ready.
‘You go,’ he said.
Professor, when I arrived at Guaxupe,
I realized that sport was a very shameless pretext of that encounter. “
“Do not say, what were people doing?”
“Slut, Professor.”
“But what is it, lass?”
She said, “Sex, teacher.”
Wow, I was so sorry I was never invited to this JUCA guy.
It must be a spectacle.
And then she said:
“Professor, as soon as I got off the bus, a boy in a swimming trunks,
salient musculature, very different from my macerated mechatronic,
he did not even ask my name, he already proposed to me in the can a furtive copulation,
a magic bimbada,
guarantee to disappear magically after intercourse,
and that’s when I remembered you. “
I picked up and said, “I did not understand where you … I got into the story.”
She said, “Professor, it is this:
do not you say that values are contradictory, are they complex?
Is ethics the most fundamental identification for us?
The uncertainty hangs, and we anguish? “
“I am the one who speaks.”
“So, professor, when deciding to give or not to give,
I remembered the Lord: ‘Wow, what do we want for us?’ “
The girl is right: giving or not giving is a problem absolutely
relevant to us.
I’ve been giving a talk to the world’s largest technology company,
and the first value of the banner was fun.
It was in the United States, and the first value was written there:
“To have fun”, fun.
It means having fun there.
Those who do not enjoy themselves here will not be able to coexist.
Anyone who does not enjoy it will get in the way of obtaining
of what everyone wants to look for there.
Fun is key.
If this girl were to make her decision between giving and not giving,
by the technology company’s banner, it would already be giving
behind a bush for a swimsuit swimsuit.
However, as I said,
ethics is always a short blanket, the values are contradictory,
so short blanket because warm cinnamon is important, it is value,
warm the ear is important, it is value,
but the blanket is short and we will have to see what the value is worth
between hot cinnamon and hot ear.
So also the fun is value,
but it is not the only value to guide our lives.
And I wanted to talk about a value that for me is particularly
absent in our society, which is fidelity.
If you go out on the street and ask people what loyalty is,
they will say fidelity to the boyfriend, fidelity to the friend,
loyalty to the company,
but for us, faithfulness is always to itself.
Fidelity is always to yourself.
It is a coherence between your practice now,
his decision of now and the speeches of yesterday,
the promises of yesterday, the correct answers, the understandings of yesterday.
Fidelity is an alignment between what you promised yesterday
and what you decide to do today.
Fidelity, therefore, sews the “immediacy” of the present
with the promises of the past.
That is why fidelity confers integrity to its trajectory.
Integrity itself, of integral, of integrity.
You respect your own past, respecting your proposals,
your suggestions,
the moral clauses that you claim to respect.
And so, then, so being faithful, you could raise your hand and ask,
“Professor, why would anyone act unfaithfully?
Why would anyone deny their own past? “
It’s simple.
Between the moment you proposed and the moment you act,
things happen.
And if you bother to respect what you promised,
you may lose.
The girl will lose her swimsuit,
but in place of the swimsuit swimsuit, you can place an election,
the victory in an election.
You can make a big sale.
And it is very difficult to give up, it is very difficult to respect what you promised,
because new things have arisen that make respect to the fiancé
a loss, a loss of a gain, a profit,
of an advantage, of a parliamentary victory.
So it is very difficult at times to respect what you yourself have promised.
At that moment, you raise your hand and say, “Professor, why some idiot
would he respect what he promised by giving up so many such fundamental things? “
So here’s my comment.
It’s just that when you made your promises, there was someone listening to you, you know?
When you say you will do something,
there may be someone who believes you.
And this one has confidence for you,
sure that in the future you will respect what you are saying.
And because you promised, and that person trusts you,
this person built agendas, created expectations,
made investments, changed life trajectories,
created dreams,
all depending on your promise
and the confidence she had that you would be true to what you were promising.
So, if you decide to change your mind, to be able to take an advantage,
you will leave these people in limbo,
you will let these people see ships,
you will lead these people to distrust
and what is worse, not only to distrust you,
but they will become distrustful of all,
will become distrustful of the whole society,
will come to believe that it is not really worth it
to admit that someone can be faithful.
And then there will be a kind of generalized confidence,
in which nobody’s word is worth anything.
And it is more or less this type of society that, in the last decades,
we have built for us.
A society in which the word given is an object of laughter, of laughter.
We are absolutely supervised
by cameras, radars, windbreakers, anklets
and everything that demoralizes life.
For these and other reasons, you can choose
between continuing to rely on people’s trust,
thus contributing to a society
in which people can still say things,
and the others may still believe what is said,
or you can be part of a kind of generalized band-aid
in which what is said was never worth anything
and in which only the verification guarantees some certainty.
For these and others, I hope you understand
that fidelity is the integrity of its trajectory
which stirs up confidence in you.
And, if you’ve heard of sustainability,
you must imagine that sustainability is a value of life now
which projects a legal future of living and living together.
Sustainability recommends that you do not play destroying the game,
not to defeat making the victory of tomorrow impossible,
not profit making unfeasible the profit of tomorrow,
not to have a triumph making the triumph of tomorrow impossible.
For these and others, sustainability limits their conduct today,
So that you can continue living happily tomorrow.
Sustainability, which is a respect for the future,
depends on the fidelity to the past,
depends on the fidelity and trust that fidelity can bring.
when you forego gains and advantages
to keep nobody in the hand,
so that they can continue to believe,
so that it can continue to be worth interacting with,
listening to people and taking what they say seriously.
And, at that moment, you may notice that you are in a billiard pool
between taking that immediate advantage and circumstance,
or give up an advantage,
assume the loss in the name of integrity,
of trust,
of fidelity
and sustainability.
And by the time you do that calculation, you might ask,
“Professor, but between winning now and giving up the gain
to respect the world around me,
How do I decide? “
So here is the last answer of my speech:
what we want with ethics
is the possibility of a happy life for all.
What we want with ethics is that everyone here
we have the same chance of a little happiness at the time of interacting.
So, you do your calculations.
And if I came here, the only goal was to give you
what a better person can provide the other person:
a miserable second of life that we want to share again,
a miserable second of happy life.
If we do all this,
we will build a more just, more fraternal society
and more worthy to leave to our children.
Thank you very much and see you next time God willing.
(Applause) (Live)
Thank you.
Thank you.
Thank you.
”
Be First to Comment