Ethics For Amador And General Considerations About Freedom

Ethics for Amador and general considerations about freedom

Introduction

Ethics for Amador, a "moral reflection", "first general considerations about the sense of freedom", addressed to a fifteen -year -old: with these words the author expresses (P. 10) What this work tries to be.

"Sometimes, Amador, I want to tell you many things" (P. eleven;Great start, by the way). "It has occurred to me to write you some of those things that I wanted to tell you and I did not know or did not dare" (P. 12). About what?: "On that weird thing, ethics, which I keep occupying" (P. 14). Thus, this book is a set of reflections on ethics, or better, an ethic, written in the manner of a letter directed to his fifteen -year -old son.

During the nine chapters the author exposes an ethic of the good life, whose axis is the theme of freedom. Let us now write. Thus, good life, freedom, immanence and relationality would be the halls of identity with which we can make a first presentation of this work.

At the end of each chapter, a few brief texts are chosen for reading: from Genesis to Erich fromm (the most cited), through the Iliad, Aristotle, Seneca, Saint Thomas Moro, Shakespeare, Hume, Spinoza, Montesquieu, Rousseau, Martin Buber, Hanna Arendt and Bertrand Russell.

Developing

In the first part of this report, the content of the work, following the nine chapters that compose it, following one by one.

The second and third part will focus on an assessment of formal composure and content.

Ethics is a branch of philosophy that covers the study of morals, virtue, duty, happiness and good living.

What is moral, how a moral system is rationally justified, and how to subsequently apply to the different areas of personal and social life, it is what ethics studies, and that is where I relate what this Spanish author cites withThe question “What is my social and civic commitment for the presidential elections of the Dominican Republic in 20202?"

In this superb essay by the Spanish writer and philosopher Fernando Savater, we manifest what really goes with what ethics is, which is the art of choosing what suits us most and living as well as possible;It also explains the objective of politics which is to organize as efficient as possible social coexistence so that each one can choose what is convenient for it.

The author Savater states that some things can learn them or not, because everything depends on the will, and since no human being is able to know everything, he chooses to choose or vote what ignores, that is, that those things that favor us usually usuallycall it "something good" while those that do not "something bad", and it is starting from there where my social and civic commitment arranges with respect to the presidential elections of the Dominican Republic in 2020, in which we lived in a society inwhere we confuse freedom in choosing something as far as possible with always getting what we want even if it seems impossible.

The purchase of the votes in exchange for something that benefits us in the "moment", the disappointments of previous governments where the result of power was reflected and not of the vision makes me commit to fulfilling my right to exercise my vote,Comparing my goals with the mission and vision that each political representative offers in improvement, where human treatment is seen, freedom within the margin of democracy, etc. , Regardless of whether it is a minority to raise it that way, that it is one of the reasons for because many young people do not exercise that right. It would be to take things with seriousness and partiality when having my decision, so that it is not affected or distanced by emotions and the small momentary advance (the sale of the votes), because due to lack of knowledge many lose the approachof what is convenient for all.

Internal text consistency

The first chapter, "what is ethics about," we don’t need to say what it deals with. Ethics is the art of living, knowing how to live, therefore the art of discerning what is convenient for us good and what does not suit us bad;This concludes the chapter. This conclusion is reached by a path that we see next. It begins by finding that many times it is difficult to know what suits us.

The next chapter before summarizing it is necessary to advance a general observation. As we will see, Savater renounces an anthropological foundation of ethics. It would almost be said to repudiate it. Therefore, much of the book are issues that we could call "formal", not "content.

The third chapter, "do what you want," deepens the argument that neither orders nor customs nor caprices are the valid sources of moral decisions;Then, he deals with pointing out the valid source.

Two are the elements that stand out in this regard. The first, that we are "condemned to freedom": even if anyone would like to give up their freedom, he would do so in use of his freedom. The second is that of empty freedom: to know what use we have to do of our freedom, we have to question "to freedom itself" (p. 65). Just as ethics does not have an anthropological reference, freedom has no more reference than herself, she cannot seek a truth about itself to adhere.

The fifth chapter is titled «Wake up, Baby!". The examples of Esau and Kane demonstrate that life is complex, and that when making decisions, this complexity cannot be simplified: it is necessary to pay attention, that is, to reflect seriously. Three elements of that complexity: the present cannot be lived isolated, but taking into account that it forms a unit with the past and the future (case of Esau, which is the paradigm of instantaneism);Things can "enslave," according to how we possess them, and deprive us of the most important, the sincere affection of others (Kane’s case. In this regard, it also uses the example of that sage who had a greed);But these first two "complexities" are secondary: the main one is that people and the treatment between them is the issue of ethics are much more complex, rich and mysterious than things. "The greatest complexity of life is precisely this, that people are not things" (P. 82). Judging for what page 88 says, this chapter tries to answer the question «Why is what is wrong?".

The seventh chapter, "put on its place," begins with the discovery of Friday’s footprint by Robinson Crusoe. According to Savater, at that time a new world of issues opens for him, "their ethical problems begin" (p. 115) (For this purpose, remember that ethics deals with how to live life among humans). What have all humans common, beyond their differences above all cultural ?, that is, the symbols. Savater does not need anymore, but it is evident that he is referring to the relationship capacity, with all its complexity and multiple vehicles, whose emblem is precisely the symbols and, more specifically language

The eighth chapter is titled "Take Taste" and deals with sexuality. The central thesis is the net affirmation that everything that gives pleasure to two and does not harm any is fine. But, be careful, sometimes it can harm us without realizing it, or we can deceive ourselves. What is the criterion to know if it damages us or does us good? The joy, understood vitalistically, as a spontaneous yes to the life that arises from our interior.

The ninth and final chapter, "general elections", deals with the relationship between ethics and politics. Savater begins rejecting the general disqualification of politicians, to later move on to the central theme. Ethics and politics are related, since both deal with the good life. "The objective of politics is to organize the best possible social coexistence, so that everyone can choose what is convenient" (p. 154). So that one of the ethical demands is not disregarding politics.

Relationship of content with the previous knowledge of the readers 

The elementary dissent between ethics and politics is that while it is interested in only external results, regardless of "internal righteousness" (Savater does not use this expression), ethics are more interested in this second. Savater concludes that we should not expect from politics a direct moral improvement of people. For this purpose, the temptation to give up ethical effort aware of a change of structures, as well as utopian illusion, lack of realism, which leads to an attitude of exile.

Savater’s sensible proposal The search for good life seems correct. In short, it is the tradition of Eudemonist morals. The work is crowded with many valid considerations, some of which have been relief in the summary. Others need to be nuanced: I mean, read in a Christian interpretation context can be correctly understood. Some, certainly, are rejectable. The latter cannot be an impersonal "regulation", a kind of absolute duty;Behind each moral demand must encourage a person. I think this is very well captured and exposed in this work. However, both in one matter and in another, that is, both in the principle of good life and in the subject of relationality and the treatment of the person it seems that the author continually seeks a plane as generic and formal as possible, andAbove all, an immanent plane. We will see the latter later.

Thought, text and context

In my opinion, the most austere criticism that Savater deserves as a whole refers to a serious "methodological" issue;This methodological error explains many of the concrete deviations of the work. Namely: the author completely dispenses with an anthropological foundation of ethics.

Another effect: a moral of good life closed to transcendence (that is, immanent in the sense that this life is only interested) cannot respond to the problem of noble death. The marathon man, who fell dead after communicating his message, performed a noble action. Héctor performed noble action. Who dies fighting for justice, or trying to save other people in danger, performs a noble action. I think this are universal ethical intuitions. But an ethic of the good life that is at the same time immanent is unable to intellectually substantiate these intuitions.

The complete content will drift between two gaps that frame it, between two requests of principle. One at the beginning and another at the end.

The refined basis of the whole work is evident and, in particular of the contempt for the issue of death: death does not worry me because while I live there is no death for me, and when I am dead I no longer exist. Although I am not unamuniano, I prefer the honesty and seriousness with which this philosopher faced the issue. A friend urged him to shake the "proud and individualistic" desire to achieve life after death.

conclusion

Fernando Savater does not know what to do with death, because he thinks, if he takes too much into account, devitalizes in any case.

Welcoming the criticism of Vitalism NietzscheanThe penalty to take advantage of here. But it seems that Savater either wants to reject immortality, because we could conclude that death deprives everything, and that therefore, it is better to stick to us the fleeting instant. It seems that let’s say what we say about the other life say that it exists or does not exist, the result is always to remove value from this life. Therefore, our only solution is not to say anything, not worry about that, not think much about death. So, death should not be taken into account: a little antipathy and nothing else.

Bibliographic references

• Antonorsi Blanco, M., & Fariñas Contreras, G. (2018). Ethics: of good decisions to the right actions. IESA debates, 23 (1), 34–39.
• Ethics and Politics: An interview with Michel Foucault. (1988).
• Santuc, v. (1997). Ethics and political.
• Savater, f. (2017). Ethics for Amador. [Barcelona]: Ariel, pp.45,55,59.
• Savater, Fernando. (1991). Ethics for Amador.