[Music] Welcome to the podcast The Lottery of Life, reflections on citizenship and applied ethics. Today we are going to address the question, how do we live in peace amidst difference? We live with moral strangers in increasingly diverse societies. There was a time in history when we could talk, for example, about the citizens of Germany, the citizens of France, the citizens of Colombia, and more or less understand what we were talking about. Today, any of these societies I used as examples have all kinds of people, very different people, and there is great wealth in that diversity. All religions are generally present in almost any democratic, pluralistic country. eh all sexual orientations, all political tendencies. Hey, that's diversity. Diversity has been fought against for many years in history. That is, there was the idea that it was better for people to be similar, for societies to be homogeneous. Nowadays, in liberal democratic societies, we have changed a lot and we celebrate diversity. That is to say, diversity is something positive, it is something that generates wealth in every sense, cultural wealth, economic wealth. And we today, the citizens of the 21st century, live in pluralistic societies and share them with moral strangers. What are moral foreigners? Uh, this term, let's say, was invented by Hugo Tristam Engelhart Jr. He's a philosopher dedicated to bioethics in the United States and it's very interesting because he was trying to write a book to rationally defend uh a vision of life and ethics based on Christianity. He is an Orthodox Christian, but he realized that this project was really unattainable. He could not rationally explain why he believed what he believed, let's say, base his convictions on logical arguments, and even though he is very, very convinced of his beliefs, he proposed that for a liberal democratic society, such as the United States in this case and also Colombia, we must base ourselves on secular ethics. We must allow each person to develop their moral convictions, and we'll explain that a little more later, but the idea is that when we're all so different, we can't try to impose a moral consensus. What is a moral foreigner? Let's stop there. a person who thinks totally differently from us in moral terms. For example, in a family, a mother or father may be devout Catholics and may have a son or daughter who belongs to the LGBT community. It turns out that, let's say, there's a very, very deep disagreement at the bottom, but that disagreement doesn't take away from the fact that they're family, the fact that they're going to have to come to an agreement somehow in order to live in peace if they want to preserve the relationship. Hey, anywhere in a city, a country, a university, you're going to come across people who are very different, people, as we say, of other religions. For example, in the same room there may be environmental activists and people whose family wealth comes from livestock farming. So, on the one hand, for example, we have an environmental activist who is vegetarian or vegan, and next to her in the room is a person whose father and mother are ranchers and to make a living, they sell cattle. These are moral foreigners, mind you, with very different moral convictions, but they are part of the same society. And moral consensus is that somewhat fanciful scenario in which we all agree, we have managed to agree on the most fundamental moral principles. Moral consensus has been sought throughout history, in military dictatorships, or for example, in the Holy Inquisition Tribunal during the colonial era. The goal was for all people in a territory, in a society, to share the same customs. Well, in general this was done through violence, because even in these times we're talking about, diversity has always existed. Perhaps it was a diversity that was not expressed as much because it was not expressed as freely. There it is worth quoting John Stuart Mill in his book on liberty. It is very interesting to ask, what came first? Diversity or freedom? That is to say, first we were guaranteed freedom and that is why diversity arose. That's why people decided to live their lives differently. or it was the other way around. First, there was diversity, and only when freedom was guaranteed in political, legal, economic, and cultural terms could diversity be expressed. It's a very, very difficult question to answer, but the argument I want to share with you is that moral consensus is, first, impossible, and second, undesirable. Let's see why it's impossible. According to Hugo Tristan Engelhart, there are four ways to achieve moral consensus or approach moral consensus. The first is violence. And violence can be effective, that is, it can accomplish its purpose, but it is undesirable in society. Eh, violence generates abuses, arbitrary acts. Uh, the second is persuasion. And persuasion is ethically valid to enter into an argument, into a dialogue. Eh, and with argumentation you can persuade a person to change their mind or you can also change your mind because of the arguments of others. But that never happens on a macro scale, much less on a 100% societal scale. For moral consensus cannot be achieved through persuasion. Well, the third way is intimate reflection and intimate conviction. When a person reflects and changes their mind about ethical aspects, about aspects, let's say, of deep convictions, and they change their mind because people change, people evolve, and that can happen throughout a lifetime, a person can change their mind about various aspects. This does not happen at a macro level or at a level of 100% of people. The fourth way to address the so-called moral conflict and turn it into something positive is through minimum agreements. And that is something, let's say, that I defend very, very directly for our time. We must reach agreements on minimums. What is a minimum agreement? Let's look at some examples. First, in theory, a minimum agreement is an agreement that would leave everyone partially dissatisfied and partially satisfied at the same time. And with some examples we will explain this thoroughly and clearly. Bullfighting, first example, there are some people who are against bullfighting and some people who are in favor of bullfighting. People who oppose bullfighting generally do so because they defend animal rights, because they believe that animals should have rights and that bullfighting is a violation of those rights. Eh, on the other hand, those who defend bullfighting have a different conviction. They say, "Only human beings have rights." It's an anthropocentric belief, and there are cultural traditions that we humans have, and those traditions also have value in themselves, and it's important to preserve them. There is no equality in terms of rights between animals and human beings. for this position. Eh, that's a discussion that's very difficult to close. Eh, it's not possible to convince the other party, much less on a mass level, right? At the level of millions of people who participate in this conversation and this moral conflict. In a pluralistic democratic society, we are obliged to make decisions that allow us to live together in peace. There is a temptation, for example, to ban bullfighting when the majority of people, let's say, share this position, or also to allow it when the majority who want to allow bullfighting are the ones in power. And that 's an endless circle because in democracy too, as we'll see later, perceptions change, public opinion changes. What should a pluralistic society do? reach an agreement on minimums such as the following. In the south of France, in Portugal, and elsewhere, bullfighting is permitted , but killing the bull is not permitted . So, the bullfight takes place, people go to see it, it's quite a spectacle, but the bull doesn't end up dead, the bullfight. Then he leaves and some people might say, "That's not a real bullfight." Hm. And they would have, let's say, a point, but it's a point that's not really very strong. All traditions evolve over time. If you read, for example, Death in the Afternoon by Ernest Hemingway, he tells how bullfights were much more barbaric in the past. The horses had no protection, the bullfighters had no team to help them if necessary. Uh, bulls were sometimes allowed to participate more than once in the bullfight, in bullfights. Then they learned and were much more lethal. So traditions evolve. On the other hand, there will also be people who will say, "No, it is still a humiliation to the dignity of the bull." And they also have a point, because in any case the bull is being used, it is being instrumentalized for a human tradition, but it does not go to the point of killing the bull in both cases. Eh, it's very rare for a person to, for example, not go see a bullfight just because the bull isn't killed. And it's also very rare for someone to decide to boycott a bullfight where the bull isn't killed. That is an example of an agreement on minimums. Another example of agreement on minimums is the case of abortion. On abortion, we also have two conflicting positions: those in favor of abortion and those against it. Obviously there are many nuances in between, but let's say pro- abortion and anti-abortion. In favor of abortion, the argument is generally based on women's rights . individual rights and against abortion, since the argument is based on the right to life and also the sacredness of life, that is, the idea that life is sacred. There is no possibility of reaching an agreement between these two positions either. In terms of let's all agree, let's convince everyone to be in favor of abortion or convince everyone to be against abortion, because in pro-abortion positions, let's say that the human rights narrative prevails, which is also a political device, it's a fiction in the good sense of the word. We humans have constructed fictions that allow us to live in society, but there is no, let's say, biological fact that tells us, "We have rights." And on the side, let's say, against abortion, there is also an argument that cannot be rationally sustained: that of the sacredness of life. It's a belief, it's a deep conviction, it's an act of faith, but there's also no way to, let's say, rationally argue convincingly that life is sacred. Yes. I mean, it's an impossible agreement if we look for it at the highest level, for us all to agree. What do we have to achieve then? The agreement on minimums. And how is it achieved? by giving it a deadline. So, before that deadline, abortion is permitted. After that deadline, abortion is prohibited. We are talking at a social level. Hm. We are talking about a society where there will be people who are pro-abortion and people who are against it. That is to say, we are talking about a very clear need to reach agreements. No, reaching agreements is not optional because we live in these societies with moral outsiders, and regardless of our position, whether it's on one side or the other, we're going to be forced to enter into that kind of dialogue. We're also going to want society not to trample on our most intimate moral convictions, and agreements on minimum standards are very good for this. One feels that society is suddenly not doing exactly what one would like it to do. Political decisions aren't going exactly the way I'd like, but they aren't completely overwhelming me either . And this is very interesting because in the agreements on minimums , the citizen would have that feeling. No matter which side you're on, you'd have that feeling, but that feeling is healthy because you can also be clear that the State isn't going to run over you either. That is, we are reaching agreements to live with people who think very differently. So, the central idea, let's say, that I also defend in the book The Lottery of Life, is that we should give up seeking moral consensus and instead strive to seek agreements on minimums. Well, there's a reflection worth making here, and that is whether ethics should be objective, subjective, or something else. And let us pause a little on that reflection. Ethics is the reflection on good and evil, on justice and injustice. It is the reflection on the principles that guide customs. Eh, when we talk about ethics, we are indeed talking about good and evil. That is to say, arguments like good and evil do not exist and do not hold up when we talk about ethics. The problem is how to talk about ethics without trampling, without trampling on those who think differently. So, I defend an idea that ethics cannot be objective, nor can it be subjective, it has to be intersubjective. And I'm going to explain this. Why can't it be objective? There's no way, eh, and history has confirmed this, to say, these are the basic principles that everyone should adopt. Here is good, here is evil, here is justice, here is injustice. Whoever doesn't agree with this, well, we're going to impose it on them. Ethics, when it is intended to be objective, can become arbitrary, it can become overwhelming, it can even, for example, generate a tyranny of the majority over the minority, by imposing the positions of the majority on everyone else. Ethics, when it is intended to be objective, is even a dangerous instrument, a dangerous tool. As those who have studied historical memory or history will know, those who know what it was like to live in a dictatorship, for example, or in a state with an official religion. Hm. So one might think that ethics should be subjective, and neither should the idea that each person defines what is right and what is wrong, what is fair and what is unfair, in isolation, individually, but in isolation, that is, in isolation from any other person, from their community, from their society, and that they can decide what is right and what is wrong without having anything to do with others. more is very dangerous. And there are two risks in this, moral intuitionism and moral relativism. Moral intuitionism is the following: you get a stomach ache when you see something you think is wrong and you say, "I have a feeling this is very wrong or this is very unfair." For example, in a country with a society, let's say, of Muslims who are extremist Muslims, not moderate Muslims or a state controlled by Islam. Eh, a woman walking out on the street with her head uncovered or, even worse, her shoulders uncovered, would really be a scandal for those people in that society. And they might think that this woman is doing something very bad for us Westerners, democratic people in free societies, they have no problem with that. And moral intuitionism deceives us, because moral intuitionism makes us prisoners or slaves of the traditions in which we have been educated, of the educational models in which we have been trained. So if we have been raised, for example, in an extremist or ultraconservative tradition, we are going to adopt those principles uncritically, and that is a major danger. The second danger is moral relativism. Many people like moral relativism, the idea that one can define for oneself what is right and what is wrong. But moral relativism has a serious consequence at the social level: society is divided into subgroups that can even become ghettos, subgroups that also cut off all communication with groups that think differently, subgroups where there is also authoritarianism within them, because within those subgroups there is no possibility of thinking differently. So there are communities that start to become, let's say, oppressive, for example, for young people who grow up within these communities. For example, there are Orthodox Jewish communities, when Judaism is a very, very rich, very interesting tradition. There are some Orthodox Jewish communities where young people are not allowed to watch movies or attend regular school; they are educated only within their own tradition. Then they don't acquire the skills necessary to live in the world, to participate in the economy, to be professionals, and let's say that these young people never really had the option and these are closed communities that are like ghettos and society can be divided into ghettos if we accept moral relativism. So what is the idea that I defend in this book? Ethics must be intersubjective, that is, ethics must be the result of a dialogue between subjects. That's what intersubjective means. This dialogue is between subjects who think differently. That is, for ethics, let's say, to be acceptable in a pluralistic society, we need to establish dialogues with people who think differently, dialogues at the private and public levels, and also at the level of public institutions. We have to have an open dialogue. Democracy is a permanent conversation. Democracy is an open dialogue. That was the dream of Jurgen Havermas, deliberative democracy, for example. That is the permanent deliberation with people who think differently. When you know people who think differently, when you see them face to face, when you know who they are, it's much easier to reach those minimal agreements that I explained a moment ago. Ethics in a pluralistic society should result from dialogue between people who think differently. And we, as human beings, as individuals, as citizens, must make every effort necessary to establish these dialogues with people who think differently within our families, our neighborhoods, our schools, our universities, and our cities. We must engage in dialogue with people who think differently, be open to listening, and learning from others. I believe that this is what will allow us to coexist peacefully amidst differences. We reflected today on how to live in peace amidst moral differences in a pluralistic society. And I want to leave you with a little final thought for you, for you to make. Establishing and starting dialogues with people who think differently is very difficult. It requires a conscious effort. One, one has to make a conscious effort to try to understand the other. In fact, you have to make efforts and decisions to listen to people who think differently. For example, speaking in the digital media, social media, when you have a deep political conviction and that conviction has detractors, try to listen to those detractors. Take some time to listen to your opponents and see what might be interesting there. Also, if you have a very deep moral conviction that comes from, for example, a secular approach to life, for example, an approach that has led you to oppose many of the things that religions say, studying religions a little from the distance of someone who is not part of a religious community can be very interesting. It can help a lot to better understand even the world, life, and it is a fundamental part of dialogue between different people, so that one strives for that dialogue to truly be two-way, that is, so that one knows how to listen. Father Francisco de Ru, a Jesuit, talks a lot about listening and in the exercise of historical memory, and listening is the basis, listening to people, listening to their experiences, listening to their ideas, listening to how others think. Listening is a skill as important as reading, speaking, and writing. That is to say, one must train it, one must train listening, just as one trains writing, as one trains speaking and reading, obviously. And part of that dialogue depends on all of us, citizens, making that effort to understand those who think differently. I leave you there and I leave you with this last reflection. See you next time on the Lottery of Life podcast. Ah. [Music]