In a post below Joaquim asked me to elaborate on the proper - actually, Catholic - conception of freedom as the ability of a man to do what he ought to do, as opposed to the vulgar, democratic conception of freedom as the ability of a man to do as he pleases.
Let me start with a little story. When I arrived in Ottawa, Canada, late in 1978 as a doctoral student several people - mainly, Portuguese emmigrants - helped me and my family to establish ourselves in this new, foreign city.
One of them told me that if I didn´t have enough money to buy furniture for my apartment, I could go to a downtown furniture shop owned by a Canadian businessman. He would sell it to me on credit, no questions asked. All that was needed would be for me to tell him I was Portuguese.
I never used this facility which, according to my friend, was granted only to Portuguese emmigrants in Ottawa. Some years later I was told that the businessman had canceled this credit facility to the Portuguese as well.
What went wrong? Well, Portuguese people arriving in Canada until the early eighties had been educated under the philosophy of Estado Novo. One of the main tenets of this philosophy was that you were supposed to fullfil your obligations, contractual or otherwise, even those you had assumed by word of mouth. Then, by the early eighties, the democratic philosophy of education in Portugal had already taken over with its peculiar conception of freedom. When these people started to arrive in Canada in increasing numbers some of them felt at ease not to pay the Canadian businessman and the credit facility to Portuguese nationals was terminated.
Now, the question is: who is the free man in my example, the Estado Novo man who feels compelled to fullfil his obligations and does so, or the Democratic man who feels free not to fullfil his obligations? The answer is the Estado Novo man.
A man who fullfils his obligations is a man who has no claims on him. He does not owe anything to anybody. He always did what he ought to do. Nobody can put claims on him. He is a free man. On the contrary, a man who does not fullfil his obligations places himself in such a situation that other people do have claims on him (in my example, the Canadian businessman and possibly the police). This man is not free (actually, in my example, he might well end up in prison)
It might be argued that the proper, Catholic conception of freedom requires a moral code. Surely it does and we do have one - the moral code of Christianity. All attempts to build alternative, rational moral codes in our Civilization have failed so far. The moral code of Christianity might not be a perfect one, but it is certainly a workable one. It is two thousand- years old.
On the contrary, the great difficulty with de vulgar, democratic conception of freedom is that it does not require a moral code. Actually, it does away with any moral code. You might also notice that for this conception of freedom to prevail - that is, for a man who does not fullfil his obligations to get away with it - the system of justice must necessarily be destroyed (for only then, in my example, the businessman has no way to make effective his claim on his debtor).
Let me start with a little story. When I arrived in Ottawa, Canada, late in 1978 as a doctoral student several people - mainly, Portuguese emmigrants - helped me and my family to establish ourselves in this new, foreign city.
One of them told me that if I didn´t have enough money to buy furniture for my apartment, I could go to a downtown furniture shop owned by a Canadian businessman. He would sell it to me on credit, no questions asked. All that was needed would be for me to tell him I was Portuguese.
I never used this facility which, according to my friend, was granted only to Portuguese emmigrants in Ottawa. Some years later I was told that the businessman had canceled this credit facility to the Portuguese as well.
What went wrong? Well, Portuguese people arriving in Canada until the early eighties had been educated under the philosophy of Estado Novo. One of the main tenets of this philosophy was that you were supposed to fullfil your obligations, contractual or otherwise, even those you had assumed by word of mouth. Then, by the early eighties, the democratic philosophy of education in Portugal had already taken over with its peculiar conception of freedom. When these people started to arrive in Canada in increasing numbers some of them felt at ease not to pay the Canadian businessman and the credit facility to Portuguese nationals was terminated.
Now, the question is: who is the free man in my example, the Estado Novo man who feels compelled to fullfil his obligations and does so, or the Democratic man who feels free not to fullfil his obligations? The answer is the Estado Novo man.
A man who fullfils his obligations is a man who has no claims on him. He does not owe anything to anybody. He always did what he ought to do. Nobody can put claims on him. He is a free man. On the contrary, a man who does not fullfil his obligations places himself in such a situation that other people do have claims on him (in my example, the Canadian businessman and possibly the police). This man is not free (actually, in my example, he might well end up in prison)
It might be argued that the proper, Catholic conception of freedom requires a moral code. Surely it does and we do have one - the moral code of Christianity. All attempts to build alternative, rational moral codes in our Civilization have failed so far. The moral code of Christianity might not be a perfect one, but it is certainly a workable one. It is two thousand- years old.
On the contrary, the great difficulty with de vulgar, democratic conception of freedom is that it does not require a moral code. Actually, it does away with any moral code. You might also notice that for this conception of freedom to prevail - that is, for a man who does not fullfil his obligations to get away with it - the system of justice must necessarily be destroyed (for only then, in my example, the businessman has no way to make effective his claim on his debtor).
.
Over the last three decades in Portugal, the vulgar, democratic conception of freedom has gradually been replacing the proper, Catholic conception which prevailed under Estado Novo. I am not the least surprised that accompanying this tendency the system of justice in the country has been suffering considerable degradation.
Sem comentários:
Enviar um comentário