Miguel Díaz Romero: Epilogue about morals

EPILOGUE ABOUT MORALS

A couple of weeks ago, I think, I finished the short novel that will accompany this "Epilogue about Morals". This text has been around my pen for a long time, even during "Las cartas de El Enrique", a book that, together with the current novel, have forced the writing of this work in many ways.

Despite the fact that I believe that philosophy should be rhetorical and not dialectical, due to the depth of thoughts that will mature into ideas and their transmission, I am aware of the rapid obsolescence of the current canons of thought, idea and information, and for this reason I will go straight to the point after paraphrasing my cellmate and exile Dante Alighieri: "the hottest places in Hell are reserved for those who, in times of moral crisis, remained indifferent." And believe me, friend Sancho, we are in an almost unprecedented situation.

1. THE EXTREME TOUCH.

When we were little we used to learn morality without knowing the meaning of the word at all. That even in high school philosophy classes it continued to cause us problems to define and agree on morality, a consequence of morals itself. Morals used to be those universal rules of coexistence that made, in their daily practice for the vast majority of us, the world a livable, safe and perhaps happy place. Morals is spoken of as the tables of an objective Law that, declaring what is Good above and in opposition to what is Evil, governs the social and innate behavior of Humanity in general terms. Morals then and now are those things that we agree to get along, not to hurt each other, and to be in good spirits in the world without annoying our neighbor or that he annoys us, to express it in a way plain and informative.

As for morals, perhaps it has hardly changed, in itself, since we learned it until today; but its application in praxis, both individually and socially. In other words, morals, since as humans we reach certain consensuses so as not to annihilate each other within our groups or between groups, remains largely the same: “you will not kill; you will not be cruel to animals; live and let live; do not hate anyone for an external or thought difference; be nice to everyone; etc."; but its implementation and, therefore, what many believe it means - because most of the time morals does not mean but is in its application - it has changed in an astonishing way and, in many cases and from a perspective global, terrifying.

So I want to start from the statement that there are things that are Good and things that are Bad ‘per se’, and that we agree on this objectively and on a human level, in general terms, in order to continue with this epilogue. Any human, of whatever religion or society, if he or she is sane and moderately intelligent, knows that killing is "wrong" and that giving a piece of bread to the hungry is "good"; that helping an old woman to cross the street is "good" and that mistreating another living being is "wrong".

This is objective and universal morals: the one that we all practice innately and with whose code of conduct we are all born, innocent and free.

Accompanying this, and is the one that causes more headaches to sociologists and high school philosophy professors, is subjective morals or attached to a specific social group. That many times it will clash with that of other groups, or will be similar in some points more related to the first, the objective.

From this subjective morality the legal systems of each State, nation or group of these are born.

But before settling the relationship between subjective morals and laws, I would like to make clear the difference between amoral and immoral. A matter that is sometimes difficult to understand for young and old. The a-moral is "outside the moral": animals and non-rational beings. While the im-moral is "what is against morality", be this the objective: a murderer is immoral for all Humanity, or the subjective: for Christians it is immoral to insult a parent. Therefore, and to the regret of the writer, this text will be immoral for those self-proclaimed leaders and advocates of current morals, which I have called emphatically and to make me understand "extreme moral 100", linked to "extreme moral 0" - concepts that I will explain shortly and briefly.

Once I have briefly reviewed and before the frown of more than one philosophy professor or graduate in the subject what is morals, the difference between objective and subjective, and between the amoral and the immoral, I am going to take a step forward in the expression of how many ideas have given rise to the birth of this text.

I hope that this example is worth me as an illustration that can be extrapolated to any other without intention of offending the sane or moderately intelligent, with the mind not yet poisoned or intoxicated by the "extreme moral 100" of the strange days that we have had to live. To others: this epilogue is not for them. Or yes, so that they stop to think for a while and thus retract, as I have done so many times when I realized that I was wrong: this is called learning, and it consists of evolving. Forty years ago, when a high entrance to a building was built, it was always done without a ramp: the others were not thought about and each one did, trying to follow the laws related to objective morals to a greater or lesser extent, which is good It seemed to him without putting himself in the place of the “other”. I have labeled this type of individual and social behavior "extreme moral 0", when the law was not protectionist and did not think of those who could be offended by the lack or excess of x's or y's. Over time, society realized that certain individuals had to be protected and that it was immoral not to think about them, and the "average moral 50" was reached: there was a time when if there were people in a building who needed ramp or elevator, one was built for them; and in the case of not being necessary, it was not built. And nothing happened: ramps for some, stairs for others, according to their needs. But soon the current vogue of "extreme moral 100" spread which, at the expense of those of us who knew 0 and 50 and who intuited or perceived the debacle that could befall us as a global society, seems to have been implanted, imposed and it manifests throughout the world or, at least, in that great part of the world that enjoys or complains about the benefits of Globalization. The "extreme moral 100" says that whether or not a ramp is needed, all buildings should have one. So far so good: we thought of those who might need a ramp and built it next to the stairs that most of the building's residents will use. But let's say that this thought is for the already non-existent "medium-high moral 80"; since the 100 has gone beyond the previous assumption, since it not only forces the builder to put the ramp but also condemns those builders who do not put it. And for this it uses the law: "extreme moral 100" creates laws that oblige the building of ramps for people who do not need them, and criminalizes those who, because they need stairs, do not think about those who want a ramp. And criticizing or opposing it is, like this epilogue, immoral from its subjective morals.

Am I then, user of stairs, guilty of the need for ramps of the user of these? According to the "extreme moral 100", yes. Thus, extremes meet: going in forty years from not thinking about anyone who needs a ramp to forcing stair users not only to think about those who need ramps, but to accuse them if they do not think so.

Any human can comply with the laws of objective morals: being a good citizen who does not interfere with anyone, who lives and lets live, daily, free, happy... but this annoys the advocates of "extreme moral 100" because, in reality, they do not want and resent that one is happy.

2. CURRENT SCENARIO.

So much so that "extreme moral 100" governs today's globalized society and has even managed to conform to its line of action - not thinking because if they thought about it, they wouldn't - the law itself.

I am not going to dwell on examples of morally unacceptable matters from objectivity that have become everyday situations; and I am not going to do it not because criticism scares me but because in my opinion they do not even deserve a mere mention in this epilogue. I clarify: I am referring in this paragraph to everything that for objective morality is immoral ‘per se’ but that the leaders of the "extreme moral 100" have turned into morality to confuse us, and thus lay the foundations - or some of them - of his ultimate target: the numbing of the world's population. The absolute and definitive ignorance.

Today; in the social networks, the mass-media and from the channels of political-economic disinformation in general; if you are against the "extreme moral 100" you are a criminal of thought. When, in fact, they are: its promoters, geneticists and spokesmen. So much so that they do not allow any criticism against their absurd slogans and they label as inhuman anyone who, from humor, philosophy, religion and science itself – they have enemies in any field that makes us think a little - tries to disrupt, a very easy thing however, its slogans that have never been arguments.

They have established themselves masters of a subjective morality with claims of universality. They have forced to build ramps for anyone who, out of laziness and victimhood, out of vagrancy and sentimentality, out of revenge and susceptibility, has refused to lift their legs and use the stairs. Thanks to, in an insistent and very noisy way, without any basis in reality beyond inaction and revenge, to bring together all those who really needed the ramps that they did not enjoy, but that their "heirs" force to use all others.

They have redesigned the slogans of those who in the era of "extreme morality 0" fought for a ramp, now that they do not need it, to claim a right that they already have but that they wish to impose on the rest of their neighbors. And that, Your Honor and members of the jury, is immoral even if they repeat ‘ad nausea’ that it is the opposite.

They are the same ones that bark like wild hyenas at anyone who does not think like them, those who have not suffered a world without ramps, when and where the one who needed them saw them and wanted to climb the stairs like the rest. For that, and many other reasons, their struggle is futile. I was going to write comic... but it's not funny at all.

Their morals is a lie. Fruit of irresponsibility not only social and individual, but also historical.

The current scenario is that of a world where if you do not think of all those who think they have the right to a ramp, even if they already have it or simply do not deserve it, you are automatically and systematically singled out, accused and insulted. With no other reasons to blurt out, by right and because it is the truth, that they are wrong.

Although, to tell the truth and despite the fact that they are very noisy because they have come to control the media and advertising, they are still not the majority.

But they have come to that control not without help: they have their own institutions, economic organizations and, therefore, their own related political parties and even governments.

What they don't know, because after all they are pawns, is that the plan behind their slogans and the implementation of their "extreme moral 100" has an ulterior objective: global domination through ignorance. Ignorant is not he who does not know something but he who thinks he knows something without knowing anything.

Perhaps what comes next may sound conspiracy; but since Time is Time, voices have been raised in philosophy, politics, science and literature that have affirmed without equivocation that the manipulable People is the ignorant People; and there is no greater ignorant, I reiterate, than the one who believes he is in possession of reason; and of these abound the mass that shouts in favor of the "extreme moral 100", incapable of the own criterion.

Most of the sham current struggles of these lobbies are smoke screens, some very dense and even opaque, to distract humans from the real problems of the world. I remember that they fight for pre-existing or useless rights, ignoring others to be obtained or universal, inherent to every Man and Woman on the planet and in line with the objective morality of which I write at the beginning.

The powers that be, which have always existed and whose names and members change throughout history but whose foundation and shadow are permanent, keep societies entertained with these "concerns" of pointing out anyone who disagrees or is a critical voice against the exposed shed, so that they do not worry about what can really be important for being such as Justice and Freedom and, what annoys them the most that we have, Happiness.

They have tried to sell us a happiness that is only an illusion of possession and belonging; through a freedom designed in their laboratories by years of media manipulation; based on a justice that obeys laws of its subjective morality, without considering everything else, accusing everything else.

And this pandemic, axial nerve of the novel to which this text accompanies and the first and last reason for the existence of both after all, is helping this plan of global control and not thinking with some success.

They had it almost done and they are finishing it. Millions of people connected 24 hours a day, 7 days a week and 12 months a year, to their disinformation devices: social networks, mass media, advertising, works of fiction, etc... controlled by the factual powers and international organizations that sustain, humanly and economically, the lobbies responsible for the propagation of "extreme moral 100". Trafficking with personal data, tastes, cookies, commercial information, locations, and a myriad of indicators and figures that, in their hands, are powerful weapons of direction, indoctrination and media and social manipulation.

A superstructural and silent fascism in which we all participate by publishing the shift photo on Instagram or by liking a YouTube video; to put two of so many examples.

And suddenly, the virus appeared.

They had little to control, but the virus has put that murky specter within reach. They had sheep and dogs, they had social networks and mass media users, they had GPS utilities in their car and the one who goes to watch football every Sunday. But they wanted us all and they have succeeded. Well, I am aware that this epilogue is not going to stop them, much less change them: we can only tell them that we are outside the herd and hope for a real change in the social mind of today's peoples, educating our children in this sense to belong to themselves and not the pastors of the "extreme moral 100".

First they confined us and we were "victims" of the coronavirus. So far so good: the pandemic had to be stopped and it was necessary. But today, after the confinement and with infection rates similar to those of the State of Alarm - it is August 14 when I write - we have become "contagious irresponsible". They have created a figure that did not exist before: the tracker. Now they can, under the pretext of the virus and protected by the same laws that accuse stair users, ask us where we have been, what we have eaten, who we have shared with and how long we have used for all this... without flinching and forcing us to respond.

They will know everything. And we are going to be their accomplices, direct but unconscious, to seclude ourselves in the cave and place the shackles of our freedom in their hands. Telling us, assuring us, how bad people we are not to collaborate; in the same way that they tell us, accuse us, how bad people we are of not agreeing with their “morals”.

In no case will I affirm that the virus is a pretext devised for the achievement of the objective set out before, because I cannot know it and I do not believe that they are that intelligent. But it has come with pearls.

Perhaps, and as in my religion we think, the virus has been another call of attention from God to Men. Tired of us confusing objective morality, the Aristotelian "average morality 50", true morality ... with that which, for the sake of a false freedom and for a cheap happiness, accuses and chains us, against what really Innately, naturally, we feel and even think when we are free as children.

To finish the second point and move from the philosophical to the fictional - where I handle myself best in my writings - point out that, again, it is true that extremes do touch. The "extreme moral 0" was that of the tyrant individual who thought only of himself and of satisfying his ego, where freedom did not exist since the owners of it wanted the entire ration for themselves, protected by their unjust laws with those who dreamed of ramps in a world of stairs, feeding only their happiness without caring the least for other people's. Today, separated from the first by the thickness of this sheet of paper, the "extreme moral 100" restricts the freedom of those who use stairs forcing them to use unnecessary ramps, based on laws that only think about building them where there were stairs before, for happiness of those who derive economic benefit - and also very lucrative - from the construction, promotion, advertising and decoration of them.

It is the same dog but with a different collar; and woe to that poet, thinker, two-bit writer like a servant, who does not shout with his pen or keyboard against them

3. DISTOPIA.

At first I had thought of a second part of this novel that will illustrate what I will write next, but it does not seem the most effective since it is only an idea that can be reflected in a few paragraphs.

I imagine 2032: the year of the rat, and a black and white sequence with red spots shakes my eyelids lighting my mind. It is the film of the future that is born and grows in me, inspired by the events of the present. Homo sapiens will no longer exist: we will all be homo muridae, or ratmen. Our body, covered with vast gray hair, will crowd the increasingly closed spaces of the world's cities. We will fight sick, poisoned and highly toxic bites among ourselves for the piece of cheese that the shepherds of the "extreme moral 100" think it is convenient for us. Because the cheese is always greater than what they tell us and it is they who guard it and distribute it at their discretion. We will dwell in the sewer-world, surrounded by our plastic technological filth, under gray and black skies due to the pollution of an unbreathable air: all with masks of course.

There will be well-designed distinctions nowadays to not only face us over our cubicle or hole in the mousetrap, or the piece of stale cheese that purposely misfeeds us or makes us sick: that would not be fun enough. They will have told us that there are very different rats: above all based on the mouse-god on duty and on the color or state of our hair, even the kind of cheese that each one likes or can afford in the quagmire of our universal sewer.

I imagine hordes of homo muridae being blown up by a god X among families of homo muridae that have the god Y hanging on the wall of their rooms.

I imagine families and entire clans of homo muridae apologizing to others because one of them has made a mistake, flagellating himself for other people's faults to silence future violence.

I imagine the last book in a corner of a burning library. Scared with the fire licking the contours of his cardboard spine, crying his eyes out a requiem already begun by literature and science.

I imagine the fat shepherds, homo muridae as the most since they have been the first to convert and envy the healthy skin of the sapiens that we are remaining, satiated with the meat of the rest of homo muridae with their bloodstained mustaches, like movie B cannibals. Laughing between obscene burps, cleaning their dirty claws with the cheese that they will later distribute among those who do not devour.

I imagine a sad world, faced by questions that should not face us. Yelling at each other while obscenity and zero thought run rampant, warping Culture and History at their convenience. We will be just sewer rats, incapable of thinking for ourselves, manipulable simpletons of violent behavior connected to recreational machines of different kinds that breathe for us through a luminous screen. Where morality, of any kind, is no longer necessary.

A world to which we inexorably go despite not agreeing with it, not wanting it, fighting to the extent of our slim possibilities against it.

I am just the voice of a mediocre novelist who represents an idea. But united, my friends, readers, who still do not smell rotten under their hair, this idea can be powerful, dangerous, useful.

And, perhaps, with a little luck and God's help, we can stop them in time.

To close just one sentence from Mark Twain: "never argue with an idiot, he will lower you to his level and he will beat you by his experience."

Miguel Díaz Romero

Torrevieja, August 15th 2020.

DOWNLOAD THE NOVEL