lunedì 11 maggio 2015

VALENTINA NAPPI - Neither with the Pope nor with the director

vnappi"Who am I to judge?": few slogans are more pleasing to the common people like this, which is an expression of the reassuring face of authority, which is invigorated by populism, from cerchiobottismo[1], by mercy and pauperistic rhetoric. "Who am I to judge?", asks the Pope. "You're a human being endowed with practical reason", Kant would respond. But is right here the heart of the matter: the idea that no less than the pope - from men - must not to judge is an attack on the human faculty of moral judgment. Of autonomous moral judgment, in the Kantian sense. "Who am I to judge?", said by the Pope, makes its way to the "who are you to judge?", said to the ordinary citizen, which in turn paves the field to the acceptance of an heteronomous, of community moral. "Who am I to judge?" is very different from "who is the church / community to judge?".

But there's more. The "who I am I to judge?" assumes that, if the judgment was delivered, it would be negative. Let me explain with an example. I am a loose woman, one that gives without problems at first that it happens. Who says me "I do not judge you" takes for granted that, if the trial was given, it would not be positive. Idem who says me "everyone does whatever wants". But the fact of the matter is that I am not absolutely a libertarian who claims the right to do whatever he/she wants, if lawful, regardless of whether it is morally right or wrong (the famous distinction between sin and crime). No! I claim the level of moral judgment. That's where we play the game. Who says me "I do not judge you" overthrows such a ground, and overthrowing it leaves, in it, the way things are.

I'm not a porn star who says "I am so, but let every girl do as she wants". No! I aspire to enter the discourse about what is right or wrong, about what is good or bad, about what should be done or should not be done. I maintain that to be whore is right, but above all I affirm that not being is wrong. Wrong in the sense of morally reprehensible, wicked. Wicked because logically wrong. As you can see, my strict ethical cognitivism is neither aligned nor alignable with the positions of MicroMega and Paolo Flores d'Arcais, which I believe paves the field to a conception Londonistan style of the moral (trend consequence of the idea that moral judgments are lacking of a cognitive-truth foundation).

The position of Pope Francis, however, is far more subtle and pernicious, because it is not absolutely a not believing in an objective ethics, far from it: it is an overthrowing the logical-theoretical comparison on the values, by virtue of a "who am I to judge?" which shifts the matter to another plane, that human-existential one (that is inhabited by other categories, such as mercy and compassion), taking for granted that the logical-theoretical discourse on ethical values is a deal that is always and only under the jurisdiction of the church / community. What is all of this but trivial, very vulgar, Jesuit demagoguery?

Valentina Nappi

(November 19, 2014)

[1] "The juggle opportunistically between opposing positions, specially in politics, trying not to upset anyone" ( - Translator's Note

Original: Micromega,

Translation: Abigail Pereira Aranha

Testo originale in italiano: Né con il papa né col direttore,, riprodotto a e
Traducción al español: Ni con el Papa ni con el director, y
Translation to English: Neither with the Pope nor with the director, and
Tradução para o português: Nem com o Papa, nem com o diretor, e

Nessun commento:

Posta un commento