Sitio web de opinión mundial Project Syndicate
Artículos de Peter Singer
En este artículo de febrero de este año, el afamado neurocientífico Oliver Sacks anunció que tenía cáncer y que ante la inminencia de la muerte decidía escribir un “testamento” público, así como publicar sus memorias in extenso. Sacks se inspira y hace referencia a la breve carta autobiográfica de David Hume en abril 1776, meses antes de su muerte, que probablemente también fue causada por el cáncer. Hasta agosto, Oliver Sacks no ha muerto y sigue escribiendo en el New York Times una especie de reportaje testamentario de su experiencia ante el enfrentamiento de la muerte. Ambos textos son ejemplo de una forma digna e inteligente de encarar con buen ánimo y valentía la irrevocabilidad de la muerte.
MY OWN LIFE
[by David Hume]
It is difficult for a man to speak long of himself without vanity; therefore, I shall be short. It may be thought an instance of vanity that I pretend at all to write my life; but this Narrative shall contain little more than the History of my Writings; as, indeed, almost all my life has been spent in literary pursuits and occupations. The first success of most of my writings was not such as to be an object of vanity.
I was born the 26th of April 1711, old style, at Edinburgh. I was of a good family, both by father and mother: my father’s family is a branch of the Earl of Home’s, or Hume’s; and my ancestors had been proprietors of the estate, which my brother possesses, for several generations. My mother was daughter of Sir David Falconer, President of the College of Justice: the title of Lord Halkerton came by succession to her brother.
My family, however, was not rich, and being myself a younger brother, my patrimony, according to the mode of my country, was of course very slender. My father, who passed for a man of parts, died when I was an infant, leaving me, with an elder brother and a sister, under the care of our mother, a woman of singular merit, who, though young and handsome, devoted herself entirely to the rearing and educating of her children. I passed through the ordinary course of education with success, and was seized very early with a passion for literature, which has been the ruling passion of my life, and the great source of my enjoyments. My studious disposition, my sobriety, and my industry, gave my family a notion that the law was a proper profession for me; but I found an unsurmountable aversion to every thing but the pursuits of philosophy and general learning; and while they fancied I was poring upon Voet and Vinnius, Cicero and Virgil were the authors which I was secretly devouring.
My very slender fortune, however, being unsuitable to this plan of life, and my health being a little broken by my ardent application, I was tempted, or rather forced, to make a very feeble trial for entering into a more active scene of life. In 1734, I went to Bristol, with some recommendations to eminent merchants, but in a few months found that scene totally unsuitable to me. I went over to France, with a view of prosecuting my studies in a country retreat; and I there laid that plan of life, which I have steadily and successfully pursued. I resolved to make a very rigid frugality supply my deficiency of fortune, to maintain unimpaired my independency, and to regard every object as contemptible, except the improvement of my talents in literature.
During my retreat in France, first at Reims, but chiefly at La Fleche, in Anjou, I composed my Treatise of Human Nature. After passing three years very agreeably in that country, I came over to London in 1737. In the end of 1738, I published my Treatise, and immediately went down to my mother and my brother, who lived at his country-house, and was employing himself very judiciously and successfully in the improvement of his fortune.
Never literary attempt was more unfortunate than my Treatise of Human Nature. It fell deadborn from the press, without reaching such distinction, as even to excite a murmur among the zealots. But being naturally of a cheerful and sanguine temper, I very soon recovered the blow, and prosecuted with great ardour my studies in the country. In 1742, I printed at Edinburgh the first part of my Essays: the work was favourably received, and soon made me entirely forget my former disappointment. I continued with my mother and brother in the country, and in that time recovered the knowledge of the Greek language, which I had too much neglected in my early youth.
In 1745, I received a letter from the Marquis of Annandale, inviting me to come and live with him in England; I found also, that the friends and family of that young nobleman were desirous of putting him under my care and direction, for the state of his mind and health required it.—I lived with him a twelvemonth. My appointments during that time made a considerable accession to my small fortune. I then received an invitation from General St. Clair to attend him as a secretary to his expedition, which was at first meant against Canada, but ended in an incursion on the coast of France. Next year, to wit, 1747, I received an invitation from the General to attend him in the same station in his military embassy to the courts of Vienna and Turin. I then wore the uniform of an officer, and was introduced at these courts as aid-decamp to the general, along with Sir Harry Erskine and Captain Grant, now General Grant. These two years were almost the only interruptions which my studies have received during the course*27 of my life: I passed them agreeably, and in good company; and my appointments, with my frugality, had made me reach a fortune, which I called independent, though most of my friends were inclined to smile when I said so; in short, I was now master of near a thousand pounds.
I had always entertained a notion, that my want of success in publishing the Treatise of Human Nature, had proceeded more from the manner than the matter, and that I had been guilty of a very usual indiscretion, in going to the press too early. I, therefore, cast the first part of that work anew in the Enquiry concerning Human Understanding, which was published while I was at Turin. But this piece was at first little more successful than the Treatise of Human Nature. On my return from Italy, I had the mortification to find all England in a ferment, on account of Dr. Middleton’s Free Enquiry, while my performance was entirely overlooked and neglected. A new edition, which had been published at London of my Essays, moral and political, met not with a much better reception.
Such is the force of natural temper, that these disappointments made little or no impression on me. I went down in 1749, and lived two years with my brother at his country-house, for my mother was now dead. I there composed the second part of my Essays, which I called Political Discourses, and also my Enquiry concerning the Principles of Morals, which is another part of my treatise that I cast anew. Meanwhile, my bookseller, A. Millar, informed me, that my former publications (all but the unfortunate Treatise) were beginning to be the subject of conversation; that the sale of them was gradually increasing, and that new editions were demanded. Answers by Reverends, and Right Reverends, came out two or three in a year; and I found, by Dr. Warburton’s railing, that the books were beginning to be esteemed in good company. However, I had fixed a resolution, which I inflexibly maintained, never to reply to any body; and not being very irascible in my temper, I have easily kept myself clear of all literary squabbles. These symptoms of a rising reputation gave me encouragement, as I was ever more disposed to see the favourable than unfavourable side of things; a turn of mind which it is more happy to possess, than to be born to an estate of ten thousand a year.
In 1751, I removed from the country to the town, the true scene for a man of letters. In 1752, were published at Edinburgh, where I then lived, my Political Discourses, the only work of mine that was successful on the first publication. It was well received abroad and at home. In the same year was published at London, my Enquiry concerning the Principles of Morals; which, in my own opinion (who ought not to judge on that subject), is of all my writings, historical, philosophical, or literary, incomparably the best. It came unnoticed and unobserved into the world.
In 1752, the Faculty of Advocates chose me their Librarian, an office from which I received little or no emolument, but which gave me the command of a large library. I then formed the plan of writing the History of England; but being frightened with the notion of continuing a narrative through a period of 1700 years, I commenced with the accession of the House of Stuart, an epoch when, I thought, the misrepresentations of faction began chiefly to take place. I was, I own, sanguine in my expectations of the success of this work. I thought that I was the only historian, that had at once neglected present power, interest, and authority, and the cry of popular prejudices; and as the subject was suited to every capacity, I expected proportional applause. But miserable was my disappointment: I was assailed by one cry of reproach, disapprobation, and even detestation; English, Scotch, and Irish, Whig and Tory, churchman and sectary, freethinker and religionist, patriot and courtier, united in their rage against the man, who had presumed to shed a generous tear for the fate of Charles I. and the Earl of Strafford; and after the first ebullitions of their fury*30 were over, what was still more mortifying, the book seemed to sink into oblivion. Mr. Millar told me, that in a twelvemonth he sold only forty-five copies of it. I scarcely, indeed, heard of one man in the three kingdoms, considerable for rank or letters, that could endure the book. I must only except the primate of England, Dr. Herring, and the primate of Ireland, Dr. Stone, which seem two odd exceptions. These dignified prelates separately sent me messages not to be discouraged.
I was, however, I confess, discouraged; and had not the war been at that time breaking out between France and England, I had certainly retired to some provincial town of the former kingdom, have changed my name, and never more have returned to my native country. But as this scheme was not now practicable, and the subsequent volume was considerably advanced, I resolved to pick up courage and to persevere.
In this interval, I published at London my Natural History of Religion, along with some other small pieces: its public entry was rather obscure, except only that Dr. Hurd wrote a pamphlet against it, with all the illiberal petulance, arrogance, and scurrility, which distinguish*31 the Warburtonian school. This pamphlet gave me some consolation for the otherwise indifferent reception of my performance.
In 1756, two years after the fall of the first volume, was published the second volume of my History, containing the period from the death of Charles I. till the Revolution. This performance happened to give less displeasure to the Whigs, and was better received. It not only rose itself, but helped to buoy up its unfortunate brother.
But though I had been taught by experience, that the Whig party were in possession of bestowing all places, both in the state and in literature, I was so little inclined to yield to their senseless clamour, that in above a hundred alterations, which farther study, reading, or reflection engaged me to make in the reigns of the two first Stuarts, I have made all of them invariably to the Tory side. It is ridiculous to consider the English constitution before that period as a regular plan of liberty.
In 1759, I published my History of the House of Tudor. The clamour against this performance was almost equal to that against the History of the two first Stuarts. The reign of Elizabeth was particularly obnoxious. But I was now callous against the impressions of public folly, and continued very peaceably and contentedly in my retreat at Edinburgh, to finish, in two volumes, the more early part of the English History, which I gave to the public in 1761, with tolerable, and but tolerable success.
But, notwithstanding this variety of winds and seasons, to which my writings had been exposed, they had still been making such advances, that the copy-money given me by the booksellers, much exceeded any thing formerly known in England; I was become not only independent, but opulent. I retired to my native country of Scotland, determined never more to set my foot out of it; and retaining the satisfaction of never having preferred a request to one great man, or even making advances of friendship to any of them. As I was now turned of fifty, I thought of passing all the rest of my life in this philosophical manner, when I received, in 1763, an invitation from the Earl of Hertford,*32 with whom I was not in the least acquainted, to attend him on his embassy to Paris, with a near prospect of being appointed secretary to the embassy; and, in the meanwhile, of performing the functions of that office. This offer, however inviting, I at first declined, both because I was reluctant to begin connexions with the great, and because I was afraid that the civilities and gay company of Paris, would prove disagreeable to a person of my age and humour: but on his lordship’s repeating the invitation, I accepted of it. I have every reason, both of pleasure and interest, to think myself happy in my connexions with that nobleman, as well as afterwards with his brother, General Conway.
Those who have not seen the strange effects*33 of modes, will never imagine the reception I met with at Paris, from men and women of all ranks and stations. The more I resiled*34 from their excessive civilities, the more I was loaded with them. There is, however, a real satisfaction in living at Paris, from the great number of sensible, knowing, and polite company with which that city*35 abounds above all places in the universe. I thought once of settling there for life.
I was appointed secretary to the embassy; and, in summer 1765, Lord Hertford left me, being appointed Lord Lieutenant of Ireland. I was chargé d’affaires till the arrival of the Duke of Richmond, towards the end of the year. In the beginning of 1766, I left Paris, and next summer went to Edinburgh, with the same view as formerly, of burying myself in a philosophical retreat. I returned to that place, not richer, but with much more money, and a much larger income, by means of Lord Hertford’s friendship, than I left it; and I was desirous of trying what superfluity could produce, as I had formerly made an experiment of a competency. But, in 1767, I received from Mr. Conway an invitation to be Under-secretary; and this invitation, both the character of the person, and my connexions with Lord Hertford, prevented me from declining. I returned to Edinburgh in 1769, very opulent (for I possessed a revenue of 1000 l.*36 a year), healthy, and though somewhat stricken in years, with the prospect of enjoying long my ease, and of seeing the increase of my reputation.
In spring 1775, I was struck with a disorder in my bowels, which at first gave me no alarm, but has since, as I apprehend it, become mortal and incurable. I now reckon upon a speedy dissolution. I have suffered very little pain from my disorder; and what is more strange, have, notwithstanding the great decline of my person, never suffered a moment’s abatement of my spirits; insomuch, that were I to name the period of my life, which I should most choose to pass over again, I might be tempted to point to this later period. I possess the same ardour as ever in study, and the same gaiety in company. I consider, besides, that a man of sixty-five, by dying, cuts off only a few years of infirmities; and though I see many symptoms of my literary reputation’s breaking out at last with additional lustre, I knew that I could have*37 but few years to enjoy it. It is difficult to be more detached from life than I am at present.
To conclude historically with my own character. I am, or rather was (for that is the style I must now use in speaking of myself, which emboldens me the more to speak my sentiments); I was, I say, a man of mild dispositions, of command of temper, of an open, social, and cheerful humour, capable of attachment, but little susceptible of enmity, and of great moderation in all my passions. Even my love of literary fame, my ruling passion, never soured my temper,*38 notwithstanding my frequent disappointments. My company was not unacceptable to the young and careless, as well as to the studious and literary; and as I took a particular pleasure in the company of modest women, I had no reason to be displeased with the reception I met with from them. In a word, though most men any wise eminent, have found reason to complain of calumny, I never was touched, or even attacked by her baleful tooth: and though I wantonly exposed myself to the rage of both civil and religious factions, they seemed to be disarmed in my behalf of their wonted fury. My friends never had occasion to vindicate any one circumstance of my character and conduct: not but that the zealots, we may well suppose, would have been glad to invent and propagate any story to my disadvantage, but they could never find any which they thought would wear the face of probability. I cannot say there is no vanity in making this funeral oration of myself, but I hope it is not a misplaced one; and this is a matter of fact which is easily cleared and ascertained.
April 18, 1776.
Un informe muy revelador sobre la realidad social en cuanto a derechos y convivencia comunitaria
Texto de Kant para Ética 1
He aquí la liga al texto de Franz de Waal: Primates y filósofos
Publicado por El País, el 19 de abril
La foto impúdica que publicó EL PAÍS el domingo en primera plana del rey Borbón y otro cazador, ambos con escopetas y atrás de ellos el elefante que acababan de matar, me produjo, ¡otra vez!, un sentimiento que en mí se ha vuelto recurrente: asco a la humanidad. Yo he visto de niño las fotos de los decapitados de mi país, en hileras de decenas, y a veces de centenares, de campesinos conservadores o liberales descalzos (pues entonces no tenían ni con qué comprar zapatos) y con las cabezas cortadas a machete y acomodadas a los cuerpos a la buena de Dios: eran las del enfrentamiento entre el partido conservador y el partido liberal colombianos, que a mediados del siglo que acaba de pasar se estaban exterminando en esa guerra civil no declarada que conocimos como la Violencia, así, con mayúscula como se pone en España el “Rey”, y que incendió y devastó el campo de Colombia.
Ninguna de esas fotos me produjo tanto dolor, tanta perturbación como esta del periódico español. Tal vez porque desde niño no quiero a los seres humanos pero sí a los elefantes. O tal vez por lo que enmarca la foto: arriba el nombre del periódico, EL PAÍS, el único que ha llegado ser transnacional en nuestro idioma, pues ni La Nación de Buenos Aires, el diario de los Mitre, con lo grande que fue, lo logró: trascender las fronteras nacionales para ir a los cuatro rumbos del ámbito hispánico, por sobre el mismo mar. Y debajo de EL PAÍS el encabezado, el titular, insulso, banal, perverso: ‘El Rey es operado de la cadera al caerse en un safari en Botsuana’.
La tragedia era esa, que el Rey con mayúscula se había roto la cadera en un safari, no que acababa de matar a un animal hermoso, inocente, que ningún daño le había hecho. Para EL PAÍS la matanza de animales grandes por diversión en África es un simple safari: para mí es un asesinato. Y adentro del periódico, llenando dos páginas, la crónica banal del percance y otra foto del Rey con el mismo cazador y adelante de ellos dos búfalos que acaban de matar. Un destino habitual para la caza mayor, dice el correspondiente titular. “España es de los países que más trofeos de grandes especies importa de África. Matar un elefante en Botsuana sale por más de 44.000 euros”. Y que “los médicos le han tenido que colocar al Rey una prótesis que sustituye la cabeza del fémur y la zona donde esta se ensambla con la pelvis”, etcétera, en ese tono neutro, imparcial, que es el que le corresponde a un gran periódico.
De entonces acá, en las horas que han pasado, ha venido la condena en las redes sociales de Internet de muchos españoles indignados porque el Rey se está gastando el dinero público en diversiones cuando España pasa por uno de sus peores momentos, o porque la Casa del Rey no le informó al presidente de su viaje, o por razones así. ¿Y es que alguna vez le informó a alguien cuando se iba a Rumanía a cazar osos con Ceausescu? Todavía en 2004, tiempo después de la caída del tirano, seguía yendo a lo mismo. El 12 de octubre de ese año el periódico Romania Libera de Bucarest informó de su cacería en la región rumana de Covasna, al pie de los Cárpatos, en que mató a escopetazos a nueve osos, una osa gestante y un lobo y dejó malheridos de bala a varios otros animales que medio centenar de ojeadores le iban poniendo a su alcance, de suerte que los pudiera abatir sin riesgo alguno. Varios miembros de la policía secreta rumana disfrazados de campesinos e infiltrados entre los ojeadores protegían de los osos y de cuanto peligro se pudiera presentar al distinguido personaje. La cacería o masacre tuvo lugar desde el viernes 8 de octubre al domingo 10 y la organizó la empresa Abies Hunting, experta en safaris. El Rey había llegado al aeropuerto Otopeni de Bucarest en su jet privado, y escoltado por 10 patrullas de la policía y varios vehículos de acompañamiento protocolario se había trasladado a las cabañas que tenía antes Ceausescu para sus cacerías en la región. Los lugareños de Covasna le depararon al Rey español un cálido recibimiento folclórico vestidos con trajes típicos y lo agasajaron con palinca, un aguardiente de ciruela.
Así que lo de matar animales grandes como el elefante y los búfalos de la semana pasada no es cosa nueva: le viene de lejos al Rey. Y se la va a dejar de herencia, junto con un dineral, a su nieto, quien se acaba de herir un pie por andar jugando con escopetas. ¿Qué irá a cazar este niño cuando crezca y le permitan sus padres ir de cacería? ¿Elefantes? ¿Osos? ¿Búfalos? Ya no van a quedar. Para entonces su abuelo habrá acabado con todos. Aunque las posibilidades que tiene el niño en cuestión de reemplazar andando el tiempo a su abuelo en su altísima dignidad son pocas, alguna hay. Estaría perfecto ahí, como fabricado a la medida del puesto. Es el Rey que se merece España, el país que despeña cabras desde los campanarios de sus pueblos para celebrar, con la bendición de la Iglesia, la fiesta del santo patrono.
Fernando Vallejo es escritor. Autor de La virgen de los sicarios, ha ganado el último Premio FIL de la Feria del Libro de Guadalajara.
When the United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization (UNESCO) was established 60 years ago, its Constitution declared that peace must be founded upon the intellectual and moral solidarity of mankind. Julian Huxley, the first Director-General, pointed out that in order to make science contribute to peace, security and human welfare, it would be necessary to relate the applications of science to a general scale of values. Guiding the development of science for the benefit of humanity will therefore imply ‘the quest for a restatement of morality … in harmony with modern knowledge’ (Huxley, 1946).
Since its foundation, UNESCO has been concerned with moral issues in relation to science. From the 1970s onwards, the emergence of the life sciences in particular has led to international examination of bioethical questions. This global focus on bioethics was institutionalized in 1993 with the establishment of the International Bioethics Committee (IBC) and a work programme and budget for international activities. The programme was expanded in 1998 with the foundation of the World Commission on the Ethics of Scientific Knowledge and Technology (COMEST), which addresses other areas of applied ethics such as environmental ethics, science ethics and technology ethics. Since 2002, UNESCO has also been coordinating the activities of international bodies in the area of bioethics through the Inter-Agency Committee on Bioethics. In the same year, UNESCO’s 191 Member States decided that ethics should be one of the priorities of the Organization.
The current revolution in science and technology has led to the concern that unbridled scientific progress is not always ethically acceptable. The need to establish common values and benchmarks, as well as to promote ethical principles and standards to guide scientific progress and technological development, is becoming increasingly acute, especially in developing countries that do not equally enjoy the benefi ts of scientifi c and technological advances. UNESCO’s work in ethics of science and technology reflects these global concerns. It examines such progress in light of ethical considerations rooted in the cultural, legal, philosophical and religious heritage of the various human communities.
Descargar el texto completo: Ethics of Science and Technology
“When we look at modern man, we have to face the fact that he suffers from a kind of poverty of the spirit which stands in glaring contrast to his scientific and technological abundance. We have learned to fly the air like birds, we’ve learned to swim the sea like fish, and yet we haven?t learned to walk the earth like brothers and sisters.”
Martin Luther King