A REPORT ON FALLACY

 

Logic and mathematics are the only two subjects that have remained true for over 3000 years. What 3000 years ago was true or false in Logic and Mathematics remains true or false today. Unlike Theology, Philosophy, History, Psychology and Science in general, in all its branches - Biology, Physics, Chemistry, Medicine and in short all other disciplines, which have been successively revised and where what was true or false one day, it later became false or true. Thinking well requires reasoning well, deducing well and articulating arguments in a clear and sequential way. Two of the main reasons for misunderstandings and bad decisions result from bad thinking and/or not clearly defining the concepts under discussion. The use of fallacies is bad thinking! A fallacy is a false reasoning that appears to be true. It is therefore a logically incoherent argument, without foundation, invalid or failing to effectively prove what it alleges. Many arguments may seem convincing to a large part of the public despite containing fallacies, but they do not become true because of that. Recognizing fallacies is hard. Fallacious arguments often have emotional, intimate, or psychological validity, but no logical validity. And if they have no logical validity, they are false, however beautiful and appealing they may seem. It is important to know most common types of fallacy to avoid arguments' logical pitfalls and analyze the errors of others' arguments. When fallacies are produced in order to confuse someone they are called sophistry. In this paper I will present some of the most common fallacies one by one so that they can be learned smoothly. This article will therefore be, and for some time, an article under construction. 1) AD HOMINEM FALLACY What has to be attacked is the argument and not the person. Whenever we attack the person instead of the argument, we are making an error of reasoning and misleading others (and eventually ourselves). As soon as detected, it should be immediately isolated and questioned. Examples: Joe Biden said he will do everything to support the Ukrainians but he is very old so we shouldn't believe what he says. Josephine said that there are people who said bad things about us, but she wears short skirts like whores and whores are not to be trusted. Raquel doesn't understand any of this because she always arrives late, she's lazy and therefore unreliable. In all these cases I made a connection between the initial and the final statement, through an intermediary statement that has nothing to do with the subject under discussion, and I made that connection through an attack of character on the person, thus appealing to psychological and emotional concepts. If we let this proposition pass as true, it can be used to build other propositions and we will have a whole false reasoning. THOU SHALL NOT ATTACK THE PERSONS CHARACTER BUT THE ARGUMENT  2) HASTY GENERALIZATION ABUSIVE GENERALIZATION consists of drawing conclusions from insufficient samples. The generalization process is inductive and is based on a small number of incidents to establish a pattern. Generally, one jumps from a case (or a few cases) to a general pattern, and this inference is neither safe enough nor valid. It is often an argument by example, in which the example is given and generalized to the population, where the concept of ALL is implied. Examples: Another child was kidnapped yesterday, so the world is a dangerous place for children. Whores wear short skirts, all women who wear short skirts are whores. I know people who go to college and get high, so college kids are junkies. If many people enjoy violating and many being violated are unconsciously desiring for this to happen, it's because rape is a normal human thing. It is easy to understand that the circumstance of a child being raped cannot and should not characterize the world in general, nor that a woman who wears short skirts is a whore, nor that all university students take drugs, much less that rapist are to be considered normal since there are some holding the phantasy of being raped. THOU SHALL NOT USE SMALL NUMBERS TO REPRESENT THE WHOLE 3) STRAW MAN FALLACY A straw man fallacy is a malicious way of intentionally distorting an argument in order to make easier its refutation. First you hear what your opponent says, then you interpret it in a distorted way, so that his argument seems weaker than it really is. Finally, you attack the later argument by showing how flawed it is. This makes it easier to criticize the opponent.  Examples: 1. - You can't drink in the Bar, because you're not old enough. - Oh! so you don't want me to have fun, and that's not fair. 2. - Because Ukrainian are fighting hard to defend their homes, they must be helped. - The war in Ukraine is because of the proliferation of NATO weapons along Russia's borders and the violence of Ukrainian against Russians, and the Russians have the right to defend themselves and protect their relatives. 3. The Amazons claim to be free, but they fight freedom by not tolerating that people may want to be dominated, raped and enslaved by their own free will, so the Amazons are intolerant and against individual freedom. In all these cases, the original petition is distorted in order to combat another proposition different from the original. THOU SHALL NOT MISREPRESENT OR EXAGGERATE A PERSON'S ARGUMENT IN ORDER TO MAKE IT EASIER TO ATTACK 4) PETITIO PRINCIPII Or circular reasoning, also known as “begging the question” (petitio principii in latin). Here one uses the point he’s trying to prove as an argument to prove that very same point, rather than proving the conclusion is true, it assumes it, so it’s a Presumption. If the thing you are trying to prove is already assumed to be true, you are not actually adding anything to the argument, and you cannot consider it true even if it is. So you'll have to demonstrate it in some other way. Examples: - Sex is healthful because it's good for you. That begs the question. How do you know sex is good for you? Circularity resides in the circumstance of affirming that a thing is good because it is good. - I am confident that God exists because it says so in the Bible, and the Bible contains the God’s word - This product is the most expensive because it has the highest price. - Democracy is the best ruling system since there is no better system. In all these examples we assume the conclusion's truth by itself. These types of arguments have no logical validity, notwithstanding being used fruitfully in speeches when they cannot be immediately refuted.  THOU SHALL NOT ARGUE THY POSITION BY ASSUMING ONE OF ITS PREMISES TO BE TRUE WITHOUT VERIFICATION 5) POST HOC The complete Latin expression is post hoc ergo propter hoc ("after this, therefore, caused by this"), aka coincidental correlation, which consists of the idea that two events that occur in chronological sequence are necessarily linked through a cause-and-effect relationship. Post hoc is an especially tempting mistake because the temporal sequence suggests causality. However, the fallacy is in arriving at this conclusion based solely on the order of events, rather than considering other factors that may invalidate, or confirm, such a connection. Correlation is not the same as causality. Superstitious beliefs are mostly due to this fallacy, and hence we can have an athlete wearing her lucky socks. What actually happens in these cases is a self-fulfilling prophecy this is because I believe I'm lucky to wear these socks I'll be more confident and acting better I self-fulfill the prophecy. Placebos work in this same way. The underlying logical structure is: A occurred, and then B happened. So, A is the cause of B. In circumstances where B is unwanted, the fallacy takes the form of "Preventing A from happening, then B will not happen." Examples: 1 - It was raining heavily before we arrived home and there, we found the living room flooded, and we immediately deduced that there was a leak in the roof, when in reality the upstairs neighbor may have left the bathtub faucet open. 2 - A jackpot came out after I scratched my ear, and I deduced that scratching the ear is a determining factor. 3 - One moves into the room. Shortly thereafter, the room began to present problems. The room members start saying: "We never had any problems until Rachel joined in. So, Rachel is the cause of the problems." THOU SHALL NOT CLAIM BECAUSE SOMETHING OCCURRED BEFORE, IT MUST BE THE CAUSE 6. FALSE DICHOTOMY Or False Dilemma, or Black and White Thinking, is an informal fallacy that describes a situation in which two alternative, often opposing, viewpoints are posited as the only options, when in reality there are other options that have not been considered. Faced with two options, the target in the argument tends to choose the one that seems more favorable. Often, two choices are paired in which the one intended to be approved is undoubtedly the most appealing, forcing the interlocutor to exclude the less interesting alternative. Faced with a dilemma of this nature, one must immediately appeal to the search for other alternatives. Examples: 1. "You're either part of the solution or part of the problem." - No room for innocent bystanders here. 2. "If you're not with us, you're against us." - Being neutral is not an option. 3. "Either we subscribe to this plan to recover the economy and increase jobs or we plunge into chaos and recession. What do you choose?" Excluding all other possible plans and solutions. 4. "Or we play on Friday with fewer elements or we play on Saturday with all the musicians, which do you prefer?" Excluding all other possible solutions. THOU SHALL NOT REDUCE THE ARGUMENT DOWN TO TWO POSSIBILITIES 7. ARGUMENTUM AD IGNORANTIAM The Latin expression argumentum ad ignorantiam, textually means "argument from ignorance", designates a logical fallacy that tries to prove that something is false or true from a previous ignorance about the subject. This fallacy has a general characteristic: it claims that a statement is true or false because there is no evidence to the contrary. In other words, we can deduce that an idea or proposal is false when it is not possible to prove the truth. Or that it is true because we cannot prove its falsehood. In fact, if it is not possible to prove the falsity or truth of an argument, we must refer to what is called "suspension of judgment". "As much research has been done on extraterrestrial life and nothing has been discovered, we must conclude that extraterrestrial life does not exist" In this argument, the only justification for the conclusion (“there is no extraterrestrial life”) is the ignorance of whether or not there is life on other planets. That is, ignorance is used to justify the conclusion of the argument, so it is an appeal to ignorance. "Science claims that the universe emerged from a great explosion, the so-called Big Bang." But scientists are not quite sure how this happened. Furthermore, we can ask ourselves: but if the universe arose from a big explosion, something already existed to explode and generate the universe. And then we can legitimately pose the question: how did this thing that exploded come about? Out of the blue? How could it be possible for something to come out of nowhere? Faced with these unanswered questions, we can only conclude that God must have been responsible for creating the universe. This is the standard fallacious argument of those who use science's inability to provide answers to all questions as a justification for believing that the proposition "God exists" is true. In this case, the fact that we ignore the answer to a question is considered sufficient reason to claim that it is true that “God exists”. Note that in this argument no evidence is offered that God exists that would support this claim. Just the claim that the standard scientific theory for the existence of the universe is flawed. EXAMPLES 1. God exists because no one has proven otherwise, and it is also said that he does not exist, since no one has definitively demonstrated his non-existence. 2. Ghosts do not exist, as no one has been able to conclusively demonstrate their existence. In the same way that the opposite can be said: ghosts exist because no one has proved their non-existence. 3. Many children are indoctrinated to believe that lesbian, bi-sexual, transgender or gay people are evil and live in sin destroying society and family. Children have no way of knowing that this is not true and therefore their ignorance is used to make them believe false information. None of these examples withstand the test of falsifiability, hence none of them can even be considered a scientific hypothesis. THOU SHALL NOT ARGUE THAT BECAUSE OF IGNORANCE, A CLAIM MUST BE TRUE OR FALSE 8. BURDEN OF PROOF REVERSAL This fallacy occurs when someone tries to evade the burden of proof, by denying it, pretending to have fulfilled it, or shifting it to the other party. An argument based on reversing the burden of proof generally takes the following form: 1. I claim something. 2. You don't accept it. 3. Then you must prove this to be false. Being inverted the logical order which should be: 1. I claim something. 2. You don't accept it 3. So I must prove this to be true. EXAMPLES A: Planet of the Apes exists. B: I am not informed of this. How can you prove what you say? A: Prove that the Planet of the Apes does not exist. A: Earth is round and not flat. B: I am not informed of this. How can you prove what you say? A: Prove that Earth is not round! That is, in both examples arguer A makes a statement, but is unwilling to prove it, transferring to the opponent, B, the obligation of reproof. A: Science is the only source of truth. B: Religion is the only source of truth. A: Prove that science is not the only source of truth. B: Prove that religion is not the only source of truth. In the example above, both arguers applied the reversal of the burden of proof against each other. THOU SHALL NOT LAY THE BURDEN OF PROOF UNTO HIM THAT IS QUESTIONING THE CLAIM 9. NON SEQUITUR Non sequitur is a Latin expression meaning "it does not follow that". The most important aspect of this fallacy is that the conclusion does not follow from the premises therefore the argument is fallacious for the lack of connection between the initial premise and the conclusion. There are two major variations of non sequitur, one is the affirmation of the consequent (consists of confusing the antecedent with the consequent, that is, it consists of affirming the consequence), and the negation of the antecedent (confounding a sufficient condition with a necessary one [one condition is necessary if it must necessarily be fulfilled for another to occur – if and only if]). EXAMPLES of logical fallacies where reasoning is distorted because the conclusion cannot be derived from the premises 1. He said I'm a lesbian cause I still haven't found the right man And I replied that he is straight because he still hasn't found the right man. (It is a blunt answer that disarms the opponent, but the first premise is not true, and the second premise is not deduced from it either) 2. Bats are mammals Bats can fly Therefore pigs, because they are mammals, can also fly (Bats do not fly because they are mammals, but because they have wings) 3. People already had cancer before cigarettes were made, Therefore smoking is not a cause of cancer. (There are other causes of cancer besides cigarettes, and smoking is not a necessary condition, but only sufficient) 4. William – Where were you last night? Rachel – I didn't deceive you. I went to the bowling. William – John told me that your arm was injured. Rachel – So what? William – You're lying to me! (Obviously, having healthy arms is not a necessary condition to go to the bowling hall, and she could have been hurt there) 5. If it had been a good guy taking your virginity, you'd be straight But you didn't lose your virginity to a nice guy, so you became lesbian. (She may not be straight for another reason including never having been straight. The mistake is in denying the second thing from the negation of the first - negation of the antecedent) 6. If I have a cold, I have a sore throat. I have a sore throat. Therefore I have a cold (Having a cold is not the only cause of a sore throat, so the implication is not valid - affirming the consequence) THOU SHALL NOT ASSUME "THIS" FOLLOWS "THAT" WHEN IT HAS NO LOGICAL CONNECTION 10. ARGUMENTUM AD POPULUM Argumentum ad populum (argument from popularity) aka bandwagon fallacy affirms that a certain proposition is valid or good simply because most of the people approve it. It is an appeal to the masses and to the common and shared belief, claiming that something is true because everyone believes it, whether that belief is actually true or not it doesn’t matter. Every time someone claim that a position is true because it’s shared and accepted by everyone else, the arguer is using the argumentum ad populum. The bandwagon fallacy got its name from 19th century politics, where political supporters jumped into their party wagons, used to transport musical bands at rallies and parades; the more they jumped, the greater the popularity and even more they would jump. The “bandwagon effect”, refers to individuals joining popular and more mainstream social movements. As what is known to follow a majority opinion or trend offers confidence, since if others believe and support then it must be true. We can find this when searching RLC directory to decide where to jump next... This conditioning of thoughts is profusely used as an argument validation despite having no LOGICAL VALUE. Indeed, just because most people believe in an idea, it does not mean that it is true or good. Everyone is going, thus we must go or Everyone else was doing it, so I did it too, are statements without valid reasoning at all. although we could rephrase to make them valid: i) Most of the people is going because the music is classic rock, I love classic rock, then I must go. ii) Everybody was drinking, when I drink I get high, and when I get high I love to gather with others on same condition, thus I drank too. Make no mistake: An argument is valid when it is possible to adequately justify the conclusion through the premises and it is correct when, in addition to being valid, it also has true premises. In fact, an argument may be valid (if well constructed, because it is deduced from premises), but false or incorrect if its premises are false. EXAMPLES 1. If you’re shopping for a smartphone, go with the iPhone xy. It’s the best-selling phone right now; the numbers don’t lie (a product is good or better for holding superior features to perform certain tasks) 2. It’s okay to cheat on ... because everybody does. (Just because everybody does it doesn’t mean it is right. Wrong is wrong even if everyone is doing it) 3. It's so Popular Right Now! got to be good (anything is good just because a crowd says so, but for its performances) 4. Everyone I know voted for this party, so I will vote for him too (remember some politicians elected under this assumption, e.g. Hitler). 5. It's a Best Seller! It surely is well written (it doesn't follow from being read by many that it is well written) THOU SHALL NOT CLAIM THAT BECAUSE A PREMISE IS POPULAR, THEREFORE IT MUST BE TRUE

A REGRA D'OURO

 

A REGRA DE OURO

Ou Ética da Reciprocidade.

“Trata os outros como gostarias que os outros te tratassem” ou “Faz aos outros aquilo que gostarias que eles te fizessem a ti” – na forma positiva; “Não trates os outros como não gostarias de ser tratado” ou “Não faças aos outros o que não gostarias que te fizessem a ti” – na forma negativa.

A Regra de Ouro é a trave mestra da ética, o cerne da moralidade. Porquê?

Poderia responder alegando que a maior parte das religiões a adoptou, e adiante citarei algumas.

Poderia argumentar que é uma estratégia evolutivamente estável (EEE), mais à frente explico porquê.

Poderia dizer que é uma questão de bom senso.

Porém, como o assunto é ético, ele remete para os conceitos de bem e mal.

Ora sabemos intuitivamente que genericamente o Bom é que nos faz bem e o Mal é que nos faz mal. Como também sabemos que nem tudo o que sabe bem é bom, nem tudo o que sabe mal é mau, e que há uma diferença abissal entre uma torta que sabe bem, que nos pode fazer mal, e ser uma boa pessoa, o que até pode ser um bem. Sabemos que aquilo que é bom nos faz a posteriori sentir bem, tranquilos, saciados e com um sentimento de satisfação e felicidade, e, portanto, aquilo que é bom será virtuoso e por antítese o que é mau será vicioso, sedimentando sensações opostas de ansiedade, insatisfação e infelicidade.

Atendo-nos ao plano moral e em relação aos outros, sabemos intuitivamente que mentir, roubar, enganar, ofender, manipular, prejudicar, ser rude, magoar, ser egoísta, intolerante, ferir, matar, quebrar promessas, faltar à palavra, ser briguento, ganancioso, insensível, aborrecer os outros… é mau.

E também sabemos intuitivamente que ser gentil, justo, modesto, íntegro, sério, empático, cordial, sincero, magnânimo, hospitaleiro, leal, benevolente, honesto, tolerante, amável, altruísta, colaborante… é bom.

Sabemo-lo porque, ao aplicarmos a “REGRA DE OURO”, não gostaríamos de forma alguma que os outros nos fizessem nada daquilo que consideramos mau e pelo contrário ficamos sempre agradados e tocados quando terceiros adoptam alguns daqueles comportamentos que consideramos bons.

Ora daqui decorre uma primeira constatação, a “REGRA DE OURO” é um aferidor que nos permite aferir da bondade dos comportamentos para com terceiros.

E um primeiro corolário: a utilização sistemática da dita regra faz com que o seu utilizador tenha sistematicamente comportamentos bons. Mas, também sabemos que sempre que somos gentis, ajudamos alguém, ou adoptamos algum tipo de comportamento eticamente correcto, obtemos um sentimento de felicidade, tranquilidade interior, paz e prazer pessoal. Sabemos também que é impossível encontrar pessoas felizes entre aquelas que apenas ou sobretudo praticam actos vis, errados e perversos, e sabemos igualmente que a felicidade genuína só pode provir da bondade moral; com efeito, a virtude é a sua própria recompensa, enquanto o vício é a sua própria punição. Segue-se um segundo corolário, como todos os comportamentos moralmente bons são virtudes, a prática continuada desses comportamentos torna o praticante virtuoso, e como a virtude é em si uma recompensa em felicidade e satisfação, a prática continuada da “REGRA DE OURO” torna uma pessoa feliz e satisfeita.

Um terceiro corolário é o efeito multiplicador na “REGRA DE OURO”, um efeito reprodutor, pois as pessoas tendem a aprender umas com as outras, a imitar e emular as outras, e a tratar os outros da forma como são tratados, como se nas relações sociais houvesse uma correlação natural à terceira lei do movimento e variação dos corpos, segundo a qual para toda a acção há sempre uma reacção de igual intensidade, pelo que a adopção continuada da “REGRA DE OURO” promove um círculo virtuoso de comportamentos e sentimentos semelhantes.

A adopção da “REGRA DE OURO” conduz-nos assim a um enriquecimento social e humano, podendo dizer-se antropocêntrica no que o antropocentrismo tem de melhor, porque é uma estratégia que se perpetua e reproduz no tempo sendo pouco vulnerável a estratégias alternativas e concorrentes.  

 

EEE

Uma abordagem evolucionária da “REGRA DE OURO” mostra que ela é sustentável e replicável no longo prazo.

Em termos evolutivos (ou evolucionários), uma estratégia bem-sucedida é aquela que é dominante numa população, tendo uma forte probabilidade de encontrar cópias de si mesma, ie. de se reproduzir, tornando-se uma ESTRATÉGIA EVOLUTIVAMENTE ESTÁVEL (EEE). Se considerarmos que todo o ser humano pretende maximizar o seu próprio sucesso e felicidade, a estratégia que persistirá será aquela que não possa ser superada por nenhum indivíduo com uma estratégia diferente, tendo em vista a obtenção do mesmo fim.

Segue-se que a “REGRA DE OURO” é uma estratégia de cooperação, bondade, entreajuda, lealdade, etc. que no longo prazo supera outras como as de maldade, conflito e engano. Porquê?

Está demostrado (Anatol Rapoport e Robert Axelrod ) que as estratégias “OLHO POR OLHO, de início cooperante” ou “OLHO POR OLHO BONDOSAS” (OOB) são as mais eficazes em termos de EEE. Em que consistem estas estratégias? Começam sempre por ser bondosas e cooperantes, mas se o interlocutor for maldoso como resposta ao “trouxa” que foi bondoso, a próxima acção de "trouxa" será hostil. Porém, se depois de trair, o outro for bondoso, o "trouxa" regressa à bondade, ou seja, estas estratégias não são rancorosas, e, simplificando, cooperam à primeira e depois repetem a jogada do oponente, o que significa que adoptar uma estratégia “OLHO POR OLHO BONDOSA /ou a “DE INÍCIO COOPERANTE” é na prática adoptar a “REGRA DE OURO”.

Este tipo de estratégias, por serem mais eficazes, tenderão a ser preferidas pela generalidade dos agentes. É, com efeito, uma estratégia bondosa, pois nunca é a primeira a ser hostil e maldosa; não é de “trouxas”, porque tem retaliação, sendo hostil sempre que o oponente for maldoso; perdoa, como seria de esperar adoptando a “REGRA DE OURO”; não é invejosa, pois não se preocupa em ganhar mais que o oponente; é clara, porque os oponentes percebem rapidamente que para ganhar devem utilizar a “REGRA DE OURO”; é robusta, porque é bem sucedida em inúmeros cenários; é estável, pois ninguém, de natureza maldosa, consegue prevalecer num ambiente onde a maioria utiliza o “OOB"; e é viável, pois a sua utilização generalizada permite dominar o ambiente.

O que nos dizem as religiões a respeito da “REGRA DE OURO”?

A "Declaração para uma Ética Global", feita no âmbito do Parlamento das Religiões Mundiais em 1993, proclamou a “REGRA DE OURO” como o princípio comum à maioria das religiões. A Declaração Inicial foi assinada por 143 líderes de todas as principais religiões do mundo, entre outras: Baha'i, Brahmanismo, Brahma Kumaris, Budismo, Cristianismo, Hinduísmo, Indígena, Inter-religioso, Islã, Jainismo, Judaísmo, Nativo Americano, Neopaganismo, Sikhismo, Taoísmo, Teosofismo, Unitarismo Universalista e Zoroastrianismo.

A “REGRA DE OURO” está, além do mais, bem presente nas três religiões abraâmicas: Cristianismo, Judaísmo e Islão.

“Amar o próximo como a si mesmo” é um enunciado alternativo ao da “REGRA DE OURO”, derivado do princípio da autopreservação subjacente a todos os seres vivos. Ora, se qualquer indivíduo tem como tendência e desejo inato a sua autoconservação, é certamente porque se ama a si próprio, pois ninguém quererá preservar o que não gosta. Aqueles que se autodestroem ou mutilam, aqueles que procuram a via do suicídio, na maior parte dos casos, é porque não se gostam e não se amam a si mesmo o suficiente para se manterem vivos.

Ora se todo o ser humano é um ser vivo e todo o ser humano por tendência inata se autopreserva ele vai desejar viver o que implica desejar para si o melhor: melhores condições de subsistência, sobrevivência, enriquecimento e reprodução; logo, se amar os outros como a si mesmo, vai desejar aos outros como para si próprio, e, portanto, vai querer que os outros subsistam, reproduzam, e enriqueçam como ele mesmo.

A Torah refere-lhe especificamente no Levítico 19, 34, e cito:

“ao estrangeiro que peregrina convosco; amá-lo-ás como a ti mesmo, pois estrangeiros fostes na terra do Egipto: Eu sou o Senhor vosso Deus”.

E, ainda no Levítico 19:18, depois de enumerar a maioria das obrigações e comportamentos perversos termina com:

“não te vingarás nem guardarás ira contra os filhos do teu povo, mas amarás o teu próximo como a ti mesmo”.

O rabino Hilel, o Ancião, expressou-o no Talmude Babilónio dizendo:

“o que é odioso para ti, não o faças ao teu companheiro: esta é toda a Torah; o resto é a explicação; vai e aprende” (Shabbath folio:31a).

Reconhecendo o amor fraternal como o fundamento de toda a ética judaica, porque todo o homem é descendente de Adão, que foi feito à imagem de Deus; decorre que para cumprir o mandamento de amar a Deus sobre todas as coisas é necessário amar os outros por terem sido criados à imagem desse mesmo Deus.

Não estranha então o relato de Mateus (22:37-39), sobre a resposta de Jesus à pergunta dos fariseus acerca do Grande Mandamento, este ter respondido:

“Amarás o Senhor teu Deus de todo o teu coração, de toda a tua alma, e de todo o teu entendimento! Este é o primeiro e grande mandamento. E o segundo, semelhante a este, é: Amarás ao teu próximo como a ti mesmo”.

Ainda em Mateus 7:12 diz-se:

“tudo o que vós quereis que os homens vos façam, fazei-lhe também vós, porque esta é a lei”.

E Lucas 6:31:

“como vós quereis que vos façam, da mesma maneira lhes fazei vós, também”.

Ainda em Lucas 10:25-28, na parábola do Bom Samaritano:

“Eis que se levantou um certo doutor da lei, tentando-o e dizendo: - Mestre, o que devo fazer para herdar a vida eterna?

E ele lhe disse: - O que está escrito na lei? Como a lês?

E respondendo ele, disse: - Amarás ao Senhor, teu Deus, de todo o teu coração, de toda a tua alma, e de todas as tuas forças e de todo o teu entendimento, e ao teu próximo como a ti mesmo.

E disse-lhe: - Respondeis bem; fazei isso, e vivereis”.

A passagem do evangelho de Lucas continua com Jesus respondendo à pergunta, "Quem é meu próximo?” Onde na prédica vai além da formulação negativa, de não fazer a outrem o que não gostaria que fizessem a si mesmo, para uma formulação positiva, de fazer activamente bem ao outro, porque se as situações se invertessem, era isso que desejaria que o outro lhe fizesse a ele. Essa formulação positiva, na parábola do Bom Samaritano, realça a necessidade de acções positivas que tragam benefícios aos outros, em vez de simplesmente restringir as acções negativas, que prejudicam terceiros.

Paulo não ficou calado e sobre esta questão, em Romanos 13:8-9 diz que “a ninguém devais coisa alguma a não ser o amor com que vos ameis uns aos outros; porque quem ama aos outros cumpriu a lei… e se há algum mandamento tudo nesta palavra se resume: Amarás o teu próximo como a ti mesmo”; e em Gálatas 5:14 “Porque toda a lei se cumpre numa só palavra, nesta: Amarás ao teu próximo como a ti mesmo”.

O Islão, no seu corpo de leis canónicas e lendas conhecidos por Hadiths, refere a “REGRA DE OURO” várias vezes, da qual cito os seguintes excertos.

Em Kitab al-Kafi:

“Um beduíno acercou-se do profeta, agarrou no estribo do camelo e perguntou-lhe: Ó mensageiro de Deus! Ensina-me algo que me leve para o Céu. O profeta respondeu: Como vós gostais que as pessoas vos fizésseis, fazei-o a elas; e o que vós não gostais que vos seja feito, não o façais a elas. Agora, largai o estribo! Esta máxima vos é suficiente; ide e agi de acordo!"

A tradição hindu, refere-se lhe, por exemplo, em An-Nawawi's Forty Hadith 13:

“Nenhum de vocês acredita de verdade até que deseje para o seu irmão o que deseja para si mesmo”.

Em Sukhanan-i-Muhammad:

“Procurai para a humanidade aquilo de que vós desejais para vós próprios, para que possais ser um crente”.

E, o Brihaspati, Mahabharata 13.114.8, reza:

“Nunca se deve fazer a outra pessoa o que considera prejudicial a si mesmo. Esta, em resumo, é a regra do dharma. Qualquer outro comportamento é devido a desejos egoístas… Ao fazer do dharma o seu principal foco, trate os outros como você trata a si mesmo”.

Na tradição budista, Siddhartha Gautama fez deste princípio um dos pilares da sua ética, aparecendo amiúde no Tripitaka. Na Sutta Nipata 705, diz comparando-se a outras pessoas em termos como:

"Assim como eu sou, eles são, assim como eles são, assim eu sou"

No Dhammapada 10:

“Aquele que, enquanto busca a felicidade, oprime com violência outros seres, que também desejam a felicidade, não alcançará no futuro a felicidade”.

No Udanavarga 5:18

“Não prejudique os outros de forma que vós mesmo as consideraríeis dolorosas”.

A filosofia antiga não esteve imune à “REGRA DE OURO”. O estoicismo que perdurou por séculos e se tornou um passageiro clandestino do cristianismo, não a esqueceu, e temos Séneca nas Cartas a Lucílio, a aconselhar "Trate o seu inferior como gostaria que seu superior o tratasse."

Vários dos pensadores gregos proferiram declarações claras a esse respeito, entre outros, Thales de Mileto, um dos sete sábios da Grécia: "Evitai fazer o que vós culparíeis os outros por fazerem"; Sextus o Pitagórico, citado por Orígenes: “O que não quereis que vos aconteça, não o façais vós mesmo”; e Isócrates: "Não faças aos outros aquilo que te irrita quando eles to fazem a ti".

Os textos Pahlavi do Zoroastrismo persa foram uma das primeiras fontes para a Regra de Ouro:

"Tem um bom fundo aquele que se abstém de fazer a outro tudo o que não é bom para si mesmo." (Dadisten-I-dinik, 94,5) 

"Tudo o que for desagradável para si mesmo, não o faça aos outros." (Shayast-na-Shayast 13:29)

O confucionismo refere-se-lhe nos Anacletos XV.24. Zi Gong, um discípulo de Confúcio, perguntou:

"Existe alguma palavra que possa guiar uma pessoa ao longo da vida?

O Mestre respondeu: "Que tal 'shu' [reciprocidade]: Nunca imponha aos outros o que você não escolheria para si mesmo?"

E esta pérola taoista no Tao Te Ching, no capítulo 49:

“O sábio não tem interesses próprios, mas considera os interesses do povo como seus. Ele é gentil com os gentis; ele também é gentil com os rudes: pois a virtude é gentil. Ele é fiel aos fiéis; ele também é fiel ao infiel: pois a virtude é fiel”.

Provavelmente a mais antiga afirmação conhecida da “REGRA DE OURO” vem do Egipto ao tempo do Império Médio (c. 2040–1650 aC), e encontramo-la num mandamento da deusa Ma'at, proferido na história de “O Camponês Eloquente”:

"Agora, esta é a ordem: Faça ao fazedor para ele também o fazer"

Em síntese, a “REGRA DE OURO” tem uma profundidade e extensão inexcedível. É humanista, é civilizacional, é evolutivamente sustentável, é postulada pela generalidade dos credos religiosos, filosóficos e é racionalmente irrefutável. É, com efeito, um dos poucos aspectos e crenças mais aceite pela generalidade das pessoas independentemente do credo, etnia, cultura, opção política, ou filosófica.

A maioria dos problemas no mundo existem devido à não utilização dessa mesma regra. A maioria dos problemas do mundo resolver-se-iam pela adopção da “REGRA DE OURO”.

AXIOMATA

 

Axiom 1

The universe is causal and deterministic.

Everything happens according to a cause since the beginning of time. Everything that happens, every phenomenon is the result of a sequence of trillions of causes and effects C/E, including chance. The latter, despite appearing abrupt and unexpected, is always a consequence of a cause, even if remote or distant. The chaos of the Universe, which postulates that small changes in any event can bring huge, disproportionate, and unknown consequences in the future and in space (butterfly effect), confirms the inevitability of the causal and deterministic Universe. An event without a cause does not exist, and it would be a miracle. The concept of Fado or destiny derives from universal determinism and the concept of Fortune derives from the emergence of chance, but chance is nothing more than some kind of effect that follows a cause, just because unexpected and unpredictable it seems random when it always has a cause.

As a corollary it follows that we have no free will, as any current state of any agent (by definition, an agent is an entity capable of doing things) is the result of previous C/E sequences. The ability or predisposition of an agent to take this or that decision is always the result of previous factors that predispose him to take one decision rather than another, even if it seems to be taken freely. Any agent has a conditioned will, due to its education, social background,

genetics, and even its microbiome. Let us remember that we did not choose the place we were born, nor the parents and grandparents we have, nor the schools we attended, which in turn conditioned the friends we had, the spouse we adopted and the jobs or economic activity we adopted. At all times we are the product of a sequence of causes in which we had

no interference or active role. If the will is conditioned, then it is not free and exempt from

coercion.

 

Axiom 2

We humans are agents empowered to influence, initiate, and alter C/E sequences, in our lives, others and the world around us, within the C/E outcomes and circumstances that make us unique Agents. While every living being has some ability to initiate or alter C/E sequences, humans in particular do so with intention and premeditation, albeit within their circumstantial frame at each instant, the result of trillions of C/E sequences.

The fact that we are agents capable of initiating and altering C/E sequences does not change the corollary of axiom 1.

The quality and typology of the Agents' actions is a function of the life history, training, and genetic and social conditioning of each one.

As a first corollary, it turns out that agents with greater awareness of their powers can proactively influence the C/E sequences, and that the accumulation of C/E experiences significantly improves the ability to interpret and initiate new events.

AMOR FATI because what destiny brings us is an opportunity to know what we are capable of.

As a second corollary, it is our responsibility to do what depends on us and is within our powers, to make the world around us and our circumstances better.

Third corollary, all actions that improve society and the greatest number of individuals are preferable to those that improve it less or worse.

Put another way, if one is an agent capable of initiating C/E sequences, and if one is conditioned to initiate quality sequences (by defining “quality sequence” as one that contributes to the Summum Bonum), and cumulatively these quality sequences aim conditioning other agents to create quality sequences themselves, then one will be proactively contributing to the SUMMUM BONUN.

 

Axiom 3

There are things which are within our power, and there are things which are beyond our power.

Within our power are opinion, aim, desire, aversion, and, in one-word, whatever affairs are our own, and of our mind.

Beyond our power are our body, possessions, reputation, offices, and, in one word, whatever are not properly our own affairs.

It follows that focusing on what depends on us is a path to achievement while focusing on what does not depend on us is a path to dissatisfaction.

Of the things that are not in our power, there are those that we can influence and those over which we have no instrumental capacity, so in terms of concerns and the focus of our attention, there are two circles, the *circle of influence* and the *circle of concerns*.

It follows that one should focus on what it can do and influence, and disregard the whole range of events, people, and situations over which it has no instrumental capacity. By working primarily within the "circle of influence", the "circle of concerns" becomes almost equal to the circle of influence, and we gain power of achievement and influence over the environment and others. On the other hand, by focusing on the “circle of concerns” one expands all his concerns by definition unresolvable.

By focusing on the "circle of influence", we are proactive and naturally end up expanding it while shrinking the "circle of concerns". So instead of complaining about competitors, customers, employees, spouses, neighbors, weather, or government policy, let's proactively act on what we can change and condition - our perceptions, opinions, desires, dislikes, deadlines, dedication, organization, prudence, analysis, effectiveness. In time, we gain greater responsibilities, new challenges, personal and professional development and, secondarily, the development of those around us – employees, colleagues, friends, and relatives.

If one spends most of its time in the "circle of concerns", that is, those things that distress but are not in one's power to change, one shall live a whole life bored, without achieving any happiness.

 

Axiom 4

The Universe is dual and there is polarity in everything, that is, there are two sides of the same thing, but with different poles, such as positive and negative, light and dark, hot and cold, Yin and Yang, etc. Everything has a front and a reverse, and every storm is followed by a calm just as after every calm there will be a storm.

If everything is dual, the polarity of perception conditions our actions and feelings through the perception we make of reality and its polarity at every moment.

As there are things over which we have power, and as within our power are our goals, our opinion, our desires, our aversions, then it is in our hand to focus on the positive polarities and on transforming obstacles into opportunities.

 

Axiom 5

There's a Golden Rule – not doing to others what we don't want them to do to us.

Like its positive approach – doing to others what we would like them to do to us – it is an evolutionarily sustainable strategy that results in a virtuous spiral with positive synergies and win-win results.

Its continued use makes the agent systematically behave well. Whenever we are kind, help someone, or adopt some kind of ethically correct behavior, we get a feeling of happiness, inner tranquility, peace, and personal pleasure. On the other hand, it is impossible to find happy people among those who practice vile, wrong, and perverse acts, and we know that happiness can only come from moral goodness, virtue being its own reward, while vice is its own punishment. The continued practice of good behaviors makes the practitioner virtuous, and since virtue is itself a reward in happiness and satisfaction, the continued practice of the “GOLDEN RULE” makes a person happy and satisfied.

Another corollary is the multiplying and reproducing effect of the “GOLDEN RULE”, since people tend to learn from each other, and to imitate and emulate each other, which is why the continued adoption of the “GOLDEN RULE” promotes C/E sequences of alike behaviors.

Most religions adopt this precept and in the case of Christianity it was preached by Christ, it is found in the gospels and in the Didache of the first apostles where it is its second and third precept – “love others as yourself” and “do not do unto others what you don't want done to you”.

It is, moreover, present in the other two Abrahamic religions: Judaism and Islam.

The Hindu tradition refers to it, and in the Buddhist tradition Siddhartha Gautama made this principle one of the pillars of his ethics.

Confucianism refers to him in the Anacletos and Taoism in the Tao Te Ching.

In ancient philosophy, Stoicism, which lasted for centuries until it became a stowaway of Christianity, has not forgotten it. Greek thinkers were clear about this, among other Thales of Miletus, Sextus the Pythagorean, and Isocrates.

The Pahlavi texts of Persian Zoroastrianism were one of the earliest sources for the Golden Rule.

The earliest known statement of the “GOLDEN RULE” comes from Middle Kingdom Egypt (c. 2040–1650 BC), in the commandments of the goddess Ma'at.

The “GOLDEN RULE” has an unsurpassed depth and breadth. It is humanist, it is civilizational, it is evolutionarily sustainable, it is postulated by most religious and philosophical creeds, and it is rationally irrefutable. It is, in fact, the belief most accepted by most people regardless of creed, ethnicity, culture, political or philosophical option.

​

Axiom 6

Humans are distinguished from everything else by their use of reason and spirituality.

Emotion and emotions are animal attributes and the animal part of Man. The reason per se is not exclusively human, as the advent of Artificial Intelligence has been illustrating since Deep Blue defeated Kasparov. Spirituality we only share with each other, neither animals nor machines have spirituality. The ability to feel and believe in God, Goddess, spirits, premonitions and intuitions, the creation of parallel living worlds of souls and disembodied beings is a purely human characteristic.

If there is no tangible proof of the existence of beings or spiritual phenomena, but not being the absence of proof, proof of non-existence, it is necessary to suspend judgment (epoché), not accepting, however, not denying.

Logical or mathematical deduction is also not possible, just as its refutation is not. And yet spirituality continues to exist.

 

Axiom 7

Reality and truth are in the eye of the beholder, and it also varies with the eye of the beholder and even his mood.

As Protagoras of Abdera putted it, “Of all things the measure is Man, of the things that are, that they are, and of the things that are not, that they are not”, to which we would say with greater precision today that each living being is the measure of all things.

Our sensorial equipment is not enough to capture all the details of the Universe and as Hamlet has been told by the night watch: “There are more things in Heaven and Earth, Horatio, than are dreamt of in your philosophy”. There are more things than what our eyes see, there are more things than our ears hear, there are more things than what our touch can feel, there are many more smells than our sense of smell smells, there are many more things that can be deduced than those which our reason can deduce. The machines and instruments we build capture many of these things that we empirically cannot feel, but these machines are built by us, who are limited, so they will necessarily also be limited.

Since our individual sensorial devices differ from each other, and are but representations of reality, not reality itself, it follows that there will be as many realities as there are people. Will there be a single reality? Having no way of apprehending it, we cannot draw a valid conclusion, as to what may or may not exist, and once again we must suspend our judgment, accepting the unique reality as possible and also as possible that there is not only one absolute reality. For convenience we like to accept that the reality that is shared by the greatest number of people with the same intellectual equipment is the statistically certain reality.