We are inclined to believe that our principles—such as democracy, freedom, gender equality, pacifism, and so on—are universal and self-evident. Anyone who questions them is evil or, more commonly, stupid or foolish. It seems truly childish, however, to think that everyone who disagrees with us is mentally handicapped. We can't simply assume that all misogynists are idiots.

In reality, as soon as we look around the world, we realize that these principles are recognized almost exclusively in the West and only for a very short time in historical terms.

Until the 19th century, we were certain that our civilization, our morality, and our religion were the only true ones. All those certainties have vanished in our world. The certainties of our ancestors have been overcome; they no longer exist (for better or for worse).

Many people a few centuries ago thought that our world, without certainties, would collapse. It doesn't seem to have happened. As for the future, who knows?

Our knowledge has also called into question and overcome all those scientific certainties that seemed secure and indubitable up until the age of positivism. Think of non-Euclidean geometries, the relativity of time and space, the principle of uncertainty, quantum entanglement, and so on.

On this level, other theories also emerged in full contrast with our self-evident truths: the relativity of time and space, the principle of uncertainty, and, more recently, the quantum principle. All of this leads us to believe that what is self-evident to us might not be true at all.

The manifestation of our ethico-political principles had its first codification with the American Declaration of Independence in the 18th century. It stated:

"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness."

These statements are called self-evident because they start from a premise that is considered true. But in fact, they were not self-evident at all, as they appeared and were in fact a new conception of the world, in opposition to what had been held for centuries. It should also be noted that the principle of equality and freedom was proclaimed by people who owned slaves. So how could it be that Black people, who are certainly human, did not have these rights?

One could even think that they were better off as slaves in America than as "free savages" in Africa, and perhaps that was even true, but then why proclaim those principles? This seems to be the contradiction.

The fact is that universal principles are always theoretical; their realization is another matter. Probably those who proclaimed them thought that slavery was a temporary thing that would be overcome when Black people reached the cultural and human level of white people.

Logic and Truth

So we always start from a premise, but how can we logically prove that a premise is true without resorting to other premises? We would need to prove the premises with other premises, but since we cannot go on forever, logic in itself proves nothing. We must necessarily start from an unproven premise.

Is it a personal choice, or, I would say, a cultural one? I can start from the cultural premise that everyone is equal or from its opposite. The problem is the premise, not the logic.

In fact, logical does not mean true, but only consequential. If I say:

• Men are immortal.

• I am a man.

• Therefore, I am immortal.

This is perfectly logical, but not true. If I were to conclude:

• Therefore, I am mortal.

It would be illogical, but true.

Ethico-political principles are not a matter of logic but of principles, or if you prefer, of goals. For St. Francis, sister poverty is desirable; for Buddha, annihilation; for us, well-being.

Logic is an objective fact, the same for everyone, but it is the consequence of an argument. However, the premises we start from can be very different, as everyone can see.

The Holocaust was not an illogical event. If one believes that Jews are subhuman and infect humanity, then even eliminating them can be justified.

Proving vs. Arguing

It must be clarified, however, that the fact that nothing is absolutely provable does not mean that everything is true or that everything is false, nor does it mean there is no difference between nonsense and well-founded statements. The problem is not whether truth exists, but whether we can attain it with certainty.

For example: undoubtedly, God either exists or does not exist. One of these statements is true and the other is false. But can we know with certainty which of the two propositions is the true one?

In other words, nothing is provable, but everything can be argued. In general, we can reach premises shared with our interlocutors to start from. The truth we know is always relative to the moment and to the interlocutors; nothing is definitive, but everything can be called into question.

No one thought that Euclidean geometry could be called into question, yet at the end of the 19th century, non-Euclidean geometries emerged. We must replace the concept of proof with that of argumentation.

For example, if someone tells me that it is not true that water is a compound of two gases, H and O, then I would argue that if all chemistry textbooks say so, it must be true. I don't see what the other person could argue in return. Perhaps that there is a conspiracy to tell a falsehood?

Language

It must also be noted that even when we agree on the principles, the problems concern what we mean precisely and how they can be realized. For example, even if we agree that people should be equal and free, it remains to be clarified what we really mean by these terms.

In fact, "free" can mean everything and its opposite. "Free" can mean to realize oneself. The problem then becomes: what is our nature? I can think that a woman's realization is to be a wife and mother, or to have the same roles as men. In the first case, our ancestors were truly free; in the second, women are free now. Where is the freedom of women? It depends on the cultural conception you have.

What does equality mean? The principle of equality was enunciated in opposition to a society where classes hereditarily performed a function: the children of kings reigned, nobles administered, peasants cultivated, artisans manufactured, and so on.

However, what became clear is that asserting, in principle, that everyone is equal and can therefore hold any position according to their merits is only a theoretical idea, because the economic and cultural conditions of the family strongly influence children from birth. Hence the need for state intervention to remove obstacles, which is not simple and strongly conditions Western societies, which have now abandoned classical liberalism to adopt the welfare state.

In short, to be equal, it is necessary to provide everyone with schooling, medical care, and a sufficient standard of living, which is a very difficult thing that implies a lot of taxes (the modern state manages more than 40% of income). This seems to me to be the problem of modern society: giving everyone the opportunity to show their abilities, which will never be fully achieved but can only be approached.

No one doubts the principle of equality; the problem is how to realize it.