Values as Our Moral Compass

In a world of constant change and uncertainty, it's easy to feel adrift. We're bombarded with information, competing priorities, and external pressures that can blur our sense of direction. Yet, through this noise, our values stand as a steadfast moral compass. They are the fundamental beliefs that guide our decisions, define our character, and give our lives meaning beyond the pursuit of fleeting goals.

A society built without a shared foundation of values is a society in peril. When truth is discarded for convenience, when empathy is lost to indifference, and when integrity is traded for gain, the social fabric begins to fray. Without a commitment to principles like honesty, justice, and compassion, our institutions lose trust and our communities become fragmented.

Values are not just abstract ideas; they are action-oriented principles that we embody every day. Choosing to be honest when it’s difficult, standing up for fairness even when it's unpopular, or showing kindness to a stranger—these acts are not random. They are the tangible expression of our deeply held beliefs. By living our values, we don't just shape our own lives; we contribute to a stronger, more resilient society.

In an age where technology promises to solve all our problems and social media often rewards performative action, a return to core values is more critical than ever. We must ask ourselves not just "what are we doing?" but "why are we doing it?" By recommitting to our values, we can find clarity in chaos and build a future that is not just more prosperous, but also more just, compassionate, and humane.

Sobre um novo tipo de humanismo

 

O artigo de opinião **"O humanismo como exigência do presente e chave do futuro"**, de **Victor Ângelo**, que constitui um capítulo de um livro que será publicado em breve, é um texto de forte densidade filosófica, ética e política. Nele, o autor elabora uma **defesa contundente do humanismo como imperativo civilizacional** num momento de retrocesso moral, geopolítico e ambiental. A seguir, apresento uma análise detalhada do conteúdo, estilo, argumentação e relevância do texto.

### **1. Estrutura e estilo**

- **Clareza e fluidez**: O texto é bem estruturado, com progressão lógica: começa com um diagnóstico do presente (regressão de valores), passa para uma análise histórica (pós-Segunda Guerra), e culmina numa proposta de futuro baseada num **humanismo ampliado**.

  

- **Estilo elevado e reflexivo**: Victor Ângelo utiliza uma linguagem solene, quase programática, com traços de ensaio filosófico. Frases como *"É a ética antes do materialismo"* ou *"Não podemos deixar que seja, nesta nova era, o centro da sua destruição"* têm um tom quase profético, o que pode seduzir ou desafiar o leitor, dependendo da sua sensibilidade.

- **Uso de metáforas e referências históricas**: A alusão ao Renascimento, à ONU, aos direitos humanos e à "carne para canhão" dá profundidade histórica ao argumento, ancorando o presente em um arco civilizacional.

### **2. Tese central**

O autor defende que, diante da ascensão do autoritarismo, do nacionalismo, da desigualdade tecnológica e da crise ecológica, a única saída viável é um **renascimento do humanismo**, não apenas como valor individual, mas como **projeto coletivo, ético, ecológico e global**.

### **3. Argumentos principais**

#### ✅ **1. Diagnóstico do presente: retrocesso civilizacional**

- O artigo começa com uma crítica contundente ao atual estado das relações internacionais: violência, extremismo, indiferença.

- Denuncia o **esvaziamento dos direitos humanos** e do multilateralismo, conquistas do pós-guerra ameaçadas por elites oportunistas e regimes autoritários.

#### ✅ **2. O humanismo como resposta**

- Propõe um **humanismo renovado**, que vá além da liberdade individual e inclua:

 - Respeito pela vida de todos os seres vivos (com exceções éticas, como patógenos).

 - Proteção da natureza e do cosmos.

 - Justiça intergeracional.

 - Diversidade, cooperação e responsabilidade coletiva.

#### ✅ **3. Tecnologia e ética**

- Alerta para o **uso desvirtuado da Inteligência Artificial**: pode ampliar progresso ou aprofundar desigualdades e desumanização.

- Insiste em uma **regulação ética e inteligente da IA**, alinhada com valores humanistas.

#### ✅ **4. Educação e discernimento**

- Defende uma educação voltada para a **lucidez ética**, o pensamento crítico e a capacidade de distinguir o essencial do superficial — especialmente num mundo saturado de desinformação.

#### ✅ **5. Multilateralismo e responsabilidade coletiva**

- Reafirma a importância das **organizações internacionais** (ONU, etc.) como guardiãs de uma ética universal.

- Sem cooperação global, não há futuro sustentável.

### **4. Pontos fortes**

- **Visão abrangente**: O texto conecta política, ética, ecologia, tecnologia e educação — raro em colunas jornalísticas.

- **Urgência moral**: Transmite uma sensação de **emergência civilizacional**, sem cair no catastrofismo vazio.

- **Originalidade conceitual**: Ao expandir o humanismo para além do humano (natureza, cosmos, futuras gerações), o autor propõe uma **atualização filosófica necessária**.

- **Compromisso com a esperança ativa**: Não se limita a criticar; oferece um caminho — ainda que difícil.

### **5. Críticas ou limitações**

- **Idealismo político**: A proposta, embora nobre, pode parecer **utópica** diante da realidade de guerras, corrupção, negacionismo climático e competição geopolítica. Falta um plano concreto de implementação.

  

- **Falta de análise de poder**: O texto menciona "elites", mas não explora como elas se mantêm no poder ou como o humanismo pode desafiá-las estruturalmente (ex: economia, mídia, armas).

- **Ambiguidade em certos pontos**: A frase *"com excepção dos que estão na origem das epidemias"* pode ser mal interpretada — seria o autor a favor da erradicação de certas espécies? Seria necessário maior precisão.

- **Tom algo paternalista**: A retórica de "salvação da humanidade" pode soar distante de realidades locais, sociais e econômicas concretas.

### **6. Posicionamento ideológico**

Victor Ângelo posiciona-se claramente na **tradição do humanismo iluminista e progressista**, com influências do **ecossocialismo**, **ética pós-humanista** e **cosmopolitismo**. É um pensamento de esquerda intelectual, anti-nacionalista, pró-multilateralismo e profundamente preocupado com a justiça intergeracional.

Há também traços de **pensamento decolonial**, ao criticar o imperialismo e o egoísmo das potências, embora sem usar diretamente essa terminologia.

### **7. Conclusão: Avaliação**

Este é um **dos melhores artigos de opinião recentes na imprensa portuguesa**. Não apenas por sua qualidade literária, mas por sua **coragem intelectual e ambição ética**.

**Pontuação (1 a 10): 9.0**

- **Originalidade**: 9  

- **Profundidade**: 10  

- **Estilo**: 8.5  

- **Relevância contemporânea**: 10  

- **Viabilidade prática**: 7 (alta no plano ético, baixa no plano político imediato)

---

### **Veredito final**

Victor Ângelo confirma-se como um **pensador de primeira grandeza no panorama intelectual português**. Seu colunismo vai além da crônica política: é um **exercício de responsabilidade cívica e filosófica**. Este artigo, em particular, deveria ser **lido em escolas, universidades e círculos de decisão política**.

Numa época de simplificação, ódio e cinismo, textos como este são **faróis**. Não oferecem respostas fáceis, mas **recolocam as perguntas certas**:

> *Que tipo de humanidade queremos ser?*  

> *Que futuro estamos a construir?*  

> *Será o humanismo apenas um legado do passado — ou a chave do futuro?*

Essa é a força deste texto: **não apenas dizer o que está errado, mas lembrar-nos do que ainda podemos ser.**

What next regarding Aghanistan?

We can't sweep Afghanistan under the rug

Victor Angelo

 

Mario Draghi, the Italian Prime Minister and current leader of the G20, is convening an extraordinary summit of the group for October 12, with only one item on the agenda: Afghanistan. This is an urgent meeting that cannot wait for the annual summit, which is scheduled for the last two days of this month. The concerns about Afghanistan are essentially twofold: the humanitarian drama, already much worsened at the moment, but which will become catastrophic with the imminent arrival of winter; and defining the conditions necessary for the international recognition of the Taliban regime.

The European Union has meanwhile approved a humanitarian package of 200 million euros. Other aid is urgently needed, not least because the donor community pledged more than a billion dollars on September 13, in response to an appeal launched by António Guterres. But, as always, promises are one thing, but their materialization is another. In addition to logistical difficulties and insecurity, the humanitarian agencies need guarantees of neutrality from the Taliban. This is the only way to ensure that food aid, medical and health care, and educational support reaches those in need without exclusion on the basis of ethnicity, gender, religion, or power relations.

Still in the humanitarian area, there are three other major issues.

One is the payment of salaries to civil servants and security forces who have not been paid for months. I don't think there is a willingness at the G20 level to finance this. Recently, my former colleague Jan Egeland, a recognized voice in the humanitarian field and who now heads the prestigious Norwegian Refugee Council, wrote an open letter on this subject to the UN Secretary-General. It called for mechanisms to be put in place to find a solution to pay salaries to the Afghan civil service, as was already largely the case under the previous government. The letter was a follow-up to his recent visit to Afghanistan and his shock at the widespread poverty. 

Another issue concerns the electricity supply. Millions in Kabul and the country's largest cities are at risk of being left in the dark. With the onset of winter, this could be yet another cataclysm to add to all the others. Afghanistan imports about 70 percent of the electricity it consumes. Uzbekistan, Turkmenistan, Tajikistan and Iran are the suppliers. With the Taliban victory and the administrative chaos that followed, payments for electricity imports have ceased. If the situation does not change soon, it is very likely that some of these countries, especially those that were part of the former Soviet Union and have no sympathy whatsoever for the extremists in Kabul, will suspend supply. If this happens, popular unrest will take on a new dimension. 

How long Afghanistan will need exceptional humanitarian aid is the third big question. Assistance must have a time horizon. The country needs to build an economy that allows it to import the energy and basic commodities it cannot produce, and to have a reasonable standard of living. The economy should not be based almost exclusively on opium production.

Recognition of the new regime, including its representation in the UN, will depend on the position that each G20 member adopts. Recent events show a tendency to establish occasional contacts, while at the political level there will continue to be talk of values, human rights, national inclusion, or the fight against terrorism. And to show a lot of mistrust towards Taliban governance. As time goes by, if there is no extreme migratory crisis or terrorist attack that affects the Western world, the new Afghan regime, whether recognized or not, could be just one more to add to the list of repressive, failed and forgotten states.

(Automatic translation of the opinion piece I published in the Diário de Notícias, the old and prestigious Lisbon newspaper. Edition dated 8  October 2021)

 

 

The future of politics must be based on values

They do not fit into our future

Victor Angelo

 

I recognise the concerns that many thinkers express about what the world will be like in the aftermath of the coronavirus pandemic. A large proportion say that this crisis pulverizes our societies and disrupts democracy and the alliances that bind us to other peoples, promotes a tendency towards isolation, nationalistic selfishness and the loss of the points of reference that gave meaning to international relations. Thus, the world would emerge fragmented from the crisis, with each country more self-centred, more autocratic, and with the institutions of the multilateral system rather weakened.

I propose a different reading of the route we are now taking. I believe that the crisis gives us the opportunity to strengthen the humanist dimension that has been lacking, both in domestic politics and on the international stage. We will certainly be poorer economically, but we can become much richer politically. It is a question of good leadership and strong citizenship movements. The pandemic has reminded us that people are the essential end of politics. Not people in a general and abstract sense, but each of us, simultaneously in our individuality and as members of the social space to which we belong. Politics must place a stronger emphasis on protecting and respecting our fundamental rights, starting with the right to dignity, health, security and diversity, as well as creating the conditions for everyone to develop their potential as best they know how. 

I believe that the pandemic drama has prepared a good part of the citizens for a new kind of awareness as regards their relationship with others and nature. I think it has made us more measured in our ambitions. We are faced with the possibility of renewing political practice. That is the main conclusion I draw from the present situation. It is also the line that guides my vision of the future. Politics tomorrow must mean a continuous struggle for human rights, for democratisation, for smoothness in public management and for more solidarity. We must build on the maturity we have acquired during this period of shock. If this happens, the credibility of politics will be enhanced, multilateral cooperation will be cemented and we will be in a better position to tackle what I consider to be the three biggest global challenges of the decade: the fight against poverty, the defence of freedom and the regeneration of the environment, starting with the mitigation of climate change.

Indeed, none of this should be new to us Europeans. Article 2 of the Treaty on European Union clearly defines - and happily worded, which is not always the case when it comes to legal commitments between states - the values that constitute the fundamental foundations of our common project, including the centrality of the human dimension of politics. But politicians, who are generally very skilful in the games of opportunism and in the ambiguity of consensus designed to please Greeks and Trojans, do not always support themselves as they should in that article of the Treaty.

In these circumstances, it is essential that the European Commission's budget for the period 2021-2027 and the exceptional plan for economic recovery, which must respond to the challenges created by the pandemic, recognise the essential need for each Member State to respect the letter and spirit of the aforementioned Article 2. Budgets and democracy are the two sides of the same Europe. Here there can be no tricks or juggling of words and misunderstandings. The Hungarian vetoes of Viktor Orbán and the Polish vetoes of Jaroslaw Kaczynski, now also supported by Janez Janša, the Prime Minister of Slovenia, are unacceptable. Let us speak clearly. Orbán is a despot at the head of a clique that many accuse of kleptocracy. Kaczynski is a backward man who exploits feelings from other times. Janša is a small brain man: he was the only European leader to congratulate Donald Trump on his electoral "victory". They all manipulate public opinion in their countries and will not change as long as they retain control of power. We cannot let these gentlemen think that the EU is just a source of money, unrelated to a policy of democratic values and rights. Any compromise on this issue would mean that we would not have learned anything from the cultural revolution that the pandemic crisis is offering us. 

(Automatic translation of the opinion piece I published today in the Diário de Notícias, the old and prestigious Lisbon newspaper)

Nagorno-Karabakh

I feel so disturbed when I watch the images of the war that keeps going on between Azerbaijan and Armenia. One of the sides publishes a lot of videos showing the targeting of the other side’s military vehicles. Often, we can see the young soldiers trying to move out of the vehicle before the strike. They rarely succeed. It is too late to escape. And that is no video game. It is about young lives being wasted. Then, there are the bombings of civilian quarters. TV screens remind us that wars are full of human tragedies.

And in this case, there seems to be no serious attempt to stop the conflict. The Russians managed to have a humanitarian ceasefire declared only to be broken soon after. It would have been important if respected. It could open the door to the beginning of a political process. Unfortunately, that is not the case.

At the beginning I expressed the view that this would be a short duration flare up. Now, I think we are in it for a long while. More lives and livelihoods will be destroyed. The world is too busy with the pandemic, the economic crisis, the competition with China and the American elections to really care about a remote corner of the world that most people have no idea where to place in the world map.

It is sad. 

Leaders must direct based on moral values

Translation of today’s opinion piece I published in Diário de Notícias (Lisbon)

This is no time for statues

Victor Angelo

A considerable number of us still see the current situation as something temporary, which scientific research, the announced financial subsidies and time will eventually resolve. I think that is a light view of the pandemic and its consequences. It does not consider the lessons learned from previous crises, which took years to overcome, even though they were not as serious as they are now.

In addition to the economic and social impact, major political fractures may arise. Confusion, uncertainty, and fears are fertile ground from which authoritarian politicians often sprout, painted as megalomaniac messiahs, with ultra-nationalist, populist and bizarrely dangerous ideas. The democratic space is under threat. Miniature copies of Donald Trump and company are beginning to appear. People who, coming from outside the political practice and without the experience of the functioning of institutions, think they have the simple and ready to cook solution that will solve all the evils of today. But, in reality, the shrewdest populists are waiting for the opportunity, which will arise, in their opinion, with the exhaustion of the response capacity of the existing social systems. 

In such a context, we need leaders who are enlightened, courageous, and capable of giving meaning to the transformations that are to come. It happens that people look around them and do not see such leaders. There is no new Nelson Mandela, no new Kofi Annan or a modern version of Jacques Delors. Immediatism and materialism have replaced the struggle for human values. The moral leadership that Pope Francis, the UN Secretary-General, and others could exercise is missing. They have stopped appearing or, when they do, they come late and talk about vague things. No one takes note.

Some people would say that only those who exaggerate are heard. I do not think so. The Prime Minister of New Zealand, Jacinda Arden, is a moderate leader whom everyone admires. She is not particularly active on the international scene because she is above all focused on her country's issues. Yet she is often quoted. Greta Thunberg and Malala Yousafzai can be mentioned as other examples of international leadership. These are respected voices that mark the global agenda. The reason, I would say in a simplified way, is because they go straight to the point, without diplomacy, nor personal fears or ambitions. They are perceived as genuine and combative. And with clear ideas. That is what is expected of those who lead.

On the other side of the coin, look at the United Nations. The last ten years have been a disaster for its credibility. The lack of authority at global level worsened after the crisis in Libya in 2011 and it experienced clear moments of deterioration in the following years. The invasion of Crimea in 2014 and the conflict in Ukraine, all done with impunity, the impasse in Syria, with repeated vetoes, the silence and inaction in the face of mass migration in 2015, the election of Donald Trump in 2016, a politician who does not accept the values of international cooperation, the lack of political response to the genocide of the Rohingyas in 2017, the exclusion of the Security Council from issues relating to Palestine, the attacks against UNESCO and WHO, are some of the milestones in the process of marginalization of the UN. Others could be mentioned, in a list that reminds us that the global institutional framework needs to be rethought. I would just add that there is no greater frustration in international life than being at the head of an institution that hardly anyone listens to.

In these things, I like to suggest we follow the example of that holy man, described in a famous sermon preaching to the fish, because people did not want to listen to him. In other words, this is by no means the time to remain silent, without drawing the lessons that the crisis puts before our eyes. A silent leader is just a statue, which these days is a danger, because the statues are being torn down.