THE QUESTION OF VALUES IN THE FACE OF ETHICAL RELATIVISM AND MORAL PLURALISM

To obtain greater conceptual clarity, considering the semantics of words, it is essential to delve deeper into the definitions of the central terms used. It seems essential to highlight the conceptual difference between the natural relativity of things and ethical relativism; plurality and moral pluralism. This clarifies the role of values to be applied in the field of education.

There is a natural relativity between human beings. There are discrepancies that are easily seen by simply observing reality. There will always be some difference between people, whether in height, hair color or other physical, intellectual and emotional characteristics. These differences increase considerably when it comes to the cognitive and psychological dimension, thus showing that no human person is the same as another in their psychophysical and spiritual constitutions. ^{Sucupira Lins (2018a}; ^2022b) describes the unique, unrepeatable characteristic of human dignity, which has absolute value, and is present in the plurality of human beings, in each one of them. Although there is an equality of human dignity among people, because they all belong to humanity, people differ in their attributes, in their singular identity and individuality.

The term spiritual is not used above in a religious sense, but in a philosophical sense, as seen in ^{Scheler (2003}, p. 37), when he says that "the ‘bearer’ of spirit is that being whose dealings with external reality as well as with himself have been inverted in a sense dynamically opposite to that of an animal, with the inclusion of his intelligence". Note the connection between intellect and spirit. This allows understanding the approximation of the concepts of spirit and reason. ^{Sucupira Lins (1999b)} analyzes this conceptual relationship and shows that Max Scheler relates two distinct aspects of these terms: 1. awareness of the world and of oneself; 2. the objectification of one's own psychophysical nature. The first points to a spiritual capacity for movement from the inside out, towards the world and its own existence. The second refers to a capacity for self-awareness, which is to look at one's inner life. The purpose here is not to deeply examine this topic, but only to specify the reference to the spiritual dimension, to the inner life of the human person.

Pluralism follows a similar conceptual dynamic as relativism. It could be said that the current use of the term pluralism is somewhat distorted by certain lines of thought and ideologies, as ^{Von Hildebrand (2021)} explains when identifying contemporary philosophical problems. However, pluralism, in the correct sense of the word, refers to the very reality of the diversity of people in the world, circumscribed in time and space. This is also how ^{Maritain (1984}, p. 148) explains it: "individuality, or more precisely, individuation, is what makes one thing of the same nature as another differ from that other within the same species and the same genus". This is pluralism that does not confuse the meaning of values, universal virtues or humanity as a whole, and still preserves the singularity and individuality of each person. Along these lines of argument, Ricoeur emphasizes:

If I say "history" in the singular, history is also the history of men in the plural, that is, not only of individuals, but of communities and civilizations. A certain pluralism is therefore also inscribed in the preconception of historical drama and historical work. (^{Ricoeur, 1968}, p. 77)

The author refers to the historicity of man and his action in the world within a plurality of situations in human becoming and in the making and realization of history. This is the undeniable plural reality. From this perspective, values are diverse due to their plurality, but not in a relativistic sense.

On the other hand, moral pluralism, which is ideological in nature, consists of recognizing many justifiable value systems, which are contradictory and conflicting on the level of morals or opinions. Although authors such as ^{Kekes (1993)} and ^{Oliveira (1998)} defend the thesis of a model of pluralism as a solution to the degradation caused by relativism, their proposals also have limitations and difficulties in sustaining themselves. It is not possible to conduct an in-depth analysis of the theses defended in these works in the space of this article, but the arguments that follow indicate that the pluralism proposed does not satisfactorily elucidate the problem.

When analyzing ethical relativism and moral pluralism, it can be seen that the arguments put forward in these lines of thought are mostly related to ontological, ethical and moral values. The notion of value is questioned by these two lines. The thesis that it is impossible to affirm the existence of universal or absolute values is a misconception that must be analyzed in an attempt to find solutions. Universal and absolute values are understood in the way that ^{Sucupira Lins (2018b}, s.p.) explains by showing that "there are, in reality, virtues that are universal, such as honesty, friendship, justice, reverence, generosity, humility, and that appear in each culture, at certain times, with approaches that do not shake the internal structure of virtue". From the author's observations, it is clear that there are universal values and virtues, which are those that manifest themselves in different cultures and at different times, but which are relevant to all of humanity and act as anchors for ethical life.

One cannot simply deny the existence of values and virtues. Aristotle (^{Aristóteles, 2011}, Livro III, 426a-20) observes that "the first philosophers of nature were mistaken in their opinion that there was neither white nor black beyond sight, as well as that there was no taste beyond the palate". This statement is supported in part by the fact that if a person has never seen (due to visual impairment), colors do not manifest themselves. Despite a person's ability to see or not, colors exist. In line with these reflections, ^{Maritain (1972}, p. 319) points out that "it is a mark of childishness to think that a truth ceases to be true because the nearsighted see it badly, or the blind do not see it at all". The same principle can be applied to honesty, friendship, justice, reverence and charity, insofar as they cannot be denied simply because they are abstract, subjective or universal values. Values exist independently of the judgment of those who analyze them. For this reason, we must argue that whether or not one adheres to them depends on the person's conscience. However, rejection of the value of freedom, for example, is due to a flaw in their upbringing and the formation of their conscience, and not the non-existence of these virtues.

^{Gonçalves (2014}, p. 71) points out the different types of values, explaining that "there is talk of ethical, aesthetic, monetary, economic, legal, historical value, etc. The term ‘value’ is thus intended to highlight the importance of something to which this importance, esteem, quality is attributed or recognized." It must be said that moral value, on the other hand, has the importance that the object possesses in itself and not an enhancement, in the way that the author defends.

From ^{Von Hildebrand's perspective (2020)}, the kind of relevance that is an objective good for a person necessarily presupposes what is important in itself, value. It means considering that this important thing has an absolute primacy in all respects. In reflecting on the nature of love, he emphasizes that love is based on a value that is so intimately united to this individual and unique person, taken as a subject, who presents themself to me as valuable, precious and lovable. In contrast to ethical relativism, continuing the analysis of the explanation developed by ^{Von Hildebrand (2020}, p. 179), we note that this author lists traits of moral values. Given the space limits of this article, it is sufficient to consider just one: "the first preponderant mark of moral values is that they necessarily presuppose a person". This is to say that an impersonal being (a stone, a tree, a piece of paper, a pen) can never be morally good or evil. Only people, in a concrete way, with their human acts, can be morally good or bad. Therefore, moral values refer exclusively to the conduct of human beings. The author points out that there are important values in impersonal things, even if they are not moral, and cites aesthetic values, highlighting, for example, the beauty of a mountain, a flower, a tree, a bird or other animal, differently than values related to a person.

One of the main characteristics of moral values is that they can only be applied to people. The aforementioned philosopher also observes that relativism is unable to resolve this issue because its foundation is tied to differences of opinion, and not to value itself. In many cases, the fact that one tribe, in some historical era, considered something to be morally bad that another tribe considered to be morally good, we can understand that this event is due to a difference of opinion or belief about the nature of a thing, and does not refer to its value. From this perspective, ^{Von Hildebrand (2020}, p. 115) makes it clear that "if for one tribe certain animals are considered sacred, as, for example, the Egyptians considered the ox Apis, then killing this animal takes on the character of sacrilege". It is important that, if one is aware of the true nature of this animal, killing it is not sacrilege at all. These forms of diversity do not manifest a contradiction concerning moral values, but only a difference of opinion about the nature of certain objects.

In a recent study, ^{Sucupira Lins and Miranda (2020}, p. 145) show that "relativism affirms that there is no absolute truth and that it can be measured according to time and space, however, this statement nullifies itself ". This form of self-contradictory relativism pointed out by the authors was also noted by ^{Scriven (2018)}, in his assertion that there is an incoherence in this relativist current to the point that it is itself self-refuting:

That is, if relativism is true then to say that ‘relativism is true’ is no more true than ‘relativism is false’, so relativism cannot be true in the sense that means it is not false, and there is no other sense of ‘true’ in the language. […] People often adopt relativism as a result of discovering that scientific theories are sometimes wrong. (^{Scriven, 2018}, p. 445)

The aforementioned authors show that there is an incoherence within relativism. For this reason, we may think that relativist formulations about opinions collapse. It is necessary to recall what was discussed earlier, when we considered that the relative and natural quality of things in relation to each other does not cancel out their essential value. In other words, even if there are changes in form, the essential, the value itself, does not change.

Education has undergone many changes, especially in terms of its fundamental assumptions, over the centuries, since classical ancient Greece, including today, due to the multiplicity of philosophical thought.

One basic ethical principle that guides education is that of the intrinsic position of the educator, which is expressed in the purpose of providing students, according to ^{Sucupira Lins (2018a)}, with the conditions to gradually progress in their improvement in all dimensions of their lives.

In this sense, ^{Von Hildebrand and A. Von Hildebrand (2021}, p. 30-31) propose that fidelity and truthfulness are also fundamental attitudes for educational action when they affirm that, "without this basic attitude of fidelity, no culture, no progress in knowledge, no community, but above all no moral personality, no moral maturation, is possible". It is understood that fidelity is a free and meaningful response to the world of truth and values, and to their relevance as a constitutive part of morality. Truthfulness, another virtue highlighted, is respect for the fact. There must be fidelity and truthfulness with regard to the aims of education. In the same work, the author reaffirms this idea by saying that "an education that does not emphasize sincerity and truthfulness condemns itself to failure" (^{Von Hildebrand and A. Von Hildebrand, 2021}, p. 53). We argue that there is truth in education, as we explained when working with the concept of relativism. We recall that ^{Von Hildebrand (2021}, p. 64), concerned about the trivialization of the concept of truth, explains that "truth is not a national or cultural or temporal property", but an adequation to the fact of reality. The absence of these fundamental principles causes a serious degradation in educational performance, at the risk of great losses in the areas of personal development, teaching and learning, and consequently for society as a whole.

FREEDOM IN EDUCATION IN THE FACE OF RELATIVIST IDEOLOGIES

In the field of ethics, freedom is a preponderant factor in educational activity, but is highly influenced by relativistic ideologies. ^{Sucupira Lins (2009}, p. 8) also emphasizes that freedom cannot be understood in the sense of doing what you think or what you want; "this would be the determinism of instinct, pleasure, sensuality and appetites in general. Free will is a characteristic of the human being who can freely decide for the truth". From this we can understand the value of human freedom, through which man can achieve self-mastery and no longer be a prisoner of his instincts, his spontaneous reactions and the mistaken idea of destiny. It is necessary to consider that the freedom that exists in the child is in a potential state, that is, it will need to be put into action. ^{Sucupira Lins (2018a}, p. 82) argues that, "as long as a person is not aware of who they are and their will is not strengthened, it will be difficult for them to put their power of freedom into action". This is how the essential role of education is understood, so that people understand that they were born free and that they need to learn to be free, in harmony with their will and affectivity.

^{Von Hildebrand (2020}, p. 297) sheds more light on this subject by stating that "a man is responsible only for something that he can freely choose or refuse, something that in one way or another is within the reach of his power". In a philosophical text, the author uses the word man, in the original der mensch, and not der mann, in the sense of human being. Human freedom presupposes the person and their moral action for good or ill. ^{Von Hildebrand (2009}, p. 95) presents a situation in which action is necessary, so that the person is particularly engaged in a unique way: "I am called, in conscience, to do what is morally good and even more so to omit what is evil and wrong". It is something that is found in the human capacity, differently from the phenomena found in animals, which act solely through the conditioning of the laws that govern their instincts. Moral freedom, in turn, refers to man's ability to consciously intervene in the course of events and alter or change them either positively or negatively. A reflection by ^{Gardner (2012}, p. 89-90) illustrates this dynamic of conduct well, in what he calls role ethics, referring to the morality of neighbors. According to the author, the main characteristic of a true ethical position is responsibility. Whether in professional duties (the role of a teacher, lawyer, doctor, engineer, businessman, among others) or simply as a citizen, a person must ask themselves: "I have rights and duties. Now, what are my responsibilities?". Exercising freedom necessarily implies recognizing that you are responsible for your own actions.

It is in the combination of reason, will and affectivity that we can think of the possibility for an education that is capable of fostering the proper development of the human person. The purpose of education is, according to ^{Sucupira Lins (2022a)}, to make man better, through proper training, even if it is aimed at a future that is possible and not simply utopian.

On the other hand, it is not correct to say, as the aforementioned author does, that truth (metaphysics) is now illusory and unsustainable. Even though there is controversy over the definition of truth, it is undeniable that what is false is worthless. ^{Von Hildebrand (2020}, p. 113) emphasizes that "the truth of a proposition does not depend on how many people agree with it, but only on whether or not it conforms to reality". With this statement, one can clearly understand that arguments must be confronted with the facts themselves, with the real state of things.

According to ^{Oliveira (2012}, p. 117), "different conceptions can be considered reasonable and therefore examined through argumentative rationality, which is characteristic of a pluralist philosophy". According to this principle, in the name of a form of tolerance, ideological pluralism tends to accept the existence of false propositions as if they were values. For example, if there are conflicts that can lead to violence between students in a classroom, should they be tolerated because of their differing opinions? Would not active intervention by the educator be better? ^{Von Hildebrand (2007)} proposes active intervention not as interventionism, but in the sense of leading individuals to overcome conflicts based on respect, transforming the situation into an emotional experience. In this way, tolerance should not be understood as blindly accepting any opinion, but rather as respect for a different position and being respected as well. Respect, in such cases, does not mean blindly accepting any opinion.

We believe that it is through reason that a person has the capacity for analysis, but human beings are not only composed of rationality. According to ^{Von Hildebrand (2007)}, reason, will and affectivity are three fundamental centers of man's inner life that must manifest themselves harmoniously. In this sense, an emphasis on the rational to the detriment of the other dimensions leads to errors in arguments and behavior. The author adds that, under these conditions, there is not only a danger of error, but also of intellectual pride and rationalism. It is necessary to avoid rationalist formulations about reality without verifying reality itself. ^{Giussani's idea (2019}, p. 51) that "education has come to be an introduction to reality " applies here. According to the author, the word reality is to education as the goal is to the path. Of course, it is on the plane of reality, of human action, that things actually happen, and not in the imagination of opinions, superstitions or fiction. This must be the proper meaning of pluralism, reality itself.

On the subject of moral pluralism, ^{MacIntyre (2021)}, a contemporary Scottish philosopher who is attentive to the concrete issues of philosophical and political reality, observes that:

The superficial rhetoric of our culture can speak satisfactorily of moral pluralism, but the notion of pluralism is too imprecise because it can very well apply to both an orderly dialog of opinions that intersect, and to a disharmonious amalgam of incompatible fragments. (^{MacIntyre, 2021}, p. 37)

There is a recurring problem here, which is that the issue remains in the realm of opinion. It is clearly understood that moral pluralism, in the form in which it is presented today as superficial rhetoric, occurs among ideologies and with the use of disguises and dissimulations. A hermeneutic and phenomenological analysis is needed to escape fallacious lucubrations that may carry destructive intent against ethical life. In the field of education, Brazil's National Curriculum Parameters (PCN) (^{Brasil, 1997}), which are current guidelines for the entire country, warn of the seriousness of the situation:

Without a moral option, a democratic society, pluralistic by definition, is totally impossible to build, and the concept of citizenship loses its meaning. It is therefore imperative that the school contributes so that the dignity of the human being is a value known and recognized by its students. (^{Brasil, 1997}, p. 69)

The above text indicates that it is essential to teach ethics and morals at school. They have been inappropriately equated as synonyms in some contexts, especially by Brazilian legislation, as noted by ^{Rezende (2017)} and ^{Borges (2020)}. Despite this misconception, virtues and, therefore, moral values cannot be ignored. ^{Borges (2020}, p. 103) considers that the PCNs, especially those concerning transversal subjects, deal with the topic of ethics, with the correct and pertinent question: "How to act towards others?". According to the author, reflection on various human behaviors should be part of the greater objectives of schools committed to training children for citizenship and moral development. The absence of ethics teaching in education can result in disastrous consequences, both for citizenship and for the dignity of the human being. ^{Sucupira Lins (2009}, p. 6), who is interested in research on this issue, makes the following observation: "what we need to emphasize is the importance of the school in the educational process, which includes the education of values and the formation of an ethical subject". The school context is understood to have a special role in the education of values that guide the subject's life from an ethical perspective. However, for this to happen, the commitment of educators and educational institutions is fundamental. Aristotle (^{Aristóteles, 2014}) points to the need to learn virtue through education:

Indeed, moral virtue is about pleasure and pain. In fact, it is because of pleasure that we perform vile actions and because of pain that we fail to perform noble ones. Hence the importance, according to Plato, of being specially educated from childhood to like and dislike things: this is what correct education really consists of. (^{Aristóteles, 2014}, Livro II, 1104 b1-10)

This passage indicates that since ancient times there has been a concern to provide a correct education. ^{Sucupira Lins (2022a)} observes that "Relativism may seem like freedom because everyone thinks one way, but then coexistence is impossible. Relativism brings the loss of human paradigms, causing the absence of references to attitudes" (^{Sucupira Lins, 2022a}, s.p.). Based on these observations, it can be seen that, more than ever before, the current situation demands attention and dedication from all those working in the educational field to guarantee teaching and learning based on freedom, responsibility and values that guide society and, therefore, cannot be relativized.

Pertinent questions can be raised considering that many people receive a school education but, for various reasons, do not develop the correct understanding or awareness of the ethical presuppositions needed for harmonious social life. There are also those who, having received an education considered to be excellent, have used or are using their intelligence not for the common good, but for disvalues, such as the manufacture of ever more lethal weapons of destruction and, as a result, suffering and death for humans. This reality can be considered to stem from ethical relativism or from ideologies associated to certain educational processes and ways of thinking, affecting current generations. For ^{C. S. Lewis (2017}, p. 46), the hypothesis that all values will be rejected by the "rebellion of new ideologies", if realized, would result in the destruction of humanity. The author makes an analogy to emphasize that the rebellion of new ideologies against fundamental values can be seen as a revolt of branches against their own tree. In this sense, according to the author, values are destroyed to the extent that freedom, justice, honesty, reverence and truthfulness are considered irrelevant or merely relative.