InĀ A Miracle, A Universe, Lawrence Weschler describes the collaborative efforts between Jaime Wright and Cardinal Arns in documenting Brazil’s torture during a period of militarized dictatorship. The second of these two, Cardinal Arns, embodied morality as he evokes a sense of “uncoveredness,” arguing that “the true shall make you free,” (29-30). Moreover, as a religious leader, Cardinal Arns represented a steadfast commitment to enlightenment and coming to terms with all flaws within and around an individual. Cardinal Arns advocated for values everyone can achieve and would theoretically ameliorate society. However, in describing the judges of the torture cases, Weschler presents the difficulty in implementing Cardinal Arns’ practices in a specific aspect of Brazilian society. Weschler offers secondhand descriptions of judges “scowling and saying, ‘Don’t write it down–it’s a lie,'” (46), as well as the judges not wanting “things to descend to the level of a farce. There was a sense of minimum obligation,” (48). These portrayals offer insight into the broad spectrum of commitment to morality within Brazilian society of such an era. More critical too is the fact that such apathy towards the “truth” occurred within the courtroom. While Cardinal Arns offers a simple foundation towards the development of societal morality, such a feat incurs massive hurdles against institutions that fail to meet his level of acceptance. Certainly the truth may bring freedom, however such logic fails when applied to more than one person, as we each foster our own truths, with morality being a subjective matter. Therefore, with a moral pursuit being the worse of two imperfect solutions, taking a practical approach and building on a shared version of the truth might be the best remaining option.
Brianna, I agree that the subjectivity of morality posits a problem when trying to institute justice within a newly democratic system. The remaining military forces within a transformed regime would likely interpret this “moral approach” to seek prosecution as a limitation on their agency and a violation of their sovereignty as an acting body. However, I question how a nation can construct a shared version of the truth given the widely differing experiences between the tortured and the torturers. Is truth established as the experience of torture victims or state records? If it is the former, demands for justice are soon to follow, causing a degree of instability. If it is the latter, then will the people accuse the state of once more dictating the narrative and establishing the ‘rules of the game’?