Humanist Manifesto

[johnhs]

Knowledge of the world is derived by observation, experimentation, and rational analysis.

What is a system of ethics derived by observation, experimentation, and rational analysis?

Also, what is life's purpose and meaning from this perspective?

[Bust Nak]

You are still just posting what it is. Not how someone would arrive at the conclusion that it is true based on experimentation.

Not sure what you mean here, why do you think I was just posting what it is? If I was just posting what Utilitarianism is, I would have left it as "Utilitarianism is an ethic system that say that the best moral action is the one that maximizes well-being for the maximum number of sentient beings based on the consequence of actions/inaction." The how is checking if said system is a good fit for the philosophy of humanism.

[johnhs]

If I am understanding what you're asking here, you were wanting to know how a scientific method type approach can determine either the best ethical system or which one works the best?

If so, then I submit the answer is: you can't, because ethics (or morals) is a subjective thing that constantly changes over time. Ethics/morals is a human concept, nothing more.

Then why did the Humanist Manifesto list a bunch of ethical standards? Does it contradict itself?

[johnhs]

You are still just posting what it is. Not how someone would arrive at the conclusion that it is true based on experimentation.

Not sure what you mean here, why do you think I was just posting what it is? If I was just posting what Utilitarianism is, I would have left it as "Utilitarianism is an ethic system that say that the best moral action is the one that maximizes well-being for the maximum number of sentient beings based on the consequence of actions/inaction." The how is checking if said system is a good fit for the philosophy of humanism.

Well, to be a good fit, it would have to be arrived at experimentally. Is it?

[Bust Nak]

[Replying to post 13 by johnhs]
Yes? Hence my answer "Test if consequences is open to observations, experimentation and rational analysis." Why yes, yes it is. Seems rather trivial.

[Kenisaw]

If I am understanding what you're asking here, you were wanting to know how a scientific method type approach can determine either the best ethical system or which one works the best?

If so, then I submit the answer is: you can't, because ethics (or morals) is a subjective thing that constantly changes over time. Ethics/morals is a human concept, nothing more.

Then why did the Humanist Manifesto list a bunch of ethical standards? Does it contradict itself?

Yon didn't answer my question, but that's fine.

To answer your question, no it did not. The first humanist manifesto was borne out of a desire to create a value system and philosophy that accepted and embraced what scientific discovery had given man. It basically calls for a quasi religion to replace the baseless supernatural ones. The Manifesto is not a scientific document, but rather a call for a new ethical standard that won't contradict with science. It has a socialistic slant to it as well.

[bluethread]

The Seven Principles of Unitarian Universalism

1st Principle: The inherent worth and dignity of every person;
2nd Principle: Justice, equity and compassion in human relations;
3rd Principle: Acceptance of one another and encouragement to spiritual growth in our congregations;
4th Principle: A free and responsible search for truth and meaning;
5th Principle: The right of conscience and the use of the democratic process within our congregations and in society at large;
6th Principle: The goal of world community with peace, liberty, and justice for all;
7th Principle: Respect for the interdependent web of all existence of which we are a part.
http://www.uua.org/beliefs/what-we-believe/principles

Let's examine these for definitiveness and consistency.

1. From where does one inherit one's worth and how is that established, so proper dignity can be applied?

2. Though these are nice concepts, what elevates them to life principles? Also, do these concepts have supremacy over all other concepts?

3. Does this include acceptance of psychopaths and sociopaths and how does one define "spiritual growth"?

4. Again a fine concept, but what if this search conflicts with the other principles? Does "responsible" mean that it is subject to the other principles?

5. What if one's conscience causes one to reject democracy and/or the other principles?

6. Again, that is a nice goal, but how can a goal be a principle? Is one requires to justify all of one's views by showing how they further that goal?

7. What is the "interdependent web of all existence" and how does one respect it?

[Kenisaw]

You are still just posting what it is. Not how someone would arrive at the conclusion that it is true based on experimentation.

Not sure what you mean here, why do you think I was just posting what it is? If I was just posting what Utilitarianism is, I would have left it as "Utilitarianism is an ethic system that say that the best moral action is the one that maximizes well-being for the maximum number of sentient beings based on the consequence of actions/inaction." The how is checking if said system is a good fit for the philosophy of humanism.

Well, to be a good fit, it would have to be arrived at experimentally. Is it?

No it wouldn't have to be arrived at experimentally. It isn't a scientific document...

[johnhs]

[Replying to post 13 by johnhs]
Yes? Hence my answer "Test if consequences is open to observations, experimentation and rational analysis." Why yes, yes it is. Seems rather trivial.

All consequences are open to observation. Not sure your point.

[johnhs]

Well, to be a good fit, it would have to be arrived at experimentally. Is it?

No it wouldn't have to be arrived at experimentally. It isn't a scientific document...

Then why did it say "knowledge of the world is derived by observation, experimentation, and rational analysis"? Seems like whatever ethical system they propose is not derived by observation, experimentation, and rational analysis.

[johnhs]

The Manifesto is not a scientific document, but rather a call for a new ethical standard that won't contradict with science.

Not sure what that means.

All humans with an intellectual disability should be euthanized.

Does that contradict science?