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]

[Replying to post 18 by johnhs]

The first point was, it was trivial that consequences are open to observation. It seems you agree with that much. The other point was that if consequences are open to observation, then an ethics system based on observation and the analysis thereof, would be a good fit for philosophies that place importance on the value of analysis observation. Humanism as you implied in the OP, is one such system. The latter point, I too would deem trivial.

[johnhs]

[Replying to post 18 by johnhs]

The first point was, it was trivial that consequences are open to observation. It seems you agree with that much. The other point was that if consequences are open to observation, then an ethics system based on observation and the analysis thereof, would be a good fit for philosophies that place importance on the value of analysis observation. Humanism as you implied in the OP, is one such system. The latter point, I too would deem trivial.

All ethical systems are open to observation, not just Utilitarianism. So again, not sure your point.

[Kenisaw]

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"?

Because knowledge is derived that way. That has nothing to do however with the code of ethics they propose. You apparently didn't read the whole document, or misunderstood the overall meaning. That sentence you quote (which isn't from the first manifesto but the third one) is part of the intro and in no way does the manifesto state that a code of ethics is being created via the scientific method.

Don't focus on one sentence. Please read the whole thing, and I think you will see why you are taking that one sentence way out of context...

Seems like whatever ethical system they propose is not derived by observation, experimentation, and rational analysis.

Correct. You've answered your own question.

[Tired of the Nonsense]

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?

It's called the Golden Rule, and it covers most situations.

[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?

It's called the Golden Rule, and it covers most situations.

What's called the Golden Rule?

[Tired of the Nonsense]

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?

It's called the Golden Rule, and it covers most situations.

What's called the Golden Rule?

The system of humanist ethics.

[johnhs]

What's called the Golden Rule?

The system of humanist ethics.

Ok, is it derived by observation, experimentation, and rational analysis?

[Danmark]

[Replying to post 1 by johnhs]

Seems pretty obvious, a system of ethics derived by observation, experimentation, and rational analysis would be Utilitarianism, maximizes well-being for the maximium number of sentient beings based on the consequence of actions/inaction. From this perspective, the life's purpose and meaning is to simply to enjoy life.

Also this system of ethics and law has derived naturally via evolution and human interaction. The tribes [including animals] that learned to cooperate and developed a system of ethics facilitating that cooperation survived more readily than those groups composed more of selfish individuals.

As for purpose and meaning, adding an imaginary 'god' adds nothing. All it does is place an imaginary label on something that is not there. "Worshipping God" or "Doing God's will" explains nothing, even if there actually were a god.

[Tired of the Nonsense]

What's called the Golden Rule?

The system of humanist ethics.

Ok, is it derived by observation, experimentation, and rational analysis?

We are societal creatures living in complex societies. Observation, experimentation, rational analysis and direct daily experience show us very clearly that the best way for societal creatures to get along is to treat everyone else in EXACTLY the same way we would each individually want to be treated. No exceptions.

[johnhs]

[Replying to post 1 by johnhs]

Seems pretty obvious, a system of ethics derived by observation, experimentation, and rational analysis would be Utilitarianism, maximizes well-being for the maximium number of sentient beings based on the consequence of actions/inaction. From this perspective, the life's purpose and meaning is to simply to enjoy life.

Also this system of ethics and law has derived naturally via evolution and human interaction. The tribes [including animals] that learned to cooperate and developed a system of ethics facilitating that cooperation survived more readily than those groups composed more of selfish individuals.

As for purpose and meaning, adding an imaginary 'god' adds nothing. All it does is place an imaginary label on something that is not there. "Worshipping God" or "Doing God's will" explains nothing, even if there actually were a god.

So humanism has an imaginary god?