Secular Humanism

[The Happy Humanist]

I had posted a definition of secular humanism in the Definitions category. Apparently this is a controversial topic, so I have been told to carry it over here to the Debate category. Personally, I don't see the controversy, but Harvey1 feels that, without divine authority, no one has the right to tell anyone else how to live their life; I think he means that no lifestyle is better than any other, absent edicts from a higher power. I told him that common sense says otherwise; and there we stand. So...

[The Happy Humanist]

The issue is whether a secular humanist has any grounds to tell someone else how they ought to live. If so, then based on what authority? The Happy Humanist said that "common sense says otherwise," however who's view of common sense?

The "common" part of common sense implies that there is an underlying "body of knowledge" that we almost all share. It is informed by instincts, individual experience, traditions, societal mores, cultural heritage, and just plain logic. It is there. It is real. It is not universal, but it must be nearly so, or the human species would have failed long ago. Humanism proposes to create a worldwide dialog on "right and wrong," using this collective body of knowledge. Were it universally held, there would be no need for such a dialog. However, if it didn't exist at all, we would be having this debate by pounding on native drums. (In fact we wouldn't be able to debate at all). So the idea is to come to agreement on those aspects of common sense we share, and to attempt to come to terms, through persuasion and compromise, on those aspects we differ on. It's an ongoing process, and it will never be finished. But as long as all sides have the same common goal - improvement of the human condition - the process will gradually allow us to vector in on "the right answers" - i.e., those that facilitate human progress.

Without that authority, the only argument left is an appeal to the majority or an appeal to some aspect of atheistic philosophy.

If you believe, as we do, that the majority of people will act in their own enlightened self-interest, then appeal to the majority is an effective, viable means to improve the human condition. It is the enlightened self-interest aspect that makes the process work. It was in our enlightened self-interest to give up some of our rights to establish governments. Further enlightenment led to the establishment of democratic governments, to further the self-interest of the individual. It was in our enlightened self-interest to abolish slavery - otherwise, "then they came for me, and there was no one left to stand against them..." It was in our enlightened self-interest to involve ourselves in WWII, especially against the Nazis. These are all appeals to the majority, which resulted in better lives for individuals. By and large, we morally decrepit, self-absorbed humans are starting to get it right more and more often, because we are smart enough to know that "Do unto others" is a good rule of thumb to live by (no matter who said it) - translation: it appeals to our enlightened self-interest.

As to not being a sufficient appeal to truth, who said anything about truth? What we care about is what works. If it improves the human condition into the foreseeable future, what more can one ask for? "Truth" is for philosophers. Try feeding "truth" to the Sudanese refugees.

As to "some aspect of atheist philosophy," I don't know what that is, other than "There probably is no god." The appeal I am making is to humanist philosophy, which I've basically encapsulated above.

Therefore, secular humanists have no reason to ask that the Sudan abide by their standards of human rule other than that's what they would prefer that they do. The Sudan prefers not to, so where does that leave the secular humanist in terms of a reply?

Apparently The Sudan prefers not to abide by Judeo-Christian ethics either. So much for your "divine authority."

And again, we may have no cosmic right to force our views on recalcitrant regimes...but what harm can it do to point to human experience, which shows that the more just and compassionate a society is, the more it flourishes? And the more it flourishes as a society, the better off the individual is? And what individual does not want to be better off?

Common sense. No edicts from above, no confusion over which set of Ten Commandments holds sway, no arguing over whether or not God finds homosexuals abominable, no holy wars, no embarassing gaffes in the holy writs....just plain old common sense.

[Corvus]

Therefore, secular humanists have no reason to ask that the Sudan abide by their standards of human rule other than that's what they would prefer that they do. The Sudan prefers not to, so where does that leave the secular humanist in terms of a reply?

I have to wonder that if Sudan replied similarly to attempts to make themt bow to God's authority? Just what is it about God's authority that makes it logically imperative to follow it?

[AlAyeti]

Sorry it has taken so long for me to notice this.

Does the Humanist Manifesto 1 and 2 not speak for humanism and humanists?

Although a humanist shaped my caring for children every bit as much as my religion has, you're right I have an opinion of humanism as the root of virtually all bad things (as in evil) happening in the western world.

Relativism to me is a societal carcinogen and not a panacea. And certainly not scientific.

I will strive not to use biting remarks in my postings.

[Dilettante]

Why is humanism being conflated with relativism? Isn't that a straw man? Acknowledging that ethics and morality sometimes conflict and that it's not all black or white, but that there are certain grey areas is not succumbing to relativism. It's not "all or nothing". Some moral rules are relative and some are not. Non-believers have reasons to fight relativism also. Our moral inclinations originate in our empathy for fellow humans, not in the commands of a deity. Does God want us to take a certain course of action because it is good, or is it good because God wants us to do it? If we answer the first question affirmatively, then moral standards exist independently of God. However, if we answer "yes" to the second question, then morality is entirely dependent on God's will (and therefore relative) and we are lucky that God didn't command us to murder, steal and rape.

[The Happy Humanist]

Why is humanism being conflated with relativism? Isn't that a straw man? Acknowledging that ethics and morality sometimes conflict and that it's not all black or white, but that there are certain grey areas is not succumbing to relativism. It's not "all or nothing". Some moral rules are relative and some are not. Non-believers have reasons to fight relativism also. Our moral inclinations originate in our empathy for fellow humans, not in the commands of a deity. Does God want us to take a certain course of action because it is good, or is it good because God wants us to do it? If we answer the first question affirmatively, then moral standards exist independently of God. However, if we answer "yes" to the second question, then morality is entirely dependent on God's will (and therefore relative) and we are lucky that God didn't command us to murder, steal and rape.

What Dilettante said, plus, I see nothing wrong with moral relativism, as long as the morality is relative to the human experience. Within that context, some absolutes will emerge.

[The Happy Humanist]

It seems that I am the one that has overlooked some juicy posts.

The Happy Humanist stated that "we" decided the slavery issue?

In what history book?

The "we" here refers to us human beings, as opposed to the Christian deity, who was seemingly OK with slavery.

Abolition was a 100% Christian movement. Christians forced the issue into the political realm and what transpired was utterly incredible.

That's because Christians are, by and large, good people. They want what's best for their fellow man. In my opinion, and the opinion of most non-theists, Christianity is, for most people, merely a conduit for the expression of brotherly love and compassion that we all have as humans. Its an excuse to be good. But it no longer serves the purpose, as the slavery issue bears witness. The Christians who initiated the Abolition movement did so in spite of Scripture, not because of it. There is nothing in Christian doctrine that says slavery is wrong as an institution. To make that leap, the good Christians of the abolition movement had to rely on a liberal interpretation of the Golden Rule - which as we know, predates Christianity, and in fact was not originally God-breathed at all.

Secular humanism simply strives to apply that sort of thinking globally.

My how history is still whitewashed by the humanist agenda of kidnapping morality, redefinig it, and using it as they see fit.

Hmmm...OK, I'll provisionally agree that we have kidnapped morality, and perhaps even redefined it. But how have we used it to whitewash history? As a humanist who values an unobstructed view of reality, I pray you educate me as to what parts of history humanism has whitewashed, so that I may be disabused of any incorrect notions of history.

[The Happy Humanist]

Does the Humanist Manifesto 1 and 2 not speak for humanism and humanists?

Humanist Manifesto I was drafted in 1933. It was a "first attempt" at codifying the common values of humanists. It was a good effort, but fell short of the mark for several reasons. First, it attempted to redraft humanism as a religious movement. The document refers to "religious humanism," a rather cryptic reference since what was described therein was distinctly non-religious. Second, the fourteenth paragraph contained language that distinctly associated humanism with socialism:

FOURTEENTH: The humanists are firmly convinced that existing acquisitive and profit-motivated society has shown itself to be inadequate and that a radical change in methods, controls, and motives must be instituted. A socialized and cooperative economic order must be established to the end that the equitable distribution of the means of life be possible. The goal of humanism is a free and universal society in which people voluntarily and intelligently cooperate for the common good. Humanists demand a shared life in a shared world.

While this can be interpreted as a utopian vision for "someday," it reads more like a clarion call for the immediate overthrow of capitalist institutions.

The great thing about humanism is that it acknowledges the shortcomings of our various attempts at codifying morality, including its own. We see morality as an evolving process, a striving to "do better next time," so that we eventually always get it right. That view is reflected in the preface to Humanist Manifesto II:

It is forty years since Humanist Manifesto I (1933) appeared. Events since then make that earlier statement seem far too optimistic. Nazism has shown the depths of brutality of which humanity is capable. Other totalitarian regimes have suppressed human rights without ending poverty. Science has sometimes brought evil as well as good. Recent decades have shown that inhuman wars can be made in the name of peace. The beginnings of police states, even in democratic societies, widespread government espionage, and other abuses of power by military, political, and industrial elites, and the continuance of unyielding racism, all present a different and difficult social outlook. In various societies, the demands of women and minority groups for equal rights effectively challenge our generation.

As we approach the twenty-first century, however, an affirmative and hopeful vision is needed. Faith, commensurate with advancing knowledge, is also necessary. In the choice between despair and hope, humanists respond in this Humanist Manifesto II with a positive declaration for times of uncertainty.

As in 1933, humanists still believe that traditional theism, especially faith in the prayer-hearing God, assumed to live and care for persons, to hear and understand their prayers, and to be able to do something about them, is an unproved and outmoded faith. Salvationism, based on mere affirmation, still appears as harmful, diverting people with false hopes of heaven hereafter. Reasonable minds look to other means for survival.

Those who sign Humanist Manifesto II disclaim that they are setting forth a binding credo; their individual views would be stated in widely varying ways. This statement is, however, reaching for vision in a time that needs direction. It is social analysis in an effort at consensus. New statements should be developed to supersede this, but for today it is our conviction that humanism offers an alternative that can serve present-day needs and guide humankind toward the future.

— Paul Kurtz and Edwin H. Wilson (1973)

As they said, individual views on humanism will be stated in widely varying ways - it is an evolving weltanschung. But key to this is the phrase, social analysis in an effort at concensus. The more we talk about these things, the more chance that we will someday "get it right." That is our goal.

I will strive not to use biting remarks in my postings

Your efforts at gentlemanly debate are appreciated, and will be reciprocated.

[MagusYanam]

Hmm... I'd actually like some clarification on a couple of issues.

One of the things I admire most about humanism as described here is its inherent humility (that we don't know really yet everything that's right, the willingness to try something again so that eventually it will be gotten right). On the other hand, though, sometimes it strikes me that humanism can at times be quite the opposite (no greater goal than humanity's welfare), and could benefit from a good healthy dose of environmentalism and natural-stewardship mentality.

Also, I would assert that 'humanism' (a set of values emphasising human life and dignity) as is not just an atheist / secular Christian phenomenon. It has a very strong history within both secularist Christianity and atheism by virtue of their propensities for viewing the spiritual and the temporal as separate. It is also present, for example, in the Confucian tradition. Imperial Chinese society after Confucius has been distinguished by its civility and value for human dignity, though many Chinese emperors instituted a form of legalism in Confucian trappings that often went contrary to the original teachings.

When the stables were burnt down, on returning from Court, Confucius said, "Was anyone hurt?" He did not ask about the horses.

Confucius said this, of course, in an age when horses were considered more valuable than stable-hands by a factor of about ten.

Zilu [an impetuous disciple of Confucius] asked how one should serve ghosts and spirits. The Master said, "Till you have learnt to serve men, how can you serve ghosts?" Zilu then ventured upon a question about the dead. The Master said, "Till you know about the living, how are you to know about the dead?"

This shows something of the Confucian attitude towards the supernatural. Our morality is best employed when the effects are most clear, and we should be able to serve the needs of people in the here and now before serving those of spirits in the after.

Also, given the ethical stances of Confucius regarding all manner of social interactions and correct and courteous behaviours (and using this as representative at least in part of humanism), I fail to see how the association between 'relativism' and 'humanism' holds. As a matter of fact, there are times when my own religion seems quite relativistic in comparison to humanist philosophy.

[The Happy Humanist]

One of the things I admire most about humanism as described here is its inherent humility (that we don't know really yet everything that's right, the willingness to try something again so that eventually it will be gotten right). On the other hand, though, sometimes it strikes me that humanism can at times be quite the opposite (no greater goal than humanity's welfare), and could benefit from a good healthy dose of environmentalism and natural-stewardship mentality.

And how, pray tell, is humanity's welfare not profoundly impacted by the fate of the environment? Rest assured, humanists are painfully aware of our symbiotic relationship with nature. I'm surprised you would think otherwise...?

Also, I would assert that 'humanism' (a set of values emphasising human life and dignity) as is not just an atheist / secular Christian phenomenon. It has a very strong history within both secularist Christianity and atheism by virtue of their propensities for viewing the spiritual and the temporal as separate.

Absolutely. It is the more specific and more recent secular humanist movement I speak of, as I am not an expert on the historic machinations that got us here, though I am well aware of the many threads of humanism throughout history. Indeed, today, there are religious humanism movements, most visibly exemplified by the Ethical Culturists. My very left-brained Aristotelian makeup has a hard time resolving the two concepts of "religion" and "humanism," but you summed it up well above - the spiritual and the temporal must be dealt with in different ways.

[foshizzle]

(Quickly on the issue of slavery, because I don't have time to respond to everything)...
The civil laws of the nation of Israel allow people to sell themselves into slavery if they're destitute. In ancient times, it was often better to be a slave than to be broke. However, there is no Biblical prescription for capturing people to turn them into slaves.