Humanist Ethics

[mickthinks]

Q Why should we be ethical?
A Because we are, and that’s what it means.

To look for further justification of our ethics is to miss the point. Either you are someone for whom “Whatever I like” is the only consideration when deciding what to do, or you aren’t. I’m not.

[Immanuel Can]

Q Why should we be ethical?
A Because we are, and that’s what it means.

So pedos, rapists, slave owners, axe murderers, cannibals...all "ethical," because "that's what we are"? Or is your allegation that all such are simply arbitrarily ruled out of your account of what "human" means?

[Immanuel Can]

No. The topic is humanist ethics are perfectly reasonable and adequate.

Great. Show their adequacy. Show these "reasons" of which you speak.

What is the basis of our duty to be Humanists in our ethics?

[Immanuel Can]

Let's face it, all ethics is derived from human experience.

Show how.

Which "experience" is it derived from, and what is the "ethic"?

[mickthinks]

Q Why should we be ethical?
A Because we are, and that’s what it means.

So pedos, rapists, slave owners, axe murderers, cannibals...all "ethical," …

Neither you nor I believe that everyone always behaves ethically, Manny.

[Immanuel Can]

Q Why should we be ethical?
A Because we are, and that’s what it means.

So pedos, rapists, slave owners, axe murderers, cannibals...all "ethical," …

Neither you nor I believe that everyone always behaves ethically, Manny.

Right. But how do we account for that by way of Humanism? If "that's what we are," then everything we do is as "moral" as everything else...which is to say, only "amoral."

But you and I don't think that. We don't believe Humanist ethics, in other words.

[mickthinks]

If "that's what we are," then everything we do is as "moral" as everything else...

Huh? No, it isn’t. Just as being a follower of Jesus doesn’t mean you are sinless.

[Immanuel Can]

If "that's what we are," then everything we do is as "moral" as everything else...

Huh? No, it isn’t.

Well, one of the most commonly repeated Humanist aphorisms, occuring both in their manifestos and frequently repeated to each other, is "Nothing human is alien to me." (Everybody from Publius Terence Afer, the Roman playwright, to Maya Angelou, the modern novelist have quoted it with approval.) But if we believe that, it means that everything humans have ever done is part of what it means to be human, and has to be something that Humanism approves, therefore.

We don't blame dogs for acting like dogs. We don't blame birds for flying or laying eggs. We don't blame fish for swimming, or even for eating each other. Dogs, birds and fish do what dogs, birds and fish do. Human beings, we are told, are just animals -- so why, among all the animals, do we blame human beings for certain very human actions they take, like those listed above?

Some explanation is missing from Humanism, obviously.

[Iwannaplato]

Well, one of the most commonly repeated Humanist aphorisms, occuring both in their manifestos and frequently repeated to each other, is "Nothing human is alien to me." (Everybody from Publius Terence Afer, the Roman playwright, to Maya Angelou, the modern novelist have quoted it with approval.) But if we believe that, it means that everything humans have ever done is part of what it means to be human, and has to be something that Humanism approves, therefore.

Trivial error: Publius Terence Afer wrote that quote in a play. And we don't know if he was a humanist in the modern sense, most likely he was pagan and believed in gods. And since it is a line in his play, it's a category error to assume he believed it. On the other hand it fits with Greco-roman ideas at the time that said similar things and were clearly not stamps of approval on immoral behavior, but about the recognition that we all have urges and desires that could lead to harmful acts.

Main error: IC is conflating understanding with moral approval. The idea which fits with ideas in the Greco-Roman world at the time, is that humans share qualities, weaknesses, and moral struggles. It actually fits very well with Christian ideas that we are all sinners and/or potential sinners. And it has been quoted and respected by religious leaders. Again, IC interprets this to mean moral approval. He can't seem to see the humility in what is being said and the connections to Christian values. It is, in part, directly fighting the idea that those evil people over there are not human or are not in my category. When in fact the wiser person realizes they they also have hatred, instrumental reasoning and treatment, lack of empathy etc, lurking around in themselves. Humility, not moral approval of those who act out driven by things we all have.

We don't blame dogs for acting like dogs. We don't blame birds for flying or laying eggs. We don't blame fish for swimming, or even for eating each other. Dogs, birds and fish do what dogs, birds and fish do. Human beings, we are told, are just animals -- so why, among all the animals, do we blame human beings for certain very human actions they take, like those listed above?

This ignores that in general humanists see humans as exceptions in terms of self-awareness, cultural inheritance and the ability and need to generate ethical systems, which nearly all humanists actively do. So, avoiding the distinct capacities and responsibilities that most humanists value and in fact these idea can easily be found, so not only is this not charitable, it's facile and lazy.

So, we have self-interested, uncharitable misinterpretation. Over-generalization of the misinterpretation. Contextomy with the mere animals quote mining.

Imagine what the nasty non-Christian could do with quotes like
“Do not judge, or you too will be judged.”
— Matthew 7:1
The uncharitable misreader non-Christian could easily twist this into an approval of the same things IC thinks humanists must believe. (he's always telling people what they must believe)

“Let him who is without sin cast the first stone” — John 8:7
We can't punish or incarcerate anyone unless we are without sin. Oh, look, Jesus approves of adultery.

“All have sinned and fall short of the glory of God”
We are all the same. We can't judge anyone else or their behavior, since really we all fall into the category 'sinner'.

“All things are lawful for me, but not all things are helpful.”
The uncharitable non-Christian who loves contextomy can have a field day with that one: It means, I can do anything morally, but some things might lead to practical problems


Now to be clear, I am not saying those quotes mean what the uncharitable non-Christian might use them for in a parallel fallacious argument. And of course most Christians would rightly so explain the context of these quotes and explain how they are being misused by the uncharitable non-theist. Rightly so.

Here are a couple of Christian ideas that I think our uncharitable calumniator might want to consider:

“You shall not give false testimony against your neighbor.”

and instead of his current attitude:

“Always be prepared to give an answer to everyone who asks you to give the reason for the hope that you have. But do this with gentleness and respect.”

The main point: "Nothing human is alien to me" is not a prescriptive statement, it's descriptive.

[mickthinks]

We don't blame dogs for acting like dogs. We don't blame birds for flying or laying eggs. We don't blame fish for swimming, or even for eating each other.

No, we don’t hold up dogs’, birds’, and fish behaviour to the light of ethics. We could, but most of us would think it pointless to do so. I’m wondering what’s your point here?

[Iwannaplato]

We don't blame dogs for acting like dogs. We don't blame birds for flying or laying eggs. We don't blame fish for swimming, or even for eating each other.

No, we don’t hold up dogs’, birds’, and fish behaviour to the light of ethics. We could, but most of us would think it pointless to do so. I’m wondering what’s your point here?

His point is that because many humans think humans are mammals, then humanists must have no expectations about behavior in other humans and themselves. He misses the big hint in the name humanists and the history of humanism. The latter consistently argues that humans have capabilities not found in other mammals or animals: human reason, self-awareness, agency (a greater degree of control over behavior and a greater range of options), and even despite IC's incomprehension free will, where animals are driven by instinct. Humanists have moral agency and unlike animals can be held responsible for their actions - animals considered moral patients - creatures that perhaps should be treated ethically but not as capable of moral agency. And then humanists go on to delineate their particular moralities, as the various religious groups go on to delineate theirs. That is when the humans, whether humanist or religious, aren't making war, say.

The name should be a giveaway: it wasn't the Animalism or Mammalism. And in fact it was intention. Not the Divine nor the animals. Man as the measure of all things.

If IC had done even a minimal bit of research before coming up with his specious argument he would have seen that humanists, in general, have always seen humans as having special and exceptional skills, capabilities and responsibility that other animals do not have. He will probably go find another single quote to base another specious attack on.

[phyllo]

No. The topic is humanist ethics are perfectly reasonable and adequate.

Great. Show their adequacy. Show these "reasons" of which you speak.

What is the basis of our duty to be Humanists in our ethics?

A principle of humanism is that ethics ought to be investigated and tested. If they prove not to be adequate, then they need to be modified or discarded.

Do you think that the principles laid out in the OP are unreasonable?

Do you think they are inadequate? If yes, then what changes do you propose?

[Immanuel Can]

We don't blame dogs for acting like dogs. We don't blame birds for flying or laying eggs. We don't blame fish for swimming, or even for eating each other.

No, we don’t hold up dogs’, birds’, and fish behaviour to the light of ethics. We could, but most of us would think it pointless to do so. I’m wondering what’s your point here?

My point is that we all know we aren't just animals, not just like the dogs, fish and birds in these things. We treat humanity quite differently from all the rest, particularly in the ethical realm, but also in others. For example, we expect human beings to "save the environment," but we don't ask the same of any other animal -- and as you point out, it would be "pointless" and even ridiculous for us even to think of doing that.

Why do we hold ourselves to standards we attribute to no other animal? The answer's so obvious that we can hardly take the question seriously: because we don't actually believe that humans are "just another kind of animal." We know we're something different.

[Immanuel Can]

No. The topic is humanist ethics are perfectly reasonable and adequate.

Great. Show their adequacy. Show these "reasons" of which you speak.

What is the basis of our duty to be Humanists in our ethics?

A principle of humanism is that ethics ought to be investigated and tested.

Great. Give an example of how one can "investigate" and "test" an ethic. What's the method?

[Immanuel Can]

He misses the big hint in the name humanists and the history of humanism. The latter consistently argues that humans have capabilities not found in other mammals or animals: human reason, self-awareness, agency (a greater degree of control over behavior and a greater range of options)

How can I be "missing it" when I'm the one who's pointing it out to you?

and even despite IC's incomprehension free will

How did you come to the incorrect idea that I'm against free will? I'm curious how you could have missed all my arguments in favour of it.

Humanists have moral agency and unlike animals can be held responsible for their actions - animals considered moral patients - creatures that perhaps should be treated ethically but not as capable of moral agency. And then humanists go on to delineate their particular moralities, as the various religious groups go on to delineate theirs.

Right. But you'll find that the religious can ground their moralities in their worldview, whereas the Humanists cannot ground any morality in their Humanism. That is, the religious can answer the question "Why?", even if you don't agree with the answer they provide. But the Humanists cannot. There's no "why" behind Humanist ethics.

Man as the measure of all things.

But "man" is a contingent being. He neither creates himself nor can grant himself immortality. He flits onto the cosmic scene for a few brief moments, as Sartre put it "between the womb and the tomb," and then is gone. And in the timescales of the universe, he is a blink.

How then can man be the measure of anything? A "measure" is stable, durable, fixed and graduated to give a reliable reading on all other things. Whatever man is, he's certainly not that.

If IC had done even a minimal bit of research

I'll bet I know more about Humanism than you do. Having seen your comments, I'm pretty confident of that. But yeah, one of us should maybe do some more research.