Humanist Ethics

[Immanuel Can]

I blame you for saying a bunch of nonsense about humanism.

Which humanist manifesto or text says that anything goes in ethics?

The phrase "anything goes" is your own, not mine. You made it up, so you'll have to find it yourself. But I'll tell you what you can find in Humanism: that they have no way of justifying their telling you that there's anything that DOESN'T "go," to use your term. So by process of elimination...

You used this phrasing:

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.

Right. And what's untrue about it?

[phyllo]

Right. And what's untrue about it?

The phrase "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." says that humanism approves of everything that humans have ever done.

Clearly, humanism does not approve of everything that humans have ever done.

You can see that in the manifestos and the principles that humanism endorses.

[Iwannaplato]

Easy. Humanism holds that what is "human" is always good..."nothing human is alien to me," remember?

Keep repeating that lie. Guess what it is still a lie. That is not what that quote means.

Humanism would need to explain why and by what right it requires of us what it requires of no other animal on earth.

But they have explained this. Many many humanists have. Others simply assume it and live it. It's back there in my response to your originally passing off this extremely uncharitable misinterpretation. If you actually knew something about Humanism you would know their reasons. It's not peripheral in some footnote, it is central to Humanism.

[Iwannaplato]

Right. And what's untrue about it?

The phrase "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." says that humanism approves of everything that humans have ever done.

Clearly, humanism does not approve of everything that humans have ever done.

You can see that in the manifestos and the principles that humanism endorses.

And where they explain exactly what the exceptions are in humans. He can't admit he is wrong.
Uncharitable and uninterested in the truth.

[Iwannaplato]

Right. And what's untrue about it?

The phrase "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." says that humanism approves of everything that humans have ever done.

Clearly, humanism does not approve of everything that humans have ever done.

You can see that in the manifestos and the principles that humanism endorses.

And where they explain exactly what the exceptions are in humans. He can't admit he is wrong.
Uncharitable and uninterested in the truth. And yet, somehow, in his own mind, he is a Christian.

[Immanuel Can]

Easy. Humanism holds that what is "human" is always good..."nothing human is alien to me," remember?

Keep repeating that lie.

I don't have to. Humanists keep repeating that lie.

Humanism would need to explain why and by what right it requires of us what it requires of no other animal on earth.

But they have explained this.

Show where.

[Immanuel Can]

Right. And what's untrue about it?

The phrase "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." says that humanism approves of everything that humans have ever done.

Clearly, humanism does not approve of everything that humans have ever done.

You can see that in the manifestos and the principles that humanism endorses.

And where they explain exactly what the exceptions are in humans.

How do they justify making "exceptions"? That's the real problem.

Two things are in collision, and they cannot account for it. One is their devotion to naturalistic explanations, to the view that human beings are simply "higher evolved" animals.

The other is their demand that humans should limit their behaviour, contrary to their instincts and inclinations (i.e., be ethical). Where are these reconciled?

[phyllo]

Oh. So by "Humanism" you mean that only people in Western societies count as "human"? Because otherwise, you've got to include everybody...and you're outnumbered on the question of slavery, and by a lot.

Why do only some people believe in your version of objective morality?

Why aren't you including everyone in the world?

Surely if your morality is objective and comes from the one true God, then it must be the universal morality.

"Investigated" means "find out what Western societies believe." And "test" means, "find out what Western societies believe." Got it.

What do you think "investigated" and "tested" mean? Or ought to mean?

[Immanuel Can]

Oh. So by "Humanism" you mean that only people in Western societies count as "human"? Because otherwise, you've got to include everybody...and you're outnumbered on the question of slavery, and by a lot.

Why do only some people believe in your version of objective morality?

Would you be surprised to hear that not everybody knows the truth about anything? Would you be shocked if only a small part of the human world knew what quantum physics is? Would it blow your mind to suppose that at one time, 100% of the world believed the world was flat? And guess what? They were ALL wrong.

Truth has nothing to do with numbers, obviously.

Surely if your morality is objective and comes from the one true God, then it must be the universal morality.

Truth is "universal" only in the sense that anybody who disregards it is going to be wrong. It's not "universal" in the sense that it's "whatever the most people believe."

"Investigated" means "find out what Western societies believe." And "test" means, "find out what Western societies believe." Got it.

What do you think "investigated" and "tested" mean? Or ought to mean?

They were your chosen words. I didn't know what you meant by them. Now I do.

[phyllo]

"Investigated" means "find out what Western societies believe." And "test" means, "find out what Western societies believe." Got it.

What do you think "investigated" and "tested" mean? Or ought to mean?

They were your chosen words. I didn't know what you meant by them. Now I do.

Why would you be surprised that I used an example from Western societies?

Most of the people on this forum are from Western societies or Australia or NZ.

You wanted examples from Aztec society or something else?

[Immanuel Can]

"Investigated" means "find out what Western societies believe." And "test" means, "find out what Western societies believe." Got it.

What do you think "investigated" and "tested" mean? Or ought to mean?

They were your chosen words. I didn't know what you meant by them. Now I do.

Why would you be surprised that I used an example from Western societies?

Because you claim to be a "Humanist." And most humans are not Western.

We're discussing ethics for ALL humans, are we not? Or are we only debating what is current in the West? Is Humanist ethics, then, nothing more than a catalogue of the current prejudices in the fragment of the world that is "the West"? That would sound kind of...colonialist, wouldn't it? White supremacist, maybe? Western supremacist, certaintly.

So how can we ignore most of the world, and most of human history in the West, as well, and still call what we're talking about "Humanist" ethics?

[phyllo]

"Investigated" means "find out what Western societies believe." And "test" means, "find out what Western societies believe." Got it.



They were your chosen words. I didn't know what you meant by them. Now I do.

Why would you be surprised that I used an example from Western societies?

Because you claim to be a "Humanist." And most humans are not Western.

We're discussing ethics for ALL humans, are we not? Or are we only debating what is current in the West? Is Humanist ethics, then, nothing more than a catalogue of the current prejudices in the fragment of the world that is "the West"? That would sound kind of...colonialist, wouldn't it? White supremacist, maybe? Western supremacist, certaintly.

So how can we ignore most of the world, and most of human history in the West, as well, and still call what we're talking about "Humanist" ethics?

You just blow off the fact that your God and your objective morality is a minority in the world.

While demanding "discussing ethics for ALL humans" when it comes to humanism.

Got it.

Uncharitable?

Dishonest?

Hypocritical?

[Immanuel Can]

Why would you be surprised that I used an example from Western societies?

Because you claim to be a "Humanist." And most humans are not Western.

We're discussing ethics for ALL humans, are we not? Or are we only debating what is current in the West? Is Humanist ethics, then, nothing more than a catalogue of the current prejudices in the fragment of the world that is "the West"? That would sound kind of...colonialist, wouldn't it? White supremacist, maybe? Western supremacist, certaintly.

So how can we ignore most of the world, and most of human history in the West, as well, and still call what we're talking about "Humanist" ethics?

You just blow off the fact that your God and your objective morality is a minority in the world.

Well, since I'm not preaching "Humanist religion," that's really not a concern. I have no pretension that all "humans" will believe anything.

While demanding "discussing ethics for ALL humans" when it comes to humanism.

I don't. "Humanist" is the word chosen by...Humanists. I'm just trying to see what basis they have for claiming it.

[Iwannaplato]

I don't. "Humanist" is the word chosen by...Humanists. I'm just trying to see what basis they have for claiming it.

Then you've changed tack without admitting it. Before, according to you, they had no ethics and accepted all behavior. No you're on another type of strawman run. Because the name of the group has the word human in it it means, according to you, they think every everyone will join their beliefs. But the name comes from their focus, and the shift away from the Divine while clearly considering humans different from all other animals.

Most people think that it would be good if most people agreed with them on morals. Many people put forward for general reading what they think those values should be. This includes Christians.

[mickthinks]

Humanism holds that what is "human" is always good..."

I’m no expert on humanism, but I’m pretty sure you’ve muddled something up there. Or in other words; what phyllo said

Well, why would you be defending a thing if you're also "no expert" on it? It wouldn't take much to find out...or you could just wait and see what comes out of the discussion.

I’m not “defending” humanism. I’m suggesting your attack on humanism is premised on a falsehood.