Humanist Ethics

[Immanuel Can]

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.

Well, all I'm questioning right now is their entitlement to speak for all "humans," which is their own claim in calling themselves "Humanists." And that seems perfectly fair, does it not?

[Immanuel Can]

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.

Hardly. I've just been following the flow of the discussion. Should I blow a trumpet before I open a new issue with Humanism?

Before, according to you, they had no ethics and accepted all behavior.

You've got this wrong, yet again.

I've been speaking of what HUMANISM will warrant. Many times, over and over, I've pointed out that the adherents to Humanism often do not follow their own proclaimed ideology. So there's not "them" for you to defend: just HumanISM, the belief system.

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.

No, I don't believe they think that. And I've never said that. So I honestly don't know where you get that.

But the name comes from their focus, and the shift away from the Divine while clearly considering humans different from all other animals.

Then they should maybe call themselves, "Advocates of Some Humans." But they can't claim to be advocating for the general quality of "humanity," nor for the whole human collective -- yet, if you read their manifestos, you find that that is what they are actually trying to say: that there is some sort of essentialist "humanity" which their ideology represents and advocates.

I don't think they're deluded that everybody believes their ideology. But I do think they're pretty convinced everybody should -- and that they are convinced what they are advocating is representative of essentialist "humanity," humanity at its best.

Most people think that it would be good if most people agreed with them on morals.

"Most people"? Hardly. Most people, even in the West, retain the sorts of metaphysical belief systems that Humanism rejects outright. Like Atheists, they're actually a small and overblown minority.

Many people put forward for general reading what they think those values should be. This includes Christians.

EVERYBODY does. And so they should. And we're free to debate those, and we ought to choose what we discover to be the best-grounded, most plausible and most genuinely moral belief system. Of course. That's obvious.

So I'm not faulting them for taking their crack at it. Everybody does. Hindus do. Buddhists do. Christians do. Atheists do. Even Nihilists and Universalists will insist you're better off to be a Nihilist or a Universalist, so nobody is exempt, even among those who claim to be most "open" and "inclusive."

But when Humanists take a crack at it, they have to line up with everybody else and take their beating, if there are serious flaws found in their claims. If they can't endure that, I guess their only alternative is to leave the field...I can't save them what they've got coming, if their ideology fails to prove rational or coherent or defensible. Everybody has to pass muster on the ethics-debate battlefield. And right now, this OP is all about Humanists.

So it's their time to ante up and step up, if they can.

[MikeNovack]

Well, all I'm questioning right now is their entitlement to speak for all "humans," which is their own claim in calling themselves "Humanists." And that seems perfectly fair, does it not?

No, not fair at all. They are NOT claiming a right to speak for all humans.

In fact, just because a humanist is presenting based not on the divine but the human, you cannot assume that particular "humanist" is atheist or agnostic. They might instead be deists who do consider basing on the divine less than useful. Either because they consider the range of human beliefs about the divine too diverse to expect much commonality or their view of the divine such that they do not expect the divine to have interest/will in deciding things for us humans.

In particular, the humanist is not presuming to be speaking to/for YOU (or others of your mind set). A waste of time.

[Iwannaplato]

Well, all I'm questioning right now is their entitlement to speak for all "humans," which is their own claim in calling themselves "Humanists." And that seems perfectly fair, does it not?

Again, misinterpreting uncharitably.

The name was chosen because of what they considered the focus, humans vs. the divine. And humans as exceptions other animals. Humans will be the source of knowledge not revelation, for example. Humans will generate and decide on morals.

For some reason you are interpreting the name without bothering to do the slightest research and decide Humanists mean we will now tell you WHAT you should all believe. Or we represent all of you.

An empiricist is not saying they speak for all experience.
Materialists are not speaking for all matter.
Pragmatists are not speaking for all practical approaches or all methods.

The name shows a philosophical position, what they focus on.

Some theists seem to think they speak for God, but there it is explains their position on an issue.

So, again. Not charitable, skewed self-serving misinterpretation being treated as some kind of proof.

[Immanuel Can]

Well, all I'm questioning right now is their entitlement to speak for all "humans," which is their own claim in calling themselves "Humanists." And that seems perfectly fair, does it not?

The name was chosen because of what they considered the focus, humans vs. the divine. And humans as exceptions other animals. Humans will be the source of knowledge not revelation, for example. Humans will generate and decide on morals.

And yet...they can't seem to do it. These "Humanists" keep listing the kinds of ethical standards they can't justify or explain.

Unless you can explain how they can. So let me ask you: on what rational basis do Humanists reject slavery? Let's see you defend it for them.

[phyllo]

These "Humanists" keep listing the kinds of ethical standards they can't justify or explain.

"Empathy" can't be justified or explained?

"Practicing compassion and kindness" can't be justified or explained?

"Accepting responsibility for one's choices and their impact on others and the environment" can't be justified or explained?

[Iwannaplato]

And yet...they can't seem to do it. These "Humanists" keep listing the kinds of ethical standards they can't justify or explain.

Unless you can explain how they can. So let me ask you: on what rational basis do Humanists reject slavery? Let's see you defend it for them.

And now you are being disingenous. You tell us what humanists mean by calling themselves that or with the name humanism. When it is pointed out how silly that is, that it doesn't work with other isms and ist, you jump to a different line of attack

without acknowledging your mistake.

So, in Christian terms what did you just do:
you bore false witness
you lacked contrition since you could not admit this error
and by covering this by mounting a different attack you are showing
hardness of the heart.

And often this would be seen as the sin of pride. Since winning is clearly more important than the truth to you.

[Immanuel Can]

These "Humanists" keep listing the kinds of ethical standards they can't justify or explain.

"Empathy" can't be justified or explained?

Sure it can. It's a fallible feeling, not a moral quality. That's its explanation.

Some women write prison love letters to terrorists and guys like Jeffrey Dahmer, under the impression that love is all they need. Very empathetic, no doubt; also crazy, dangerous and misguided. So empathy is a treacherous thing to trust...sometimes it works out, but often it doesn't. This is why one still needs reasons: to be able to judge the toxic "empathy" from good "empathy." But empathy itself is just a feeling, and one that can be right or wrong; it isn't automatically and universally right, so it can't be trusted. And under Humanism, nobody can even have a duty to have it.

"Practicing compassion and kindness" can't be justified or explained?

Well, not by Humanism. What is it in the worldview that sponsors Humanism that grounds any claim like, "Thou shalt be compassionate, kind and empathetic"? How can it answer the simple question, "Why?"

Again, we come back to Humanism's fatal flaw. It can list things it wants you to do, but can't tell you why you are morally obligated to do them.

[Immanuel Can]

You tell us what humanists mean by calling themselves that or with the name humanism.

No, I merely point out what the word means.

But you can read it for yourself. At present, this is the third incarnation of what they hope you will believe, but have no basis for insisting you believe:
https://americanhumanist.org/what-is-hu ... anifesto3/
Pick anything they say about ethics.

Let's see how they ground it and make it obligatory to anybody. I'll let you choose it.

[phyllo]

These "Humanists" keep listing the kinds of ethical standards they can't justify or explain.

"Empathy" can't be justified or explained?

Sure it can. It's a fallible feeling, not a moral quality. That's its explanation.

Some women write prison love letters to terrorists and guys like Jeffrey Dahmer, under the impression that love is all they need. Very empathetic, no doubt; also crazy, dangerous and misguided. So empathy is a treacherous thing to trust...sometimes it works out, but often it doesn't. This is why one still needs reasons: to be able to judge the toxic "empathy" from good "empathy." But empathy itself is just a feeling, and one that can be right or wrong; it isn't automatically and universally right, so it can't be trusted. And under Humanism, nobody can even have a duty to have it.

"Practicing compassion and kindness" can't be justified or explained?

Well, not by Humanism. What is it in the worldview that sponsors Humanism that grounds any claim like, "Thou shalt be compassionate, kind and empathetic"? How can it answer the simple question, "Why?"

Again, we come back to Humanism's fatal flaw. It can list things it wants you to do, but can't tell you why you are morally obligated to do them.

As opposed to "God says so".

[Immanuel Can]

"Empathy" can't be justified or explained?

Sure it can. It's a fallible feeling, not a moral quality. That's its explanation.

Some women write prison love letters to terrorists and guys like Jeffrey Dahmer, under the impression that love is all they need. Very empathetic, no doubt; also crazy, dangerous and misguided. So empathy is a treacherous thing to trust...sometimes it works out, but often it doesn't. This is why one still needs reasons: to be able to judge the toxic "empathy" from good "empathy." But empathy itself is just a feeling, and one that can be right or wrong; it isn't automatically and universally right, so it can't be trusted. And under Humanism, nobody can even have a duty to have it.

"Practicing compassion and kindness" can't be justified or explained?

Well, not by Humanism. What is it in the worldview that sponsors Humanism that grounds any claim like, "Thou shalt be compassionate, kind and empathetic"? How can it answer the simple question, "Why?"

Again, we come back to Humanism's fatal flaw. It can list things it wants you to do, but can't tell you why you are morally obligated to do them.

As opposed to "God says so".

Humanists don't believe in God.

[phyllo]

"God says so" isn't an explanation, obligation or justification for theists or anyone else.

Therefore, one moves on to "This behaviour produces positive results". Which is what humanists say.

[Immanuel Can]

"God says so" isn't an explanation, obligation or justification for theists or anyone else.

Well, Humanists don't use it, so it's irrelevant to our discussion of the faults in Humanism.

Therefore, one moves on to "This behaviour produces positive results". Which is what humanists say.

Specify what "postive results" means, and what justifies us thinking we ought to produce these particular "positive results" instead of some other "result" we may prefer.

[phyllo]

You "prefer" something other than "positive results".

I see.

[Immanuel Can]

You "prefer" something other than "positive results".

We don't know. We don't know what "positive results" means.

"Postive results" could mean "freedom for everybody," or "lots of slaves for everybody." It could mean "everybody welcome"; but it could also mean "racial 'purity' achieved". We can't tell what they're advocating, because they don't say: they just say, "Trust us: what we want will be 'positive.'"

It would be naive and credulous to believe them. Maybe even dangerous. So they owe us to tell us what they mean, don't they?