Humanist Ethics

[Immanuel Can]

That is true. But there are also many people imprisoned for illegitimate reasons. For example, prisons in China are full of political prisoners...and they're used for organ transplants and other purposes. So without a fixed ethic, how does one prove that China's justice system is evil, and ours is good?

You think there is one "fixed" ethic in the world?

There's one moral truth for each question. An "ethic" is what people try to adopt in order to approximate that truth. For example, it's either true or false that child 'marriage' or slavery (of a particular kind) is immoral; but some cultures embrace an ethic that is wrong, and say that child 'marriage' or slavery is perfectly fine.

Ethics vary. The truth that ultimately judges the quality of those ethics remains fixed.

How does one prove anything? By reasoning. The theists and humanists do it.

Well, reasoning has to be based on premises. Premises can be true or false. So if we base an ethic on a false premise, don't be surprised if we get a false ethic.

So let's examine what the first premise of secularism would be, and see if we can rationally prove some ethic from it. Go ahead.

The word "duty" is only one of the many placeholders we have for the idea that one "ought," or "owes it," or "it's the right thing to do, even when you don't want to do it," and such other expressions. And in that sense, all ethics aims at specifying our moral "duties." That's the correct term in philosophical ethics.

"Duty" has a specific meaning. I don't think it's the correct one to use from my side, in this discussion.

Well, this is a philosophy site, and philosophy employs its own technical terms. I was not the one who decided that "duty" was going to be the universal synonmy for "moral obligation," but ethicists who came before us did. And we'll do better at understanding them and each other if we're aware of their conventional usages.

If everybody always did the one right thing, then the concept of ethics would not even exist.

That's a very important point: ethics are what we only find we need to refer to when we are considering whether what we are doing is right or wrong. Our feelings, our preferences, our advantages...if we're just following them, we'll never find we have a use for the word "ethic" or the word "moral" at all.

No, I'm not asking that. I'm asking why, if you and I are "just animals," you and I should be expected to follow a moral code, contrary to some of our impulses and inclinations, when we don't expect any such thing of other animals.

Because humans have the capability?

"Capability" isn't a moral quality, of course. Lions have the capability of killing humans. It doesn't tell us whether or not they should; and it doesn't imply they have ethics. So what particular "capability" do you think justifies us telling other people what they "ought" or "ought not" to do?

Because one moral code does not apply across different species?

Other species don't have "codes," let alone moral ones. They just have instincts and impulses, some of which we may like, and some we may not. But they don't care, and they don't refer to a code to know what to do.

You never heard of evolutionary biology as the basis for morality?

I've seen people try to argue for that. It's never very convincing, because "having evolved" is, even if true, merely an "is," and what's required is proof of an "ought."

The "is" produces a way of thinking and reacting which leads to some behaviours being preferred over others.

But this clashes with your earlier claim, namely that our "preferences" are actually often the opposite of what is ethical or moral. So the fact that some behaviour -- like slavery or child marriage -- is "preferred" by a society doesn't answer the question of whether or not it's ethical or moral.

Thugs often take control of societies. Temporarily.

Thugs? You think "thugs" are attempting a Social Darwinist moral project? Which "thugs"? (Literally, "thugs" means "Thugees," Hindu cultic worshippers of Shiva, as I recall, famous for waylaying travellers.)

So if you don't mean Thugees, name your "thugs."

Kings, dictators, demagogues, who push societies into wars and produce the chaos of war and the aftermaths where survival of the fittest plays out.

But that's not what Darwinists tell us is happening. They don't say that "survival of the fittest" has to do exclusively with wars, but with ordinary developmental patterns -- universal ones, ones that govern all kinds of things, and especially things like access to resources and mates.

So there are no "thugs" involved in that stuff. There are just ordinary creatures, each staggering down the path of evolution, surviving as best they can or dying and being eliminated. And if they were right about that, how would we justify saying, "Well, that's fine for the chimps, whales, birds and paramecia; but 'survival of the fittest' isn't okay for humans"?

Why not? Don't Darwinists say that "survival of the fittest" got us to where we are now? Hasn't it manifestly made us the "most evolved" creatures on Earth? Why would we think we could abandon the very thing that had taken us so far, and suddenly go off and start practicing something called "ethics" instead? In fact, wouldn't that interfere with the evolutionary process, if we could even do it? We'd suddenly be keeping the weak and evolutionarily unfit alive, and disadvantaging those whose fitness for survival was actually greater. In short, we'd be degrading the human race with inferior breeding stock...

And if you hear the echo of goose-steps, you're quite right: Social Darwinism and eugenics are deeply implicated with some of the most immoral regimes in human history.

[phyllo]

But this clashes with your earlier claim, namely that our "preferences" are actually often the opposite of what is ethical or moral.

This statement stands out, in a post with many bizarre statements.

You're really confused.

I suspect that you don't understand more than half of what I am writing.

[Immanuel Can]

But this clashes with your earlier claim, namely that our "preferences" are actually often the opposite of what is ethical or moral.

This statement stands out, in a post with many bizarre statements.

You're really confused.

Maybe not.
Did you not write:

If everybody always did the one right thing, then the concept of ethics would not even exist.

Or did you fail to see the implication of that statement?

[phyllo]

I think that I'm wasting my time here.

[MikeNovack]

And if you hear the echo of goose-steps, you're quite right: Social Darwinism and eugenics are deeply implicated with some of the most immoral regimes in human history.

There's a lot I might comment on here but let's skip to the most important, "social darwinism" and "eugenics"

The "Social Darwinists" do NOT understand "Darwinism" at all. They do NOT understand what "survival of the fittest means". LOOK at our societies. Do you see the rich and powerful taking over the population (becoming thew most common) and the numbers of poor and downtrodden diminishing? When I look, I see the reverse, the numbers of the rich and powerful becoming fewer and fewer as a percentage of the population. In Darwinist terms, less fit and dying out. The poor and downtrodden are obviously out-surviving them. THE SOCIAL DARWINISTS ARE NOT DARWINISTS.

And Eugenics is NOT in anyway a random process. It is a predecided direction of changing the population.

[MikeNovack]

I also think that part of the argument against humanist morality comes from assuming that humanist morality is claiming more than it is (and then objecting "it won't be able to do that")

What do we expect form a system of morality? At a minimum, that is be able to judge between several proposed choices of action, which is the more morally right. We would want it to find a choice of action that is "morally good enough". After all, this is to be used for real time decision making, to be PRACTICAL.

I think some of us are insisting "not enough" unless it can specify the BEST/most moral choice of action. I don't think secular moralities can do that nor do they claim to be able to do so.

But please note, it is far from clear alternatives can do better. For example, a divinely based set of moral postulates might deliver a moral choice of action, but where is the guarantee that no better choice exists. Consider as an example the eight levels of charity (Maimonides). Now we might consider some of the lower levels obviously lacking but hard to see how some moral postulate leading to a charitable choice of action would select a high enough level. Something else is needed here, a "moral sensibility" as opposed to rules.

[Immanuel Can]

The "Social Darwinists" do NOT understand "Darwinism" at all. They do NOT understand what "survival of the fittest means".

I think you're denying the obvious here...they certainly do. They're just willing to apply it consistently, when other people lose nerve and back away from the implications of their Evolutionism. But others' loss of nerve is not their fault.

LOOK at our societies.

Which one? Do you see one that runs by Social Darwinism?

Do you see the rich and powerful taking over the population (becoming thew most common) and the numbers of poor and downtrodden diminishing?

Social Darwinism doesn't argue that "rich" and "best adapted" are the same thing. Their theory is that whether a person is poor or rich, the most "fit" evolutionarily will tend to win the most resources and mates. But that cuts across all class divides.

And Eugenics is NOT in anyway a random process. It is a predecided direction of changing the population.

Eugenics is a collossal fallacy. It assumes things like intelligence and other forms of "fitness" are located differently in different racial groups, and that the reasons are genetic. But the data proves that false.

However, it was Hitler's favourite pseudo-science. If you check, you'll find out he actually got it from American Progressives, ironically. They, too, at that point in history, were all advocating the idea that groups like blacks and Jews were "genetically inferior." But their "one drop" rule went too far even for Hitler's generals, who didn't go as far with the theory of eugenics as the American Progressives did.

[Gary Childress]

The "Social Darwinists" do NOT understand "Darwinism" at all. They do NOT understand what "survival of the fittest means".

I think you're denying the obvious here...they certainly do. They're just willing to apply it consistently, when other people lose nerve and back away from the implications of their Evolutionism. But others' loss of nerve is not their fault.

So are you suggesting that if one believes in the theory of Evolution then one must necessarily believe in "Social Darwinism"? Or what is your point to this line of argument?

[phyllo]

So are you suggesting that if one believes in the theory of Evolution then one must necessarily believe in "Social Darwinism"? Or what is your point to this line of argument?

He is trying to link humanism with survival-of-the-fittest, Social Darwinism and eugenics in order to discredit it.

Even though the Manifesto he posted says "We are committed to treating each person as having inherent worth and dignity, and to making informed choices in a context of freedom consonant with responsibility." He wants to suggest that they really want eugenics.

It's a not very subtle misrepresentation of humanism. It's what he does.

[Gary Childress]

So are you suggesting that if one believes in the theory of Evolution then one must necessarily believe in "Social Darwinism"? Or what is your point to this line of argument?

He is trying to link humanism with survival-of-the-fittest, Social Darwinism and eugenics in order to discredit it.

Even though the Manifesto he posted says "We are committed to treating each person as having inherent worth and dignity, and to making informed choices in a context of freedom consonant with responsibility." He wants to suggest that they really want eugenics.

It's a not very subtle misrepresentation of humanism. It's what he does.

Yes. I had gathered that. I'd like to see why believing in the Theory of Evolution necessitates belief in Social Darwinism. It seems to me that it's perfectly fine (and even advantageous for all) for someone to believe in humanism instead of Social Darwinism if they believe in "Evolutionism".

[MikeNovack]

Firstly, I will repeat, Darwinism is about evolution and species. Darwin's theory "survival of the fittest" means the "fitter" individuals will out reproduce the less fit and s over time the population moves in that direction. The Social Darwinists believe the rich/powerful more "fit". In THAT case should expect the rich/powerful to become a larger and larger percentage of the population nd the poor/powerless wither away.

HOWEVER, all this talk about evolution has given me an idea. IC, would you mind if I temporarily took a step farther back. Then when we move forward from there it might make clearer WHY you think secular humanists have no basis for morality.

Here goes the step back -------- whatever caused to come into being us humans, formed us as the sort f animals we are, ALSO at the same time caused to come into being "morality" (being able to distinguish between right and wrong actions). It's part of "that sort of animal.

OK, now we step back forward ------ IC, you believe God created man and so God created morals. You recognize that the secularist believes humans "just evolved". You might believe that wrong, but do you consider the secularist irrational, having no basis for his or her belief in evolution? If not, then why feel that way about the secularist's belief in morality. Do you see what I am getting at? It would be consistent for you to say "the secularist" has no rational basis for belief in anything since rejection the "truth" (your TRUTH) that God created evrythng.

[phyllo]

Deism naturally leads to humanism. Since humans are the ones who discover the objective morality that the deist god has created.

[Immanuel Can]

The "Social Darwinists" do NOT understand "Darwinism" at all. They do NOT understand what "survival of the fittest means".

I think you're denying the obvious here...they certainly do. They're just willing to apply it consistently, when other people lose nerve and back away from the implications of their Evolutionism. But others' loss of nerve is not their fault.

So are you suggesting that if one believes in the theory of Evolution then one must necessarily believe in "Social Darwinism"? Or what is your point to this line of argument?

It's simpler. The Humanist Manifesto III itself demands, "Humans are an integral part of nature, the result of unguided evolutionary change." So I'm not "suggesting" anything. I'm just quoting.

So let's ask this: if evolution applies to all individual humans, why would we think it doesn't apply to our social activities as well? If we are, as they insist, "evolved" through Darwinian processes, why would our societies suddenly be be ruled by something else? Unless there's some further explanation, it's a gratutious move, isn't it?

So the default for any Darwinist has to be some kind of Social Darwinism. If he wants us to do differently, then he needs to explain to us a) what different dynamic he thinks governs societies, that is not evolution, and b) with what grounding or warrant we are rationally obligated to abandon "survival of the fittest" for some new strategy he calls "morality"? He owes us an explanation, surely.

[Immanuel Can]

Firstly, I will repeat, Darwinism is about evolution and species. Darwin's theory "survival of the fittest" means the "fitter" individuals will out reproduce the less fit and s over time the population moves in that direction. The Social Darwinists believe the rich/powerful more "fit".

You're not 100% wrong, but you're mostly wrong. The Social Darwinists don't have to confuse "fit" for "rich." But if Social Darwinism were true, we would perhaps not be surprised if the fit eventually became the more rich...after all, they're supposed to be just a little smarter, more talented, more strategic, more powerful and more opportunistic than the slightly-more-dull like you and me: one would then expect them to rise to the top, in a Social Darwinist world.

HOWEVER, all this talk about evolution has given me an idea. IC, would you mind if I temporarily took a step farther back. Then when we move forward from there it might make clearer WHY you think secular humanists have no basis for morality.

Here goes the step back -------- whatever caused to come into being us humans, formed us as the sort f animals we are, ALSO at the same time caused to come into being "morality" (being able to distinguish between right and wrong actions). It's part of "that sort of animal.

Wait. I have a question. Are you suggesting that morality existed from the start? After all, you say it was "at the same time."

But doesn't Evolutionism -- it's most basic point -- demand that we should believe human beings came into existence progressively, not suddenly? Doesn't it demand that we "evolved" from lower species? But if so, is it not necessarily the case that our early pre-humans and proto-humans were NOT possessed of morality, but in the grip of "survival of the fittest"?

OK, now we step back forward ------ IC, you believe God created man and so God created morals. You recognize that the secularist believes humans "just evolved".

Yes, and this is the source of my question. If they "evolved," how did they escape "survival of the fittest"? And if they did, was it even a good thing they did? Maybe we all ought to still be Social Darwinists: Nietzsche pretty much thought that was right. Why is he wrong?

You might believe that wrong, but do you consider the secularist irrational, having no basis for his or her belief in evolution?

Not "irrational," necessarily, though I have to admit I've met a good few who known Evolutionism only as something their high school science teacher told them to believe, and who know little more than that. But there are Theists whose knowledge is only that deep, too, so they don't bother me much; it's just how some people are -- I think we both know that.

But when we get to the knowledgeable Theist or Darwinian, we should expect some rationality from them, don't you think? And I see the Darwinists as having a couple of bad premises in their thinking. However, assuming those bad premises, they do act rationally afterward, so I don't regard them as irrational. I just say they're reasoning isn't good.

If not, then why feel that way about the secularist's belief in morality.

The secularist's belief in morality does not rationalize with secularism. The Theists belief in morality makes sense IF the Theist's premises are good. But even granting the secularist all his premises, one can't get a rational account of morality out of them. They can't make it make sense. And this is why so many secularists opt for Subjectivism: Subjectivism does not require any grounds. But then, Subjectivism is also incapable of rationalizing anything, because it mistakes my impulses for my morality. And as we have already said earlier, ethics don't even have relevance when what I want to do is already exactly the same as what I consider moral. I don't even need to consult ethics for that: I want, and it's already good. It's only when I have some doubt that something I'm inclined to do is right, or a suspicion that it might be wrong, that I need to refer to ethics.

So secular, Subjectivist "ethics" don't do any work...most importantly, the important work of informing us what to do when our inclinations and opportunities collide with our instinctive sense of something being right or wrong. They can't help us do any of the social tasks we need our ethics to do, too: they can't inform a professional code or our justice system. They can't help us formulate a program of education or shape our political aims. They can't be used to structure our relationships with others, and they can't even reassure us when we feel ourselves uncertain about the moral status of our own next move. They're useless for ethics purposes, essentially.

Do you see what I am getting at? It would be consistent for you to say "the secularist" has no rational basis for belief in anything since rejection the "truth" (your TRUTH) that God created evrythng.

No, that wouldn't quite follow. He might have rational basis for belief in things like material science or technology, for example. He might have a rational basis for his view of history or his criteria for any number of other factual judments. But he won't have any information on morality, except the irritating feeling that he's not always "right," even when he does something that he's inclined to do. He won't be able to explain to himself why he has that feeling, or what he should do about it. Thus, he'll be trapped in unanchored feelings of guilt, perhaps; but he won't have any rational ethical view that could help him get out of those feelings.

There will still be the sense of sin...just no salvation.

[Impenitent]

another flash of irony- Darwinism - survival of the fittest...

Darwin's fitness is never questioned

he's dead

-Imp