Humanist Ethics

[Immanuel Can]

But it will help me to understand philosophy and ethics.

But not Humanism, or Humanist ethics -- because there actually is not such thing. Humanism's belief system does not warrant any ethics. Even Iwanna points that out, and lapses into something like, "Well, nobody gets to have ethics."

So there's nothing for you to understand, if he's right.

[phyllo]

But it will help me to understand philosophy and ethics.

But not Humanism, or Humanist ethics -- because there actually is not such thing. Humanism's belief system does not warrant any ethics.

I understood your views on that after you had repeated it 5 or 6 times.

So you don't need to repeat it again.

Thank you for your attention to this matter.

[Immanuel Can]

But it will help me to understand philosophy and ethics.

But not Humanism, or Humanist ethics -- because there actually is not such thing. Humanism's belief system does not warrant any ethics.

I understood your views on that after you had repeated it 5 or 6 times.

It's not a "view." It's a fact, actually.

Test it, and you'll find out it's true.

[phyllo]

It's not a "view." It's a fact, actually.

Do you only think facts?

[Immanuel Can]

It's not a "view." It's a fact, actually.

Do you only think facts?

Test it. See if it's a fact or not.

[phyllo]

I think I have tested it and found it to not be fact.

There are humanist ethics.

We can leave it at that.

We disagree. That's all, folks.

[Immanuel Can]

I think I have tested it and found it to not be fact.

Great. Show your work.

There are humanist ethics.

Excellent! What are they?

[phyllo]

You have already said in the 'Slavery' thread that I can't convince you and you can't convince me.

One of us is deluded, right?

So I'm not going to piss around with this endlessly. That would be insanity.

[Immanuel Can]

One of us is deluded, right?

Or simply wishing to remain oblivious, for some personal reason. It might not be as sordid as being deluded. It might actually be willful.

But the point is obvious again: you didn't answer my questions, even after you boasted that Humanist ethics can be grounded. Is this not because you know my objections can't be answered? Or do you have an answer, but are so afraid to offer it that you prefer to stay mum?

[Gary Childress]

One of us is deluded, right?

Or simply wishing to remain oblivious, for some personal reason. It might not be as sordid as being deluded. It might actually be willful.

But the point is obvious again: you didn't answer my questions, even after you boasted that Humanist ethics can be grounded. Is this not because you know my objections can't be answered? Or do you have an answer, but are so afraid to offer it that you prefer to stay mum?

If something is not written in the Bible, does that mean it's not "grounded" and therefore may not be true? Or how does one "ground" something if it's not written in the Bible?

[Iwannaplato]

One of us is deluded, right?

Or simply wishing to remain oblivious, for some personal reason. It might not be as sordid as being deluded. It might actually be willful.

But the point is obvious again: you didn't answer my questions, even after you boasted that Humanist ethics can be grounded. Is this not because you know my objections can't be answered? Or do you have an answer, but are so afraid to offer it that you prefer to stay mum?

If something is not written in the Bible, does that mean it's not "grounded" and therefore may not be true? Or how does one "ground" something if it's not written in the Bible?

He seems to mean 'grounded' for him. Or that's what it boils down to. He still can't explain why it is justified to expect

Explain why we are obligated to be Humanists, or to follow Humanist moral claims.

but admits

Now, do you want to tell me why a Humanist should follow Christian ethics? I can't,

Nor can he explain why a non-Christian theist is obligated to be a Christian or to follow Christian moral claims. Nor can explain why a Christian who disagrees with him over Slavery is obligated to change his mind and agree with him.
He has shown us an article written by some guy on the topic. A guy whose argument is ok, but it's not the only way to interpret the Bible. And no one is obligated, not even Christians, to believe his interpretation of the Bible. He can't do what he expects Humanists should be able to do if their ethics weren't doomed.

But he doesn't want to admit this.

[Immanuel Can]

"...how does one "ground" something if it's not written in the Bible?"

I've given one example, and could easily give more, but I'll repeat at your request, Gary.

A Hindu can ground his ethics in his Hindu worldview. For example, his ideology tells him which each "caste" is for, and what his ethical duties to them, under Hinduism, should be.

This does not imply I believe Hinduism is true or that their ethics are objectively right. But it does mean that they are behaving rationally -- which means that what they believe about the world and what they require of ethics are well-coordinated and make sense with each other.

Or, to take another example, how about one of those nutty PETA people. They believe that eating animals is wrong. I like a good steak, myself. But when he tells me that "meat is murder," I don't call him a hypocrite. He's following what he believes to be true, even though I think it's nutty. He's being rational. And he's grounded his ethics in his worldview. So I can give him that. He's at least consistent.

Both Hindus and PETA freaks, therefore, can ground their ethics. I don't agree with either of them, but I don't call them irrational, so long as their worldview fits their ethical demands.

But how about the secularist? Can he ground his ethics in his worldview? Can he coordinate what he thinks is true about the nature of reality with the ethics he demands of himself or others? No. For his worldview does not allow ethics to have any basis. There are no objective ethical duties under the secular worldview, so there is nothing to ground, and nowhere to ground them. He thinks he's an evolved animal, ultimately a mistake made by space-dust at the Big Bang, without plan, purpose or direction. Nothing puts requirements on him, that he can detect in his own worldview.

So if a secularist demands you to be ethical in some way, he's being irrational. He's a fraud. He hasn't got any "Why," even in his own worldview, for why you should believe him. His demanded ethic is not backed by any logical connection to his worldview. Logically, he can only be a Nihilist. There's no other non-hypocritical option for him, because his worldview has place for none. It's 100% the fault of his secularism, too.

That's what grounding is all about.

[phyllo]

What about a PETA secularist?

[Iwannaplato]

What about a PETA secularist?

LOL. I had the same thought. I would guess that many of them are.
And look what he is granting: as long as you work from premises, whatever they are, you are rational
Of course, secular people, humanists, non-theists whomever can believe X is wrong.
Or we have someone who believes humans are a parasite, so they go around killing people. As long as they build their conclusions rationally from their premise that people are evil parasites, they are rational. You don't have to believe in God or that Meat is Murder to be a moral realist.
He's getting funny.

[Immanuel Can]

What about a PETA secularist?

You are detecting something important, I think: that ultimately, they don't have the grounds, either.

That's because IF they are attributing some spiritual value to animals, they need to be able to say what that spiritual value is. I suspect that most cannot. There are some Gaia worshippers among them who probably can, and have an elaborate justificatory worldview they can explain. But most, I suspect, just have either some visceral aversion to meat, or some solipsistic desire to seem "compasssionate," or a misguided and bloated sense of empathy, or maybe a genuine concern for animal welfare -- but all probably unbacked by any deeper worldview than, "I'm in PETA."

In that case, you're quite right: they wouldn't have grounding.