The Philosophy Discussion Forum

phyllo wrote: ↑Fri Mar 20, 2026 10:05 pm If you wanted to have an honest discussion

What I would like is to see what you think Humanists can use to substantiate any of their ethical claims.

Except...we both know what the answer is. And that's why you're not suggesting anything. There isn't anything.

People have an aversion to suffering and they implement a moral code that aims to reduce suffering.

Is more substantiation required?

phyllo wrote: ↑Fri Mar 20, 2026 10:54 pm People have an aversion to suffering and they implement a moral code that aims to reduce suffering.

Is more substantiation required?

Well, the Humanist Manifesto, version 3, second statement says the following:

"Humans are an integral part of nature, the result of unguided evolutionary change. Humanists recognize nature as self-existing. We accept our life as all and enough, distinguishing things as they are from things as we might wish or imagine them to be."

They say humans are mere parts of nature, which they think is "self-existing"(?). Humans, they say, are the product of unguided, evolutionary change. We can't "imagine" something else.

Okay, if we believe them about that, let's ask them this. From where do we get the warrant to tell other people that they owe it to us to reduce our suffering, or to attend to the suffering of others? Where is this "nature" that's allegedly going to tell us we have a duty to do anything for others? And where is that written? Doesn't "unguided evolution" kill billions of organisms for every one that survives? Isn't suffering merely a sign of people's evolutionary unfitness? Doesn't the evolutionary process itself thrive on survival-of-the-fittest? So why should we reduce the suffering of "unfit" others, when we are winning?

So yes, lots more substantiation.

phyllo wrote: ↑Fri Mar 20, 2026 10:54 pm People have an aversion to suffering and they implement a moral code that aims to reduce suffering.

Is more substantiation required?

In his process of communication on this issue IC regularly tells people what they believe.

"Nothing human is alien to me"---He told humanists that because of this sentence, humanists must approve of everything including pedophilia. He places himself as the objective interpreter of other people's beliefs. He interprets this to mean that humans accept everything is moral, even though that is not how it is interpreted by most humanists.

"Humanism"---His next bit of uncharitable sophistry in this thread was around the name Humanism. Since 'human' is in the name of the philosophical stance this entails that they claim to speak for all humans. This doesn't work at all for other -isms or -ists (empiricists, physicalists, theists). But he continues with this falsehood.

The American Humanist Association's Manifesto---then he tells the thread that the AHA's manifesto is THE central document of what is not even the biggest humanist group, and regarding a group that is not organized around a central authority, where many members of the group, most likely most, are not members of any of the humanism organizations.


This truly does not seem like a person who can distinguish between the objective and the self-serving only subjective.

Surrounding this is his demand that humanists demonstrate that their morals are objective.

This demand is based on a couple of assumptions: 1) he and theists are objective and their morals are objective. But he has no way to demonstrate this. He cannot show that he chose the correct version of God and his irrational and fallacious arguments in this thread are not supportive of his ability to recognize objectivity, quite the opposite. 2) that he not is relying on his own subjectivity when he claims and is sure he has chosen the correct scripture, the correct version of God, and that this is not, for example, a demiurge, or a system based on confusions and imprinting by people long ago who may well have done the best they could, but imagined or interpreted a deity through cultural and personal lenses.

Most humanists are fully aware that choosing human flourishing as the ultimate goal is a collective, intersubjective value judgment. There is no law of physics that says humans must thrive; they simply agree that they want to. With that shared goal in mind and using the relevant science, psychology and understanding of humans (through research, dialogue, surveys, etc.) they hope to develop morals that lead to better and better interpersonal behavior and the best living conditions, systems of rules and guidelines they can.

One of IC's regular criteria is the 'but that won't convince the....(slave-owner, for example)'. This assumes that Christianity and his particular version of it will convince the slave-owner, for example, which would be very tricky even if the Bible actually forbade slavery rather than implicitly accepting it. Note: the problem of changing people's minds remains exactly the same for the Christian or other person regardless of worldview.

So, the critique assumes what is false.

Agree

From where do we get the warrant to tell other people that they owe it to us to reduce our suffering, or to attend to the suffering of others?

Reduce the suffering of others and they will reduce your suffering in turn. Self-interest.

Plus, most people have empathy, so witnessing the suffering of others makes them feel bad.

Where is this "nature" that's allegedly going to tell us we have a duty to do anything for others?

Duty? Not really.

We have evolved social connections with others. We're social by "nature".

And where is that written?

In DNA?

Doesn't "unguided evolution" kill billions of organisms for every one that survives?

Humans are guided by emotions and reason. We can choose the direction we want to go.

Isn't suffering merely a sign of people's evolutionary unfitness?

That seems to be a misunderstanding of evolution.

A fit organism can suffer.

Doesn't the evolutionary process itself thrive on survival-of-the-fittest?

We've tried survival-of-the-fittest moralities in the past.

Test and investigate.

Aid and cooperation seem to produce better results.

Iwannaplato wrote: ↑Sat Mar 21, 2026 6:44 am
One of IC's regular criteria is the 'but that won't convince the....(slave-owner, for example). This assumes that Christianity and his particular version of it will convince the slave-owner, for example, which would be very tricky even if the Bible actually forbade slavery rather than implicitly accepting it.

Implicit hell. A number of the 613 deal explicitly with slavery. It is also clear that the slavery being regulated is very different from the anything goes "chattel slavery"

MikeNovack wrote: ↑Sat Mar 21, 2026 2:56 pm

Iwannaplato wrote: ↑Sat Mar 21, 2026 6:44 am
One of IC's regular criteria is the 'but that won't convince the....(slave-owner, for example). This assumes that Christianity and his particular version of it will convince the slave-owner, for example, which would be very tricky even if the Bible actually forbade slavery rather than implicitly accepting it.

Implicit hell. A number of the 613 deal explicitly with slavery. It is also clear that the slavery being regulated is very different from the anything goes "chattel slavery"

Ah, I finally understood that opening phrase: Implicit hell. I kept think I didn't say anything about hell. Ok: Implicit?! Hell! Oh, hey I agree. But some say the Bible was trying to humanize an existing practice and other such arguments. I don't want to get drawn off in some tangent by IC. I remember the irony of him saying why should a slave-owner agree with secular anti-slavery arguments.

Different yes. You could beat your slave, but as long as the slave recovered in a couple of days, it was ok. So, yes no beating to death.
Rape of slaves was ok, in the I own you, now we will have sex. The master could potentially get in trouble if he damaged the woman. And so on. It was milder than many models of slavery. More like the Greek I would guess.

phyllo wrote: ↑Sat Mar 21, 2026 11:40 am

From where do we get the warrant to tell other people that they owe it to us to reduce our suffering, or to attend to the suffering of others?

Reduce the suffering of others and they will reduce your suffering in turn. Self-interest.

Actually, what turns out to be in my self-interest, as with most moral precepts, is that everybody ELSE should obey them, but I should leave myself free to cheat, or to exempt myself when I want to. Nietzsche saw that.

Plus, most people have empathy, so witnessing the suffering of others makes them feel bad.

Not so bad that they fail to put self-interest first, apparently. Didn't you say the real reason was "self-interest"?

Where is this "nature" that's allegedly going to tell us we have a duty to do anything for others?

Duty? Not really.

Then you leave us free to disregard it at our convenience.

We have evolved social connections with others. We're social by "nature".

Not helpful. We've also allegedly "evolved" a whole lot of habits traditional called "evil." So why should we reject one kind of "nature" and only affirm another? That's the question that any ethics has to answer -- how do we know our duty when our feelings and interests go one way, and what's "right" goes the opposite way.

In fact, if you think about it, you'll realize we don't even NEED ethics when our feelings align with "right." Then we just do the "right" thing automatically. It's when the two conflict that we find any need to ask, "Even though I feel X, is there a good reason I should do not-X?"

And where is that written?

In DNA?

Ethics in DNA? You'll have to explain which alleles deliver that. It's unknown to current biology.

Doesn't "unguided evolution" kill billions of organisms for every one that survives?

Humans are guided by emotions and reason. We can choose the direction we want to go.

Wait: so human beings, alone of all "animals," are magically delivered from having to follow nature? How does that make sense, if we're animals?

Isn't suffering merely a sign of people's evolutionary unfitness?

That seems to be a misunderstanding of evolution.

I don't think it is. It's pretty clear that organisms that are failing or being eliminated by the process are going to suffer...and die.

Doesn't the evolutionary process itself thrive on survival-of-the-fittest?

We've tried survival-of-the-fittest moralities in the past.

What are you thinking of? When did we do that?

Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Sat Mar 21, 2026 3:41 pm Ethics in DNA? You'll have to explain which alleles deliver that. It's unknown to current biology.

IC is quite correct here. The cultures of obligatory social animals is notT in their DNA. The evolutionary unit is the group of social animals. By this is meant the specific cultures.

That is not to say DNA has no involvement. Evolved in individuals of the species are the TOOLS they will need sufficient as to be able to learn their culture. For example, no human language is in our DNA, but that the developing infant will be able to learn a language (in fact, multiple languages*) is in our DNA.

The correct way to express the belief that ethics/morality is inherited would be to make that clear "in the culture", not "in the DNA". But like with language there might be necessary tools inherited via the DNA. For example, "can feel empathy". Thus I would hold "we know morality exists" (some things are right to do and others wrong to do) because we were potty trained.


* single language/multiple languages is a distinction external to what the child learns. Thus to an external observer, the child might be learning one language speaking to its parents and siblings and another with its grandparents. To the child, that's just the complicated rules of a language. Remember, many of our (single) languages have rules whereby the language changes according to whom we are speaking.

MikeNovack wrote: ↑Sat Mar 21, 2026 5:41 pm

Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Sat Mar 21, 2026 3:41 pm Ethics in DNA? You'll have to explain which alleles deliver that. It's unknown to current biology.

IC is quite correct here. The cultures of obligatory social animals is notT in their DNA. The evolutionary unit is the group of social animals. By this is meant the specific cultures.

That is not to say DNA has no involvement. Evolved in individuals of the species are the TOOLS they will need sufficient as to be able to learn their culture. For example, no human language is in our DNA, but that the developing infant will be able to learn a language (in fact, multiple languages*) is in our DNA.

The correct way to express the belief that ethics/morality is inherited would be to make that clear "in the culture", not "in the DNA". But like with language there might be necessary tools inherited via the DNA. For example, "can feel empathy". Thus I would hold "we know morality exists" (some things are right to do and others wrong to do) because we were potty trained.


* single language/multiple languages is a distinction external to what the child learns. Thus to an external observer, the child might be learning one language speaking to its parents and siblings and another with its grandparents. To the child, that's just the complicated rules of a language. Remember, many of our (single) languages have rules whereby the language changes according to whom we are speaking.

Why do social animals retain their social behaviour?

It would seem that every offspring would naturally have behaviour which is not social and it would have to learn a a social behaviour. Every offspring would be pushing away from the social structure.

So why don't lions stop behaving like lions and instead behave like leopards (which are not social cats)?

Bees, ants, termites, meerkats, hyenas, wolves, orcas, etc

Actually, what turns out to be in my self-interest, as with most moral precepts, is that everybody ELSE should obey them, but I should leave myself free to cheat, or to exempt myself when I want to. Nietzsche saw that.

Prisons are full of people who think the rules only apply to others.

Plus, most people have empathy, so witnessing the suffering of others makes them feel bad.

Not so bad that they fail to put self-interest first, apparently. Didn't you say the real reason was "self-interest"?

Not feeling bad is also in their own self-interest.

Duty? Not really.

Then you leave us free to disregard it at our convenience.

You only act because of duty??

We have evolved social connections with others. We're social by "nature".

Not helpful. We've also allegedly "evolved" a whole lot of habits traditional called "evil." So why should we reject one kind of "nature" and only affirm another? That's the question that any ethics has to answer -- how do we know our duty when our feelings and interests go one way, and what's "right" goes the opposite way.

There is a preference for non-evil.

Duty again?

Humans are guided by emotions and reason. We can choose the direction we want to go.

Wait: so human beings, alone of all "animals," are magically delivered from having to follow nature? How does that make sense, if we're animals?

You mean that we can't or shouldn't use our human reasoning and/or human emotions?

Like we shouldn't use our opposable thumbs because some animals don't have opposable thumbs and we should be like them??

Ethics in DNA? You'll have to explain which alleles deliver that. It's unknown to current biology.

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

That seems to be a misunderstanding of evolution.

I don't think it is. It's pretty clear that organisms that are failing or being eliminated by the process are going to suffer...and die.

Suffering does not necessarily mean dying.

It's possible to suffer and still reproduce.

It's possible to suffer after reproductive ability is gone, so evolutionary fitness would not be applicable.

We've tried survival-of-the-fittest moralities in the past.

What are you thinking of? When did we do that?

Thugs often take control of societies. Temporarily.

So there is a lot of experience with survival-of-the-fittest.

phyllo wrote: ↑Sat Mar 21, 2026 6:56 pm Duty again?

For many, the key thing is to understand the rules and to follow the rules and orders of power. This fits well also with punishment (Hell). Behavior, having the right beliefs, doing one's duty.
They presume that really they want to do bad things, things that would hurt others. That their self-interest is at odds with other humans, period. Overlaps, yes, but 'left to their own devices' they would do evil.
There is no unifying the self, integrating the shadow, deep learning.

Many secular people believe this also. So, the idea is common.

The really odd thing is when this is conflated with morality. That's not morality. That's avoiding suffering (long term suffering). It is obedience to power. And it's actually a form of self-hate: I was not made right. I must follow the rules given by power, since my heart and certainly my gut will tend towards evil. It is a very dim view of the self.

IC seems to see morality in terms of duty. Specifically duty to God.

And that duty requires doing things which he prefers not to do, a great deal of the time.

I don't see it that way. Which makes some of these exchanges weird and awkward.

phyllo wrote: ↑Sat Mar 21, 2026 8:24 pm IC seems to see morality in terms of duty. Specifically duty to God.

And that duty requires doing things which he prefers not to do, a great deal of the time.

I don't see it that way. Which makes some of these exchanges weird and awkward.

"Sin" is the most essential characteristic of Christianity. We are all "sinners". We all fail God and God disapproves of each and every one of us. We are "sinners" from the moment we are born and one's entire life is spent begging forgiveness from God for those sins. Christian saints (from what little I've gathered from them) have mostly been very humble and kind toward everyone else, including enemies.

Those are a few key features that seem to me to characterize Christianity. But maybe I'm wrong. I'm not a religious scholar.