The Philosophy Discussion Forum

Posted: **Wed Mar 18, 2026 11:25 am**

AI Overview
Humanist ethics is a non-religious, rational approach to morality focusing on human flourishing, compassion, and reason rather than divine command. It centers on empathy, individual dignity, democracy, and evidence-based decision-making to reduce suffering and enhance human life. Key pillars include empathy, critical thinking, responsibility, and altruism.

Core Principles of Humanist Ethics

Human-Centered Morality: Morality stems from human need and empathy, not supernatural, authority.

The Golden Rule: Treating others as one would wish to be treated; practicing compassion and kindness.

Reason and Evidence: Using science, critical thought, and evidence to resolve issues and understand the world.

Individual Dignity and Rights: Affirming the worth of every person and the right to freedom, equality, and self-determination.

Responsibility for Actions: Accepting responsibility for one's choices and their impact on others and the environment.

The "Ten Commitments" (Living Humanist Values): Often summarized as: 1. Thinking (critical thinking), 2. Empathy, 3. Creativity, 4. Humility, 5. Humanity, 6. Social Responsibility, 7. Altruism, 8. Peacefulness, 9. Responsibility, 10. Courage.

Posted: **Wed Mar 18, 2026 11:29 am**

“To act intelligently in human affairs is only possible if an attempt is made to understand the thoughts, motives, and apprehensions of one’s opponent so fully that one can see the world through his eyes.”
― Albert Einstein, Essays in Humanism

Posted: **Wed Mar 18, 2026 2:40 pm**

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

Posted: **Wed Mar 18, 2026 4:42 pm**

Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Wed Mar 18, 2026 2:40 pm Explain why we are obligated to be Humanists, or to follow Humanist moral claims.

You REALLY don't get it, IC.

Humanists do NOT argue that YOU are in any way obligated to be a humanist, secular, or otherwise. They don't care if you want to believe in a god and get your moral direction from this god. That you imagine they should have any interest in rescuing you from folly is part of YOUR problem.

And from now on I am going to insist on "your god" rather than GOD. You don't seem to understand that you are not even in agreement with other theists about what is meant by God. Whenever you insist on "there is just God" I will feel free to insert any of the understandings (Muslim, Jewish, etc.) as if YOU were claiming that. For that matter, could be Cthulhu.

Posted: **Wed Mar 18, 2026 5:03 pm**

MikeNovack wrote: ↑Wed Mar 18, 2026 4:42 pm
Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Wed Mar 18, 2026 2:40 pm Explain why we are obligated to be Humanists, or to follow Humanist moral claims.
You REALLY don't get it, IC.

How about, instead of misdirecting into petty insults, you just answer a very simple question?

Humanists do NOT argue that YOU are in any way obligated to be a humanist, secular, or otherwise.

Ah. There's a straightforward answer.

Then they are not proposing anything anybody ought ("owes it") to believe. They're just, maybe, claiming they, themselves, happen prefer those things at the present moment. No more.

Not much of an "ethic," since nobody has any obligation to recognize it as "ethical" at all, then. We can't use it to, say, formulate a justice system, or an educational program, or inform a policy, or structure a business relation, or manage international affairs, or even to establish fairness in personal dealings: nobody is obligated not to ignore it, according to your explanation.

Posted: **Wed Mar 18, 2026 7:08 pm**

Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Wed Mar 18, 2026 2:40 pm Explain why we are obligated to be Humanists, or to follow Humanist moral claims.

It will improve the quality of your life and the lives of others.

Posted: **Wed Mar 18, 2026 7:30 pm**

phyllo wrote: ↑Wed Mar 18, 2026 7:08 pm
Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Wed Mar 18, 2026 2:40 pm Explain why we are obligated to be Humanists, or to follow Humanist moral claims.
It will prove the quality of your life and the lives of others.

"Prove"? "The quality"? "Others"?

Well, "quality" requires that we accept a common value-scale, running between low and high "qualities," and that we both rank the same "qualities" as high and low. But people don't do this. For example, many people rank having a slave, or being sexually rapacious, or using violence to achieve an end as "high value," and you would rank such as "low value," or perhaps "negative value." But Humanism lacks the means to prove which values are higher and which are lower, so as to be able to reject anybody else's value-scale.

So what you've really done is only begged the question. You've assumed "my values" or "Humanist values" means "the values everybody is obliged to accept," and carried on as if it were already the case. You haven't proved it, or shown it, or even been able to substantiate it in any way...you're just taking them for granted. And that's not away to justify a claim.

And, of course, the additional problem: how do you show that we owe "others" anything? Why not rather suppose a world like Nietzsche's, in which all moralizing hides nothing more than a power grab by the weak against the strong: and Humanists are the weak, average putzes, and Nihilists, or people who are ubermenschen are the strong? How can Humanism refute Nietzsche? Or Rand? Or the Social Darwinists? Or Psychopaths? All understand the world very differently from any assumed duty to unspecified "others."

So there's no answer here: just the bald assumption of the conclusion, but without any justification, any actual "why" at all.

Posted: **Wed Mar 18, 2026 7:51 pm**

Well look at what you are doing.

You assume that everyone is obligated to accept the values that your God allegedly has revealed.

You don't even attempt to prove that those values are superior to other values.

You haven't shown anything.

It's your God, your scripture, your interpretation of the scripture. Your way or the highway.

Posted: **Wed Mar 18, 2026 8:11 pm**

phyllo wrote: ↑Wed Mar 18, 2026 7:51 pm Well look at what you are doing.

Flipping to an et to quoque allegation won't solve the problem that is so clearly inherent to Humanism itself. It has no justification. And that would cripple it, even were there no other rival theories to be had. Even if I were wrong, it wouldn't imply that Humanism was right; it needs to justify its own claims, not merely point out flaws in others.

Now, you've made a set of assertions in the name of Humanism. And the title of this thread promises us "Humanist ethics." Can you justify even one of them?

Posted: **Wed Mar 18, 2026 8:38 pm**

The bottom line is that the foundations of your "objective morality" are not stronger than the foundations of secular morality.

You have a personal preference.

You have assumptions.

Posted: **Wed Mar 18, 2026 9:42 pm**

phyllo wrote: ↑Wed Mar 18, 2026 8:38 pm The bottom line is that the foundations of your "objective morality" are not stronger than the foundations of secular morality.

They are. But I'm not getting distracted from the point.

Meanwhile, the fact remains that the OP is a fraud: there is no "Humanist ethics" that can be advocated as an "ought" for anybody.

Right now, we're staying on topic. Because I can see this gives you a serious problem: you know we need an ethic around which we can build such things as a conception of justice, or social justice, or moral education, or political goals, or neighbour relations, or international plans, or personal conduct, and so on.

But Humanism doesn't give us anything it can defend. It offers us no more than a sort of limited set of post-Protestant platitudes, as if being nice and kind and willing to share could survive the secularization process, merely because we'd be too dull, too habituated, too used to such values, to notice that the grounding for them had been swiped out from under our feet, and that Humanism itself could offer nothing in its place.

But one cannot float on nothing forever -- sooner or later, people notice that there's no absolute reason why they ought to care about "the other," or produce the "values" somebody else has been imposing on them, and they start to make exceptions for themselves. After all, if there's no answer to "why," then why should one feel obligated to somebody else's mere prejudices, when the advantage falls to those who ignore the "ethic"? Why should we discipline ourselves and make all kinds of sacrifices to obey a moralizing that any deeper inquiry reveals to us is fake and arbitrary? Why ask ourselves to be "good" according to somebody else's made-up standard?

Humanism has no answer to "Why?" But without a "Why," no ethics has any traction. It falls at the very first hurdle. So there are no "Humanist ethics" you can defend. Humans like to do all kinds of things, sometimes. Who's to stop them, when they suppose no ethics are authoritative or objectively real?

Posted: **Wed Mar 18, 2026 10:05 pm**

Why?

Is answered by theists with "Because God says so".

That's how they claim legitimacy.

But it reminds me of Asian martial arts.

When a new system of martial arts was developed, it was not possible to say "we discovered this martial art" or "we developed this martial art".

It had to be credited to some famous mystic or to some divine revelation.

Otherwise, nobody would take it seriously.

But it was just developed by a bunch of people practicing martial arts. The source was not some mystical woo woo.

Posted: **Wed Mar 18, 2026 10:22 pm**

phyllo wrote: ↑Wed Mar 18, 2026 10:05 pm Why?
Is answered by theists with "Because God says so".

No, actually: but that's not the topic. That's et tu quoque fallacy, on your part. The topic is not whether Hindus, or Islamists, or Buddhists can authorize an ethic. It's whether Humanists can.

Are you now willing to recognize they cannot? Or would you like to suggest some warrant for a Humanist ethic?

Posted: **Wed Mar 18, 2026 10:27 pm**

No. The topic is humanist ethics are perfectly reasonable and adequate.

You're just on the attack as always. That way you hope to avoid exposing the flimsiness of your 'objective ethics'.

Posted: **Wed Mar 18, 2026 10:29 pm**

Let's face it, all ethics is derived from human experience.

I don't have a problem with that.

The Philosophy Discussion Forum

Humanist Ethics

Humanist Ethics

Re: Humanist Ethics

Re: Humanist Ethics

Re: Humanist Ethics

Re: Humanist Ethics

Re: Humanist Ethics

Re: Humanist Ethics

Re: Humanist Ethics

Re: Humanist Ethics

Re: Humanist Ethics

Re: Humanist Ethics

Re: Humanist Ethics

Re: Humanist Ethics

Re: Humanist Ethics

Re: Humanist Ethics