And can you distinguish between Hedonism and Secular Humanism?Interesting read…thanks for the post
I have found that Atheism has lead me to discover Secular Humanism, and now I believe that the two are one in the same. Secular Humanism just allows Atheism to have a name that people do not give the stink eye too
Doesn’t Hedonism recognize that all objects have either an ultimate good or ultimate bad (suffering) where Secular Humanism believes that the good and bad actually come from human beings themselves, not the objects.
Not quite.
Good is anything that improves the Commonwealth. Bad is the opposite, while being based upon personal interests. Pleasure and pain are not set in stone, because both can be found within Good and Bad.
Even if it sacrifices individuals?
Are all personal interests bad?
Is all pleasure good. Is all pain bad?
funny you should say that. I was with family and a cousin siad she was a “secular humanist”. My brother in law asked, “Is that a fancy name for an atheist?”Interesting read…thanks for the post
I have found that Atheism has lead me to discover Secular Humanism, and now I believe that the two are one in the same. Secular Humanism just allows Atheism to have a name that people do not give the stink eye too
To improve mankind in general? Yes, without hesitation.
If they are not directed towards the betterment of the Commonwealth, then they are bad. A personal interest for the Commonwealth is the peoples interest.
No and no, but both are needed because they stir us in different paths.
Yes, if they are endangering the flow of the Commonwealth.
How much entitlement would you grant the people?
What do you mean by “improves the commonwealth”? I take it you use “improves” to mean “make better” somehow. How? Do you use the word “commonwealth” as meant in its original form “common wealth”? And if you do, what do you mean by “wealth”?
This sentence, within the context of your written passage, confused me somewhat. You are judging “goodness” in terms of acts and actions being good for the commonwealth. However here, you seem to be judging “bad” according to personal interests. So, if a person deems an action to be good for them, you, as ruler, can deem it bad for the commonwealth and so overide personal preferences. That sounds awfully totalitarian to me. So, I must ask, is your “humanism” totalitarian and prescriptive?
Now you have really confounded me. From what you write here, pleasure and pain can be anything someone says it is? Is that correct? Earlier you wrote that the commonwealth’s well being was paramount, so your decisions, your ‘rules’ are directed towards ensuring the collective well being. So you then must define good and bad according to how actions affect the commonwealth. Correct? So referring to your statement above, that both pleasure and pain can be found in the “Good”, if you deem a certain pleasure to be bad for the commonwealth you will do something to prevent it. Conversely, if some form of pain is good for the commonwealth, you will implement it. Now the “Bad” as defined by you, are those things which are not so good for the commonwealth. So, when you judge things as being “bad” for the commonwealth, you will be stating that some pain is bad for the commonwealth, but also some pleasure is bad for the commonwealth. Then, however, you write that neither pleasure or pain are not set in stone. So does this mean that, to keep the commonwealth ‘good’ you will constantly have to redefine what pleasures and what pains are good and bad for the commonwealth? Sounds like an administrative nightmare, not to mention creating a great deal of uncertainty amongst your commonwealth’s population.
Preservation of the constitution.
Of course, we chose to live in urban society, therefore the state is a necessity.
Perhaps I am a fan of not explaining anything in depth? Obviously it would have been a waste of time if he is at the same conclusions.
No I asked because my freedoms are that of flock of sheep and its master.
Didn’t Jesus teach us sacrifice to be rewarded in Heaven?
Of course I would! a herder allows his sheep to roam free. It is my job to ensure their safety.
Punishment is a requirement to even gain political authority. Suffering is virtue. If one can not actively participate in society outside of a being a patient at a hospital, then they no longer are needed in society. Its not rude or evil, because memories and reputation are what truly make an individual last.
Personal interests only become Good when they are accepted by the Commonwealth.
If all my citizens come together and make a unified agreement allowing said person to do the action, then my rule is over powered by the Commonwealth.
How isn’t God being an ultimate Judge totalitarian? We were created in his image, we are like him, why not use his same method of rule?
I get pleasure from drugs, perhaps you may get pain from them. The drugs can bring both aspects; All we are left with is deciding whether or not drugs are actually Good or Bad. Our Commonwealth of the United States has legally classified them as Bad, but somehow drugs still exist and are used all the time nation wide. Perhaps the Good must experience the Bad, allowing them then to make judgement.
What defines a Good constitution, the amount of freedoms? Whatever Commonwealth can last through the history books can be classified as Good, because revolutions would dismantle the Bad ones. Adjusting to the pleasures and pains will allow it to last, if it is what the people want.
They are found in the Good only as tools for improvement.
Yes, but let’s not be naive. The black market will always exists. I will turn my shoulder as long as it remains within the household, separate from society. I will prevent it when these underground pleasures conflict with society.
My Commonwealth understands sacrifice. We would die for the protection of our wealth if it meant preservation.
Correct.
Alcohol and Cigarettes are pleasurable to some, yet aren’t these bad for our overall health?
It is a price I would pay for my citizens, otherwise I would not become leader. Unified, the uncertainty will greatly diminish.
Do I need to go more in depth?
You inspired me to go more in depth, perhaps even rant.
If your ideals change “as our knowledge and understandings change”, then they can never be considered as “objective”. If they aren’t objective, they must be subjective. After all, “understanding” is a very subjective concept.
So the belief system is not compulsory. Correct?
Sounds a bit like Natural Law. What you write here suggests that the knowledge is objectively arrived at.
Has evolution stopped? If not, then humans have no fixed nature and it is forever changing.
Experience is subjective. Human needs and interests are subjective and relative.
Ideals? Do you mean the “ethical values” you wrote of? Well, they are arrived at through testing 'experience", so they are subjectively based and relative and constantly changing as human nature “evolves”, according to what you wrote (2)
Social yes, but an individuals experience of social relationships is a subjective one. And relative.
Utilitarianism. Or a gross assumption about the altruism of individuals.
Does “humanity”, (which is a collective noun) have a common “ideal”? Or is it a social construct? Or do single human entities have their own ideals? To which do you give preference? If there is no common human ideal, then to suggest that one is achievable is to foist a social construct onto people. To do so contradicts the point you made about non-compulsion.