Humanism, opinions please

[Doug50]

I think secular humanism is fantastic. The emphasis is on human beings helping eachother and holds compassion as a way of life. There’s nothing wrong with it, in my book.

That’s a subjective feelings statement about yourself. The factual problem is if scientific naturalism is true then there is no such thing as being “more moral”, there’s factully no such thing as moral progress. Why? Because there is no such thing as an objective moral standard in Naturalism. Human rights are the stuff of universal, objective moral standards which seemingly have no scientific methods open to independent study.

It’s oxymoronic to claim to be both a moral realist and a moral irrealist (aka anti-realist) at the same time.

It’s an either/or propostion: If you believe in the human rights of each individual it follows then that your metaphysic should be some form of non-naturalist. If you believe otherwise then you need to give a plasible scientific explanation using naturalistic means to justify your belief in the moral realism of human rights.

 

[Doug50]

Please explain/defend further this statement.

Morality can be summed up as either moral realism or moral anti-realism. A thing either is or it is not true.

An “inherent” dignity assumes that each individual has an objective moral quality inherent in each human person. “Dignity” in this sense isn’t only subjective but factually objective. For a person to hold to such a postion that person would have to be a non-naturalist…unless of course he could conjure up a valid scientific theory to explain such a factual qualtiy as dignity in nature. I don’t think that will every happen. If were to happen it’d mean we’d have emphirical evidence that the universe has a purpose and is not meaningless --physics would include the study of anthoropic principle.

 

[Benadam]

“Why should that be” is the ultimate question that confronts us. Some of us answer that with God, some with science, some don’t think an answer is necessary and either attempt to live their lives in a moral fashion (using a criteria they choose) or just live it up…

Another ultimate question is ‘To what end’? Do the goals of humanism offer an end purpose that can distinguish it from other species so as to warrant the name humanism? Can it’s end rise above " pleasant survival as a species’?

 

[Peregrino]

Can it’s end rise above " pleasant survival as a species’?

Does it matter if it rises above this standard? In the end we live our life by our choices. We can’t prove anything about what happens after death. If humanism helps us live together better as a species, it seems to me that this is a good thing. Surely the blood shed in the name of humanism is less than the amount of blood shed in the name of God and religion…

 

[Ahimsa]

The problem with “humanism” is that humans will soon evolve into big-headed aliens. Then what will we call it – “alienism”?

 

[Peregrino]

The problem with “humanism” is that humans will soon evolve into big-headed aliens. Then what will we call it – “alienism”?

Will they start deporting everyone then?..

 

[Doug50]

Does it matter if it rises above this standard? In the end we live our life by our choices. We can’t prove anything about what happens after death.

“In the end we live our life by our choice?” Begs the questions: what should that choice be? If not an arbitrary one, then what should that choice be based upon, a moral truth/realism? The problem with natualism is that it takes the postion there is no such thing as a moral truth in nature, so in the end any choices made are ultimately arbitrary ones. Since there could be no such thing as a moral truth, a perfect morality, there could be no such thing as moral progress…only moral change as a society changes its intersubjectivism about what it wants to be seen as moral/immoral. The Nazis, then, were not acting immorally by their intersubjective moral code.

If humanism helps us live together better as a species, it seems to me that this is a good thing.

Again, what do you mean by “better”? G.E. Moore should that terms like “better” and “good” are not definable using naturalistic means.

Surely the blood shed in the name of humanism is less than the amount of blood shed in the name of God and religion…

Totaly irrelevant to naturalism (and secularism holds up naturalism as the best metaphyscial explanation for reality). You statment implies metaphysical purpose to life. Humanism is by necessity a moral realist philosophy, but moral realism is not compatible with naturalism. So what…? To believe in humanism you must also believe in a theism or something like a theism. My support for that argument:
nd.edu/~mrea/Online%20Papers/Naturalism%20and%20Moral%20Realism.pdf

etd.gsu.edu/theses/available/etd-06082007-112944/unrestricted/Sias_James_200708_ma.pdf

 

[Benadam]

Does it matter if it rises above this standard? In the end we live our life by our choices. We can’t prove anything about what happens after death. If humanism helps us live together better as a species, it seems to me that this is a good thing. Surely the blood shed in the name of humanism is less than the amount of blood shed in the name of God and religion…

It matters if life has purpose. If in fact it does not then humanism is indeed transcendant because it’s goals are made conscious and tend towards the same purposes previously established in mammalianism. To pleasantly survive. It could more appropriately be called mammalianism or animalism even because the power to emote and seek feelings of well being were established long ago in them, and it follows according to humanism, are a mechanism to survive.

 

[bogeydogg]

Its not like we can “prove” the existence of God in any objective sense. “God-exists” is a meta-truth in this sense. If we can function as though humanity is valuable in the absence of “authority” (since you think this is necessary-I don’t) isn’t it even more meaningful for those of us with faith in God?

Your second paragraph makes a nice point. This “existential dilemma” of the insignificance of humanity given (for the atheist) our origins and telos in meaninglessness would in my eyes make human existence something completely priceless. It doesn’t seem to be a problem to me at all.

“Why should that be” is the ultimate question that confronts us. Some of us answer that with God, some with science, some don’t think an answer is necessary and either attempt to live their lives in a moral fashion (using a criteria they choose) or just live it up…

I did not mean to say that the value of something is based upon the authority which rules over it. I was sloppy. What I meant was that apart from an authoritative declaration of value of a thing of any sort, the value of anything would be completely subjective and of little value in reality. I think life is extremely valuable and in my experience it seems a lot of other people do too. However, I do not posit this as proof positive that God exists only that this shared idea of value is meaningless, ultimately, if there is nothing higher to support the idea.