Humanism is a progressive philosophy of life that, without supernaturalism, affirms our ability and responsibility to lead ethical lives of personal fulfillment that aspire to the greater good of humanity.
Members: 348
Latest Activity: Aug 30, 2017
Started by Ruth Anthony-Gardner Nov 5, 2012. 0 Replies 1 Like
Started by Steph S.. Last reply by Steph S. Mar 13, 2012. 2 Replies 0 Likes
Started by Geraldo Cienmarcos. Last reply by George Sep 25, 2011. 1 Reply 0 Likes
Comment
@ Wanderer,
it must be acknowledged that the root of it begins with how we feel about who we are.
I would definitely agree with that statement.
many circumstances do prevent people from enjoying even basic rights.
Very unfortunate, this is a necessity though very subjective by nature. The realization that we feel forced to deny to some the pleasures of a free(er) life is a cruel one. In war humans pillage and kill for the sake of peace and prosperity and innocent people are slaughtered for a higher justice (or that's how we perceive it to be.) We see heroes, terrorists, freedom fighters but can't decide upon which is which.
The natural world is neither good, nor bad as is human nature. Perspective is the key, humans are flawed and gifted by our individuality which colors our perception of the world. Reality and objectivity are locked away beyond years of conditioning, we live and learn and create our own version of reality, which is why we need reason and discourse to at least attempt to come to some kind of agreement.
I would like to think of myself as practical by nature and therefor look in the natural world for answers. I hold strongly to the golden rule because it is practical and it has proven itself a useful tool, I would never presume however that I would do so because I am intrinsicely good. I need to keep focused on my own subjectivity and my own limits as a human to be able to be open towards other people and ideas.
I did glance at your paper, but it needs more attention then I can currently spare (I'm at work). It seems to me that I will definitely have some questions after I've finished it, which I'll ask in the discussion over there.
@ John Jubinsky,
We might not agree whether or not objective morality exist, but we do seem to agree that some sort of understanding can be reached among mentally sane people in regards to what morality can be. Subjective as it might seem to some of us, it is simply the best we can do.
This is more or less what I have in mind as well. It would take far too much wrangling to detail exactly what I disagree with here, so I am content to just leave it at that.
I don't see anyone reading my paper btw. Nobody is interested?
I am not sure I claim entitlement to basic human rights. This is not to mean that I don't DEMAND them - I do. Saying I am entitled to them is saying that by virtue of being a human I automatically must be treated according to some basic standard. It is as though no set of circumstances could ever take these things from me. But of course many circumstances do prevent people from enjoying even basic rights. Plus you also have to account for the degree which each right is to be universally granted. Liberty and the pursuit of happiness are subject to a great amount of variation. How would you go about defining lower limits to how much liberty a person can have, or how much he can pursue happiness? I am just not a person who thinks that the notion of basic human rights is a great starting point for talking about how we should treat other people and why.
As for how someone like myself (or Rob, but I don't want to speak for him) might answer the question how we determine how others should be treated and why (my objection to the use of the word entitlement is still in effect), it must be acknowledged that the root of it begins with how we feel about who we are, what kind of creatures we are, and what ends we each have as both individuals and as larger groups. And here I can offer a very good criteria for how we should treat others and why.
We should all take notice that the ends we all have in mind are of a very specific subjective type. Although happiness is generally understood to stand for what we "subjectivists" have in mind, I think this is far too broad and insufficiently specific. What we really have in mind is something more like having high self-esteem. Really, it is having a positive self-concept, feeling good about who we are and our place in the world and being motivated by that experience to continue to feel this way. This easily leads into treating others the same way (the golden rule), since we feel best about ourselves when we do good by others, when we belong to a group which as a whole feels good about itself and is composed of individuals who feel good about themselves in similar fashion. This is what I am calling organismic ethics (actually, its psycho-organismic ethics, to be accurate).
The question is that of whether it is ethical to claim entitlement to these things for oneself while indiscriminantly denying entitlement to them for others.
Not in my opinion, no. Although I do entitle myself to some entitlements that I think should be denied to others, I would not be motivated to do so indiscriminately.
I would argue that the discriminate process whereby I argue which rights should be taken or granted, and to whom is subjective.
I think this is a very decent attempt by John J to clear the air. I suggest we all take this as the point where the personal elements of the discussion can wash away and we can begin anew focused entirely now on the substantive discussion regarding humanism.
John J asks: "Wanderer, could you go deeper into the question of whether an objective morality might stem from what some call the basic human rights of life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness?"
Well it is like I siad earlier, the issue of human rights is a messy one. I wouldn't frame the question this way. I would rather ask, given what I have said about the foundation of ethics lying ultimately in our need to subjectively experience reality (including the parts of reality relevant to morality), can we arrive at a moral framework which resembles what we commonly refer to as human rights? If we answer in the affirmative, then we might be in the position of asking whether this moral framework might be treated as if it were objectively true.
My conclusion is that it probably does indeed turn out that way. It would take a lot of philosophical gymnastics to lay out this whole case from beginning to end, but let's say that I was able to do so. At this point I would hope that such a moral framework would be acceptable (to us atheists anyway) as a working platform from which we could defend our common position as secular humanists.
@ John Jubinsky,
I certainly won't be disrespectful.
That's really great to hear John, so nice of you to teach us all that it's not disrespectful at all to call people mentally ill and a sociopath based on an incorrect assumption.
And no John, I do not approve of the sexual molestation of minors, thank you so much for asking.
Honestly and respectfully John, maybe it's time for you to read again what you wrote so far, you're getting old and it's easy for you to forget. Or does it only work when I use very respectfully? I'm yet to discover the exact recipe to the mix.
In all seriousness mr. Jubinsky and without the sarcasm of the above attempt at humor, respectful is not how I would I would describe your behavior so far.
© 2018 Atheist Nexus. All rights reserved. Admin: Richard Haynes.
Powered by
You need to be a member of Humanists to add comments!