"In our busy world, controlled by money and power, we sometimes forget the most important thing in all of our lives. It isn't the bar where you party, or the car that you drive, or your job title, but the people at that bar, in that car, or at that job. People make our lives better, and Humanism is the belief that every life is sacred and must be protected."

http://www.ehumanist.com/

This just seems nutty to me. Whether it's corporations over all else, or individuals over all else, the "all else" gets forgotten. Right?

:m:

Humanism is neither. It's human life above all else. That's the most rational psuedo-theology around.

The United States was founded under the precepts of secular humanism.

Whether it's corporations over all else, or individuals over all else, the "all else" gets forgotten. Right?

Right. But nothing but all human life truly matters. The environment is only important for as far as it promotes human stability and happiness.

It's sometimes a utilitarian philosophy, but you can also place utmost importance on valuing the sanctity of each individual's life.

Indeed, and one can easily tell that the US was founded on secular humanism. The big problem with utilitarianism is that more often than not, those who 'determine' where value lies are the ones who decide where value does not lie. It's only logical that something will be 'left out'. In any case, a true Humanist recognizes that human life is intimately tied to the environment in which it lives. They therefore do all they can to avoid harming it. Anything less is not Humanism rather, merely speciesism.

In any case, a true Humanist recognizes that human life is intimately tied to the environment in which it lives. They therefore do all they can to avoid harming it. Anything less is not Humanism rather, merely speciesism.

That's what I was trying to imply. :)

The big problem with utilitarianism is that more often than not, those who 'determine' where value lies are the ones who decide where value does not lie. It's only logical that something will be 'left out'.

True... but is humanism necessarily utilitarian? And could you give me an example of something being 'left out'?

I am sure humanism should have a utalitarian aspect , you scratch my back and i scratch yours , in reality no everyone can accept to be the sacrifice all the time , that is how our lifestyle also plants in our brain , to take u got to give , maybe not all the time , but mostly that should be the way things go

I am sure humanism should have a utalitarian aspect , you scratch my back and i scratch yours

Utilitarianism means the greatest good for the greatest number. One example might be assassinating a corrupt(or just plain bad) ruler, instituting the death penalty if it did cause deterrence, and implementing the three-strikes law. Of course, in all these cases effective rehabilitation is the best option, but that may not cause the greatest good. Perhaps it doesn't work, or it isn't cost-effective - the money put into rehabilitation would be best spent on good people, where it causes more good for more people.

Should humanists always be utlitarianists? Shouldn't they always value the greatest good for greatest number of humans, instead of allowing one person to have happiness at the cost of the community?

The argument against utiltarianism is that it marginalizes people, and can sometimes be considered callous - but isn't it worth it to do that?

Utilitarianism means the greatest good for the greatest number.

In my experience, it means the greatest good as identified by the greatest number. That is to say, if the crowd thinks it's good, then it's officially "good."

That's crazy talk.

:m:

It's human life above all else. That's the most rational psuedo-theology around.
Explain to me how that is even slightly rational.
Where's the little snifter of rationality you're referring to? :confused:

In my experience, it means the greatest good as identified by the greatest number. That is to say, if the crowd thinks it's good, then it's officially "good."

It doesn't matter what your experience is. Utilitarianism has a definition, and I gave it. I also wonder where you're from - here in America, most decisions are not exactly made by the crowd. It's just too bad we're not ruled by an true aristocracy, eh?

Explain to me how that is even slightly rational.

What reason does one have to value anything besides oneself? Try to come up with one. Pure elflessness is not rational. The only rational thing is to look out for yourself. Looking out for the greater good of humanity also benefits yourself, as you are a human.

Simply looking out for the environment is not rational. If you can't enjoy the environment, it's doing nothing for you.

I don't think humanism has any special specific tie to utilitarianism. As a humanist myself, I find utilitarianism to sometimes be a helpful tool, but it seems incomplete to me, as it doesn't take into account some situations where it might lead to great evil.

On another note about speciesism, it is kind of a fluke of our culture that sometimes humanism gets cast in the light of "humans vs. animals", but the use of the word "human" in "humanism" is not referring to humans as opposed to animals, but rather it was chosen to refer to the needs of humans as opposed to gods. The more recent movement of animal rights though can tend to make some people think of it in the other way. But in reality, most humanists are very pro-animal rights and the ethical treatment of animals.

Explain to me how that is even slightly rational.
Where's the little snifter of rationality you're referring to? :confused:

1) First point is that being for human survival is not as unilateral as it seems. Humans can't survive without a healthy and prosperous ecosystem.

2) Secondly, I think the "looking out for yourself" and that ending up being good for society, that Bad Christian mentioned, is not actually humanism. It's more akin to Rand's Objectivism. Objectivism shares Humanism's epistemology (empirical naturalism) but not its ethics. In actuality, humanists believe in cooperation between humans, instead of the "selfish-mechanism leading to overall prosperity" of Ayn Rand. In the past, humanism has been associated with socialism, but this is not the case any more. There are plenty of capitalist humanists as well (myself included), and the socialistic elements have been removed from the latter manifestos.

3) This point is pretty much my own personal take on humanism and not really part of commonly accepted humanist ideas. Since ethics is a human endeavor, obviously having developed in humans as a behavior to encourage cooperation for their mutual survival, then it means that all ethical concepts are human made, for human purposes. Therefore, to say that one can be "unethical" to an animal seems nonsensical to me, because they are outside of the entire sphere of what ethics is and why it exists. To me, animals don't have rights. But there are many reasons for treating animals humanely, which have nothing to do with rights.

"In our busy world, controlled by money and power, we sometimes forget the most important thing in all of our lives. It isn't the bar where you party, or the car that you drive, or your job title, but the people at that bar, in that car, or at that job. People make our lives better, and Humanism is the belief that every life is sacred and must be protected."

http://www.ehumanist.com/

This just seems nutty to me. Whether it's corporations over all else, or individuals over all else, the "all else" gets forgotten. Right?

:m:

I agree. All that stuff is important to people (corporations, cars, etc). So why shouldn't it be important? But I don't know that the 'all else' gets forgotten. Maybe, it only gets devalued, or is placed in a secondary position.

Yikes, I just went to that ehumanism site. As a humanist who founded and chaired a humanist organization in a major city for two years, I'm a little surprised. I'm not sure what they're talking about there but it isn't exactly humanism. The general principles they're talking about are compatible, but they leave out these little tid-bits...

• The modern humanist movement has a natualistic worldview (no supernatural beliefs), and that's not just the Secular Humanists. Religious Humanists also have a materialist worldview (the use of "religious" refers to the ritual and structure of their organizations, not supernaturalism).

• Humanism has nothing to do with the ACLU or the Democratic party (not even a majority that I'm aware of). Their suggestion that getting involved with these organization is somehow humanism is insulting to the many Republican, Libertarian, and independent humanists out there.

I suppose if you use the word in an extremely general sense, and not the sense pertaining to the actual humanist movement, it could fly - but the word "humanitarian" would be better suited. Sounds like this is a humanist/s who also happens to be a democrat, trying to politically connect more to humanism than actually exists, while conveniently leaving out the empirical epistemology.