Humanist Question

Discussion in 'General Philosophy' started by noktvs, May 4, 2002.

  1. noktvs Carnal-Siddha Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    41
    I was recently reading through a document entitled "The Affirmations of Humanism: A Statement of Principles" Which can be found here :

    http://www.secularhumanism.org/intro/affirmations.html

    I personally agree with about 99.9% of the statements in this document, but one thing stood out to me that gave me pause. The point is stated as follows:

    "We believe in the common moral decencies: altruism, integrity, honesty, truthfulness, responsibility. Humanist ethics is amenable to critical, rational guidance. There are normative standards that we discover together. Moral principles are tested by their consequences"

    Now, even this statement I agree with, except for one small detail, and that is the inclusion of the concept of altruism. To me altruism infers a type of selflessness, a concern for others to the point of negating the individual. I am strongly individualistic by nature, and can even say I am somewhat of an egoist (not egotist, these are very different). I am just curious what other humanists/free-thinkers/atheists in this forum think in regards to altruism. For or against?
     
  2. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  3. Merlijn curious cat Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    1,014
    Intresting topic, but ...

    I think this thread belongs in the Ethics forum.

    "To me altruism infers a type of selflessness, a concern for others to the point of negating the individual."
    I am not sure selflessness is imperative. However, altruism is a concept that causes problems to many views on ethics.
     
  4. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  5. Voodoo Child Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    1,296
    Is it that simple? Who says altruism exists?

    "Self-sacrifice enables us to sacrifice others without blushing"- George Bernhard Shaw
     
  6. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  7. Cactus Jack Death Knight of Northrend Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    816
    I don't think in a true pure form it exists, however in a very deluded sence I think it does. But to the true extent you were talking about - it is unhealthy. I think you should care for other people but not to the point where it is almost self destructive.
     
  8. noktvs Carnal-Siddha Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    41
    Merlijn,
    Yeah maybe your right about this being more related to ethics, but I was just thinking about it in the sense that Humanism is a philosophy and this is the "General Philosophy" section. Although, either way, this doesn't mean that we can't talk about it here, does it? But, your point is duly noted and I will consider more fully before posting another thread.

    Vodoo Child,
    No, I don't feel it is that simple. But on one hand, if your view is that it doesn't exsist, than by proxy you would be "against" it, would you not?

    Cactus Jack,
    I agree. I also feel that even those who claim they follow a form of altruism in a "pure" sense are actually basing their actions from the self and possibly even to a certain degree, from their own ego's. For example, those who do charity work with "selfless devotion', say running a soup kitchen, or a shelter for the homeless, don't you think that at some level it satisfies their ego to think "I am really helping these poor people."? And then there's always the danger of those types to think they are superior to others, because of all the "good works" that they perform, again another ego based assumption.
     
  9. kmguru Staff Member

    Messages:
    11,757
    example of altruism: Mother Theresa, right?

    Is humanism kinda Anne Rynd ATLAS
    SHRUGGED type stuff we are talking here?
     
  10. Asguard Kiss my dark side Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    23,049
    what about mother Terasia (not sure on the spelling of her name) or Fred Hollows?

    They did good because it was the right thing to do

    I wish i could live up to thier standid
     
  11. Voodoo Child Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    1,296
    No. It is hard to be against something that doesn't exist. The thing that is commonly mistaken for altruism might, and probably is, a benefical and useful phenomenon.

    Who says Mother Theresa was altruistic? Perhaps she did it because it gave her a sense of purpose, perhaps she wanted a room with a view in heaven.
     
  12. Merlijn curious cat Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    1,014
    Who says one cannot have indirect "selfish" goals when one is altruistic?
     
  13. noktvs Carnal-Siddha Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    41
    Maybe we should each define what we mean by the word "altruism"? I pretty much interprete it like the standard dictionary definition of "unselfish concern for the welfare of others; selflessness". I have also seen it used most often in this manner when applied on a philosophical level. So by that definition, if Momma T did have any selfish goals, even if indirect, she would not be altruistic.
    Sort of. Actually Ayn Rand created her own Philosophy and called it "Objectivism". It definitely has humanistic qualities, but the two aren't the same thing in toto. My point about people basing their actions from the self and/or ego, even when performing so-called altruistic acts, does come from Objectivism though, which borrows it from Egoism (another flavor of philosophy) I do view that these three, Humanism, Egoism and Objectivism, have a lot in common. Most notably the emphasis on the individual as opposed to the group. But after taking a closer look at Humanism, I'm starting to wonder if it fits into this category or not. Also, just to clarify, the Humanism I'm talking about is "Modern Humanism" (circa early 20th century) which is diffferent from the "Literary Humanist" movement that started back during the Renaissance by thinkers such as Erasmus, Galileo and Machiavelli. Although personally I feel the earlier form of Humanism laid the foundation from which the more recent form adapted and expanded upon. There are various strands of Humanism other then these two as well. A decent comparison is given here:

    http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/fred_edwords/humanism.html
     
  14. Neutrino_Albatross Legion of Dynamic Discord Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    751
    Ive just got one question, if those are the belifes why is it called humanism?
     
  15. kmguru Staff Member

    Messages:
    11,757
    Altruism: "So by that definition, if Momma T did have any selfish goals, even if indirect, she would not be altruistic. "

    Then perhaps altruism is like absolute zero - can not be achieved by humans. No matter whose name you bring up, we can argue that the person is thinking of after life or whatever motivates that person to do the deed. Without motivation, there is no action. To move one must be selfish to survive so that one can move. The act does not have to be at the same time as the motivation. So it can be argued that - just the motivation to live and learn to carry out the so called unselfish act by itself is selfish...

    Humanism: Then we need to define with some analogies as to what we are talking about here. Otherwise it will be a 1000 page book before we can comment on it. (a la Atlas shrugged...)

    BTW: I was on a plane - in the middle seat somewhere up north. My left passenger was reading Atlas Shrugged, My right passenger got excited and started talking. I had no choice but to join in. While they were praising the book, somehow the whole discussion sounded like a recap on Communism (Karl Marx kind).
     
  16. noktvs Carnal-Siddha Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    41
    Yeah, that's my beef with it being included in the Humanist "Statement of Principles" document I was reading. I tend to think altruism is non-exsistent because of the fact that humanity is inherently selfish by nature. Maybe what people generally call altruism is more like a lesser degree of selfishness?

    Atlas Shrugged: "somehow the whole discussion sounded like a recap on Communism (Karl Marx kind)."

    Hmm, sounds like the people that were discussing it hold a completely different point of veiw than most in regards to Rand's Objectivism. She argues against any form of socialism or communism and encourages capitalism instead. In all of her stories, Rand emphasises this as the ideal political/economical background for her characters to progress and achieve their goals in life. She is very much a proponent of the individual over the group. In fact, she grew up in a communist country, can't recall which one right now (Sovient Union?), and she loathed it, thought it was oppressive and this is what spured her on to develop her own philosophy.
    Ok. What I'm taling about when I say Humanism is:

    a Philosophy that rejects 'supernaturalism', belief, faith and superstition. It promotes reason, science, and experience as the means to interperate life and the universe. It veiws humanity as the source of determining morals and ethics, as opposed to 'revelation' from a deity or other supernatural force. Although it recognizes that we all have faults, it tends to view humanity in a positive light, as a progressive force moving forward. It also emphasizes the individual over the group. This last point may be incorrect, and this is what I am trying to determine with my most recent research.
     
  17. kmguru Staff Member

    Messages:
    11,757
    It sounds like "Sanatana Dharma" to me - a philosophy that is as old as the civilization itself.

    More on SD at http://www.sciforums.com/t3325/sa65f18ba575121a781cea2ae5735c292/thread.html
     

Share This Page