Secular Humanism

[Haruspex]

Firstly, on a preliminary note: I do not wish to offend members who may subscribe to secular humanism. This does not mean, however, that I show 'respect' towards their beliefs, as that would be impossible to reconcile with calling the validity of secular humanism into question. Now that this has been clarified...

Little more than a year ago, I went to the uni societies fair and that is where I've come across the 'Atheist and Secular Humanist Society'. Now, at the time I was quite new to the whole idea. Atheists and local atheist groups and organisations are generally not quite 'humanist' in their views and approach, so it is hard to find anything to do with ethics and morality in their programmes other events and so on. In other words there is just no focus on it. This could be an explanation for my bias, as I really don't know what to make of secular humanism. On the one hand, I like the idea that it is secular and that it is quite closely associated with atheism, but the humanist part seems somewhat fishy to me.

What I find questionable is the morality bit. I will readily admit that my views are quite extreme, so they are likely to invite criticism, especially when it comesto morality. Now, nevertheless, I find it to be logical that in the absence of ultimate authority (in the narrow sense of a source of justification) the normative, binding nature of any set of rules as to human conduct, cannot be established. I mean, wherever we may look, we won't find a source of authority through which we may justify our actions. It would be cool if Mr Rapist didn't live up to his name, or Mrs Murderer or Mrs Adulteress, but even if they commit 'morally reprehensible' acts, well so what? There is truly nothing to suggest that they shouldn't. Now, my claim here proceeds on the basis that no oughts and ought nots exist and proof or evidence to the contrary is very much fatal to it.

For now, enough of me, just bring on the clash of opinions!

 

[Tsuyoiko]

It's in everyone's interests to live in a society where you can for the most part walk down the street without getting raped or murdered. That's the authority that morality rises out of.

 

[Haruspex]

It's in everyone's interests to live in a society where you can for the most part walk down the street without getting raped or murdered. That's the authority that morality rises out of.

But that's merely a desire. There's a wish, a means and a final result to be achieved. What need is there to create a new category (morality), when 'interest' conveys the idea perfectly. Also, I'm talking about objective morality, primarily. Even if it is in our interest to prevent rape and murder, there is no obligation. Nothing is binding us to act in any prescribed way. And if it can be said that the morality behind secular humanism is subjective, it is even harder to take it seriously. Such a personal 'code' is nothing more than a collection of preferences and again, calling it morality amounts to overcomplicating otherwise quite obvious concepts.

 

[imuseto]

what exactly secularism is.?
i don't really understand the details

 

[Half-n-Half]

It's the idea that government should be separate from religion or other similar ideologies.

Derfel, I'm curious to know what it is you think about the word morality over complicates certain concepts. Let me see if I can understand your point. In a sense I agree with you in the fact that in absence of an objective morality everything boils down to interests, and subjective morality and interests are essentially synonyms in that regard. Is this the lack of need you are talking about? That since subjective morality and interests are essentially the same, why use the word morality since it carries so much baggage with it?

 

[RolandtheHeadless]

Religious people like to claim that human morality must come from God. If true, then why didn't God make all people good, all the time?

From an evolutionary perspective, there are good reasons why humans would evolve moral codes. We are an intelligent, social species; some form of moral code must be necessary for us to live together. Those tribes of proto-humans that did not respect each other's rights and cooperate would be at a disadvantage compared to those who did.

 

[imuseto]

sorry if i'm too far away from the subject
but, this secularism is just the same with zionist order to make every single person on this earth to lost their beliefs of religion and become atheist
am i right or is there anyone who know much more about zionist.?
because i think secularism is just the same with zionist ideologies

 

[Hezam]

secularism is one million times better than Zionism.

 

[Emoni]

sorry if i'm too far away from the subject
but, this secularism is just the same with zionist order to make every single person on this earth to lost their beliefs of religion and become atheist
am i right or is there anyone who know much more about zionist.?
because i think secularism is just the same with zionist ideologies

ROFLMAO

Figures... lol

 

[Hezam]

ROFLMAO
Figures... lol

What so funny ? He asked if it's' right or not !!

 

[Haruspex]

Firstly, no amount of facepalms would be enough. The ill-begotten fools of humanity truly drive me to despise it with all my being. I truly am astounded. Now, concerning the topic:


I'm sort of struggling to juggle with all the concepts in my head at the same time, so I'll just go one by one.

I find the normativity of morality problematic, as I have stated it above. We may identify, or rather, we may try to identify sources that are authoritative, that obligate us to perform certain actions and to refrain from performing others, but the truth is that no evidence or proof exists that we ought to follow any such source mentioned thus far. God, rules derived from analysis of the human nature, nature's spirits, Xenu or anything, really. I mean, suppose that I'm kicking stones, which is a mortal sin in the state of Wherever and a devout follower comes along. He tells me that I must stop. I'll ask him, of course, why? First, he tells me that his God said so and it is written in scripture. I won't give a ****. He may, then, try to appeal to my own personality by saying that if I piss the people off and cause abhorrence I will feel bad about it, and that is the reason why I shouldn't kick stones around. I may or may not feel bad about it, who knows? I may stop if I'm a nice guy. If it doesn't work, he'll play his trump card. He'll tell me, if I don't stop, I'll be put to death.

Even if I do comply with the wishes of the devout, it will not be because I have recognised the binding nature of morality stemming from some source. It will simply be because I don't want to face the unpleasant consequences. There isn't a trace of morality there. And if I choose the challenge the claim that certain rules of morality are binding me, I will congratulate the opponent that proves me wrong. We are facing difficulties trying to prove certain claims right relating to the physical world. How could someone just come along and prove that something that does not appear to exist is somehow binding me?

I have absolutely no obligation to do or to refrain from doing anything. And also, in my estimation, the standard of proof would be ridiculous, if someone tried to prove the contrary. Say, 'absolutely certain', for example? Until the day that someone does prove the existence of binding, objective morality, I think we can proceed on the basis that it doesn't exist, because for all practical purposes it is as if it did not exist, regardless of whether it does.

Moving on to subjective morality...

Any 'code' you create yourself will have its authority limited by your own capacity. It is binding in so far as your own power can confer upon it the power to bind. Now, I can't really think of a human being who would have the authority to create binding commands directed towards him or herself or others. The thought that obligations in a sense divorced from the physical world (moral obligations, for example, that people claim somehow bind us) can exist is laughable. There is no indication of their existence. If they do not exist, you cannot create a binding, or really, any obligation whether for yourself or for others. If I decide now that my path in life shall be one of abstinence and swear that I shall abstain from a huge list of stuff and go on to break the 'oath', can it said that I will have dishonoured this obligation I have created? Or would you accept the alternative answer that what happened was that I changed my mind and that's that?

If morality in general does not enjoy binding power, then that must include subjective morality too. If it has no binding power, then it is quite difficult to consider it normative in the true sense. If it is merely a desire with no binding force behind it then it does not differ from an ordinary desire. The creation of the concept of 'morality', I find, is just a form of intellectual perversion. There already existed a category, you can call it desires, wishes, aims, goals and so on and so forth. Surely, when I say 'You must stop doing that, now!', I do not truly mean that there is an obligation stemming from a source that has the power to create binding rules, that somehow obligates you to stop. What it truly means is 'I would like it if you stopped.' I am conveying nothing more. It may seem like I am, but I'm not. That is about the only thing that you can understand from my words.

 

[Tsuyoiko]

what exactly secularism is.?
i don't really understand the details

Ever hear of Google?

sorry if i'm too far away from the subject
but, this secularism is just the same with zionist order to make every single person on this earth to lost their beliefs of religion and become atheist
am i right or is there anyone who know much more about zionist.?
because i think secularism is just the same with zionist ideologies

This has to be amongst the most ignorant statements I have ever heard.

But that's merely a desire. There's a wish, a means and a final result to be achieved. What need is there to create a new category (morality), when 'interest' conveys the idea perfectly. Also, I'm talking about objective morality, primarily. Even if it is in our interest to prevent rape and murder, there is no obligation. Nothing is binding us to act in any prescribed way. And if it can be said that the morality behind secular humanism is subjective, it is even harder to take it seriously. Such a personal 'code' is nothing more than a collection of preferences and again, calling it morality amounts to overcomplicating otherwise quite obvious concepts.

I think you're absolutely right that the term "interest" could be used, except I think that's a more general term. Morality is an interest of society, as compared to the interests of an individual. I also agree with you that the morality behind secular humanism is subjective. You could define their moral code as the rules that in their opinion would guide people to act in the interests of society.

I disagree with you that nothing is binding us to act. What to we mean by saying that a legal contract is binding? Not that there is some ultimate authority compelling us follow the terms of the contract, but simply that if we fail to do so there will be undesirable consequences. So we could argue that it's the desire to avoid undesirable consquences that makes moral codes binding.

I find the normativity of morality problematic, as I have stated it above. We may identify, or rather, we may try to identify sources that are authoritative, that obligate us to perform certain actions and to refrain from performing others, but the truth is that no evidence or proof exists that we ought to follow any such source mentioned thus far. God, rules derived from analysis of the human nature, nature's spirits, Xenu or anything, really.

I don't really understand why the existence of some ultimate authority is necessary for morality to have any meaning or binding nature. That's just one shade of morality, although it may have been instrumental in the development of moral codes.

I mean, suppose that I'm kicking stones, which is a mortal sin in the state of Wherever and a devout follower comes along. He tells me that I must stop. I'll ask him, of course, why? First, he tells me that his God said so and it is written in scripture. I won't give a ****. ...Even if I do comply with the wishes of the devout, it will not be because I have recognised the binding nature of morality stemming from some source. It will simply be because I don't want to face the unpleasant consequences.

This isn't the only possibility. Imagine if, instead of saying "God said so," he had given you a detailed account, with evidence, of how the stones in that part of the world are particularly hard and sharp, of how only a few months ago there were hundreds of cases of broken ankles, how the victims had to take time off work and how this adversely affected the economy. He might also show you evidence of how the number of cases of broken ankles has fallen dramatically since the law was passed.

Of course you are still free to consider the law nonsensical, but wouldn't the rational thing be to obey the law not just because of the fear of punishment, but because the law clearly protects the interests of society? Wouldn't it be fair to say that in some sense we "ought" to follow the law since it's the rational thing to do? Surely we would consider it irrational to disobey the law in this situation.

There isn't a trace of morality there. And if I choose the challenge the claim that certain rules of morality are binding me, I will congratulate the opponent that proves me wrong. We are facing difficulties trying to prove certain claims right relating to the physical world. How could someone just come along and prove that something that does not appear to exist is somehow binding me?

I guess there are at least least two different senses of morality. One stems from authority. This is the kind of moral code that religions or other despotic regimes have. The other stems from a rational determination of right and wrong. The advantage of the first is that it is absolute and thus easier to enforce. The advantage of the second is that it allows for flexibility. If the stones in that part of the world suddenly became brittle and turned to dust on impact with bone, the law could be revoked.

I have absolutely no obligation to do or to refrain from doing anything.

You have no absolute obligation, otherwise it would be impossible to break a law.

Until the day that someone does prove the existence of binding, objective morality, I think we can proceed on the basis that it doesn't exist, because for all practical purposes it is as if it did not exist, regardless of whether it does.

I agree that objective morality probably doesn't exist, but I think subjective morality can be binding in a certain sense.

Any 'code' you create yourself will have its authority limited by your own capacity.

I think that's why the origins of morality are in subservience to authority. It's easier to do as you're told than to figure out right and wrong for yourself.

If I decide now that my path in life shall be one of abstinence and swear that I shall abstain from a huge list of stuff and go on to break the 'oath', can it said that I will have dishonoured this obligation I have created? Or would you accept the alternative answer that what happened was that I changed my mind and that's that?

If you accept my sense of binding as "the rational thing to do", then it would depend on your reasons for this path. If you gave stuff up for Lent, then I think we could simply say you changed your mind. But if you had given them up for health reasons, then I think we could say you were wrong to break your oath.

Surely, when I say 'You must stop doing that, now!', I do not truly mean that there is an obligation stemming from a source that has the power to create binding rules, that somehow obligates you to stop. What it truly means is 'I would like it if you stopped.' I am conveying nothing more. It may seem like I am, but I'm not. That is about the only thing that you can understand from my words.

Or, to harp on my theme, you could be conveying the idea that stopping is the rational thing to do, which is what I think a mother means to convey when she tells her child that he must stop running into the road.

 

[Yukiko chan]

But that's merely a desire. There's a wish, a means and a final result to be achieved. What need is there to create a new category (morality), when 'interest' conveys the idea perfectly. Also, I'm talking about objective morality, primarily. Even if it is in our interest to prevent rape and murder, there is no obligation. Nothing is binding us to act in any prescribed way. And if it can be said that the morality behind secular humanism is subjective, it is even harder to take it seriously. Such a personal 'code' is nothing more than a collection of preferences and again, calling it morality amounts to overcomplicating otherwise quite obvious concepts.

There are at least three problems from which the necessity of the existence of morality stems:

1/ As human beings, no matter how far ahead we can plan/think/predict, we cannot have full knowledge of the consequences of our actions. What could seem like an interesting opportunity to a person at some instant, may result in a drastic outcome later on. Of course it all depends on our definition of "interest": if all we want is an instant of flashing pleasure, then let's go ahead killing, raping, stealing, etc. But as homo sapiens with a neocortex we cannot contend with short moments of self-satisfaction, most of the time, because we know that we can get more than that: our capacity to analyze sensory data makes us see the many possible uses of real objects, uses that we can only explore well-enough with enough time and focus, hence the necessity for an environment wherein the individual would not fear for his existence and his basic needs.

2/ Most of our actions are either unconscious or emotion based, which stresses more the idea that some of our actions at least may be against our interests (however we define them). There are probably few people in our world who can truly canalize their emotions, and think rationally in any given situation.


3/ No matter how connected we may be, as part of a social group, the experience of each one of us remains strictly personal. Thus each individual human has a very limited knowledge of the others' thoughts, and our most accurate means of communication (language) remains incapable of conveying messages as precisely as we may wish them to be; let alone the fact that it could be used to twist facts and deform our inner thoughts and intentions. This results in an incapacity to synchronize our experiences quickly and accurately enough to make each one of us aware of the others' interests/intentions, to take them into consideration whenever we want to perform an action, and to work together towards a common goal.

All of this implies that, at this stage of our civilization, the concept of interest is insufficient to make human beings create the adequate environment for development on all levels to take place.
What do we need then? We need something that would solve (even partially) the three above cited problems.

Problem 1 implies that the thing we are seeking would be a general guideline* that each individual would follow, and which would save a great deal of time spent every instance we are confronted with a particular situation, the same way that assimilating mathematical theorems would save a great deal of time spent on solving each exercise. It doesn't mean that every exercise/case is solvable using said guidelines, but ﾂ"simpleﾂ" cases (which are more frequent) are. It would necessarily include rules protecting individual existence and basic needs (with a definition of those needs).

Problem 2 implies that our general guideline would need to be set beyond any emotions, which means two things:

1/ That it should be purely rational, taking scientific knowledge and as a unique basis, and putting into perspective our only common goal (development).
2/ That it should be part of our subconscious, and thus have a much stronger (or at least an equal) driving force than emotions themselves, hence the necessity for them to be part of human education since our tender age.

Problem 3 implies that the guidelines would need to stem not from a single individual's or a restricted group of individuals' experience, but from collective human experience as a whole. It would avoid the problem of non synchronization by creating a common basic reference to all of us, that would set a frame within which our freedoms are both defined and protected.

Let's call that set of general guidelines ﾂ"a moral codeﾂ", and the concept of creating and observing that moral code ﾂ"moralityﾂ".

That moral code would be neither objective nor subjective, as those concepts relate to a single individual's experience, it would be collective. Needless to say, it would not be a perfect or absolute set of rules, applicable in every society and every stage of our development: with our highly complex and ever-evolving societies, it would be only fair and necessary to re-adapt the code slowly every time a novelty, relevant to moral conduct, occurs. But I think that the existence of people outside of the system of morals is essential: they would constantly challenge it and question it, while reminding those within the system that morality remains a mere human construction which, like any other human construct, needs constant reevaluation, while conformists would work to protect the cohesion of the social system. Morality seeks harmony, but since it is imperfect it must evolve and adapt to new situations, hence the necessity of a meta-moral conflict between those who conform to it and those who don't; that conflict should take place, not only at a social level, but also at the level of each individual human being.


* at least that's the solution we came up with, which could be just one of other possible solutions.