Humanism

[Elioenai26]

Speaking for myself, because human existence by nature is value-laden, and there is a natural standard of goodness for human beings. Human beings have a natural function, and that is to flourish -- to mature and self-actualize -- as human beings. For this reason, I can't be a nihilist, and I can't even be an existentialist who believes that existence precedes essence.

That's the short answer. Perhaps I'll get back to the painfully detailed answer if I resurrect my meta-ethics thread.


eudaimonia,

Mark

Why do you think that human existence is by nature value laden?

What is value?

I will need you to demonstrate for me why you believe this is the correct view of reality.

 

[Paradoxum]

I hadn't seen this document before you had brought it to my attention, so my reply will be a surprise even to myself.

I see a list of articles and a list of protocols. I'll stick to the initial articles for now.

1) requires the enforcement of rights. Sounds good.

2) is obsolete. Protocol 13 prohibits the death penalty under all circumstances. I happen to agree.

3) prohibits torture. I agree.

4) prohibits servitude, but misses out on prohibiting tax slavery. I'll give them points for at least going part way.

5) affirms the right of individuals to liberty and security, and generally seems to be about openness and fairness in judicial procedings. Sounds good.

6) is about a right to a fair trial. Sounds good.

7) requires that no one is tried for a crime that wasn't a crime at the time that the act was performed. I'm amazed that this would even have to be mentioned, but good show on mentioning it.

8) affirms a right to privacy, and mentioned several exceptions that seem wide enough to drive a truck through. This could be better worded, but at least it is mentioned. Points for that.

9) affirms a freedom of thought, conscience, and religion, although strikingly does not mention a right not to have a religion. I expected a little better from a document affirmed in the 20th Century. Still, it's at least as well written as the America's First Amendment. So, points.

10) affirms freedom of speech, but names a long list of exceptions. Some exceptions seem reasonable, but some seem dubious. Protection of morals??? This seems wishy-washy to me, but is mostly good, I suppose.

11) affirms freedom of association, and that's good, but I'm a little annoyed by exceptions that sound as vague as "in accordance with law" and "necessary in a democratic society". I can only hope that judges can make clear sense of such things.

12) declares a right for men and women of marriagable age to get married, but doesn't cover same-sex marriage. That's disappointing. This is another "half-way" protection.

13) defends effective remedy. Sounds good.

14) talks about a prohibition of discrimination. I'm not sure that I agree that there should be such a thing, since I'd prefer two parties to voluntarily agree, or not, to some interaction, not to have such a thing forced on them. I'm ambivalent towards this one.

15) talks about suspending rights under conditions of emergency, which worries me since governments are all too likely to declare emergencies. This one makes me nervous. I would have liked to have seen some examples of legitimate derogations.

16) restricts the political activities of foreigners. Well, I guess so.

17) provides that no one may use rights to seek the abolition or limitation of other rights. I'm not quite certain I understand this one.

18) is about permitted restrictions on rights being used for only for their stated purposes. Okay, I guess.


Okay, so mostly agreement, with some quibbles for these.


eudaimonia,

Mark

I think I agree with you here. The only thing I could find about the restrictions based on 'morality' is that it seems to be mostly used to restrict sexuality. Eg: It allows the nations of Europe to make their own rules to do with same-sex marriage, prostitution, polygamy, etc. The wording still sounds a bit dodgy to me anyway.

Here are the rights specifically for the European Union (Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union - Wikisource, the free online library). It seems to include more rights and be more modern (2000), but doesn't seem to include the restrictions. I think it is meant to be understood legally with the use of other EU treaties and charters.

 

[Eudaimonist]

I will need you to demonstrate for me why you believe this is the correct view of reality.

Yes, I imagine you will. But first say the magic word.


eudaimonia,

Mark

 

[KCfromNC]

Yes, I imagine you will. But first say the magic word.

Actually, I'm not clear why he views this as a need rather than a want. Perhaps you should have him explain how he grounds the value judgement he uses to make this distinction.

 

[GrowingSmaller]

Man is an ethically centred animal. He lives in and is part of a world-of-value. One value is to understand his essence in this respect, such that he can determine how to deal with himself. So humanism is important, worthy because it discloses mans position as an intelligent agent in a world of differential worth. This makes humanism of practical bearing because understanding purchases us the potential for wisdom, just as a light helps us to look in the mirror and determine a proper course etc. I think that other humanisms, like anthropology's attempt to do evolutionary biology of man and place him historically, are also relevant. Then there is the anti-humanist idea that man has no essence. This is true to some degree - no one is born a doctor - but let's not forget perennial and general truths. I think the problem I have with secular humanism is not so much the normative ethics (be rational and scientific, do unto others..., self develop), but the apparent lack of well developed meta-ethics. Without a good meta-ethics one might more easily have the carpet pulled from under ones feet and be left feeling nihilistic, skeptical or 'arbitrary-ation-alist'. They are potentials for man, but I think they are mistaken and to be treated like discarded hypotheses.

 

[Leap]

What are your views on Humanism?

Secular humanism, like the Enlightenment in general, is self-defeating nonsense.

To clarify my point.

Humanism is based on rational empiricism. It requires evidence before belief is forthcoming. But why does it believe that evidence is needed before belief is to be forthcoming? Surely you could not require evidence until you believe that evidence is necessary, and you could not believe that evidence is necessary until you required evidence. Catch 22. It must mean that the first demand for evidence, the first belief that evidence is necessary before belief is forthcoming, was actually an act of faith (in the necessity of evidence) that itself denies and contradicts the whole premise of rational empiricism (ie: that evidence is necessary before belief is forthcoming).

 

[GrowingSmaller]

Why do you think that human existence is by nature value laden?

Sorry to but in, but I think that value related discourse has a real cause. For instance finding apple pie preferable to torture (preferable, better, more worthy) has real causes rather than just being imagined. Value related discourse (with terms like good, evil, better, best etc) is possibly an abstraction like maths but based on real states of affairs. The mathematical analogy is there when one can rate the value an object or experience with a score out of ten, or higher or lower than another.

What is value?

A property or aspect of experience that makes things differentialy preferable or worthwhile. If you know of Lockes secondary qualities then I think value is one. For example aesthetic value (which causes us to prefer certain artifacts etc as sensory objects even if our actual tastes differ across the polulation) is an subject dependent property (belonging to the experience of an object) rather than a feature of an independent object in a mind free world. But this does not make it less real, it is as real as the percieved redness of blood or the taste of ice cream. And unlike things we have no direct experience of we have to live and respond to it in a very intimate way.

I htink nihilism's problem is to conclude "mind independent phenomenon have no value, therefore neither does it belong to human experience".

 

[Paradoxum]

Secular humanism, like the Enlightenment in general, is self-defeating nonsense.

To clarify my point.

Humanism is based on rational empiricism. It requires evidence before belief is forthcoming. But why does it believe that evidence is needed before belief is to be forthcoming? Surely you could not require evidence until you believe that evidence is necessary, and you could not believe that evidence is necessary until you required evidence. Catch 22. It must mean that the first demand for evidence, the first belief that evidence is necessary before belief is forthcoming, was actually an act of faith (in the necessity of evidence) that itself denies and contradicts the whole premise of rational empiricism (ie: that evidence is necessary before belief is forthcoming).

What is the point in replying to you when you don't believe in thinking about things? Any attempt to explain and you will call it liberal jibber jabber.

You hit and run. You will give a reasonable critique and then wont accept a reasonable answer. Well that is how it seems, I could be wrong.

 

[Danyc]

 

[Leap]

What is the point in replying to you when you don't believe in thinking about things? Any attempt to explain and you will call it liberal jibber jabber.

You hit and run. You will give a reasonable critique and then wont accept a reasonable answer. Well that is how it seems, I could be wrong.

And here we have a classic example of Ad Hominem and a running away from the points made.

Here's a challenge for you. Take the time to actually understand the challenge put to you. In the end, you may actually benefit from it.

 

[Paradoxum]

And here we have a classic example of Ad Hominem and a running away from the points made.

Here's a challenge for you. Take the time to actually understand the challenge put to you. In the end, you may actually benefit from it.

I was going to reply, and I would if it was someone else, but I'm genuinely not sure there is any point with you. You have claimed that you don't believe in reason and evidence, so it seems pointless to give you a reply.

Also it isn't Ad Hominem. What I said wasn't Ad Hominem because I didn't say your argument was wrong because you are a bad person.

In fact I accept that you made a fair point. I just don't know if there is any point replying.

 

[Leap]

I was going to reply, and I would if it was someone else, but I'm genuinely not sure there is any point with you. You have claimed that you don't believe in reason and evidence, so it seems pointless to give you a reply.

Also it isn't Ad Hominem. What I said wasn't Ad Hominem because I didn't say your argument was wrong because you are a bad person.

In fact I accept that you made a fair point. I just don't know if there is any point replying.

You ignored my arguement and chose to (attempt to) criticise me instead. Ad hominem. Hey ho, if you cannot be bothered to recognise the weakness in Humanism that I have pointed out it is no skin off my nose.

 

[Paradoxum]

You ignored my arguement and chose to (attempt to) criticise me instead.

Well I've been thinking about your argument since I read, so it isn't that I'm not taking the argument seriously or that I am ignoring it. I was criticising your hypocrisy (using reason in your argument, but then saying you are against reason other times). I was also saying that if you are against reason and evidence then there is no point replying to you with an argument based on reason and evidence.

Ad hominem.

That literally isn't what it means though. Google it. It means to say someone's argument is wrong because of some defect in the person making the argument. I never said anything like that. I said your argument was reasonable, but went on to question you apart from your argument.

 

[Paradoxum]

Secular humanism, like the Enlightenment in general, is self-defeating nonsense.

To clarify my point.

Humanism is based on rational empiricism.

I'm not exactly sure how you are defining this concept. Do you mean rationalism and empiricism, or just empiricism? Just asking because I don't mind using reason too.

It requires evidence before belief is forthcoming. But why does it believe that evidence is needed before belief is to be forthcoming? Surely you could not require evidence until you believe that evidence is necessary, and you could not believe that evidence is necessary until you required evidence. Catch 22. It must mean that the first demand for evidence, the first belief that evidence is necessary before belief is forthcoming, was actually an act of faith (in the necessity of evidence) that itself denies and contradicts the whole premise of rational empiricism (ie: that evidence is necessary before belief is forthcoming).

Well I'll give my reply based on my limited thinking about this. I think you need to take into account probability. Many of my beliefs have a probability attached to them, it isn't just true/false.

A world appears to me through my senses. Because the world only appears to be through my senses it seems to be only possible to investigate the world through my senses. Without my senses I wouldn't even believe a world existed.

So, perhaps empiricism is based on some sort of reason.

Also you say empiricism is based on faith. By faith do you mean assumption? If so then is your faith in God comparable to the faith of someone who assumes there is an invisible intangible unicorn at the end of their garden. If not then why not? (This is a real question, I'm not just being annoying by talking about Unicorns).

What would you present as your alternative to empiricism?

 

[Leap]

Well I've been thinking about your argument since I read, so it isn't that I'm not taking the argument seriously or that I am ignoring it. I was criticising your hypocrisy (using reason in your argument, but then saying you are against reason other times). I was also saying that if you are against reason and evidence then there is no point replying to you with an argument based on reason and evidence.

You are a humanist. By using reason I am speaking to you in a language that you understand (as opposed to revelation and faith, which you do not comprehend). I have used that language, which you value, to illustrate to you the weakness of the demand for evidence.

That literally isn't what it means though. Google it. It means to say someone's argument is wrong because of some defect in the person making the argument. I never said anything like that. I said your argument was reasonable, but went on to question you apart from your argument.

If you think that this...
"What is the point in replying to you when you don't believe in thinking about things? Any attempt to explain and you will call it liberal jibber jabber.

You hit and run. You will give a reasonable critique and then wont accept a reasonable answer. Well that is how it seems, I could be wrong. "
...which relies on personal attack, is anything but ad hominem, you are very much mistaken.

Come on. You are a humanist. That means you believe in reason. So use it and realise that I have just illustrated the problem with the basis of humanism.

 

[WonderBeat]

Oh? Please explain. I can't imagine how nihilism would be an improvement on anything.


eudaimonia,

Mark

Nihilism isn't an improvement on anything....

It's just the honest position to take when Infinite Love does not exist.

 

[Leap]

you say empiricism is based on faith. By faith do you mean assumption? If so then is your faith in God comparable to the faith of someone who assumes there is an invisible intangible unicorn at the end of their garden. If not then why not? (This is a real question, I'm not just being annoying by talking about Unicorns).

What would you present as your alternative to empiricism?

When you first decided that evidence was required in order for belief to be forthcoming, you could not have decided that on the basis of evidence because you were (by definition) yet to hold the belief that evidence was required.

Therefore your first coming to require evidence MUST have come as an act of faith, and that act of faith denies the whole basis of the demand for evidence (that it is superior to faith).

Also, incidentally, empiricism is about working from data. However, in an infinite universe there are an infinite number of variables impacting every situation. As we can never know more than an infinitesimal amount of those infinite impacting variables, empiricists also do not rely on reason as they claim but instead make a leap of faith concerning the immeasurably greater amount that they do not and can never know.

So the basis of empiricism is a leap of faith and its nature is a lie.

The alternative to doubt (ie: refusing to believe until evidence is forthcoming)? Simple. Faith (ie: believing until given cause not to). It is the only sane and non-self-contradicting (and thus reasonable) option.

 

[Skavau]

When you first decided that evidence was required in order for belief to be forthcoming, you could not have decided that on the basis of evidence because you were (by definition) yet to hold the belief that evidence was required.

The idea that evidence must be presented before accepting a belief is the foundation of empiricism. It forms the foundation of accepting that an objective reality exists. If you reject or question the notion of evidence (which is what you're doing) then you effectively reject the reality we observe and therefore come to the comical conclusion of solipsism and renders you unable to make any statement about anything.

You by your own reasoning reject empiricism. You reject the entire concept of evidence (otherwise known as reasons or objects that can be cited to support or argue against a specific position). This means you are functionally incapable by your own argument of even defending faith or anything that you believe.

Therefore your first coming to require evidence MUST have come as an act of faith, and that act of faith denies the whole basis of the demand for evidence (that it is superior to faith).

No, it is an assertion.

There are a few assertions we all make on reality for without them we would be incapable of determining anything else and would be stuck with no methodology to determine truth from falsehood.

Also, incidentally, empiricism is about working from data. However, in an infinite universe there are an infinite number of variables impacting every situation. As we can never know more than an infinitesimal amount of those infinite impacting variables, empiricists also do not rely on reason as they claim but instead make a leap of faith concerning the immeasurably greater amount that they do not and can never know.

We draw conclusions from what we do know, not what we don't. I cannot put it plainer than that. That is not functioning on faith but is by definition the complete opposite. That there could be an infinite amount of unknowns is potentially true but to dwell on that helps no-one and gets us nowhere.

The pursuit of knowledge is based on uncovering as much unknown as possible then observing and experimenting and working with it to improve what we know. That you reject that as futile is up to you but all I need to do is point out the first-world modern nation you live in as an example for human accomplishment in gaining knowledge.

The alternative to doubt (ie: refusing to believe until evidence is forthcoming)? Simple. Faith (ie: believing until given cause not to). It is the only sane and non-self-contradicting (and thus reasonable) option.

Faith in what, pray tell? You cannot on one hand berate empiricism for supposedly relying on faith but then advocate it in the other hand. That's hypocrisy.

Believing in what until given cause not to?

 

[Paradoxum]

You are a humanist. By using reason I am speaking to you in a language that you understand (as opposed to revelation and faith, which you do not comprehend). I have used that language, which you value, to illustrate to you the weakness of the demand for evidence.

I can talk about faith revelation, but perhaps by faith you mean something different than some Christians mean. Revelation would seem to be a sort of personal evidence anyway.

If you think that this...
"What is the point in replying to you when you don't believe in thinking about things? Any attempt to explain and you will call it liberal jibber jabber.

You hit and run. You will give a reasonable critique and then wont accept a reasonable answer. Well that is how it seems, I could be wrong. "
...which relies on personal attack, is anything but ad hominem, you are very much mistaken.

Yes, I am saying that isn't ad hominem. I'm not going to argue this bit any more. I said you should google it.

Come on. You are a humanist. That means you believe in reason. So use it and realise that I have just illustrated the problem with the basis of humanism.

Well I agree that you have raised a problem. I just think it is solvable. My position of reason and evidence hasn't changed much since I was a Christian, so me being a humanist now has nothing to do with it.

When you first decided that evidence was required in order for belief to be forthcoming, you could not have decided that on the basis of evidence because you were (by definition) yet to hold the belief that evidence was required.

Or perhaps there wasn't a decision at first. I could just be natural to believe there is a door in front of you because it feels and looks like a door in front of you. I don't know if I even made a decision that "evidence was required in order for belief to be forthcoming". I've never claimed that I am empiricism, and I wouldn't claim that if you asked me to. I just accept that investigating the world is a good way of understanding the world. If investigation tells me X will happen if Y, and then that does happen, then it looks like investigation of the world works.

I would also accept reason as a way of gaining belief.

Therefore your first coming to require evidence MUST have come as an act of faith, and that act of faith denies the whole basis of the demand for evidence (that it is superior to faith).

I don't think it is faith. It is deciding that I care about how the world appears to work to me. When evidence tells me that if I push a door it tends to open, that is a useful belief and seems to be as true as the worlds existence.

So if evidence doesn't tell me truth about the world then the world doesn't exist anyway.

Also, incidentally, empiricism is about working from data. However, in an infinite universe there are an infinite number of variables impacting every situation. As we can never know more than an infinitesimal amount of those infinite impacting variables, empiricists also do not rely on reason as they claim but instead make a leap of faith concerning the immeasurably greater amount that they do not and can never know.

Do we even live in an infinite universe? I don't know.

So the basis of empiricism is a leap of faith and its nature is a lie.

To be it seems like it is based on what is practical to know and because value knowing how the world appears to work.

The alternative to doubt (ie: refusing to believe until evidence is forthcoming)? Simple. Faith (ie: believing until given cause not to). It is the only sane and non-self-contradicting (and thus reasonable) option.

So do you believe everything on faith, or just God. I mean, do you believe there will be a murderer outside your tonight? Do you believe in the Yeti, chupacabra, loch ness monster? And how do you decide to believe in Yahweh
or Allah?

 

[Leap]

You reject the entire concept of evidence

No I have not.

I reject scientific doubt and embrace faith. Faith means trusting/believing until you have cause not to. Doubt is refusing to trust/believe until you have evidence. I still accept evidence, I just do not require evidence before I believe something.

That is how I can believe, for example, in innocent until proven guilty. I do not require evidence that someone is innocent before I believe that they are. I require evidence in order to stop believing in their innocence.

No, it is an assertion.

It is an act of faith.

Faith in what, pray tell? You cannot on one hand berate empiricism for supposedly relying on faith but then advocate it in the other hand. That's hypocrisy.

I am not berating empiricism for relying on faith. I am berating empiricism for contradicting itself (claiming that evidence is required before belief is forthcoming and then coming into being as an act of faith) and empiricists for not having the honesty to admit this and realise its implications.

Or perhaps there wasn't a decision at first.

In which case it still is not a position based upon evidence, but rather you came to it regardless of evidence. In which case, as soon as you realise that you need to seek evidence for believing it...but then you need evidence to believe that you need to seek evidence to believe it, and so onwards into an infinite loop. Sooner or later it takes a leap of faith that denies its own basic premise (that evidence is needed before belief is forthcoming).

So do you believe everything on faith, or just God. I mean, do you believe there will be a murderer outside your tonight? Do you believe in the Yeti, chupacabra, loch ness monster? And how do you decide to believe in Yahweh or Allah?

It is natural to believe what you are given (from those you trust until you have cause not to) until you have cause not to believe such because it itself denies faith.