I hope you don't mind how late this reply is. This has become a very involved and somewhat technical discussion, and I prefer to take my time on these things. We can let it rest and pick up from another angle some other time if you'd rather keep things light and quick (although observing your exchanges with Moral Orel, I doubt that's your preference).
Oh, I don't mind. And I have some extra time right now so I am replying more quickly than usual. Don't feel as if you have to reply quickly, too. Don't tell Orel, but I have my fingers crossed that my lengthy discussion with him will taper off soon.
(Also, feel free to pick and choose what you respond to. I realize this post is long.)
What is the analytical key, then? Priority is the only functional consequence I can think of for some things having "infinite value" and others not. Eg. save the thing with infinite value from the burning building before anything else... Cherish and protect the thing with infinite value over the things that do not... etc.
I don't know what the analytical key is, or whether there is one. Nor am I overly enthused about the functional reduction...
But I suppose the biggest temporal effect that I see flowing from the infinite value hypothesis would be the way that human beings are viewed in the world and how they relate to each other and the rest of creation. For example: that they have a privileged place in creation and that this ought to be reflected in education, law, labor, etc. I don't think it should primarily be about "prioritizing one thing over all others." For example, if it were simple prioritization and humans have an infinite 'value,' then it would seem that Humanists and Ecologists would be at odds with each other
qua global warming.
The foundation of Humanistic morality is a separate issue to its coherence and ability to prescribe lofty ideals.
Foundations can be separate from coherence but not entailment. That is to say that the foundation of a moral system directly affects its ability to prescribe lofty ideals. Insofar as your foundations are not deep your reasoning will be circular and unpersuasive.
Also, as I alluded to in my last, the problem isn't merely depth of foundation in rational principle, but also the metaphysical depth. "All that is allowed are declarations, agreements, contracts, force, etc." Humanistic justifications never seem to transcend human will (and the agreement or consent of wills). To illustrate with a simple example, consider someone approaching two men who are chopping down a tree:
- "Why are you chopping down that tree?" "Because we both agreed that it should be chopped down."
- "Why are you chopping down that tree?" "Because it is infected by a parasite that will kill the tree, spread to other trees, and harm the neighborhood environment."
The second example goes beyond mere agreement of human wills. It is more compelling, more persuasive, and more necessary.
Humanism is strictly for people who already buy into the idea that universal human flourishing is a good thing and that there are effective and ineffective ways to achieve it. You're not going to convince someone of that by purely rational means; generally these things appeal to one's empathy, self-interest, and sense of fairness. This is why I stated earlier that if I'm being objective, I can't tell you that Humanism is true per se, but it does line up with my moral sensibilities better than any religious doctrine or other moral philosophy.
You might find it unsatisfactory that a moral framework should rest on a mere assertion. That's fair, but if the concern of morality is how we ought to treat each other, the general goal of total fulfillment for all humans hardly seems controversial.
As far as I can tell, the problem here is that the goal itself is ill-defined. It can sound uncontroversial and unifying, at least until you look at the plethora of moral philosophies, political systems, and psychological models. They're not all saying the same thing. Humanism strikes me as a sort of naive suggestion, "Let's just do what's good for people!" That's fine and dandy, but it doesn't really go anywhere, and that's evidenced as soon as two simple questions are asked, "What do you think is good for people?" and "How?"
Well, Maslow is known as the father of Humanistic Psychology, so it's no accident that I'm referencing him here. It can be debated - and indeed, it is - whether Maslow, Aristotle, or Locke provide the most accurate explanations of human nature, but it's not untenable to incorporate the strengths of each of them into a single worldview. It's not as though I've read a ton of their work either, but just for example, I find Maslow's hierarchy of needs to be an apt list and ranking of the types of needs humans tend to pursue, I find Locke's 4 main duties to be good guidelines for what kinds of things should be enforced by law, and (although this is what I've read the least of) I do find Aristotle's political naturalism to be fairly agreeable. I don't see any inherent contradiction between these three particular elements.
I guess I don't agree that systems can be so easily combined, but we can talk about this in more detail. The real trick is reconciling Humanism's relativism and desire for value-neutrality with the goal of an internationally applicable understanding of human nature. If you want to see what happens when you throw all of the Western political philosophies into a mixing bowl, just look at all of the potential presidential candidates in the United States and their various political views. Or Western psychologists, etc. Expanding that to a worldwide stage complicates the already-complicated picture considerably.
Then there's the old problem of a thrown-together conglomerate as opposed to a natural unity. If there is no underlying methodology to determine whether some new school of thought can be profitably appended to the Humanism-conglomerate, then what will be the integrity of the system? A simple vote or an attempt at maximal inclusivity runs up against a lack of integrity
and the metaphysical impediment noted above of delving no deeper than human will. A system built on Maslow alone goes metaphysically deeper, but the more foundational thinkers you invite to the party the more you flatten out topography and avoid depth. ...unless of course you have an intelligible method of incorporation and rejection, but then the source of this method/system must itself have integrity and staying-power.
My guess is that Humanism is just one option among others. Some people think it is a universal option because they don't perceive the complexity of the underlying issues, nor do they perceive the identifiable characteristics of modern Humanism. I hope I'm not being offensive, but a rough analogy would be the introduction of a car "to end all cars!" "Ford has introduced the new Omnia model which includes the best of all possible worlds: space, mpg, luxury, handling - you name it!" The advertising may be impressive, but if you go visit a mechanic who views cars in terms of specs and parts rather than advertising, he will tell you that it's pretty much the same as all the other cars.
But yes, in practice it does seem that in spite of the lofty goals of Humanists, the bulk of humanitarian aid tends to go toward food and shelter rather than higher-tiered needs. I wouldn't say that's a bad thing, but we do have some work to do (crossing my fingers for progressive movements) if we want to move our full ideology out of the hypothetical and into reality. One of the obstacles to that, which you may have been alluding to, is that you can't really enforce the development of things like "meaningful relationships" or "self-actualization." However, as I mentioned earlier, fulfilling the bottom two tiers of Maslow's pyramid frees people up to pursue the higher tiers on their own rather than fighting for the bottom two. I count that as a score for Humanism/humanitarianism.
Sure, I agree with that.
Ok, so what prevents a Humanist from recognizing the exquisite uniqueness of every human being? What does this recognition do for us?
If I tell you it doesn't do anything for you would you thereby be prevented from recognizing it?
From what I understand, Humanists can recognize whatever they want, so long as the vote passes.
Okay, sorry.
The OP was about atheism, Christianity, and truth (or valid inferences). You and I have moved to Humanism and Christian principles. I don't mind the move, but I don't have ready answers to questions such as these. Part of the problem is that we've moved from truth/inference to will/practicality. You seem to think that humanists can believe and profess whatever they want so long as they think the belief will be useful to their broader project. The theological correlate to that sort of thinking is called
Voluntarism, and it's considered a mild heresy in Catholicism.
I'm perfectly willing to concede the point that Humanists do not believe in existence after death. I don't know how that affects our capacity for empathy, though. Is it because once someone dies, we don't have empathy for their current experience because we don't believe there is one? If so, I'm skeptical that many Christians who believe in Hell have much empathy at all, seeing as they must believe billions of people are experiencing the worst torture imaginable right now and they're hardly bothered.
I'm going to drop the "life after death" angle. It seems a bit tangential and obscure. It will be generally present under the notion of a human soul, but I am not going to argue it explicitly (unless, for some reason, you really want me to).
Ah, so it was as I thought. I suppose if capacity for empathy is a function of how much of the subject you believe exists, then you're right, technically.
First note that my argument said nothing about empathy. In fact I specifically left that option out in favor of your other two criteria: good will and charity. It isn't obvious to me that people who believe in souls have greater empathy.
Interestingly, you've done the mirror opposite: taken up empathy and dropped good will and charity:
Moreover, as a Humanist, I'm chiefly concerned about how this empathy manifests in reality rather than how great or small it is by definition. What does your empathy do for people in the here and now that the Humanists' can't?
Well, I admit that I don't find empathy to be very important, especially in comparison to good will and charity. I think Christians have some empathic advantages, but not enough to merit an argument in an already-long post.
Why is empathy so important to you?
But I don't find this compelling, just as you would not find it compelling for someone to claim that humans are gods in their own right and thus their empathy is greater than yours because they believe humans are "more" than you do.
I think my argument about people who believe in the soul being more capable of good will and charity is sound. Similarly, if someone believes that dogs are superhuman, they would have more good will and charity towards dogs than I do. Take my sister, for example.
I've been running to the SEP a lot for the purposes of this discussion, but unfortunately there doesn't seem to be an entry on Humanism, specifically. If you're set on referencing some kind of source for the core tenets of Humanism, the Wikipedia entry on it is as good as any.
Humanism - Wikipedia.
Thanks. I will keep an eye on it, but at present I'm happy to let you steer us to a working definition of Humanism. Having moved slightly away from the OP, I just wanted to offer a way to better ground the conversation.
