Challenge for secularists

[funyun]

If you were to use theory of utility, then your problem could be solved. Every ethical model uses utilitarianism in its transition from hypothetical to practical application. Its simply relies on happiness becoming definitional making the use of utilitarianism similar to an equation to determine the best answer.

That aside, I would say societies focused primarily on humanism need to first start out building a base or an infustructure through cold calculation and violation of humanistic principles.

Those who make the jump w/o doing this usually end up conquered.

I say being humane is a luxary the appears in prosperity, not always the logical conclusion of choices.

I'm sorry, but when did this become about "what system works best for a society?" Humanism isn't a model for society, it's an individal philosophy.

Anyway, you're putting the cart before the horse. The point you are pressing-- that humanism doesn't "work"-- is (wrong, but also) irrelevant. The idea that whether or not a system "works" is the most important measure of that system is just the foundation of one particular philosophy (utilitarianism), and is not universal. You're essentially applying a philosophy to a metaphilosophy, saying that the measure of value of any system is whether it "works", when in fact that's not a rule, just a tenant of your own philosophy.

As for the logic of humanism, I've already demonstrated that.

 

[CSmrw]

Hello.

I am searching for an ethical system that is universal and that does not fail after certain conditions are met.

I always hear about how theistic morality is based upon baseless assumptions, or delusions and thus invalid. My challenge then is to present a moral system that is free of either.

Keep it friendly and goodluck

There is none. Strive for accuracy, weigh it with compassion and assume you are getting it wrong.

 

[Isambard]

I'm sorry, but when did this become about "what system works best for a society?" Humanism isn't a model for society, it's an individal philosophy.

Anyway, you're putting the cart before the horse. The point you are pressing-- that humanism doesn't "work"-- is (wrong, but also) irrelevant. The idea that whether or not a system "works" is the most important measure of that system is just the foundation of one particular philosophy (utilitarianism), and is not universal. You're essentially applying a philosophy to a metaphilosophy, saying that the measure of value of any system is whether it "works", when in fact that's not a rule, just a tenant of your own philosophy.

As for the logic of humanism, I've already demonstrated that.

You attacked utility based on what you saw as flaws in societal faults, I merely turned it around and argued that it is in fact humanism which fails when applied universally or even locally. Seeing as you are saying it is in fact a personal philosophy, then it would seem you agree.

Anyways, id like to ask you to re-state your logic of humanism, because if you agree it is subjective and thus relative, then its really not any better than any other ethical system and wholly dependant on the situation.