Are you a humanist? I think I am.
For a long time I supposed humanism was something sinister. I allowed the opponents of humanism to attach a boogeyman-ish stigma to it. Now, though, I see that if my own philosophy aligns with any other mainstream one, humanism is it.
But I still have reservations.
For example: though I can’t think of a superior alternative, there is a real problem with the name. It’s obviously speciesist. If you came across a talking cat and asked her if she wanted to be a humanist, she’d have to reply, “PPFFFFFFT! I value all life, not just you humans. The only sensible name for such a philosophy is catism. I’m a catist.”
So what is humanism and do I agree with it?
The third incarnation of the Humanist Manifesto is posted prominently on the American Humanist Association website. The AHA claims it’s been signed by Richard Dawkins, Albert Ellis, the Amazing Randi, Michael Shermer, and Kurt Vonnegut. Impressive.
Below the fold, I shall present the manifesto with my commentary interspersed.
The Humanist Manifesto begins like this…
Humanism is a progressive philosophy of life that, without supernaturalism, affirms our ability and responsibility to lead ethical lives of personal fulfillment that aspire to the greater good of humanity.
I’m not sure what a “progressive philosophy” is. Usually “progressive philosophy” just means liberalism. But in this context perhaps it means a philosophy that improves over time. Either way, I agree with it!
But the “aspire to the greater good of humanity” part is a problem. Firstly, why stop with just humanity? What about animals? Who is aspiring for their greater good?
Secondly, while I’m a big believer in kindness, I think you have to be careful about making the good of humanity the centerpiece of your philosophy.
The lifestance of Humanism—guided by reason, inspired by compassion, and informed by experience—encourages us to live life well and fully. It evolved through the ages and continues to develop through the efforts of thoughtful people who recognize that values and ideals, however carefully wrought, are subject to change as our knowledge and understandings advance.
Beautiful! Perfection! Don’t change a word.
This document is part of an ongoing effort to manifest in clear and positive terms the conceptual boundaries of Humanism, not what we must believe but a consensus of what we do believe. It is in this sense that we affirm the following:
Knowledge of the world is derived by observation, experimentation, and rational analysis. Humanists find that science is the best method for determining this knowledge as well as for solving problems and developing beneficial technologies. We also recognize the value of new departures in thought, the arts, and inner experience—each subject to analysis by critical intelligence.
Okay, I like this section well enough. Let’s move on.
Humans are an integral part of nature, the result of unguided evolutionary change. Humanists recognize nature as self-existing. We accept our life as all and enough, distinguishing things as they are from things as we might wish or imagine them to be. We welcome the challenges of the future, and are drawn to and undaunted by the yet to be known.
This section touches upon two ideas I think are important: A) it’s best to know the world as it actually is (at least to the best of our ability) without painting our biases upon it, and B) it’s okay to admit that you do not know things.
But the first sentence confuses me. To say that humans are the “result of unguided evolutionary change” is, in my book, almost the exact opposite of saying we’re “an integral part of nature.” Nature doesn’t care about us. If we disappeared tomorrow, nature would keep humming along just fine without us, just like it did for billions of years before we came along. How are we an integral part of nature? Nature is important to us but we’re not important to it.
Ethical values are derived from human need and interest as tested by experience. Humanists ground values in human welfare shaped by human circumstances, interests, and concerns and extended to the global ecosystem and beyond. We are committed to treating each person as having inherent worth and dignity, and to making informed choices in a context of freedom consonant with responsibility.
Well, it sounds fairly nice at first. It doesn’t answer the “why be nice” question, but this document is a brief affirmation of a few key points, not a comprehensive treatise on irreligious ethics, so I’ll forgive that shortcoming.
But it’s awfully speciesist! I wish they’d get Peter Singer to rewrite this section for them. He’d get it right. I’d wager that his version would mention “equal consideration of interests.”
Life’s fulfillment emerges from individual participation in the service of humane ideals.
No. Bleck. Bad.
It sounds very nice to say that life’s fulfillment emerges from the service of humane ideals. It feels good to believe this sort of thing. But is it philosophically sound?
Christians also like to believe things that feel good. Compare the passage above to this passage from the Christian self-help book, The Purpose Driven Life:
It’s not about you.
The purpose of your life is far greater than your own personal fulfillment, your peace of mind, or even your happiness. It’s far greater than your family, your career, or even your wildest dreams and ambitions. If you want to know why you were placed on this planet, you must begin with God. You were born by his purpose and for his purpose.
~The Purpose Driven Life by Rick Warren, p1
I find this to be a very pretty sentiment. I don’t wish to say anything nasty about Rick Warren or his commendable book. Like many Christians, Rick Warren seems to be an incredibly decent human being. His Christian philosophy is noble on many levels. This book has inspired people to look past their petty self interests and to try to be of service to others. But the philosophy behind all of it is wrong.
Christians will tell you that serving others is your pupose. But, sorry, you were not born by or for any purpose.
Humanists will tell you that serving others is the route to happiness. But, sorry, there is no garuntee that your life’s fulfillment will emerge from the service of humane ideals.
Don’t get me wrong. Helping others is a good thing. But it is not why you’re here and it won’t necessarily make you happy.
There is only one philosophically valid reason to do good unto others. All other arguments for altruism are bunk. (And this is not actually an argument for why you should be nice to others; such an argument, it turns out, is impossible. This is just an explanation for why you are nice to others.)
You are good because… that’s just the way you roll.
We aim for our fullest possible development and animate our lives with a deep sense of purpose, finding wonder and awe in the joys and beauties of human existence, its challenges and tragedies, and even in the inevitability and finality of death. Humanists rely on the rich heritage of human culture and the lifestance of Humanism to provide comfort in times of want and encouragement in times of plenty.
I hate the idea that we should find “wonder and awe… even in the inevitability and finality of death.”
Wrong! There is no scientific reason why death must be inevitable. This belief that death is a good and necessary part of the circle of life disturbs me. It dissuades doctors and scientists from striving to increase longevity and enhance the quality of life of the elderly. Why should we accept death? Accepting death is a stupid, bad, evil, old-fashioned, religious idea.
My fellow humans, let’s not go gentle into that good night! Let’s rage against the dying of the light! Let’s stimulate stem cells, grow replacement parts in petri dishes, stitch bionic bits wherever they’ll go, and scream “SCREW THAT” at death! Because the real wonder and awe in the universe is living.
Humans are social by nature and find meaning in relationships. Humanists long for and strive toward a world of mutual care and concern, free of cruelty and its consequences, where differences are resolved cooperatively without resorting to violence. The joining of individuality with interdependence enriches our lives, encourages us to enrich the lives of others, and inspires hope of attaining peace, justice, and opportunity for all.
Yep! Couldn’t have said it better myself.
Working to benefit society maximizes individual happiness.
Here’s that old happiness-results-from-goodness canard again. Maybe it would be nice if it were true (although I’m not sure) but the evidence suggests it ain’t so simple.
Progressive cultures have worked to free humanity from the brutalities of mere survival and to reduce suffering, improve society, and develop global community. We seek to minimize the inequities of circumstance and ability, and we support a just distribution of nature’s resources and the fruits of human effort so that as many as possible can enjoy a good life.
Well, I can live with this passage I guess. It sounds vaugely liberal.
Humanists are concerned for the well being of all, are committed to diversity, and respect those of differing yet humane views. We work to uphold the equal enjoyment of human rights and civil liberties in an open, secular society and maintain it is a civic duty to participate in the democratic process and a planetary duty to protect nature’s integrity, diversity, and beauty in a secure, sustainable manner.
Works for me.
Thus engaged in the flow of life, we aspire to this vision with the informed conviction that humanity has the ability to progress toward its highest ideals. The responsibility for our lives and the kind of world in which we live is ours and ours alone.
I would’ve liked an ending with more oomph, but it’ll do.
In conclusion, I agree with the manifesto well enough that I will tentatively identify myself as a humanist. I don’t agree with all of it, but it’s understood that there is a diversity of opinions within the humanist camp, just as there is with any other major world view.
Copyright secured by Digiprove © 2012 William Bloom