Humanist Manifesto III, Article 3 - "Ethical Values"

Pro said: “Here, Con attempts to conflate Humanism with Socialism, totalitarianism and Marxism. However, as humanists generally do not self-identify as supporters of totalitarianism, this is likely a simple ad homen insult, and impossible to discuss.” Rebuttal: Socialism, Communism and secular atheism are united in congress through Humanism. In fact, one might say Humanism is the very common ground that allows the three premises to work together. The core mechanism of the United Nations is an international Congress of varying social idealisms united under the very ideal of humanistic ethics. Consider the Mission Statement of the United Nations: to reaffirm faith in fundamental human rights, in the dignity and worth of the human person, ...and to promote social progress and better standards of life in larger freedom. Consider Article 3 of the Humanist Manifesto (vol.3): We are committed to treating each person as having inherent worth and dignity, and to making informedchoices in a context of freedom consonant with responsibility. = = = = Pro said: “For example, is Con’s argument actually that “individual freedom is pervasively suppressed” whenever we seek “the greater good?” This may seem to defy reason, yet it appears to be the case; it is his exact words – context provided.” Rebuttal: In secular Humanism, individual freedom is pervasively suppressed because the core ethic devalues the individual under the guise of group welfare. This is easily established because Humanism is inherently socialistic. In Paul Mattick’s manuscript (Anti-Bolshevik Communism, 1978), he describes this problem with astounding accuracy. He said:” Humanism as a practical reality presupposes socialism. Until then neither man, nor men, but only a particular social class of men will attempt to change its ideological state into a weapon for its concrete realization.” [4] Socialistic Humanism is intrinsic to the very argument of secular Humanism. Merleau-Ponty (The Autodidact Project,1965) said that “to speak of humanism without being for "humanistic socialism," in the Anglo-Saxon manner, and to "understand" the communists without being communist, is apparently to place oneself high above, or in any case above, the conflict.” [5] I cannot even fathom that my opponent would deny the inherent socialistic nature of Humanism. It is such a commonly conceded fact, that I am excited beyond words to hear my opponent’s rebuttal on the subject. = = = = Pro said: “"If all roads lead to Rome," is a strange way to demonstrate that "all humanism has led to flagrant humanrights violation." (sic) These two statements do not seem to have much in common. “ Rebuttal: I apologize for my euphemism. I quite expected my opponent to understand my direction. To better explain, see “Reshaping the International Order: A Report to the Club of Rome (1976).” This body of over 100 humanist professors, philosophers, politicians and social elites gathered to establish a “groundwork” schematic to the establishment of secular Humanism on a Global scale. In their meeting they established the fragile nature of public opinion, stating that the in-place system of “sheep to slaughter” would suffice to indoctrinate the public via political representation. As quoted by the source:” Public opinion is no phenomenon sui generic....If some sectors of public opinion in the industrialized countries are immersed in the rhetoric and slogans associated with misunderstanding, then much of this may be inherited from their political leaders." [6] Perhaps that is sufficient information to allow a rebuttal from my opponent. = = = = Pro said: “This begs the question: if these things (half-measures, indifference, provocation and inaction) are not evidence of human fallibility, then what should we consider them to be – evidence of human infallibility? Rebuttal: Please do not mistake my rebuttal for condescension but I feel we need to establish the definitions of: Fallibility - Capable of being mistaken, error without intention. Indifference - Lack of interest or concern. Unimportant. Inaction – Idleness. One of these three is not like the other. Therefore I state again: I find it additionally disingenuous to lay half-measures, indifference, and provocation at the altar of human error.= = = = Pro said: “If valuing human worth has created more human suffering than any other philosophy, doctrine or culture since 1950 – should we have devalued human worth since 1950?” Rebuttal: You should have abandoned your philosophy. I find your suggestion lacks objective reasoning. = = = = Pro Argued: “This (U.N. inaction in 2001, resulting in Genocide) example could help to strengthen Cons argument...Sadly, it does not;... We should not blame the firefighter for the actions of the arsonist." Rebuttal: Fallacy. The firefighter in my source is watching the building burn, choosing not to act despite the evidence of flames. Misdirection and burden shifting are tactics of desperation. Concede or supply objectivity. = = = = Pro objected: “…this example would support his position better if the UN were a purely Humanist organization. It's not, however..”. Rebuttal: Purity is not a measure of policy action. Not all Americans agreed to invade Iraq. Should we now claim that America didn’t enter the war because our population isn’t politically unified? The United Nations has always operated on a premise of Humanism. I don’t wish to be disingenuous by making statements without substance, so I have provided a direct source. “Not too long ago, I had a brief exchange with a high-ranking United Nations official in New York. I noted the similarity between humanist worldviews and those held within the UN, as expressed by UN Secretary-General Kofi Annan and others. “Of course,” he replied. “We are all humanists here.”” (Humanism and the UN: A Shared Future?, Carl Coon, 2003) = = = = Pro said:”Con goes on to point out that food is often hoarded by some – while others starve. It is reasonable to suppose that he has assumed that greed is another attribute of Humanism. This is another “ad homen straw man,” and, therfore, another statement that is impossible to discuss.“ Rebuttal: What my opponent just stated is a straw-man by definition. He set up his own argument, so that he could knock it down. Consider, this argument does not assume greed. The problem of world hunger assumes inaction and indifference. I was very clear on this being my objection. Greed was not amongst them, not even through insinuation. Since he flagrantly chose not to discuss this point, I will accept nothing less than a concession. = = = = Pro said: “However, my challenge was to establish that these systems are set up by humans - not that they were inviolate. “ Rebuttal: You misunderstand. Since we are radical and depraved, how could we come to understand ethics and morals? That’s the philosophical equivalent of a disease finding a cure for itself. I want you to provide a naturalistic mechanism. = = = = Pro said: “the term “fantasy” implies that any attempt to elevate humanity as a moral imperative unto itself is utopian – it’s not.“ Rebuttal: It seems my opponent is at odds with almost every humanist on the planet. Consider the source:”….In this regard humanists have often banked on the notion that there is, within each individual, an essential core of decency and reasonableness, or lacking this, at least a shared human nature of some sort that would serve to anchor the progressive, utopian development of a properly humanistic culture. If this core or nature exists, then it would give grounds for hope in the eventual triumph of humanism as the culminating expression of that nature.” (Humanism and Postmodernism: A Reconciliation, Thomas W. Clark 1993) = = = = Anti-Bolshevik Communism, Paul Mattick, 1978 [4] The Autodidect Project, Zdravko Saveski, 1965 [5] Reshaping the International Order: A Report to the Club of Rome (1976) [6] Humanism and Postmodernism: A Reconciliation, Thomas W. Clark 1993 [In text citation]