Humanist Manifesto III, Article 3 - "Ethical Values"

It has been a true pleasure to debate secular morality and humanist ethics. Despite our polar views, I believe my opponent and I understand each other in a light of mutual respect. With that spirit in mind, this debatefurthered the cause of open dialogue between diametrically opposed world-views; a process which should be acknowledged for its inherent value. Round 4 rebuttals: Pro said: “I’m fairly sure that if any philosophy or political system had killed 150 millionpeople since WWII, we would have heard about it on the news by now.” Rebuttal: My opponent commits a logical fallacy. Since humanists have not taken responsibility, he assumes they are not guilty. This is known as an appeal to ignorance. Unfortunately, it’s a poor appeal becausewe are no longer ignorant of the truth. Consider simply my case against the UN. The evidence I have provided clearly shows an effort tocover-up evidence of crimes against humanity. The documents were just recently declassified. I would ask my opponent to bring some evidence to the table, rather than trying to shift the burden. I don’tneed to prove that 150 million deaths can be attributed to humanism because he has yet to prove that 800,000 deaths in Rwanda are not directly resulting from Humanist inaction. Pro said:” Most Humanists are just like most people – not unusually good people, but also not unusually bad.” Rebuttal: This statement lacks evidence and reason in many dimensions: Humanists are just like most people (No evidence) Humanists are not unusually good (They ought to be, as the moral authority) Humanists are not unusually bad (My sourced evidence proved this wrong) Pro said:An “Appeal to Authority” fallacy occurs whenever a proposition is supported by authority figures, rather than being demonstrated to have its own merit.” Rebuttal: Interesting objection but none the less a lie. I did provide evidence which demonstrated that humanism lacks merit and my opponent dropped all my points. My heavy sourcing only served to solidify what human history had proven. I invite the reader to review the first four rounds to find satisfying evidence, coupled with authoritative narrative. I also invite the voter to review my opponent’s rebuttals. They are either missing, source less or burden-shifting. My opponent flagrantly lies with this statement. I find this to be in very poor conduct. Pro said: “Humanist have failed to stop evil because Humanists are human, and are often unable to stop human misery, despite their best efforts.” Rebuttal: I feel my opponent is being disingenuous to the context of the debate. Did I not display four rounds of solid evidence and argument that shows inaction, indifference and half-measures on behalf of humanism? How can anyone call these “their best effort”? Is a half-measure your best effort? Is that not paradox? Pro said: Human right eventually partially defeated the Soviet oppression, but this was not easy; Rebuttal: The Soviet Union collapsed internally. Economic failure coupled with internalpolitical uprising separated the USSR in 1991. Perhaps my opponent wants to supply some sources to support his claim? All my sources seem to indicate that the USSR collapsed under its own weight. Pro said: This fact, if true, would easily win the debate. However, Con has never demonstrated that this level of human depravity exists, and this type of claim would require the absence of many forms of human socially cooperative behavior. Rebuttal: Burden shifting, yet again. If humans where “not unusually evil”, why did 800,000 of them get murdered? Is this normal? Are you conceding depravity? Closing Arguments: My opponent accepted the burden presented in round one and mutually conceded amended rules in the comment section which stated clearly: Explain the problem of inaction, indifference,evil and half-measures in the secular context, while still maintaining absolute moral authority. Prove that core ethics, a limited parallel with the Ten Commandments, are produced by humans. Explain the problem of global or national suffering in the presence of the ability to end it, while maintaining that humanism is the best measure of moral conduct. Maintain a secular scope, as I adopted the “devil’s advocate position” of an atheist. No appeal to religion is necessary for my opponent, and entirely taboo for me to argue. My opponent did meet his burden in the following respect: The Problem of evil – I provide two direct sources from declassified government reports that indicated flagrant inaction and indifference on behalf of the UN. This woeful failure to action resulted in a genocidal fallout, causing over800,000 civilian deaths. My sources were secular, undisputed and thorough. My opponent was only able to object by claiming that the UN is not a humanistic entity and that we cannot blame the firefighter for the arsonist. All of his objections, mind you, were entirely without source. Due to the lack of sources, it would be accurate to classify his rebuttals as baseless objections. I refuted the appeal to authority by providing sourced information from the UN mission statement and a direct quote from UN Secretary-General Kofi Annan, which affirms the Humanist nature of the UN without a shadow of a doubt. The firefighter metaphor was easily dismissed with logic reduction. As I described in theprevious rounds, we can indeed hold the firefighter responsible for inaction and indifference at the evidence of flames, which is my direct objection to secular ethics. My opponent never attempted to recover these burdens. The problem of origin – The origin of ethics was pretty much provided in the resolution. I furnished article 3 of theHumanist manifesto. The opponent only needed to prove it. In fact, my opponentcan be quoted as stating:” Here we have what seems a fairly straightforward task. Although I do not want to relyon axiomatic thinking to demonstrate this point, I feel that – in light of thedebate parameters set up by Con - not much work needs to be done here.” I will now demonstrate that my opponent did exactly what he promised not to do; stating the issue axiomatically. Consider his arguments: • Humans interact with one another using agreed upon codes of conduct • These codes of conduct are devised, interpreted and enforced by humans • Therefore humans are fully in command of human codes of social conduct and interaction All three points where established without a single source. Each of these points where stated axiomatically because my opponent maintained that an absence of deity would eliminate all other possibilities. That is an axiom.It’s true because it’s true. Naturally, I took issue with this argument. I countered by establishing that Humans are naturally depraved and evil, since the evidence shows undisputed inaction and indifference to the suffering of 800,000 human beings. I then established the philosophical premisethat a human in a depraved state cannot manifest ethics and moral values, because that would be the equivalent of a disease finding a cure for itself. My opponent did not reply to this argument and thus dropped this burden also. Defining and understanding Humanism - Humanism absorbs the individual into a collective, stunting,limiting or entirely suppressing liberty and license for the citizen, all inthe name of the greater good. Humanism is a fantasy. Humanism is utopian.Humanism is anti-individual. Humanism is anti-human. Humanism is evil and therefore,it is incapable of authoritatively supplying ethics and morals. History is theabsolute evidence and it has delivered that this premise is proven. I thank the voter for reading the debate and supplying a fair andbalanced feedback. I urge the readers to support me by voting CON.