Humanist Manifesto III, Article 3 - "Ethical Values"

"If ethical values are derived from human need and interest as tested by experience, why has the secular community not stopped human tragedy?"First, I want to thank Con for proposing this debate, and for his patience in setting up clear guidelines for its conduct. In the pre-debate discussion period, we clarified the following points, and I would like to state them here, in the body of the debate as well.The Formalities:According to the rules set up by Con, I must accomplish the following:• Prove that core ethics 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.While doing this, I must also bear in mind:• If I fail to prove that Humanism seeks to be maximally good in practice and premise, the burden is lost.• The premise: Secular Humanism will seek to end evil “to the fullest extent of its ability.” (This premise was modified by Con in the comments section prior to the debate. If this agreement should not hold, I trust that Con will explain why it should not.)The following parameters were also added by Con: “I will not appeal to any other system outside of Secular Humanism. I will argue the entire debate in the context of your worldview, not mine. I will not appeal to the Bible, Jesus Christ, the God-head, Mosaic Law or even Tao Te Ching. We are concerned with the premise of your worldview only and I will use only secular sources.” Con having graciously clarified his position, I should begin the task at hand. As stated, I am required to “prove that core ethics are created by humans” and then “explain the problem of suffering in the presence of the human ability to end it.”Definition: I will use, if acceptable to Con, the most accessible definition for “Humanism” that I can find (the ever noxious Wikipedia. Which cites the book, Good Without God: What a Billion Nonreligious People Do Believe, as its source):"Humanism" describes the secular ideology that espouses reason, ethics, and justice, while specifically rejecting supernatural and religious ideas as a basis of morality and decision-making.” In other words, Humanists believe, generally, that there are good reasons to behave in a socially cooperative manner – without regard to religion. Social cooperation and coordinated group action (adherence to social mores), will yield benefits that do not require any deific sanction for their justification. This lack of requiring the sanction of a god is a major cause for the antipathy toward Humanism from the theistic community: it rejects one of the primary justifications for following gods – the issuance of holy laws. If laws and social order can be maintained without the threat of thunderbolts or promise of heavens, then mankind may fall into chaos. If these threats and promises are not needed to maintain order – then perhaps neither are the gods themselves. This is unacceptable to theists. Prove that core human ethical standards are created by humans.Here we have what seems a fairly straightforward task. Although I do not want to rely on axiomatic thinking to demonstrate this point, I feel that – in light of the debate parameters set up by Con - not much work needs to be done here.I remind readers of the statements made by Con: “I will not appeal to any other system outside of Secular Humanism. I will argue the entire debate in the context of your worldview, not mine. I will not appeal to the Bible, Jesus Christ, the God-head, Mosaic Law or even Tao Te Ching. We are concerned with the premise of your worldview only and I will use only secular sources” If Con has forbade any recourse to non-human, supernatural sources of our ethics, then the only possible sources that are left are human ones. Therefore, we agree that all ethical systems, excluding non-human ethical systems, have been created by humans. I am not playing a semantic game here; this is a straightforward argument: Where do human ethics come from if not humans? • 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 It remains the case that, even if we did somehow receive the rules by which we humans would cooperate with one another from some alien, deity, spirit, supercomputer or other non-human entity, it would still be the case that human brains would be required to interpret, enforce and agree to use these social mores. This being the case, even the other-than-human societal rules would be very much human in origin, regardless of how the humans were inspired to enact these rules. Considering this argument, I maintain that Con is required to admit that humans are the initiators, interpreters, and enforcer s of all human standards of behavior – including mores and ethical rules. This admission will, obviously, require Con to agree with me that human ethics are fully human in origin. This is further required by Con’s rule that only human agencies be considered in any attempt to determine the origin of human ethics. Human fallibility and the Humanist quest to end all pain and sufferingClearly, if Con is consistent, I may invent no recourse to extra-human agency in my second requirement, as well. That is, the requirement that I explain why Humanism has failed to eradicate human misery in every case. Clearly, any reading of this would require that Humanism be capable of far more than what is possible; human behavior cannot stop an earthquake from hurting people (one example). It also “makes the perfect the enemy of the good,” in that it sets unreasonable standards for what will constitute a successful ethical system. Con has stated that I am not required to demonstrate that humans are capable of superhuman abilities here – only that Humanist failure is explained. I feel that ordinary human fallibility can best answer this requirement, as supernatural explanations are forbidden in this debate. I cannot argue that Humanism is capable of godlike abilities or results, therefore, I see no need to defend its (no pun intended) humanity from the charge that it is inhuman – or godlike. Humans cannot flap their arms and fly – therefore, this inability is not a “deficiency” that some people have; all humans are flightless mammals. Con and I obviously agree on this point as well. Con’s argument cannot be that Humanism should be held to account for an inability to perform tasks that would be beyond the power of gods. Therefore, Con and I agree that human ethics are created, interpreted and enforced by humans. We also agree that humans should not be condemned for their lack of godlike powers to end human suffering. This requires that Con concede his argument – or adapt it into an ipso facto concession.