Humanist Manifesto III, Article 3 - "Ethical Values"

GoodReads.com on Humanism:If those committed to the quest fail, they will be forgiven. When lost, they will find another way. The moral imperative of humanism is the endeavor alone, whether successful or not, provided the effort is honorable and failure memorable. ―E. O. Wilson “Men are from Earth, women are from Earth. Deal with it.” ― George Carlin“Being a Humanist means trying to behave decently without expectation of rewards or punishment after you are dead.” ― Kurt Vonnegut“The day the power of love overrules the love of power, the world will know peace.” ― Mahatma Gandhi Rebuttals It seems that “Humanism” is being redefined by Con into a straw horse parody that only a madman would support. Consider this as you read the following statement, provided by Con: Con:Despite the best efforts of Humanist Marxism, American Humanism or contemporary Humanism, the individual freedom is pervasively suppressed under the premise of the greater good. (Emphasis added.)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.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. Why is this? Because Con has substituted a cartoonish insult – a simplistic parody – as a stand-in for what we are actually discussing: a Humanist philosophy that humanity is intrinsically wonderful, even if not divine. Simply put, no sane person would self-describe as the monster that Con is painting. Con:I would find it disingenuous, in light of human history, for my opponent to claim that the premise and practice of humanism are united or fulfilled. Indeed, if all roads lead to Rome, all humanism has led to flagrant human rights violation. (sic)"If all roads lead to Rome," is a strange way to demonstrate that "all humanism has led to flagrant human rights violation." (sic) These two statements do not seem to have much in common. Again, the definitions of Humanism and totalitarianism are not identical. We see this when we replace the word "Humanism" with its definition, and restate the proposition, thus:Con’s Statement, with the definition of Humanism replaced for the word "Humanism." “Indeed, if all roads lead to Rome, sanctifying all life, raised to the level of a moral value has led to flagrant human rights violations.” Here I have paraphrased a definition of Humanism (provided by Ernest Renan, from The Future of Knowledge: Thoughts on 1848. The original passage reads, “…all that pertains to man—all of life, sanctified and raised to the level of a moral value.”)I ask: Would it be better to devalue human worth? Would the rejection of human worth lead to fewer human rights violations?Con: It would be the next logical step to form this premise, that a lack of follow-through on basic humanist doctrine has resulted the unnecessary suffering and casualty of the very people that humanism attributes an “intrinsic worth”. I find it additionally disingenuous to lay half-measures, indifference, and provocation at the altar of human error. No philosophy, no doctrine and no culture has created more human suffering in the post 1950s era, than the Humanists who ironically claim the best interests of their fellows. (sic)This is a somewhat sonorous and garbled statement - its authors' message is unclear. However, if we remove some of the unnecessary verbiage, it seems to attempt to state the following:"It is disingenuous to describe half-measures, indifference, and provocation as forms of human error."This begs the question: if these things are not evidence of human fallibility, then what should we consider them to be – evidence of human infallibility? And "No philosophy, doctrine or culture has created more human suffering since 1950, than those who strive to preserve the intrinsic value of human worth."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?Here is another of Con’s perplexing statements: Consider simply the August 20, 2001 report on the Pro-Humanist United Nation Council and their inaction in Rwanda. Recently declassified reports indicate that United Nations leadership was aware of an impending uprising, yet chose inaction and retreat. (sic)The inaction of the United Nations resulted in the torture and killing of ten Belgian soldiers assigned to the Prime Minister, who was the clear target of an assassination. This example could help to strengthen Cons argument that, "no philosophy, no doctrine and no culture has created more human suffering in the post 1950s era,” than efforts to elevate human worth… if it involved Humanists. Sadly, it does not; it involves religious and ethnic extremists who represent the opposite of Humanist doctrine. We should not blame the firefighter for the actions of the arsonist. Likewise, we should not blame those who oppose ethnic extremism – for those who perpetrate it. Perhaps Con was using the inaction of the UN as an example of Humanist philosophy “creating more human suffering in the post 1950’s era," than, any other philosophy, doctrine or culture. If so, then this example would support his position better if the UN were a purely Humanist organization. It's not, however; the UN is an international organization of countries set up in 1945, in succession to the League of Nations, to promote international peace. (Google Dictionary.) Since the UN is comprised of many nations – including Iran, Russia and China – it cannot be defined as “Humanist” any more than these human-rights violating nations can. 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. In his rebuttal, Con makes the following case: I had previously established:• 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 interactionCon’s Rebuttal: Human interact with one another outside of agreed upon codes of conduct, as shown by the evidence. (sic)The codes are devised, interpreted and largely ignored, as shown by the evidence.Therefor Human are either incapable or unwilling to fully command human codes of conduct.(sic)This is not a rebuttal at all: my argument that humans create human social systems remains valid. Con suggests that these human-created systems can be violated - and I agree with him fully. However, my challenge was to establish that these systems are set up by humans - not that they were inviolate. The fact that these systems can be violated or changed is further evidence of their humanness: humans make mistakes, and create imperfect systems. We would not expect humans to create perfect systems - that is the purview of gods.Con’s closing statement:Moral depravity is the natural state of mankind, which requires no interpretation or enforcement because it flows naturally. The evidence clearly showed Humanism to look wonderful on paper, yet a fantasy in practice.(sic)Con and I agree that “Humanism looks wonderful on paper.” However, the term “fantasy” implies that any attempt to elevate humanity as a moral imperative unto itself is utopian – it’s not. If fact, it may be inevitable. If moral depravity is the natural state of mankind - then why does mankind write moral codes? (Rhetorical question.)It seems that Con may have abandoned his argument, as I predicted.