Humanist Manifesto III, Article 3 - "Ethical Values"

I have thanked Con for his patience before, and will do so again. I had to spend my last round offering a valid description of what Humanism actually is, as Humanists view themselves. I wanted to exchange rebuttals, but felt the exercise to be a nearly pointless “I’m rubber and you are glue” match. I was lucky in this – Con has only articulated a few fallacies, leveled a few insults, and quoted a few people whose opinions are colorful, but of limited value. Therefore, I can address them all in short order.It really does not make for a very productive debate, simply saying everything the other guy says is wrong. This is not what debate and open discussion are for. This type of forum is for sharing and expanding ideas, increasing our knowledge and understanding – and possibly expanding one another. “I’m always right and you are always wrong” is the type of debate that is best suited for Facebook.However, as it seems that Con’s patience is growing thin, I should probably offer my perspective on his rebuttals, and then will re-address his main premise, that is, “If Humanists are ‘good,’ then why do hey allow human suffering?” As the premise of the argument itself is fairly easy to address, I will begin by answering his rebuttal.Con is riffing off of a limited number of arguments. The easiest way to address them is to do so by category, rather than individually. “Humanism, the doctrine that human empowerment is achievable through human means, is responsible for 150,000,000 deaths since 1950.”Observe hyperbole…I’m fairly sure that if any philosophy or political system had killed 150 million people since WWII, we would have heard about it on the news by now.This is illustrative, and represents the bulk of Con's rebuttals: Con seems incapable of any courtesy whatsoever to the notion of Humanist ideation. He seems to regard the entire doctrine in polemic terms, as if any act of Humanist creativity, brainstorming, proposals, or action must be – by definition – an act of sheer evil. I ask: what if Humanists were to propose that breathing air is good, and declare this a cornerstone of Humanist doctrine? Would the Humanists be wrong about this type of behavior, prompting Con to condemn the worldview because some Humanists drown? (Breathing air actually is a Humanist “cause” … Humanists value the betterment of human life as a moral imperative, so breathing, life… you get the idea.)Con seems to argue that Humanism is bad simply because it is Humanism. If something good were to be loved by Humanists, then that thing would also become evil – because the Humanists prize it. This polemicist view forces us to wonder if Con actually believes his own argument. We must ask: “If he truly believes that Humanism is actually killing 150,000,000 innocent people, why isn’t he killing Humanists?” The best answer seems to be either that he is guilty of the same “flagrant inaction” that he accuses Humanists of…or these are simply histrionic statements.This isn’t a tu quo que fallacy: Con clearly does not agree with his own wild, hyperbolic claims – and this trepidation should cause us to question them as well. To ascribe any attribute other than normalcy to any large group is problematic. Are most Humanists “unusually good?” No. I say so, and I am the fiercest of Humanists. Most Humanists are just like most people – not unusually good people, but also not unusually bad.Most people are not unusually intelligent, or unusually stupid, unusually good, or unusually bad – because most people are not unusual at all; most people are normal. This is so with all large groups.This is the “Assumption of Mediocrity.” Until proven otherwise, we are well advised to assume normal. Con makes an error in painting Humanism with such a large brush – his generalizations are far too hasty.“Important Secularists disagree with each other – and Humanist doctrine.” An “Appeal to Authority” fallacy occurs whenever a proposition is supported by authority figures, rather than being demonstrated to have its own merit. If these “Secular authorities” have a good point, then let Con restate that argument – the authority figures are not needed.Aside: I am unimpressed by any appeal to authority, indolent, arrogant bastard that I am. I can, however, admit when a competing argument has beaten one of mine. (I am actually usually delighted to learn something new and revolutionary.)Wrapping up….I am re-reading, and I may obviously be missing something, but I do not see any of the “Arguments” that Con has proposed. I see fragments, but nothing clearly jumps out at me. I am certain that this is my error, and Con will articulate exactly what his argument is as of this round.Until then, here is mine:Con has asked:“Explain why Humanism has failed to end the suffering that Humanists can potentially end.” This, he points out, is a turn on the “Logical Problem of Evil,” or why a good and powerful god would allow suffering to exist. Obviously, it is impossible for Humanists, however resourceful, to end all human suffering. Con has agreed not to ask Humans to perform superhuman feats during this debate.My answer:Because Humanists are human, and are often unable to stop human misery, despite their best efforts. It is not because, cherishing "life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness" (as our own founding fathers might have said,) is an act of human depravity. For example: the USSR established an anti-human rights government over much of Europe and Asia. This nation did not survive, however, partly due to the forces that were placed upon it by those who supported humans over the authority of the Soviet state. Human right eventually partially defeated the Soviet oppression, but this was not easy; it took human beings dedicating their lives to making the human condition better than they found it. It is also an ongoing evolution: Humanists are opposed by most of the ex-Soviet nations.I restate my challenge for this debate – To prove that humans make human rules To explain why Humanists screw up sometimes These have been accomplished, and I have pressed my case that Humanism, although humanly imperfect, is perfectly human – it can, and will improve over time. It will also continue to advance human rights, human liberty, human happiness and human expansion, elevating these things over oppressive authorities and cruel priestly demands. As the cause of mankind expands, and gains acceptance – humans will no longer tolerate their ages-old enslavement to outdated dogmas and humiliating restrictions. The examples of human weakness with which Con had hoped to condemn the entire philosophy of human worth will become fewer – and Humanism will be better able to accomplish more – in the coming years.Con's only actual attempt at rebutting this has been to suggest that all humans are depraved beyond the ability to manage these values. 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.