Humanist Manifesto III, Article 3 - "Ethical Values"

Humanism asks that we provide a lifetime of jubilant dedication to family, friend, nation and world. It asks that reason, learning, and individual liberty replace the superstition and tribalism of darker times. It is makes no claim to divine inspiration, or efforts to appease the credulous swarms with promises of magical wish-granting. Lacking the ability to provide fantastic dream-world rewards, Humanism offers its followers only hard work. There is no guarantee that this work will bear fruit – only that the earnest desire and committed attempt to improve the world may – possibly - improve the odds that tomorrow will be better than today. The Humanist believes that it is better to try and fail … than to fail to try. Humanism does not fear human emotion, but seeks to fulfill it. As John Stuart Mill might write, "Harm no one – and do as you will" has been the motto of the Humanist since the Enlightenment, and before. Released to pursue bliss, wealth, status, joy, love and fulfillment, the human is capable of achieving great things. The will to live, to love and to learn is common among all people – regardless of culture. Humanism champions the tireless pursuit of these things. "Humanism" is more a definition than a title. This worldview could be called "libertarianism," "Capitalism," "Utilitarianism," "Social Ethics," or "Epicureanism" were it to abandon the creed that humans should rely on human means to achieve human ends. This specific rejection of priestly power sets it apart, and earns the ideology its animosity. Nevertheless, even if the name "Humanism" is wrenched away from this worldview, the worldview itself would continue to exist. We Humanists would have to rename it, but we would eventually agree on something. I'm certain it would be catchy. Given the ubiquitousness of Humanism (regardless of what each individual or culture calls this philosophy) one might think it would have no detractors. Sadly, this is not the case. As Eric Hoffer wrote, "Mass movements can rise and spread without belief in a God, but never without belief in a devil." For the priestly class, Humanism is the Devil – and must be defeated at all costs. For the priestly class, the focus on the attainment of life, love and learning is an insidious attack at the superstitious power structure that has supported them over the ages. They will argue that only their god can provide these things – and then only by placing the priests in positions of exaltation and power. The suggestion that so much human joy can be attained, and so much fear and pain can be overcome, without these priests and their magic is a grave threat that cannot be tolerated… by the priests. And so, the priests and their minions hurl the most vile and fantastical accusations at those who proclaim the philosophy of reason, human effort, and unearned love. Although rationalism and enlightenment predate Karl Marx, Humanists and other rationalists are "Marxists" and "Socialists." Although Humanist philosophy and unabashed human achievement inspired the creators of American Democracy, Humanists "oppose freedom," and "promote collectivism." Everything is permitted, because for them, everything is at stake. Is it reasonable to suggest that the same Humanist that is so unwilling to submit to a god is suddenly willing to submit to an oppressive society or tyrant? (Rhetorical Question.)