Champion

Yes, but as David Borenstein put it: "Feelings are not supposed to be logical. Dangerous is the man who has rationalized his emotions" which is why I am so skeptical of humanism. It seems to me that they seek to rationalize something fundamentally irrational.


Obviously what is said in a discussion on an internet chat board is not of much significance to the world. However, I was under the impression that reason is not subjective.

Perhaps I should have been more specific with my causes. When I said that I still had the images of D-Day in my mind's eye.

This statement of yours seems to suggest to me that we are talking past eachother. You seem to be stating that any action taken by a person is rational. Humans act irrationally all the time. As I've said in previous posts, it is my contention that some of our best actions are our irrational ones. Humanism seems flawed to me because it attempts to prove these actions to be rational through flawed logic.


Akirk
I don't like to declare my beliefs on forums. I've noticed that people stereotype you failry quickly when you do that.

Shrunkenboy

There are two things I will address. First, whether humanism, or any ethical system is based on "reason." Second, whether humans are naturally "selfish".

Humanism isnt based on reason, nor is any ethical system; no ethical system could be based on reason. What is reason? It is a faculty that humans have, as well as other animals in lesser degree, that gives humans the ability to do certain "logical" tasks, such as perform computations, compare sizes (this mountain is larger than that tree), and determine cause and effect (pressing this switch turns on that light). Reason, basically, can make you a map of the world, but it cannot tell you where you should go, unless you already have some other non-rational desire or need or interest. Based on prior experience, reason could help you determine where on the map you could go to satisfy a need you have. All our needs, desires, and interests are not irrational (or contrary to reason), but arational (not belonging to reason). In order to act or do anything, both our reason and our desires/needs/interests are going to be involved--our reasoning to determine the facts about the world, and our desires to tells us, given the facts we have determined through our reasoning, where we should go. A gross simplification, but it will do...

Any particular value or ethical injunction to act or refrain from acting will be based on some person's or peoples' needs/desires/interests, which have nothing to do with our reason. for example, if humanists value peace or scientific advancement, it is grounded primarily on the fact that we enjoy peace, we desire it, or we do not like war, or dislike war, and therefore want peace (reason is used there regarding cause and effect). Scientific advancement may be based on curiosity or the need for the security that may come through technology; we may, here, reason that because we want to live healthy lives, promoting science would be an effective way to do that since it may bring about advancements in medicine, etc. But even when reason is used here, it is as a tool of desire.

I dont think humans are naturally selfish or selfless. The two concepts are actually quite messy. It's hard to really pin down what would constitute either of them. Humans have needs and desires; we have basic needs for food, water, sex, love (e.g. romance, friendship, and community), knowledge, fun, etc, etc. Some of the needs, such as love and sex, are actually dependent on other people in order to be satisfied. A hug takes at least two people. I cannot satisfy my need for love without loving, and I cannot satisfy my need for sex without having sex with someone. We have the need to be honored by others, but that can only be satisfied by doing things that people honor. Many of the social needs can only be satisfied by being altruistic (in the sense of benefiting other people). Thus, in being "selfish"--trying to satisfy our own needs--we must be "selfless"--satisfy the needs of others. But in reality, the whole idea of selfless seems completely nonsensical, as the self will always be involved in all your actions, even if it is your self's desire to love and be loved. Selfish, however, carries connotations of actions that are negligent of others, and more importantly condemned by others--which, ironically, people then avoid being "selfish" to avoid being ostracized and censured, which is a need of the self. Establishing "selflessness" as an ethical ideal, is actually a disservice to others--if you expect selflessness, then you are going to be dissatisfied with people who are not, in relationship to you, "selfless", and thus you are telling people if they do not neglect themselves they are not worthy of your respect--and because one would imagine, selflessness being beneficial to others and not the one practicing it, beneficial to you, and therefore "selfish" to promote. Blaming someone for being "selfish" has always appeared to me as being egregiously hypocritical, as the person who is blaming always has some interest of their own that will be better satisfied if the person being blamed refrains from continuing the behavior they are doing. Denying one's own needs and desires, or encouraging others to, is neither helpful to yourself or to others.

The whole "selfish/selfless" dialectic is completely fucked up and leads to horrible contradictions. I think we will be a lot happier if we stop holding people up to the standard of selflessness. Its an impossible goal, and the dream of a slave master.

MollyMac

No, I'm not content to be the only one who abides by my moral standard. As I've already explained, the driving force for my moral standard is my concern for humanity - a concern shared by vast numbers of people who work toward effecting change for the better in the full knowledge that they will not derive the direct benefits of their own efforts. And as I've already said, altruism exists in humankind, it's part of human nature.

In your earlier post you said, You seem intent on seeing evolution as if it were some kind of religion or alternative to religion that must be able to account for every moral decision to be made by a human being. It isn't. The world is not "governed solely by the forces of evolution". Evolution is simply the "process that results in heritable changes in a population spread over many generations"*. Evolutionary theory explains the mechanism of this process.

That said, I don't see how wanting to give my own species, which includes my own descendants, the best chance of survival by prioritising the lives of those who will contribute most to that survival is in any way irrational.

What I do find is irrational is the suggestion that you are motivated to do good by a creator God for whom there is not one iota of evidence.


*Source: http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-...o-biology.html

MollyMac

OK, well let's agree to differ because this is getting wearisome. The only thing I will repeat for the final time is that when I speak from what I claim is a humanist perspective, I am speaking only for myself. Throughout this discussion I've had the uncomfortable impression that you see humanism as some kind of fixed belief system. It isn't.
This is a question that has divided philosophers since Plato and your view would be shared by many of them including Aquinas, who saw reason as divine. Personally, I think there are problems with that view and my inclination is to go with those philosophers who since the Enlightenment have regarded reason as a subjective faculty. I'm not sure it's worth going into too deeply, however.

I agree we are talking past each other and that is why I now propose to stop having first expressed my surprise at your impression that I am "stating that any action taken by a person is rational". I don't know where this impression comes from because it doesn't come from anything I've actually said. Our fundamental disagreement seems whether choosing to die can ever be rational. I maintain that it can be a rational choice and in certain circumstances and you disagree. It would be helpful in future, if you are to allege 'flawed logic', if you could demonstrate this actually using logic. Beyond that, there's nothing more to be said and I don't propose to say any more.

MollyMac

Sorry, I have read through this paragraph several times and I don't see how it contradicts what I have said about humanism being based on reason. That humanists are committed to using reason and evidence - rather than sacred texts or religious authorities - to make decisions is what makes humanism an approach to life based on reason. Humanism itself is not an ethical "system" in the sense that there is no list of moral bullet-points or rules and humanists will disagree on ethical issues and on the best way forward, a point I have made repeatedly.

I'm afraid I am now bored of this discussion and have better things to do so am bowing out.

Thanks for your time.

Champion

MollyMac:

Ok.

Murray

Just an aside, but is this how you view Jesus Christ?

arkirk

Oh no! It's worse than that. I think there could be mental illness involved. If there even was a Jesus, I would say from looking at the frou frou story about him in the Bible that he possibly was a deluded person who believed all of the myths of the time and had somehow decided He was a massiah, whatever that turns out to be.

Perhaps he was a mendicant and a beggar. Perhaps he was a charlatan. Perhaps he was just a good natured nut that really believed it was his place to die for the sins of his fellow men. Because somebody tells you something is so does not mean it is so. Because somebody puts it in writing and binds it up in a fancy binding with Gold letters does not mean it is so. Who were the editors who last altered this "holy" script. Were they unknown employees of some king somewhere? Were they thralls of the Pope? You see, it doesn't really matter. The story is so absurd I simply cannot swallow it EVEN IF OUR PRESIDENT AND CONGRESS SHOULD SAY IT WAS SO.:devil3: