Champion

Correct me if I'm wrong, but Humanism contends that morality is subjective and that it exists to serve society's goals of general prosperity, and welfare. Society condemns theft as morally bad because people are happier when they are not busy worrying about losing their stuff.

Everyone loses when everyone acts selfishly, but when everyone does things that benefit society everyone wins. For instance, when everyone puts the effort into not pissing on the seat, everyone get's a cleaner bathroom.

This all seems to make sense to me and I think it is a very logical and clear way to refute theist claims that without objective morality we'd all be child molesters who kick puppies. However, beyond providing a basis for "take a penny leave a penny" jars, I don't see how humanism provides a basis for pure self sacrifice on an extreme level. Most people would agree that when a plane is crashing and there are only 2 parachutes for four guys the guys who volunteer to not have a parachute are making a better moral choice than the two dudes who leap out with them. But what is the logical basis for this self sacrifice? Is their behavior rational or irrational? It seems to me that this sacrifice is morally good but irrational and I was wondering what the Humanist take on their decision is?

TheInerrantWord

I guess I'm seeing the whole dilemma in the thought experiment as morally neutral. It seems that it might be an interesting question about HOW the group decides which two men get the chutes, but if all the outcomes are equally advantageous (or disadvantageous) to the group, then the question of who should get the chutes is not a moral one.

In other words, it might be nice for me if you decided to sacrifice yourself and give me a parachute, but it wouldn't be more moral of you to do so.

TheInerrantWord

Still, it was awesome of you to give me that chute, and I'd be sure to erect a monument to your magnanimity when I get back to the ground.

JamesBannon

In a situation like that it is usually better to draw lots - fairer result. Of course 2 people still die.

TheInerrantWord

".. it is usually better.." ?!?!

How often have you been in situations like that? Wow. And here I thought it was just a thought experiment.

I was thinking along the lines of like, say, a hearty round of rock/scissors/paper. Either that or a death brawl.

JamesBannon

It is quite a common occurrence in war for instance (similar situations that is).

TheInerrantWord

Oh, I can see that.

I'm going to check my parachute when I get home. I wonder if I could let those leg and chest straps out far enough to get two men into it. Hmm, probably not.

MollyMac

As a humanist I can give you my take but I don't speak for any other humanists.

It's an act of selflessness, sure, but I would necessarily agree that this is a better moral choice and I don't know what would be the grounds for anyone saying that.

In order to make a rational decision about who lives and who dies, they would have to decide whose death would have the worst impact and whose survival would be for the greater good. They'd also need to decide on the criteria on which to make this decision but they would essentially be utilitarian: the familial responsibilities of each man, the occupation of each man, the potential future achievements of each man.

Champion

When the Titanic was sinking it quickly became clear that there were not enough lifeboats for everyone. While there was some some fighting and chaos, what is most surprising is the huge amount of men who refused to take a seat on a lifeboat knowing that women would be left to drown. Many men simply gave up their seats to women and children and then got shitfaced at the boats bar.

I find this to be an amazing display of human decency. I hope that if I ever find myself in a similar situation I will have the courage to act in the same way. Christianity encourages actions such as these and I'd guess that a Christian would be bound to give up his seat in this situation. But what about a Humanist? Where in Humanist philosophy is the drive to do something of this kind? Beyond the self serving morality of the "take a penny leave a penny jar" where is the push towards true selflessness? Is there a logical argument/justification that leads to this kind of action?

JamesBannon

And Christianity isn't self-serving? Pull the other one! It is "rational" to save a child because that child represents the future might be one possible argument on utilitarian grounds. There are others.