Hubble head

Of all the different philosophical belief systems I have observed in the Atheist community, most seem to hold on to either Humanistic or Objective belief systems about humankind.

Whether we incorporate what we believe into our lifestyle is another discussion entirely.

Has anyone seen a reasonable merger of these two growing philosophies? Objectivism, embracing the passion of human achievement, is better than the mutated quasi-fascist social capitalism we have now but seems to leave something behind when it comes to compassion and it never takes unchecked greed of some into account.

Secular Humanism says do only what will benefit all of humanity. If conditions at the time call for sharing, then we should share. Stinking up your corner of the planet, no matter how high your GNP, is frowned upon.

Prometheus is a character both belief systems refer to as an example but for different examples.

Is it possible that in the future our left and right political arguments will come from basically these two schools of thought? Or could they merge into a progressive moderate hybrid?

[ November 11, 2002: Message edited by: science ]</p>

Laurentius

The political debate between the right and the left has been turned even more complicated by the conflict between globalists and localists.

Tomorrow's global society will have the left and right ideas spread all over the world, penetrating traditional cultures that haven't had anything to do with this political divide so far and converting them into battlefields for the world's most acute interests.

AVE

Psycho Economist

Is it possible to merge conservatism and liberalism, generally?

I'd say no. But that doesn't mean that pragmatic individuals can't set aside a knee-jerk ideological preference to weigh costs and benefits... of course what is a cost and what is a benefit will still be decided by liberalism v. conservatism. And it's possible that people, while not "centrists" per se, can appreciate the guiding assumptions of both systems.

Hubble head

I guess the best of both worlds would be an Objectivist CEO with Humanistic principles towards society and the envirionment. I doubt they would ever merge the more I get to know each one.

I think in a progressive society this would still enable much wider spectrums of debate and potentially more balanced resolutions though.

If we can just put religion in its place first...

Keith Russell

science:

The problem is that Objectivism views environmentalism and socialism as containing more than a little mysticism--and there is more than a little evidence to support that claim.

I would prefer that people simply follow reason, and always act on principle.

If they adhrere only to those two tenants, the rest will take care of itself.

Most of us have a long way to go...

Keith.

doubtingt

I agree you Keith that Humanism seems driven by ideological values and is often willing to subvert reason to promote those values. However, I find the same flavor of ideology, mysticismm and abandonment of reason by Objectivism, especially the Ayn Rand brand where they make untenable assertions about "objective" roots of subjective moral preference.

I also agree that a principled commitment to reason when it comes to questions of fact is the ideal route that satisfies most of what is worthwhile in either humanism or objectivism.
Although an appreciation and promotion of aesthetic pleasure is also very important, and I do not think either reason or objectivism can provide an adequate basis for such a value.

Some form of perhaps individualistic humanism is needed to promote the subjective preference of personal happiness and thus the aesthetic pleasures that foster such happiness. Reason requires that we recognize the existence of such subjective states, but ultimately the appreciation for such subjective states must be grounded in universal subjective values.

Hubble head

Makes sense.

When I read Rand's Atlas Shrugged book I kept wondering about the train wreck and the way she built up to it. It was at that point in the book I doubted I was a full-blooded objectivist. I still rank it as one of my all time favs.

Some objectivists I've known in business were a little hypocritical and usually looters themselves whenever that was available. They're either a huge parasite on the back of the hard workers below them or the earth’s resources, or sucking off some welfare teat like profitable non-profit businesses.

Some humanists I've run into (always in academia) seemed so far to the left their 'all for one and one for all' mentality threw me off like they were a bunch of pure socialists.

I guess it's difficult to truly be one or the other in the world of compromised solutions today...

It's also hard to adopt a philosophy when the followers of that philosophy have translated it to their own benefit much like religionists always do with their bible. I guess that's what I led to in my first post by adopting the lifestyle too.

quip

Both are utopian ideologies.

Objectivism espouses reason, yet can only (successfully) function in a universe of unilateral rationality. It uses philosophy as a means for pecuniary ends.


Humanism, universal compassion and benevolence, uses philosophy for an altruistic agenda.

So, who is “trickle-down” and who is “redistribute”?

JP2

Important point actually.

I see no reason why objectivism cannot be incorporated into the humanistic mentality or vice versa. A system that promotes the possibility of individualistic gain through altruistic principles (what is good for society is good for me), while it may somewhat subvert the categorical imperitive, seems pragmaticly possible to me.

I don't think it's necessary to polarize general idealogies like this anyway. Even if we approach each idealogy from the top-down stance (and especially if we approach them from the bottom-up stance) I'm sure we'll find that many of the main tennets or principles of each doctrine cross over at some point in the human experience. It's a case of identifying these principles and synthesising them so as to ascertain what each perspective has to offer, creating a much stronger idealogy in the process.

Or perhaps I've just been reading up on the Hegelian Dialectic too much tonight. <img src="graemlins/banghead.gif" border="0" alt="[Bang Head]" />

Keith Russell

doubting:

What is subjective about being human?

While I agree that some opinions and views are only preferences, and not qualitatively superiour or inferiour to others, I don't see why you think that morality--how human beings should behave, would be subjective/arbitrary, given that human beings are a specific type of creature.

(Of course, many of the things people think fall within the province of morality, in fact don't.)

Keith.