Totalitarianist

Do you want to know my opinion? Utter crap -- and I consider myself a humanist in every respect.

fishbulb

I agree that "inherent worth" is something of a nonsense concept. Something only has worth if it is valued by someone. Nothing has value or worth independent of a conscious entity (though conscious entities may of course value themselves).

But that is not what the manifesto says. It says (emphasis mine):

The manifesto does not state that people in fact have an inherent worth but rather that the authors are committed to treating people as though they did. From the context, it seems clear that this is a pragmatic, utilitarian measure and not an appeal to some Great Truth. The implication seems to be that if we all treated each other with respect and dignity, the world would be a safer, fairer, and more supportive place, and we would all benefit. If we knowingly and willingly exploit people's weaknesses and treat others in ways we would resent being treated ourselves, we are pissing in the well and we ultimately make the world a much worse place for everyone, except for mabe a select few people who have lots of luck and little conscience.

The criticism therefore seems to be a red herring.

Writer@Large

Ah. I didn't read it as overly political, myself. I *do* see it as a logical extention of the sentiments expressed in the rest of the document.

If you don't mind elaborating: what political philosophy do you follow that allows you to accept the rest of the document, but not the final section?

--W@L

Writer@Large

You find the *entire* document crap ... but consider yourself a Humanist? Trebax, I fear your definition of humanism ...

--W@L

eldar1011

Something a lot stronger? Like what? Maybe an omnipotent deity with a set of laws to be followed? That set of laws can be codified in some kind of book. An entire organization can be built aroudn this deity and book to enforce the laws.

Hmmm...that just might be crazy enough to work.

Now, if only someone could invent this deity....and use it to control...er, protect people from harming themselves, of course

Spaz

Well duh, it's all about being nice to other people, that's the point, it's basically just a reality based system of being nice to people. The good parts of religions are the ones that say to be kind to others. What I don't get is this crap about justifying them. What kind of sick person needs something to justify being nice to other people?

Bill Snedden

Although I have some of the same misgivings as Eudaimonist (due, no doubt, to shared libertarian leanings), I note that the "explanatory speech" includes the following:

Humanist Manifesto II also concluded with similar sentiment:

Humanism by its nature is not a revealed or static set of principles or guidelines. Just as humanity changes over time, so does our understanding of that which enables us to prosper. Humanism also recognizes that while many values are held in common, not all are and thus not every Humanist will agree with every "tenet" set forth in the Manifestos.

I'm in agreement with enough of what I see in this Manifesto just as I was with the second. I'll be adding my name to the list of signatories.

Regards,

Bill Snedden

Pensee

This isn't an abortion thread, but suffice it to say that at one point in time, a fetus is nothing more than a clump of cells. I, nor does anyone, know when it transitions to an actual human. I put my limit at 8 weeks because that's when the brain develops.

Albert Cipriani

Dear Bill,
You say: You make it sound like the highest source of truth and the permanence of truth are bad things. What you said is like saying that the humanistic brand of armor is not cold and hard like the brand worn by those old-fashioned Christians, but flexibly soft, warm and fuzzy. Good luck with it stopping arrows from the Evil One!

You say: Again, you are making a virtue out of a vice. You seem to ignore the metaphysical truism that change is a symptom of imperfections while permanence is a byproduct of perfection.

For example, a gold atom is estimated to be stable for 40 billion years. Whereas uranium is highly unstable and therefore leathal to us. Likewise, to the degree humans can conform themselves to the truth, be guided by the North Star of revelation, they can permanently stay on course and not have to change directions like you guys do with the wind.

Ergo, the logo for you humanists ought to be a tailless kite, for your relativistic mindset (does not warrant the name “philosophy”) is as fickle and as lightweight. Whereas, the Judeo-Christian philosophy ought to have as its logo a sextant. – Sincerely, Albert the Traditional Catholic

Eudaimonist

Yes, I'm in agreement with at least the essential ideas in her philosophy. That's astute of you to guess.


I'm a libertarian capitalist.

Actually, I have some possible reservations for the ethical part of the document, but it has such delicate and diplomatic wording that it is difficult for me to pin down where I disagree or not.

You aren't even in the same ballpark.

This is a good point, and I do consider my personal philosophy to be humanistic, if not humanism, but there just isn't enough in common for me to sign at this time. If humanism manages to grow closer to my own views, I would consider signing a future document.