Is Humanism a Worthwhile Ethos?

"Humanism: A Sound Guiding Ideology or a Failed Attempt at Justifying Speciesism?" 

 

Humanism is a complex and rich ideology that primary focuses on valued aspects of human nature as the ultimate good.  Humanism, in the secular context, promotes the values of autonomy, human rights including the highest value of human life, and civil rights in their many forms.  Humanism can include a spiritual or religious component, but for the sake of this argument I will focus on the secular humanism of the modern era.  While the study and value of these concepts' dates to antiquity, my focus will evaluate the philosophy without an extensive study of the historical background. 

The reason for this short essay is to form an argument in support of and in opposition to the use of humanism as a fundamental ideology that people could use or discredit.  One major impetus for this project was based on a stay in a Christian mission in which some of the biblical coursework condemned Humanism as an illegitimate worldview.  I also struggle with the concepts inherent in a philosophy that seems ingrained in our public consciousness and yet gets ignored so frequently.  The operant question is: Does this ideology serve the people it was intended to serve and is Humanism a viable philosophy to carry into our daily affairs.   

One of the major assumptions of Humanism is that free will is a given state of reality.  The religious minded among us, would typically assert that free will is part of life or God’s plan to test his creations.  Assuming that life is determined and that our actions can be anticipated with enough knowledge and foresight, human action is reduced to atomic motion.  Deterministic philosophy can often point to a more scientific approach to understanding the human condition, rather than seeing it as a test or a challenge.  Free will is a critical assumption in both Judicial proceedings and Church seminars.  Free will is the cornerstone of autonomy, which is then the cornerstone of Humanism. 

    Humanism is linked to the more positive aspects of free will.  The choice to decide for one goal or another.  Humanists would argue that they can make decisions since they are rational creatures and that those decisions can lead to positive or negative outcomes.  The exact moment when a decision is made and consequences are applied is unclear and varies depending on circumstances.  I would suggest that such a system can be erratic and undeserving of total credibility.  While there is an element where reactions can be observed at a starting point, one must consider all the factors that led to that starting point.  Creating a moment when one decision begins is a synthetic barrier that isolates actions based on a perception of time. 

    The perception of time is that each moment is a present moment that can alter a future moment.  One may also revise this thinking to consider that what seems to be a present moment is already a memory that is leading to a new series of events that are determined by the series of preexisting outcomes that would follow from an expected sequential series of events.  Example: The ball was thrown, the ball started to fall, the ball fell, and the ball hit the ground.  Based on enough experiences we knew that the ball was going to hit the ground when we knew that the ball was being thrown.  There was only the moment in which we had the information that we consider to be the “present.”  All other information becomes that which is known, and that which is known to happen next. 

    Why is this relevant to Humanism?  If a person is hungry and they do not have any known means to get food by way of working or begging.  That person sees an unattended food cart and their stomach is rife with hunger, the course of actions that a person could make is limited based on thinking of the question: Will they take the food?  The hungry person, given enough hunger and no means of acquiring food any other way, will eventually take the food by means of theft.  Perhaps the length of time that they debate or agonize over moral principles may vary, the result may be the same that they eventually take the food.  While this may seem like an ethical justification of nihilism, it is more aimed at defending the capacity of humans to act in a pattern of one sort or another. 

    If humans act in patterns, it might remove the value of autonomy and civil rights to the Humanist agenda.  Given that human beings might be creatures of habit, they are incapable of being true rational agents.  This argument would be based on the belief that you would be required to be omnipotent to truly have free will.  If a person could rearrange the preexisting state of things, the current state, and the eventual outcome of all things; then and only then, they can have true free will.  Though this gets into the complicated issue of whatever mental baggage that a person already has would carry into whatever changes they might like to make to life.  This would affect the outcome so greatly that it would put things right back exactly as they are.  If we could change everything, the result would likely be nothing. 

    Interestingly, as much as thing argument might confound a Humanist, it also confounds most religious denominations as well (Calvinists and others excluded.)  Whether secular Humanist or devoutly deist, a person finds that their actions matter in the eyes of a higher power of sorts.  Regardless of whether free will is applied to argument, the question remains of whether Humanism is indeed serving humanity or merely an inane expression of certain values.  Most importantly, we need to discuss the most significant truth behind Humanism:  Are humans fundamentally worthwhile creatures such that their rights, autonomy and values matter more than say, the planet as a whole? 

    Does Humanism compete with the interests of other creatures, conceptual realities, inert matter, or any other force of nature - human made or otherwise?  Humans no doubt have interests that serve themselves above others.  The interest of the beef cattle is undoubtedly at odds with that of the average meat consuming American.  Humanism might ascribe favoritism with the desires of the consumer over the animal on the assumption that the human interest outweighs the animal’s life.  Though we should not conflate Humanism with speciesism.  Alternately, does the disease carrying vermin insect care about the health and wellbeing of a person with health issues?   One could easily get carried away with arguing the case for speciesism with the vast preferences for the human interest.  We might assume that Humanism does this to what might be called a reasonable limit.  Perhaps a person can feed off animals for meat, but perhaps not abuse animals for their own amusements.  The general assumption being that we are dealing with reasonable agents under the best of circumstances. 

    Still, these points stray from the most valuable concern or questions regarding humanity.  The primary argument behind Humanism is that humans are a good thing and that their interests, well-being, and happiness should be the primary consideration when undertaking any endeavor or evaluating any project.  I will now take a moment to consider whether humanity, has succeeded or failed in its efforts to be a morally righteous force acting upon the universe.  Perhaps humans are the ultimate gift that evolution or a benevolent deity has provided, or perhaps they are a scourge that has dominated and ruined a perfectly good and habitable planet. 

    Let me take a moment to pass judgement upon humanity.  This may seem like an extremely brazen or arrogant position to take; yet I will do so willingly.   Humanity as a species has both competitive and cooperative natures about it.  There is a possibility that a person takes an action for its own benefit and causes harm to those around them.  On the other hand, people have worked together for millennia to create modern marvels of construction, technology, and society.  One thing is for certain; humans have been making a steady slope of progress from a hunter and gatherer society to an agrarian society, then to an industrial society, and finally to its current state as a digital one.  This march of progress suggests that the cooperative elements of humanity have prevailed.  Despite this, one selfish act of war or vanity could set a chain in motion that sends the whole thing in a tailspin. 

    I believe that there are safeguards in place that have prevented humans from collapsing into their worst natures.  One example is the fact that the world remains unended by nuclear holocaust, which had often been predicted as the likeliest cause of humanities destruction.  Surely, human collective effort and willingness to show empathy has prevailed over the forces of selfishness, avarice, and greed.  There are times when it appears the most likely that those forces have won out when we consider the vast economic imbalances with people.  Given that the quality of life has still dramatically improved over the years, it is still fair to argue that inequity is outmatched by, yet again, the natural march of progress. 

    Does this march of progress prove that human interests are good, or that humans are living up to their own moral codes?  Humans have devised rules, laws, codes, statutes, and countless systems devised to prevent destruction to the human interest.  The fact that those codes exist is a testament to Humanism and the ability for humans to create such synthetic realities that govern the way people live.  We can assume the presence of those synthetic realities has provided humanity with a better quality of life.  Of course, with a set of rules and regulations, comes the inevitable rule breaking, code violation, and counter schemes set in motion to undermine any value established by the forces that be.   

    The important question that we must ask ourselves is: Are we good because we can invent rules or are we evil because we invent ways to circumvent them?  I say that both can be prove Humanism is a success, and both can prove it is a failure.  I will take a moment to explain the various ways in which humanism is both a failure and a success based on the inception of rules-based systems.  Beyond this, we also can establish that rules-based systems can be inherently good, neutral or evil.  This is determined by the intention behind those rules systems.   

    In the case of goodly systems, one can look at a law governing child abuse.  Since children are unable to act as rational agents fully, are typically less equipped for combat, and often less learned, they need to be protected by a system people invent for that aim.  The intention of that system is to protect children, as they protect the weak, protect the interests of future generations, ensure that certain codes of conduct continue to be followed, and to educate young minds.  To those that participate and obey the rules devised to protect children, they are engaging in a social contract for the good of humanity.  I assume that the humanist feels vindicated when a child is saved from an abuser, or someone's lost child is returned to them.  Of course, the specifics and what recourses rule breakers are afforded is a wildly complex topic ripe for another discussion.  

    Evil rule systems are often put in place to extort wealth, happiness, succor amusement, thrill, abuse, or otherwise dominate the will of others.  This can be seen in the case of a mafia code that punishes those that inform against their interests.  Sometimes seeking the aid of an outsider should be commended and not met with harsh physical abuse.  Even the sadistic rhyme of “snitches get stiches,” is, prima facie, an evil code to expound.  It is not fun to have one's actions reported in all cases, especially when that reporting is done maliciously, vindictively, or for personal gain.  We all just want to primarily feel safer, and avoiding the danger of evil systems is advisable. 

    Neutral systems can include rules to a sport, a diagram of how to assemble furniture, and countless other rules systems in which rules are used for functional purposes.  It can be argued that the use of neutral systems can fall into the category of good or evil by itself, but it is worth denoting the difference between them when we look at things objectively.  Soccer can be fun, exercise, entertainment, and otherwise pointless waste of energy.  The moral implications of playing soccer amount to a zero-sum game even when players are benefiting from it or taking it too far.  I pointed out these neutral systems to express that one benefit of being human is that one can avoid the dualism associated a purely good and evil based system.  Not to mention that like a dimmer switch, the level and intensity of those moral labels can change.  There is such a thing as being only slightly evil, or dangerously good. 

The reason for establishing these morally evaluative frameworks is to place Humanism in the context of whether it is a good or evil thing.  I am left with the question of whether there is any intrinsic value in finding human beings worthwhile, or their interests for that matter.  Do I like yellow simply because I like it (self-validating logic) or is there some kind of memory association between yellow and something pleasant.  This is the same type of questioning I am trying to link to humans having value in things related to themselves.  Is Humanism like some type of collective vanity or are its’ true believers subscribing to a larger code of ethics? 

Like any code of ethics, there is a potential for use and misuse.  Some of the values of humanists can be twisted into something sinister.  Autonomy, for example, can be used to argue that a person can go on a murder spree.  Since humans are agents of their own destinies, they have the option to make those wicked choices if they so choose.  Likewise, free speech and other civil rights could give rise to hate groups or other forms of social abuses.  Humanism becomes a swinging pendulum whose value transitions from good to evil depending on...what?  What human condition is responsible for the good or evil choices that humans make?  What things that are fundamentally human are exclusively good and free from corruption? 

    The commonplace argument is that the moral alignment of humanism is relative.  I am now compelled to discuss the significance of ethical relativism and universalist principles.  Both viewpoints are considered valid viewpoints by ethicists but there is still no certain answer which is superior.  Ethical relativism states that ethics are relative to a society in question.  Universal ethics assumes that there are ethical principles that override any society and are always true.  These viewpoints have supporters that make valid arguments that they are both right and both wrong.  This essay can quickly become “everyone is right, and everyone is wrong,” so I am trying with due diligence to avoid that.  

    The ethical relativist would assert that there are rules and norms a person might experience as say, an American.  The ethics associated with a person could change if view them as a Christian.  The ethical systems could even be in competition in the case of a person who is a citizen of the United States and a Christian.  For Example: A Christian Citizen of the US might be asked to speak under oath.  In the bible (New King James Version) Christ says: “Do not take oaths, let your yes mean yes, and your no mean no.”  How does a Christian citizen reconcile this conundrum when asked to go under oath as a matter of legal importance when forbidden to take an oath.  This complication arises for countless other issues such as food preparation, vaccines, and others.  I can assert that the relativist can quickly shrink in a society that is more complex and diverse.  The ethical relativist might as well pray for an ethically and culturally homogenous society.   

    In many cases people in those kinds of complex situations go with a “go with the flow” kind of mentality for ethics.  This is typically referred to as conventionalism.  There are inherent dangers in placing emphasis on such a system in one’s day to day affairs.  As noted above, when conflicting duties arise, there is little the conventionalist viewpoint offers.  This might bring me to the other extreme of universalist ethics, where I simply adopt one code of ethics for either myself or myself and everyone else.  The waters get muddied when each person might have their own values of what should be universal rules.  I highly recommend avoiding intuition as the tool of making any such determination.  Often people aren’t aware that their values are a result not of some a priori (things known without experience) knowledge of what is right, but rather, are based on what lived experience works.   

    The purpose of explaining these worldviews is to try to come up with some basis on which humans or which parts of human intellect can make a claim for greatness.  Perhaps someone can come up with the perfect way to live, but no one appears to have reached that goal.  Some reference religious figures as success stories to solving the dilemma of the human condition.  Often those religious figures are subject to persecution and often martyrdom.  It almost appears that people know good from evil and just default evil.  While this dyspeptic outlook can poison a sense of hopefulness, I cannot overstate the importance of not overlooking crime.  To that same extent, I cannot ignore altruism. 

    Naturally, I came to a troubling conclusion regarding altruism.  That conclusion is that there is always an internal motivation to any action a person takes.  It is truly impossible to do something for the sole benefit of another.  The gain might only be self-satisfaction, the need to combat evil, or to simply make an ally or fulfill some other goal.  Ulterior motives notwithstanding, it is worth considering that even the best effort is clouded by personal investments of what one even considers to be a problem in the first place.  Example:  A person gives money to a beggar because they believe that the money will aid them to getting help or food.  Conversely, someone might apply criticism to what motives the beggar might have for getting money.  Could that person be helping or just buying a drunk a drink? 

    On a more general note, Humanism has some clout as an organizational force.  People, for centuries, have gathered or worked together under the banner of humanity for a common goal or interest.  There are two concerns that I have here: Are they only helping themselves and are they simply deceiving themselves?  It is very possible that Humanists are a secular church of self-piety, and they pontificate what they believe to be humanities greatest virtues.  To this end, they merely make gods of themselves.   This might be the stance that the folks at the mission adopted.  Conversely, they may have the only form of common-sense religion in the world, and the true faith belongs with them. 

    While writing this essay I have still refrained from giving a specific position regarding my own feelings on Humanism.  This is because like many things; it is both a tool and weapon.  Something to be understood and handled with the greatest of care.  This is not the case of Humanism as an ideology alone, but as my own feelings of whether human beings are wonderful beings capable of love, or vile nasty little beasts.  For the sake of making a strong opinion one way or the other, I will avoid saying, “both.”  I have decided that the firmest answer is that human beings are indeed wonderous creatures and I have several reasons that I believe this. 

    First, I am, of course, a human, and as such, I feel that it is sensible to have a sense of self-worth.  To adopt a viewpoint of self-loathing, would be counterproductive in my esteem.  It would only serve the forces of evil to resign myself to the idea that I am evil, and I should ergo assume the mantle of Machiavellianism.  By assuming a stance of camaraderie with my species, I can operate with the hope that others will treat me fairly, I will enjoy being around others, and that I am not foolish when I trust another person.  To live in a constant state of fear and resentment to a species you depend on, would appear foolish.  In this capacity, I must declare myself a Humanist.  Not in any kind of officious capacity or join in any programme, but in a purely philosophical sense. 

    Secondly, beyond the moral implications, there is the empirical evidence that is present everywhere.  Humans have built massive cities, huge complex governments and corporations, humans have the internet and digital forums where I might share my ideas, humans have music, art, and so many wonderful things that are worth appreciating every day that I draw breath.  I cannot take credit for all these things as a single person, but I can see a part of myself in everything that humanity has done.  Furthermore, I can look at the story that is life and see the personal contributions that I have made to the world.  Maybe it doesn't always live up to my hopes, but it could be far worse. 

    I would like to also acknowledge moments of emotion that have been cathartic, empathetic or simply entertaining.  My emotional journey through the human experience has demonstrated that I feel things beyond simple anger, joy and sadness, but rather a rich and dynamic spectrum of feelings that has brought a more fulfilling life.  I am not always grateful, but when I can appreciate the most wonderful moments I had, I am glad that I shared it with my fellow species.  I thank all the other people who have been a part of life.  Even the most painful antagonists have taught me lessons that might have otherwise gone unnoticed.   

    For these reasons and far too many to list or think of at once, I am glad that I am a human that got to experience some of the better parts of life.  I understand that some have had more difficulties that myself, and it is easy to forget that.  It seems especially easy to forget when I add in how my life compares to those who keep me closest to them.  It is quite astonishing how much pain it causes to be the only impoverished member of a relatively affluent family.  All the more blame that I cast on myself, and all the more resentment to those who possess more.  I could cover myself in a blanket of despair, but I must not yield to the worst of life. 

    I must express that I underwent this short essay to evaluate what it means to be human to a person who has such a complex relationship with his own species.  To be a human in a world where we become incredibly digitized.  The process of an increasingly enlightened society makes for it to be far more difficult to stand out.  In the days when the literacy rate was less than 5%, it was easier to be an intellectual giant when you understood the basics of written language.  At this point, I would have do backward summersaults to beg for attention just to get a passing glance.  It almost puts it in perspective why people do the horrible things they do, just to feel noticed or important. 

    With that, I say that Humanism serves me in a distant yet direct manner.  Perhaps if I feel that I created this essay as an autonomous actor, it will allow me to feel a greater level of prestige, despite not being formally published.  Many people have written far more prolific things than myself, yet I do wonder what words I would need to string together to prove my mettle in this complex intellectual arena.  Of course, since I do my best to avoid the bickering of the mainstream argument, I am always lost in the weeds.   On the other hand, it is a lot more pleasant out here.  Rather than punish myself or succumb to battling it out with other rhetoricians, I leave myself in the care of Socrates.