A declaration of humanism

I am a humanist. My entire philosophy, and all of my political and social opinions, are derived from certain axioms. I believe there are epistemological truths and there are moral truths. And the foundation of all my moral truths is humanism.

Humanism is one of those words that get repeatedly hijacked, raped, and then slandered as a whore. Different groups use the word to mean different things, spreading confusion about the word and its meaning. This always seems to happen to words and phrases that stand for something about which people have strong feelings: love, truth, justice, quality, liberty, liberalism, conservatism, humanism. So I will need to define my term, at length.

Let's start here

Excerpt:

Philosophical Humanism is any outlook or way of life centered on human need and interest. Sub-categories of this type include Christian Humanism and Modern Humanism.

I say:

That's me. I implicitly reject any point of view that despises or hates humanity. Call this anti-humanism. Yes, I know some of them are probably kidding. In fact, anyone who dares say in as many words that he wishes the human race would go away is probably either making a bad joke, or is Friedrich Nietzsche. This is one of things you just don't admit in polite society. It's like admitting you like to grope small children, or that you just murdered your grandmother and stuffed her in a large mason jar. If it happens to be true, you keep it to yourself.

No, anyone who really despises humanity is not likely to trumpet the fact. If you want him to admit it, you've got to catch him off guard. And if you do, he'll simply say that's not what he meant, and change the subject. At least that's what happens when I try it.

How do you recognize someone who won't admit his true feelings? Follow the hypocrisy. Hypocrisy takes two forms: either the hypocrite says A and then says B, where B logically contradicts A, or he says A and does B, where B contradicts A. That's how you spot a hypocrite. Now, how do you know which is his sincere position, A or B? Well, if B is an action, then it's pretty straightforward. There is no such thing as an insincere pattern of action. But if both A and B are words, it's a lot trickier. Observe the pattern of his words. Which gets upheld more, and which does he contradict more? Anyone can misrepresent himself, but it takes effort, and no one can do it comprehensively. A lie spread thin enough becomes faintly transparent.

There are certain ideologies that *implicitly* hate humanity. Environmental extremism is an obvious one. Some people just behave and speak as if endangered frogs are more important to them than people. Some of them gladly endanger people on behalf of the frogs. The rest will simply endanger human jobs and livelihood on behalf, of, oh, owls or something. Will they say so in as many words? Not bloody likely. But they will say things that add up to it, and they will act accordingly. And then there's the body language, the averted eyes, and the stammer.

Other ideologies are a bit more clever. They masquerade *as* humanism. Remember that phrase: "human need and interest." What exactly constitutes human need and interest?

A sincere humanist tries to understand human nature, and thereby determine human need and interest. In insincere "humanist" comes up with his own definition of human need and interest, and then invents a theory of human nature to support it. Let's look at some examples.

A cursory study of human nature reveals than man is both an individual and a social creature. In short, he is an individual functioning within society. There is a dynamic tension here, and it invites two abuses: ignoring the one side to emphasize the other, and ignoring the other side to emphasize the one. And, lo and behold, both these abuses can easily be found!

Ignore man's need for a decent, civil society, and focus only on his need for autonomy. The result: Objectivism! Sorry, no, Nathaniel Branden isn't really an Objectivist!. And yes, I know Ayn Rand admitted the need for some government and and a certain type of human interaction. But what she advocated falls far short of what I would call a human society.

Ignore man's need for autonomy, and you have either Communism, fascism, or some other totalitarian system. Downplay man's need for autonomy, and you have socialism, or at least excessive government involvement in private affairs.

(Charles Schultz summarized the collectivist mindset nicely: "I love mankind; it's people I can't stand.")

Now let me concede a point. There is much evil in human nature. It will do no good to deny it. But there is also much potential for good in humanity. This is another dynamic tension at the core of human nature. Because good is, by definition, something that ought to be encouraged, and evil is, by definition, something that ought to be discouraged, I define human interest as follows:

That which tends to increase the numbers and lengthen the existence of the human race, which encourages the growth of all that is good in human nature, and contains or defeats what is evil in human nature, that is human interest.

And I define human need as: whatever is required to further human interest.

Definition: A sham humanism is any ideology that substitutes something for human need and interest - as I have defined then - and claims that thing is best for humanity. (Could they be honestly mistaken? If so, wouldn't they have come to their senses by now?) I've just given two examples. But there are so many possibilities here, we can't enumerate them. So let's list at some categories:


1. Those which deny or downplay the need for man to live in a civil society.

2. Those which deny or downplay the need for each human being to be his own person to some extent.

3. Those which deny or downplay the need to resist evil.

4. Those which restrict the legitimate concern of a human being to anything less than humanity as a whole, be it the self, the family, the tribe or the nation state.

5. Those who angrily advocate models for social order that are known to be contrary to human interest.
(To be a socialist two centuries ago may have been forgivable. But there's no excuse nowadays. We all know better.)

6. Those who have no regard for beautiful art.

7. Those who have no regard for human reason.

8. Those who would deny any man the right to seek self improvement in a way of his choosing, so long as he harms no one else in doing so.

9. Those who would deny any man the right to seek happiness in a way of his choosing, so long as he harms no one else in doing so.

10. Those who would deny any man the right to seek God in a way of his choosing, so long as he harms no one else in doing so.

11. Those who would forbid any criticism of a philosophy, ideology, culture or system of government, where that criticism is by the criterion of human needs and interest. (It's jingoistic to love your country without a good reason.)

12. Those who would either attack or defend a philosophy, ideology, culture or system of government, other than from the standpoint of human needs and interest. (It's not jingoistic to love your country if your country happens to be one of the better ones.)

I oppose all of these. And I make no apologies for it.

And there's misanthropy. I define a misanthrope as an anti-humanist who hasn't bothered to adopt or formulate a sytem of thought to give structure (or cover) to his attitude.

So, I care about what's best for humanity. Everything else is secondary to me. I am an unrepentant speciesist. I exploit helpless animals, as well as helpless plants. And oh, what I do to helpless inanimate objects!

I will not worship any god that is not humanist. If such a god exists, there's no point in humans worshipping him. What's in it for us?

Are there other other life forms in the universe, more intelligent than we? Let's cross that bridge when we come to it. So far SETI's come up empty, and it's not for want of trying.

Now, some final notes about types of humanism:

Excerpt:

The most critical irony in dealing with Modern Humanism is the inability of its advocates to agree on whether or not this worldview is religious. Those who see it as philosophy are the Secular Humanists while those who see it as religion are Religious Humanists. This dispute has been going on since the early years of this century when the secular and religious traditions converged and brought Modern Humanism into existence.

I say:

A semantic red herring. Philosophy vs religion is a distinction which I have never found useful in trying to understand anything.

Excerpt:

Now, while Secular Humanists may agree with much of what religious Humanists do, they deny that this activity is properly called "religious." This isn't a mere semantic debate. Secular Humanists maintain that there is so much in religion deserving of criticism that the good name of Humanism should not be tainted by connection with it.

I say:

That cuts both ways. This is a double standard. For it to be a mere semantic debate would be a step up.

Excerpt:

The fact that Humanism can at once be both religious and secular presents a paradox of course, but not the only such paradox. Another is that both Religious and Secular Humanism place reason above faith, usually to the point of eschewing faith altogether. The dichotomy between reason and faith is often given emphasis in Humanism, with Humanists taking their stand on the side of reason. Because of this, Religious Humanism should not be seen as an alternative faith, but rather as an alternative way of being religious.

I say:

I value human reason as far as it goes. But it seems unrealistic to me, to pretend that human reason is capable of understanding all there is. Besides, it would probably violate Goedel's Imcompleteness Theorem. Faith is a substitute for reason. Religion is a crutch. But sometimes we need to make do with substitutes, and sometimes we can't walk unaided. It won't much help human needs and interests to pretend that the human condition is other than it is.


Angelfire link (turn off Javascript to avoid popups)

The problem with "respect"

Everybody wants it, but no one can define it.

Excerpt of an excerpt:

Whenever American officials are able to talk to Iranians about what it is that they would want from a Grand Bargain, and whenever American citizens are able to talk to Iranian officials about what it is that they would want from a Grand Bargain, one of the foremost things that the Iranians invariably say is, "Respect." In my own conversations with Iranians, in and out of government, I have found that it is usually the first of their demands -- and they often say it immediately and then have to think hard as to what their other demands might be. "Respect" is an abstract concept that needs to be made tangible if it is going to be part of a deal. So, like good negotiators, the Americans inevitably ask, "What do you mean by respect?" Typically, the Iranians cannot define what respect would be, but they are full of illustrations of disrespectful American behavior that would have to end for Iran to be willing to accept a Grand Bargain. For instance, the Iranians never fail to observe that saying that Iran was part of an "Axis of Evil" was disrespectful. The sanctions are disrespectful. Criticizing the (flagrantly rigged) February 2004 Majles elections for being flagrantly rigged was disrespectful. Any criticism of Iran's internal affairs, such as its kangaroo-court judicial procedures and its arrest of political dissidents on ridiculous charges, is disrespectful. A senator calling Iran the world's worst terrorist state is disrespectful. American newspapers writing articles about problems in the Iranian economy is disrespectful. The State Department stating that Iran supports terrorism rather than acknowledging that Iran is a victim of terrorism (both of which are true) is disrespectful. Claiming that Iran is harboring Al-Qaida personnel is disrespectful. I have personally heard every one of those statements made by Iranians in response to my question as to what "respect" means . . .

I say:

This is the behavior of thugs. They implictly define respect as backing down. There's no such thing as mutual submission. It's strictly zero sum. In order for A to "respect" (submit to) B, A must endure "disrespect" (dominance) from B.

Decent people don't play such games. We give respect to those who have earned respect. And we strive to earn respect for ourselves. Thugs demand respect on the basis of power. Cowards give it on this basis. But decent people see beyond raw power.

And thugs do *not* deserve respect. Or anything else they're liable to demand.


Angelfire link (turn off Javascript to avoid popups)