The Humanist Philosophy In Perspective (1984)
Frederick Edwords
Reprinted from The Humanist, January/February 1984
"""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""
Never before has interest and talk about humanism been so
widespread and rarely has the humanist philosophy been so
poorly understood by both supporters and opponents. What
kind of philosophy is humanism? To listen to its many
detractors, one would imagine it was a doctrinaire
collection of social goals justified by an arbitrary and
dogmatic materialist-atheist world view. We often hear
leaders of the New Right say that "Humanism starts with the
belief that there is no god," that "evolution is the
cornerstone of the humanist philosophy," that "all
humanists believe in situation ethics, euthanasia, and the
right to suicide,' and that "the primary goal of humanism
is the establishment of a one-world government."
Where did they get such notions? The source they most
frequently cite is Humanist Manifesto II, and indeed all
the above elements can be found there. The first article of
Humanist Manifesto II declares, ''As nontheists, we begin
with humans not God, nature not deity." The second article
says that "science affirms that the human species is an
emergence from natural evolutionary forces." The third
article states, "Ethics is autonomous and situational,
needing no theological or ideological sanction." The
seventh article speaks of "an individual's right to die
with dignity, euthanasia, and the right to suicide." And
the final section, consisting of the twelfth through
seventeenth articles, stresses "world community,''
specifically "a system of world law and a world order based
upon transnational federal government." In the light of
this, it seems to me that we must take much of the blame
for how our philosophy is misunderstood. We have all too
frequently stated our ideas as a market list of
conclusions, each conclusion supposedly as basic as all the
rest and of equal acceptable among humanists. This gives
those conclusions the ring of "commandments." We have not
usually divided our philosophy into parts and derived one
part from another. In fact, we have more often intertwined
our epistemology with our cosmology, ethics, and social
remedies as though they were all to be treated the same.
What we need to do is explain our philosophy in a more
hierarchical manner, setting forth first our basic
principles*those ideas that unite all humanists and form
the foundation of the philosophy. Once this is done, we can
follow with our beliefs about the world*belief which, by
the nature of scientific inquiry, must be tentative. Then,
once that ground work is established, we can recommend
appropriate social policies, recognizing the differences of
opinion within our ranks. With this approach, people will
see humanism in a way I find to be more accurate* and in a
way that reveals humanism's non-dogmatic and self-
correcting nature.
For use in promoting the humanist philosophy, I have
organized the ideas of humanism into a practical structure
along the aforementioned lines. Even though most humanists
don't communicate the philosophy in this way, I believe
that I am being accurate when I suggest that this is the
way most humanists see humanism.
""""""""Basic Principles""""""""
We humanists think for ourselves as individuals. There is
no area of thought that we are unwilling to explore, to
challenge, to question, or to doubt. We feel free to
inquire and then to agree or disagree with any given claim.
We are unwilling to follow a doctrine or adopt a set of
beliefs or values that does not convince us personally. We
seek to take responsibility for our decisions and beliefs
and that necessitates our control over them. Through this
unshackled spirit of free inquiry, new knowledge and new
ways of looking at ourselves and the world can be acquired.
Without it, we are left in ignorance and, subsequently, are
unable to improve upon our condition.
We make reasoned decisions because our experience with
approaches that abandon reason convinces us that such
approaches are inadequate and are often counterproductive
for the realization of human goals. We find that, when
reason is abandoned, there is no "court of appeal" where
differences of opinion can be heard. We find, instead, that
any belief is possible if one lets oneself be aided by
arbitrary faith, authority, revelation, religious
experience, alternative states of consciousness, or other
substitutes for reason and evidence. Therefore in matters
of belief, we find that reason, when applied to the
evidence of our senses and our accumulated knowledge, is
our most reliable guide for understanding the world and for
making our choices.
We base our understanding of the world on what we can
perceive with our senses and what we can comprehend with
our minds. Anything that is said to make sense should make
sense to us as humans, else there is no reason for it to be
the basis of our decisions and actions. Supposed
transcendent knowledge or intuitions that are said to reach
beyond human comprehension cannot instruct us because we
cannot relate concretely to them. The way in which humans
accept supposed transcendent or religious "knowledge" is by
arbitrarily taking a "leap of faith" and by abandoning
reason and the senses.
We find this course unacceptable, since all the supposed
"absolute" moral rules that are accepted as a result of
this arbitrary leap are themselves rendered arbitrary by
the baselessness of the leap itself. Furthermore, there is
no rational way to test the validity or truth of
transcendent or religious "knowledge" or to comprehend the
incomprehensible. As a result, we are committed to the
position that the only thing that can be called knowledge
is that which is firmly grounded in the realm of human
understanding and verification.
Though we take a strict position on what constitutes
knowledge, we are not critical of the sources of ideas.
Often intuitive feelings, hunches, speculation, and flashes
of inspiration prove to be excellent sources of novel
approaches, new ways of looking at things, new discoveries,
and new information. We do not disparage those ideas
derived from religious experience, altered states of
consciousness, or the emotions; we merely declare that
testing these ideas against reality is the only way to
determine their validity as knowledge.
Human knowledge is not perfect. We recognize that the tools
for testing knowledge, the human senses and human reason,
are fallible, thus rendering tentative all our knowledge
and scientific conclusions about the nature of the world.
What is true for our scientific conclusions is even more
true for our moral choices and social policies. These
latter are subject to continual revision in the light of
both the fallible and tentative nature of our knowledge and
constant shifts in social conditions.
To many, this will seem an insecure basis upon which to
base a philosophy. But, because it deals honestly with the
world, we believe it to be the most secure basis possible.
Efforts to base philosophies on super-human sources and
transcendent "realities" in order to provide a greater
feeling of security only end up creating illusions about
the world which then result in errors when these illusions
become the basis for decisions and social policies. We
humanists hope to avoid these costly errors, and, thus, we
have committed ourselves to facing life as it is and to the
hard work that such an honest approach entails. We have
willingly sacrificed the lure of an easy security offered
by simplistic systems in order to take an active part in
the painstaking effort to build our understanding of the
world and thereby contribute to the solution of the
problems that have plagued humanity through the ages.
We maintain that human values only make sense in the
context of human life. A supposed non-humanlike existence
after death cannot, then, be included as part of the
environment in which our values must operate. The here and
now physical world of our senses is the world that is
relevant for our ethical concerns, our goals, and our
aspirations. We therefore place our values wholly within
this context. Were we to do otherwise - to place our values
in the wider context of a merely hoped for extension of the
reality we know - we might find ourselves either foregoing
our real interests in the pursuit of imaginary ones or
trying to relate human needs here to a very different set
of nonhuman needs else where. We will not sacrifice the
ethical good life here unless it can be demonstrated that
there is "another life" elsewhere that necessitates a shift
in our attention and that this "other life" bears some
relation and commonality with this life.
We base our ethical decisions and ideals upon human needs
and concerns as opposed to the alleged needs and concerns
of supposed deities or other transcendent entities or
powers. We measure the value of a given choice by how it
affects human life, and in this we include our individual
selves, our families, our society, and the peoples of the
earth. If supernatural powers are found to exist, powers to
which we must respond, we will still base our response on
human need and interest in any relationship with these
powers. This is because all philosophies and religions are
created by humans and cannot, in the final analysis, avoid
the built-in bias of a human perspective. This human
perspective limits us to human ways of comprehending the
world and to human drives and aspirations as a motive
force.
We practice our ethics in a living context rather than an
ideal one. Though ethics are ideals, ideals can only serve
as guidelines in actual situations. This is why we oppose
absolutistic moral systems that attempt to rigidly apply
ideal moral values as if the world were itself ideal. We
recognize that conflicts and moral dilemmas do occur and
that moral choices are often difficult and cannot be
derived from simplistic yardsticks and rules of thumb.
Moral choices often involve hard thinking, diligent
gathering of information about the situation at hand,
careful consideration of immediate and future consequences,
and weighing of alternatives. Living life in a manner that
promotes the good, or even knowing what choices are good,
is not always easy. Thus, when we declare our commitment to
a humanist approach to ethics, we are expressing our
willingness to do the hard thinking and work that moral
living in a complex world entails.
""""""""Tentative Beliefs About The World""""""""
Our planet revolves around a medium-sized star, which is
located near the outer edge of an average-sized galaxy,
which is part of a galaxy group consisting of nineteen
other galaxies, which is part of an expanding universe
that, while consisting mostly of cold, dark space, also
contains perhaps one hundred billion galaxies in addition
to our own. Our species has existed only a very short time
on the earth, and the earth itself has existed only a short
time in the history of our galaxy. Our existence is thus an
incredibly minuscule and brief part of a much larger
picture.
In the light of this, we find it curious that, in the
absence of direct evidence, religious thinkers can conclude
that the universe or some creative power beyond the
universe is concerned with our well being or future. From
all appearances, it seems more logical to conclude that it
is only we who are concerned for our well-being and future.
Human beings are neither entirely unique from other forms
of life nor are they the final product of some planned
scheme of development. The evidence shows that humans are
made from the same building blocks from which other life
forms are made and are subject to the same sorts of natural
pressures. All life forms are constructed from the same
basic elements, the same sorts of atoms, as are nonliving
substances, and these atoms are made of subatomic particles
that have been recycled through many cosmic events before
becoming a part of us or our world. Humans are the current
result of a long series of natural evolutionary changes,
but not the only result or the final one. Continuous change
can be expected to affect ourselves, other life forms, and
the cosmos as a whole. There appears to be no ultimate
beginning or end to this process.
There is no compelling evidence that the human mind is
separate from the human brain, which is itself a part of
the body. All that we know about the personality indicates
that every part of it is subject to change caused by
physical disease, injury, and death. Thus there is
insufficient grounds for belief in a "soul" or some form of
life after death
The basic motivations which determine our values are
ultimately rooted in our biology and early experiences.
This is because our values are based upon our needs,
interests, and desires, which, themselves, often relate to
the survival of our species. As humans we are capable of
coming to agreement on basic values because we most often
share the same needs, interests, and desires and because we
share the same planetary environment.
Theoretically, then, it is possible to develop a
scientifically based system of ethics once enough is known
about basic human needs, drives, motivations, and
characteristics and once reason is consistently applied
toward the meeting of human needs and the development of
human capacities. In the meantime, human ethics, laws,
social systems, and religions will remain a part of the
ongoing trial-and-error efforts of humans to discover
better ways to live.
When people are left largely free to pursue their own
interests and goals, to think and speak for themselves, to
develop their talents, and to operate in a social setting
that promotes liberty, the number of beneficial discoveries
increases and humanity moves further toward the goal of
greater self-understanding, better laws, better
institutions, and a good life.
""""""""Current Positions On Social Policy""""""""
As humanists who are committed to free inquiry and who see
the value of social systems that promote liberty, we
encourage the maximizing of individual autonomy. In this
context, we support such freedoms and rights as religious
freedom, church-state separation, freedom of speech and the
press, freedom of association (including sexual freedom,
the right to marriage and divorce, and the right to
alternate family structures), a right to birth control and
abortion, and the right to voluntary euthanasia.
As humanists who understand that humans are social animals
and need both the protections and restraints provided by
effective social organization, we support those laws that
protect the innocent, deal effectively with the guilty, and
secure the survival of the needy. We desire a system of
criminal justice that is swift and fair, ignoring neither
the perpetrator of crime nor the victim, and ignoring
neither deterrence nor rehabilitation in the goals of
penalization. However, not all crimes or disputes between
people must be settled by courts of law. An alternative
approach, involving conflict mediation wherein opposing
parties come to mutual agreements, has shown much promise
and therefore has our support.
As humanists who see potential in people at all levels of
society, we encourage an extension of participatory
democracy so that decision-making becomes more
decentralized and thus involves more people We look forward
to widespread participation in the decision-making process
in areas such as the family, the school, the work place,
institutions, and government. In this context, we see no
place for prejudice on the basis of race, nationality,
color, sex, sexual orientation, age, political persuasion,
religion, or philosophy. And we see every basis for the
promotion of equal opportunity in the economy and in
universal education.
As humanists who realize that all humans share common needs
in a common planetary environment, we support the current
trend toward more global consciousness. We realize that
effective programs in ecology require international
cooperation. We know that only international negotiation
toward arms reduction will make the world secure from the
threat of thermonuclear or biological war. We see the
necessity for worldwide education on population control as
a means of securing a comfortable place for everyone. And
we perceive the value in international communication and
exchange of information, whether that communication and
exchange involve political ideas, ideological viewpoints,
science, technology, culture, or the arts.
As humanists who value human creativity and human reason
and who have seen the benefits of science and technology,
we are decidedly willing to take part in the new scientific
and technological developments all around us. We are
encouraged, rather than fearful, about biotechnology,
alternative energy, computer technology, and the
information revolution, and we recognize that attempts to
reject these developments or to prevent their wide
application will not stop them. Such efforts will merely
place them in the hands of other persons or nations for
their exploitation. To exercise our moral influence on the
new technologies, to have our voice heard, we must take
part in the revolutions as they come about.
As humanists who see life and human history as a great
adventure, we seek new worlds to explore, new facts to
uncover, new avenues for artistic expression, new solutions
to old problems, and new feelings to experience. We
sometimes feel driven in our quest, and it is participation
in this quest that gives our lives meaning and makes
beneficial discoveries possible. Our goals as a species are
open-ended As a result, we will never be without purpose.
""""""""Conclusions""""""""
Humanists, in approaching life from a human perspective,
start with human ways of comprehending the world and the
goal of meeting human needs. These lead to tentative
conclusions about the world and relevant social policies.
Because human knowledge must be amended from time to time,
and because situations constantly change, human choices
must change as well. This renders the current positions on
social policy the most adaptable part of the humanist
philosophy. As a result, most humanists find it easier to
agree on basic principles than on tentative beliefs about
the world, but easier to agree on such beliefs than on
social policies. It is my hope that clarity on this point
will erase many prevalent misunderstandings about humanism.
? Copyright 1995 by Frederick Edwords
--------------------------------------
Permission to reproduce this material in toto in electronic
or printout form is hereby granted free of charge by the
copyright holder. Free permission to reprint the essay is
granted to nonprofit Humanist and Freethought publications.
All others must secure advance permission of the author
through the American Humanist Association, which can be
contacted at the address at the end of this file.
http://www.americanhumanist.org/humanism/perspective.php