 |
 |
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 with 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.
|
|
