Oh sure, there's the "pure humanism" people who supposedly exist. The christians keep telling me that humanists are only interested in themselves and their own selfish gains and that they fear no eternal reprisal so...they harm anyone in their way because they can.
*nods*
I have never met one of these mythical people. I do know a lot of humanists, though. Me, and for the most part the rest that I know, follow a fairly basic moral precept:
If you would not like this action done to you, then why would you visit it upon another?
Unsatisfactory answers are not acceptable, nor are simple ones. Only in the case of the most complex of answers can they be taken as acceptable, and only if they are convincing on an ethical, social, and just scale. A man who would not want to be killed has his family murdered; he may wish to kill the man responsible. But this is unacceptable; the cold hand of justice must take its course first. If it fails to provide justice, however, then the grounds for retaliation are laid; a man who murders a family of three, makes the father/husband watch, and then gets only five years cuz he rats on his accomplice is not justice, and therefore, when he is free from prison, the victim is within his human right to seek true justice, but only after seeking council from his peers.
This may or may not be compatible with modern law. This is not our concern.
On the reasons for charity: If you were out of money, struggling, with bills piling up, would you want a friend to give you money to help you out, even if you and he both know you'll never be able to return the favor? Then do so for your friend who is struggling, out of money, and with bills piling up if you can. There needs be no rationale for this, because there ultimately is none; humanity is not a rational, it is rationalizing, and all the rationale you need is "if it were me...what would I want done?"
Thoughts?
*nods*
I have never met one of these mythical people. I do know a lot of humanists, though. Me, and for the most part the rest that I know, follow a fairly basic moral precept:
If you would not like this action done to you, then why would you visit it upon another?
Unsatisfactory answers are not acceptable, nor are simple ones. Only in the case of the most complex of answers can they be taken as acceptable, and only if they are convincing on an ethical, social, and just scale. A man who would not want to be killed has his family murdered; he may wish to kill the man responsible. But this is unacceptable; the cold hand of justice must take its course first. If it fails to provide justice, however, then the grounds for retaliation are laid; a man who murders a family of three, makes the father/husband watch, and then gets only five years cuz he rats on his accomplice is not justice, and therefore, when he is free from prison, the victim is within his human right to seek true justice, but only after seeking council from his peers.
This may or may not be compatible with modern law. This is not our concern.
On the reasons for charity: If you were out of money, struggling, with bills piling up, would you want a friend to give you money to help you out, even if you and he both know you'll never be able to return the favor? Then do so for your friend who is struggling, out of money, and with bills piling up if you can. There needs be no rationale for this, because there ultimately is none; humanity is not a rational, it is rationalizing, and all the rationale you need is "if it were me...what would I want done?"
Thoughts?
