Humanism

[Creed of Heresy]

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?

[KichigaiNeko]

I would suspect that one could include moi in with this Humanist ethos.

One of the many tenets that I hold dear (and have taught my children to hold dear) is "Would you like some one to do that to you?"

Would you like someone to come to YOUR house and just waltz in and eat all your food, use all your resources and then complain that you don't treat them with respect? Then don't do it!

Simple really.

[NoMoreFaith]

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.

There usually has to be a logical and usually empirical reason for an answer to be unacceptable. Most humanists whilst almost universally adhering to the golden rule, understand moral relativity and opinions on it can still vary from person to person despite the label humanist.

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,

Citation for this case? Or purely hypothetical. I would argue that the golden rule still applies here. The time spent in jail is purely subjective. You could also argue that anything less than life for a heinous crime such as that is grounds for murder. There is no absolute measure for you to decide what is truly just. However, if it is a popular opinion that it is a miscarriage of justice, then you have right to campaign against the ruling and seek changes to the system to prevent it happening again. Like science, justice should be a self-correcting mechanism.

Nor can you argue from a humanist perspective that this murderous retaliation is for your individual good, or social good. It is a selfish requirement to cause suffering as you have suffered, and I believe that goes against what Humanism stands for.

I don't have any real issue with your views on charity, but I would observe, that what we do, is for the promotion and growth of our species. This is not to the exclusion of non-human species, as it relies on an understanding that a stable eco-system is essential for our own survival.

Just my thoughts on the matter, like yours, by no means a definition.

[Creed of Heresy]

Largely hypothetical, but ultimately based on the expenditure of human life. Someone who takes another life for something like the pleasure of it needs to pay the toll. Lifetime for a lifetime; you may not know how long the other individual would have lived otherwise...so the same must be said for the murderer. No idea how long he will live; throw him in isolation in a prison and find out how long he'll live, something that could have been done with the other person, but alas, they interfered. Murder, rape, slavery...these are things that violate the very element that makes a human being a human being; freedom of choice. The awareness of the world, and the perception of it. To violate this is the highest of crimes, and must be paid in the fullest measure. Death is too quick a sentence; a lifetime spent in isolation, in the dark, in silence, is far more just.

As far as the murderous retaliation goes, that is why the council of peers must be sought. AND their approval given. Who those peers might be differs from person to person. But one cannot take the law into their own hands when it comes down to matters of life and death. And if the law fails, then those in your life who remain ought to provide you with council for what your decision should be, because your own judgment will be corrupted by bias and emotion. In truth...this should, SHOULD, prevent an individual from spilling blood. Killing someone, when you are not an individual altogether familiar with spilling blood, changes you, and not for the better, either.

Alas, the justice system is NOT a self-correcting mechanism. It is a monolithic thing, and that is where it fails.

I suppose my own ethical leanings tend towards consequential humanism. If you see someone doing wrong, you don't stand back and wait for authorities if you can stop what is happening yourself. Too many people take the view of "let someone else handle it." If I am walking down the street and I hear a woman being raped in an alley, and I have a gun and a cell phone, do I just let the woman keep being raped while I call the cops and wait for them to show, or do I pistol whip the fucker to stop him while the cops arrive? It may not be legal to pistol-whip the guy but if it guarantees he stops and can't get away, and I must serve some punishment for this...so be it, it's a worthy sacrifice, I think.

[KichigaiNeko]

Alas, the justice system is NOT a self-correcting mechanism. It is a monolithic thing, and that is where it fails.

This I would cite as a truism.

[Creed of Heresy]

Alas, the justice system is NOT a self-correcting mechanism. It is a monolithic thing, and that is where it fails.

This I would cite as a truism.

TRUTHINESS. 8D

[KichigaiNeko]

But it seems to be so...doesn't it??

http://www.citizensjustice.com/_webapp_3...'s_Just_Us

[NoMoreFaith]

True as it may be, the rational way to respect human life is to not kill.

Whatever it is, your eye for an eye retribution is not humanism.

If the justice system fails, in such a titanic matter as per your hypothetical, then it would be deserving of a massive outcry for change, for the preservation and evolution of society. Positive action through numbers. A humanist should have some faith in people to do the right thing, otherwise, whats the point in being humanist.
Whether that is true is up for debate certainly, I will grant that.

Its a very simple principle of humanism, and there aren't many of them. The golden moral rule is not discarded because someone else refused to live by it. You live by it, and you respect human life, even if they do not.

[Creed of Heresy]

True as it may be, the rational way to respect human life is to not kill.

Whatever it is, your eye for an eye retribution is not humanism.

If the justice system fails, in such a titanic matter as per your hypothetical, then it would be deserving of a massive outcry for change, for the preservation and evolution of society. Positive action through numbers. A humanist should have some faith in people to do the right thing, otherwise, whats the point in being humanist.
Whether that is true is up for debate certainly, I will grant that.

Its a very simple principle of humanism, and there aren't many of them. The golden moral rule is not discarded because someone else refused to live by it. You live by it, and you respect human life, even if they do not.

This is all true enough. To humbly point out the brilliance of my point, it follows what you say [and what humanism itself gently suggests], that you are to trust your fellow man to do the right thing. And if you would kill in blind rage [understandably, given the circumstances in this hypothetical, but while understandable, still not condonable], if you trust in your fellow humans...you'll trust them to hold you back, to soothe your rage and to keep you elevated above the killer by not stooping to his level. You are very much correct, though; eye for an eye leaves everyone blind.

The justice system itself DOES need some serious overhauling, badly. Too much bullshit involving slippery slopes and deals being cut by prosecutors...or prosecutors botching their presentations [OJ Simpson comes to mind...].

[NoMoreFaith]

Agreed, the justice system in many countries leaves alot to be desired. My objection is primarily to the point that he has a "human right to true justice" which seems to be equated with that of vengeful murder.
Those are not compatible under humanism and I would object to the idea that it is justice of any kind, never mind true justice.

Sure, you could ask a bunch of your peers about whether its okay to go murder the guy, and trust them to tell you not to.. but the implication is that you should already know that if you subscribe to humanism, which makes the discussion irrelevant.
If we consider the golden rule of morality as an opt in/opt out situation. Then if you breach the golden rule, then you are no longer protected by it. Which suffers a problem of regress. If you murder the person who killed your family, do they then have the right to murder you, and so on and so forth.

This could easily descend into a discussion on the death penalty if I'm not careful which is a thread of its own (and no doubt already done to death).