Secular Humanism and Humanity: What are they?

[Whateverist]

Yeah it didn't work out so well for Nora or her would be keeper in "A Doll's House".

[robvalue]

I don't call having a pet slavery, that's entirely different. We have pets and our lives revolve around making them happy

Assuming you look after them properly, that's more akin to adopting.

-go ahead and tell yourself that, lol. See if it works with buying me, an adult human male. If you bought me, and your life revolved around "making me happy" - a generous assumption in the case of a pet, let alone a human being...would that be adoption or slavery?

I don't know if you're being serious or not.

There are animals which need our care, that have been bred to be pets and then abandoned. So I go to rescue centres and I give them a home. They would most likely die in the wild very quickly. I'm not "buying" them, that would be getting them from a breeder which I am against. I hate animals being treated as a commodity. The ones in rescue centres are like helpless children who have been abandoned by their parents and need looking after. Unlike humans, they can never mature to the point where they can be allowed into the world on their own. The only humane alternative would be to put them all to sleep.

So no one "owns" these animals, and I'm not buying them. I am not grabbing them from the wild, nor trading for them from other "owners" so it's entirely different to your scenario, I hope you will agree.

[Ignorant]

I will speak slowly, for the hard of reading. I . . . am . . . not . . . a . . . secular . . . humanist. My world view just doesn't happen to include god as anything other than a cultural phenomenon.

I never claimed that you were a secular humanist. "E.g." means for example. Even though my OP is specifically aimed at Secular Humanists, I understand it is silly to expect the interweb to stay on a single topic and operate within the bounds of an OP.

Your original reply DID, in fact, offer a brief (and admittedly non-robust) description of what you think distinguishes humans from other animals. I was interested in exploring that description, but it seems that you are not. That is perfectly fine. All you have to do is say so, which you actually did in this post.

---

That really isn't what I wanted to know. I just wanted to know more about what your definition of human is. If someone asked you what it "meant" to be human, what would you tell them? You already gave a great start to an answer in your original reply. I am trying to respond to everyone on their own terms.

I think you are making a mountain out of a mole hill. Most people don't have a good definition of human beyond we know one when we see one. We do differ somewhat from other animals, but really, with the possible exception of language it's only a matter of degree.

---

Like all species, we are special to ourselves. That "great start" is all the difference between humans and other species I have to offer.

---

But consider this, do you think there is another species that ponders the question what is it to be us? That would be self awareness. So would knowledge of death.

---

Great! Thanks for your input.

So, how do you define human? Seriously. It's a question that anyone asking should be expected to have an answer to.

and

---

But consider this, do you think there is another species that ponders the question what is it to be us?

---

I would also like to know how the person asking the question answers it himself. In particular, I'm interested to know whether your answer is drawn from personal reflection or taken whole cloth from authoritative sources.

Really? People who ask questions are expected to already have an answer to the question they are asking?

The truth is that I am still working out the best way to explain what I think a human being is. Is that ok? And, whateverist, the "answer" I am trying to formulate is being drawn from my own personal reflection of my own human experience together with what I find to be the best of the descriptions which have come before me. Shoulders of giants, as they say.

It has been my hope that some insights might come from asking the question in the OP.

[robvalue]

I didn't mean to go into preachy mode about my animal views, I just found it was necessary to answer the questions being put to me in this topic.

[Whateverist]

I would also like to know how the person asking the question answers it himself. In particular, I'm interested to know whether your answer is drawn from personal reflection or taken whole cloth from authoritative sources.

Really? People who ask questions are expected to already have an answer to the question they are asking?

Not at all. Of course a person can ask a question without already knowing the answer, or even just ask it rhetorically. Nothing wrong in either case.

The truth is that I am still working out the best way to explain what I think a human being is. Is that ok?

Of course, how could it not be okay?

And, whateverist, the "answer" I am trying to formulate is being drawn from my own personal reflection of my own human experience together with what I find to be the best of the descriptions which have come before me. Shoulders of giants, as they say.

It has been my hope that some insights might come from asking the question in the OP.

Well best of luck with that. I don't count myself as a secular humanist so I can't help with that part. As for "humanity" I usually stop at the featherless biped level of description. So I don't think I have any help to offer.

The more I thought about morality as an undergraduate the more I felt like the effort to formalize and abstract a moral code was superfluous. It would be like formalizing the rules of bipedal locomotion. It doesn't seem to be the kind of knowledge which has much utility, unless perhaps you're working on robotics.

[The Grand Nudger]

I don't know if you're being serious or not.

Because my kung-fu is stronk!

There are animals which need our care, that have been bred to be pets and then abandoned. So I go to rescue centres and I give them a home. They would most likely die in the wild very quickly. I'm not "buying" them, that would be getting them from a breeder which I am against.

If money changes hands, you're buying them. If it doesn't, you aren't. It doesn't matter whether you buy your dog from a breeder, the garbageman, or a shelter. I admire your actions and principles, btw. I'm a habitual rescuer myself. I'm thinking of going to our local shelter to get mah puppy someone to play with, 50bucks out the door and they escape the needle or a dog-fighting ring. Sold.

I hate animals being treated as a commodity. The ones in rescue centres are like helpless children who have been abandoned by their parents and need looking after.

Maybe, to you, they seem like that. To me, they seem like animals in cages. I don't know how we'd quantify such a comparison as a matter of fact, rather than a matter of personal experience/emotional response. Maybe they are like that, and I just have a hard...hard heart?

Unlike humans, they can never mature to the point where they can be allowed into the world on their own. The only humane alternative would be to put them all to sleep.

I think I'd contest this notion of humanity (or any given representative) maturing to the point of comparison whereby it can be allowed into the world on it's own-relative to some other rep of some other species in some other situation...but thats for another convo.

In contemplating some "final solution" to the worlds stray and unwanted pet problem, I couldn't put them down. I'd have to open the kennels. The crushing majority would not succeed.....but that only puts them in the same boat as myself, in that regard.

So no one "owns" these animals, and I'm not buying them.

Save that for the courtroom, when the dog bites the neighbors kid? Tell me how the defense holds up.

I am not grabbing them from the wild, nor trading for them from other "owners" so it's entirely different to your scenario, I hope you will agree.

I think you're engaging in a post hoc rationalization, but, I can see why you would perceive it that way, even if I don't agree (for reasons stated). IMO, you are an owner, you have bought the animals from their previous owner (or have been granted rights to property by said previous owner if no money changed hands). I think that it is patently ridiculous to state that "these animals have no owner" - okay...then somebody needs to round them up and get them to a shelter...like all of the rest of the owner-less pets out there. I think that perhaps, you have a position which is not supported by our current situation...and are making the best use of whats in place in order to further that position. That you would have to leverage a little finesse, when trying the making the square world fit the round hole of your notions - is to be expected. I don;t see how, for example, in the current situation, you could provide care and protection for those animals without going through the official step of owning them, in the legal sense, or assuming ownership of their liability. I don;t fault you for signing the papers that need to be signed even if the principles behind them don't line up with your own - just taking care to point that out. Imagine if I stated that "nobody owns this life" -referring to the fields...my means of production - as a defense as to why I planted 10 acres of tomatoes, for profit, on someone else's property? You may agree with me in principle...but you'd be so kind as to remind me that the laws and terms I leverage are not on my side, eh, that my statements are not a matter of fact, but of stated ideals?

A pet owner -does- have responsibilities ensconced in law that some other type of property do not confer, of course. You cannot be fined or confined, for example...for being cruel to your apple tree - or for running a cricket fighting ring in your lawn. I agree that it's -more- like adoption then, say, buying a gravel pit. But I could say that a toaster is -more- like a 747 than a balsa wood plane is....so there's always that.

[Whateverist]

A pet owner -does- have responsibilities ensconced in law that some other type of property do not confer, of course.

If memory serves (for a change), biblical regulation of slave owners forbade them from striking their property so hard that recovery would take more than three days. Short of that, no problem.

[FatAndFaithless]

A pet owner -does- have responsibilities ensconced in law that some other type of property do not confer, of course.

If memory serves (for a change), biblical regulation of slave owners forbade them from striking their property so hard that recovery would take more than three days. Short of that, no problem.

Oh no, they could beat their slaves as long as the didn't die in one or two days. Doesn't say anything about recovery. If the slave dies after a few more days, the owner is home free.

[Ignorant]

If memory serves (for a change), biblical regulation of slave owners forbade them from striking their property so hard that recovery would take more than three days. Short of that, no problem.

Oh no, they could beat their slaves as long as the didn't die in one or two days. Doesn't say anything about recovery. If the slave dies after a few more days, the owner is home free.

Not that these points are without import in their own proper contexts, but it would be nice if this thread didn't devolve into a criticism of Biblical law. I posed the question in the philosophy section for a reason.

Just a request is all.

[Whateverist]

I knew someone would have the exact statute. That sounds more like it. Just don't beat them so hard that they die before your alibi kicks in.