Secular Humanism and Humanity: What are they?

[Ignorant]

---

What I meant was its not anything more than just the nature of humans. It's not magical or spiritual or anything, we're just another animal. As I said, I really don't understand the question.

---

Value is entirely subjective, to most humans another human life is more valuable than an animal's, but that's to be expected; each animal tends to value it's own species. There is no external value to anything.

That is fine. Do you think (i.e. according to your subjective view) that there is something about human life that makes it more valuable than any other animal?

---

---

Thanks for that! So, would it be fair to say that the distinctly "human" characteristics are derived from and involve those realities leading to the development, function, and biological behavior of the human brain?

---

Sure, I would agree with that. I think that allows us to see the fluidity in behavior between animals and humans and yet there are factors involved in our actions that are quite distinct. For example, we both have passions to procreate, but humans have additional conceptions, of "love" and "rape" and "casual sex" for example.

Would conceptions like "love" and "casual sex" and "rape" then be understood as evolutionary byproducts expressed in different sorts of brain activity?

[Whateverist]

If what you really want to know is how my definition of human differs from most theists I know, the answer is really very simple: their definition includes a soul and mine does not. But it's possible to be an atheist and believe in a soul, just not a god given one.

This gives me an entry point to the discussion. I am one of the atheists who is happy to attach a meaning to the word soul, albeit a different one from most theists. For me it has only to do with the depth of identity or self. I feel there is something essential about each one of us which is not ours to decide but which must instead be discovered. We then take whatever stand toward what we discover. But the self is there to be known or ignored all the same.

Now I have no metaphysical trappings attached to what I mean by soul. I don't imagine it as a radio receiver pulling in a signal from some cosmic consciousness. Nor do I see it as immortal let alone eternal.

My own theory is that awareness of it arises from the internal awareness of a primal otherness, and its dynamic interaction with the conscious mind. Perhaps it is a remnant of our mammalian and earlier brains and modes of being. I don't pretend to know about its physiology or metaphysical nature. All I know is its phenomenology as experienced directly. This has been a pretty durable belief for me and informs the way I interpret the words and behaviors of others. It feels highly significant, something to be valued and nurtured.

Fortunately for me, by being something I conceptualize as being on-board, I don't need to work it into science. There is really no doctrine to tip toe around it, so I don't experience any cognitive dissonance on its account of which I am aware.

[Angrboda]

I think that any definition of human for these purposes has to include the fact that we are a social species. Frameworks of values, which is what I think secular humanism is, make no sense in the context of a solitary, non-social species. It's our social nature that makes secular humanism relevant. So yes, human is simply a shorthand for the species homo sapiens, but secular humanism itself is contingent upon our nature as a social species, so it's more than simply identifying us as a species; it's dependent on specific aspects of the nature of our species, including things like general values that our specific species inherits from our social nature, such as valuing fairness. The whole complex of our moral and social mores would then be essential for defining the 'human' in secular humanism.

[Whateverist]

So when you say "human nature is nothing special", does that also mean that the life of say, an antelope, has just as much value as the life of a human? Or have I misinterpreted that?

This gets at an essential difference. I would take an antelope's life to nourish my own or that of my family, but I never would regard a human in the same way. But other animals exhibit repulsion toward cannibalism so that isn't distinctly human. Plus a few humans and chimpanzees (apparently from what I have read) can experience abnormal personalities in which cannibalism is featured.

But apart from the issue of which life forms are okay to regard as food source -and every food source is a life form- I do not exalt humans above other animals. That is, I exalt that which is common with other animals in me as highly as I do that which is distinctively human. I'm not a humans-first kind of guy. If I were the ruler of the world, I would cut the human population drastically over a short period of time. I like being part of a varied and therefore healthy web of life. Transforming the entire planet over to meeting only our human needs strikes me as ugly both aesthetically and morally.

[Mudhammam]

---

---

Sure, I would agree with that. I think that allows us to see the fluidity in behavior between animals and humans and yet there are factors involved in our actions that are quite distinct. For example, we both have passions to procreate, but humans have additional conceptions, of "love" and "rape" and "casual sex" for example.

Would conceptions like "love" and "casual sex" and "rape" then be understood as evolutionary byproducts expressed in different sorts of brain activity?

Yeah. All of our thoughts and passions have resulted from our evolutionary history.

---

Though I include cultural evolution in that as well.

[robvalue]

Ignorant: Valuable... Well, I try my best to never cause any animal to suffer or die. Unfortunately this is an ideal, and sometimes I have to make compromises. But I am rarely in a situation where I need to make an empirical decision about what life is more valuable, I respect it all as far as possible. I don't consider any of it to be expendable. I would have to admit to a sliding scale of bias though that bigger animals and ones more capable of thought carry more weight if I do have to make decisions. I think this is due to a feeling that they are able to suffer more, so should be protected more if decisions must be made. For example, I use flea treatment on my dog. I know this will kill fleas, and I hate that, but I decide to value my dog's health as more important.

But if I sit here and coldly evaluate the life of a dog versus the life of a human say, I don't feel that one is simply more valuable than the other. A human is much more capable of having a large effect on the world, but there's no guarantee that effect would be positive.

So I guess what I'm saying is... Short of some extremely unlikely scenario involving a burning building where I have to make a snap decision based largely on instinct, I don't particularly value human life more than animal life. In fact, I hate the human race as a whole because we are capable of evil on a massive scale, we can and do cause suffering to other animals in ways that "lesser" species simply never could.

But please understand, that is not to say I devalue humans, it's saying that I value animals much more than most people would. Most people see them as in some way lesser and not as important as us. I bring them up to our level, so to speak. I know this is unusual, but that is how I am. I would do my best to stop suffering to any form of life, and I would try and help a human just as much as anyone else.

[Ignorant]

I think that any definition of human for these purposes has to include the fact that we are a social species.

---

Frameworks of values, which is what I think secular humanism is, make no sense in the context of a solitary, non-social species. It's our social nature that makes secular humanism relevant. So yes, human is simply a shorthand for the species homo sapiens, but secular humanism itself is contingent upon our nature as a social species, so it's more than simply identifying us as a species; it's dependent on specific aspects of the nature of our species, including things like general values that our specific species inherits from our social nature, such as valuing fairness.

---

The whole complex of our moral and social mores would then be essential for defining the 'human' in secular humanism.

This seems like an important aspect. Are humanity's social aspects reducible to evolutionary traits resulting from a deterministic (although random) process?

Also, I really appreciate everyone's input and discussion.

[downbeatplumb]

This seems like an important aspect. Are humanity's social aspects reducible to evolutionary traits resulting from a deterministic (although random) process?

Yes.

[robvalue]

The changes in organisms are random, but the natural selection process is not random.

[downbeatplumb]

The changes in organisms are random, but the natural selection process is not random.

Indeed.
On the whole evolution is down to environmental pressures. There is a small amount of luck involved as well. The best fitted do not always live to breed.