Secular Humanism and Humanity: What are they?

[FatAndFaithless]

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.

Fair enough, sorry.

[Jenny A]

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.

I'd be interested in exploring two particular parts of it. First what makes us human is a matter of degree when we are compared with out animals. The makes it hard to pin down just at what point evolutionarily, people became people. It also creates problems at the margins. Require too much empathy or rationality and you begin suggesting mental deficient people or sociopaths aren't human. That's not a road I want to go down.

Second, the question of why it matters. People matter to people. That is a fact. But most species are primarily concerned with members of their own species. Given how evolution and genetics work, that's no surprise. In other words, while it can be fun determining just how people differ from the rest of the animal kingdom, it is not anything that makes us cosmically special, just very special to ourselves.

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

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.

I expect you to have some ideas. It is after all a question about the basic nature of the species to which you belong. And a discussion requires give and take. Ask but don't answer is an interrogation, not a discussion.

[robvalue]

Rythm: I'm sorry, I don't think I should continue the conversation. Your view of things is just way too different from mine.

[Ignorant]

---

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.

I'd be interested in exploring two particular parts of it. First what makes us human is a matter of degree when we are compared with out animals. The makes it hard to pin down just at what point evolutionarily, people became people. It also creates problems at the margins. Require too much empathy or rationality and you begin suggesting mental deficient people or sociopaths aren't human. That's not a road I want to go down.

---

Second, the question of why it matters. People matter to people. That is a fact. But most species are primarily concerned with members of their own species. Given how evolution and genetics work, that's no surprise. In other words, while it can be fun determining just how people differ from the rest of the animal kingdom, it is not anything that makes us cosmically special, just very special to ourselves.

Is it not more than just fun? Is it not also important for social life? For example, wouldn't it be silly to have intense discussions about extremely complex issue like human rights if nobody could articulate what it was that made a person human and therefore guarantees them rights?

---

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

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.

---

I expect you to have some ideas. It is after all a question about the basic nature of the species to which you belong. And a discussion requires give and take. Ask but don't answer is an interrogation, not a discussion.

Well sure, I do have some ideas, but my ideas are heavily influenced by years of philosophical and theological reflection that are quite different than the perspective given by the atheist (particularly secular humanist) one (and those ideas are currently developing and probably wouldn't stand up under scrutiny in their present formulations). I began this thread as a question posed to them to provide a description. You didn't have to provide a response (you are not even a secular humanist as you made abundantly clear), and you chose to anyway for which I am thankful.

If asking clarifying and critical questions about another person's worldview is an interrogation, then it seems like a large number of threads are interrogations, and I have been interrogated several times already. I apologize if you don't like that approach, but you don't have to interact with me if you don't like the way I investigate other people's thoughts.

[Jenny A]

Is it not more than just fun? Is it not also important for social life? For example, wouldn't it be silly to have intense discussions about extremely complex issue like human rights if nobody could articulate what it was that made a person human and therefore guarantees them rights?

No actually, I don't think more than a biological definition of human is necessary to the discussion of human rights. Human beings grant each other human rights because of our empathy for each other and because it benefits humans as a whole. Nature does not provide us with natural rights of any kind. There is no creator to "endow us" with rights. Describing the particular needs and desires of humans might be helpful, but separating our "specialness" from, say dogs, or jelly fish is not.

So, how do you define human?

---

Seriously. It's a question that anyone asking should be expected to have an answer to.


I expect you to have some ideas. It is after all a question about the basic nature of the species to which you belong. And a discussion requires give and take. Ask but don't answer is an interrogation, not a discussion.

---

Well sure, I do have some ideas, but my ideas are heavily influenced by years of philosophical and theological reflection that are quite different than the perspective given by the atheist (particularly secular humanist) one (and those ideas are currently developing and probably wouldn't stand up under scrutiny in their present formulations).

Discussing developing ideas is fine. I expect your ideas to be different than mine.

If asking clarifying and critical questions about another person's worldview is an interrogation, then it seems like a large number of threads are interrogations, and I have been interrogated several times already. I apologize if you don't like that approach, but you don't have to interact with me if you don't like the way I investigate other people's thoughts.

Only if you are unwilling to provide your own thoughts. Otherwise, yes it is an interrogation. And yes I realize I don't have to respond. But your response is the price for my response. K?

[Ignorant]

---

Is it not more than just fun? Is it not also important for social life? For example, wouldn't it be silly to have intense discussions about extremely complex issue like human rights if nobody could articulate what it was that made a person human and therefore guarantees them rights?

No actually, I don't think more than a biological definition of human is necessary to the discussion of human rights. Human beings grant each other human rights because of our empathy for each other and because it benefits humans as a whole. Nature does not provide us with natural rights of any kind. There is no creator to "endow us" with rights. Describing the particular needs and desires of humans might be helpful, but separating our "specialness" from, say dogs, or jelly fish is not.

Well sure, I do have some ideas, but my ideas are heavily influenced by years of philosophical and theological reflection that are quite different than the perspective given by the atheist (particularly secular humanist) one (and those ideas are currently developing and probably wouldn't stand up under scrutiny in their present formulations).

Discussing developing ideas is fine. I expect your ideas to be different than mine.

If asking clarifying and critical questions about another person's worldview is an interrogation, then it seems like a large number of threads are interrogations, and I have been interrogated several times already. I apologize if you don't like that approach, but you don't have to interact with me if you don't like the way I investigate other people's thoughts.

---

Only if you are unwilling to provide your own thoughts. Otherwise, yes it is an interrogation. And yes I realize I don't have to respond. But your response is the price for my response. K?

Price? No, thank you. I didn't realize that was how you understood answering a question. If asking you a question will always mean providing my own answer to that question, then perhaps it is best that we just end our exchange here. Nothing personal.

[watchamadoodle]

Sorry if this has been covered in an earlier post, but what are the real-world scenarios where the meaning of human is in question?
- Machine intelligence?
- Mentally incapacitated?
- Intelligent animals such as cats, dogs, parrots, dolphins?
- ET intelligence?
- ... what else?

Maybe we can define a human to be anything that is capable of being ethical and moral without religion or a god?

Also it seems that we need a gradated definition of human that assigns moral responsibility to the most intelligent and powerful intelligences, but assigns rights much more broadly?

Here is the definition of secular humanism:

Secular Humanism posits that human beings are capable of being ethical and moral without religion or a god. It does not, however, assume that humans are either inherently evil or innately good, nor does it present humans as being superior to nature. Rather, the humanist life stance emphasizes the unique responsibility facing humanity and the ethical consequences of human decisions. Fundamental to the concept of secular humanism is the strongly held viewpoint that ideology—be it religious or political—must be thoroughly examined by each individual and not simply accepted or rejected on faith. Along with this, an essential part of secular humanism is a continually adapting search for truth, primarily through science and philosophy. Many Humanists derive their moral codes from a philosophy of utilitarianism, ethical naturalism, or evolutionary ethics, and some, such as Sam Harris, advocate a science of morality.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Secular_humanism

[robvalue]

Yeah, this was my problem, I didn't understand the point of the question.

I see some people don't like the "humanist" part, could you elaborate as to why please? The above definition seems pretty rosy and I wonder what would stop you wanting to identify as such, if you don't mind

[The Grand Nudger]

Sorry if this has been covered in an earlier post, but what are the real-world scenarios where the meaning of human is in question?
- Machine intelligence?
- Mentally incapacitated?
- Intelligent animals such as cats, dogs, parrots, dolphins?
- ET intelligence?
- ... what else?

I don't know that the meaning of human would be in question in any of those scenarios - at least insomuch as it's relevance or possible reason for inclusion or exclusion. We might consider what it means to be human with regards to rights, and what other things might be eligible for those rights based upon our own justifications for assigning them, but at no point would we need to redefine what "human" means or assign the status of "human" to any given "x"...even if we wanted to grant legal personhood or just limited legal protections, for example (which we already do for non-human this or thats).

[robvalue]

I'll just bump this up again as I'm still interested in why some people don't like the idea of "humanist". I'm not criticising, just curious.