Re: Humanism in 2006


"John Brockbank" <wagley@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
news:43c3fca2$1_1@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
>>> Any person who is a humanist will agree that they should behave as they
>>> would wish others to behave, and furthermore, they would say that is
>>> what others should do as well, within a reasonable range of behaviour.
>
>
> < That could be anything. By that argument Osama is a humanist. >
>
> My understanding of Osama Bin Laden (of course merely obtained from news
> media assertions that he is (or was) an encourager of suicide bombers.

My reply it that is "So, why does that matter?"

Here's the thing and at risk of repeating myself: YOU CAN'T PROVE ANYTHING
IS EVIL <period>. It's like playing a game of twenty questions. You can give
me and example of what you believe is evil (which is an example you implied
in your above Osama) such as child rape. You can make the claim the child
rape is an example of *real* evil. I can reply with "why?". Because my
knowing you canNOT give a rational (empirical) evidence for the reality, I
can ask you an endless string of whys until you either proclaim it a
self-evident knowledge (a moral realism) or because you don't like such and
such behavior (moral subjectivism). If evil doesn't lend itself to
empiricism (to rationalism), Naturalism holds that it ain't real. If evil
isn't real what's the point in humanism? It has no demons to concur.

>
> I do not accept that you as a fairly well educated person really consider
> that is acting within a reasonable range of behavior.

That's a loaded phrase. What is a reasonable range of behavior? (At one time
homosexuality was thought unreasonable by the American Psychiatric Society
then they took a vote and declared it reasonable. I know a professional
sociologist who finds that funny and uses it to deride psychiatry.)

Here's what you just did, and here is were I have to repeat myself: Unless
you can demonstrate the rationalism in evil (or in human rights IYW), you
just made an appeal to reason for belief in an irrationalism.

All you can do is give me a list of behaviors that you believer are examples
of evil (like your Osama's bombers). That may say something about your
beliefs but that won't prove evil is real. It's the same as arguing that
because people believe in a god then god must be real. You believe that
makes for proof? I don't. I don't think either argument holds up as
rational....but then I am religious and have no problem with admitting to
faith in irrational truths. How 'bout you?

Now I'm not disagreeing with you that Osama is an example of an evil person.
But I know such a statement can't be proven rationally about Osama.

Your using example of an evil without the possibility of rationally
supporting your belief is no different than an intelligent design advocate
using examples from nature as appeals to reason in an intellignetly designed
universe.




I was not defining
> humanism, I was arguing with your statement on the lines of suggesting
> that human rights do not exist and that humanists can not provide a
> rational argument for human rights.

I can prove civil rights exist because CRs are based upon cultural codes of
conduct. Morality cannot be thought of - rationally - without references to
a given culture/society. What is moral in one culture can be immoral in
another. That is to say - rationally - morality *must* be dependent upon,
and relative to, cultural mores. Humanism, like religions, OTOH, rejects
this inherent cultural dependency and believes human rights are independent
of mores. In fact, like religious laws, humanism holds that cultures are
subordinate to its <cough> proclaimed Rights. Humanism is a stripped down
religion, stripped of everything metaphysical but moral realism (truth IOW).


In short, the rational argument is that human
> rights exist because we say they do.

Circular. No different than saying "The bible is true because the bible says
it's true." Or even "god is exists because we say he does." So in short, you
did not make a rational argument. If there was a rational argument for human
rights then there would be no need to *declare* them existent.

I doubt that a judge and jury would
> accept a contention that the right to liberty of a person you had
> kidnapped was merely a subjective opinion.

That depends on the civil moral code the judge and jury are referring
to....which *is* subjective and provably culturally dependent upon the
culture's subjective mores. Saddam believes he was kidnapped by our
government. And there are those who believe Osama's bombers are freedom
fighters.


.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: Humanism in 2006
    ... > Since Humanism is growing, it sure doesn't seem to be destroyed. ... the possessors of something called human rights. ... without also supporting it with rationalism is nothing more than an appeal ...
    (talk.philosophy.humanism)
  • Re: Humanism in 2006
    ... >>> Humanism moves slowly ahead, we see a lot of humanist progress over the ... > Religion was trying to adapt to the new humanist ideas to avoid being ... The Moral Rationalist thinks that Good and Evil are objective, ... ?Moral Rationalism?. ...
    (talk.philosophy.humanism)
  • Re: Humanism in 2006
    ... (It might have been 'the existence of human rights' No ... Progress could be defined in how well the participants ... That too implies moral objectivism/realism. ... The fact that humanism has no tablets of stone does not ...
    (talk.philosophy.humanism)
  • Re: Humanism in 2006
    ... >>> Since Humanism is growing, it sure doesn't seem to be ... Bull shit, David, Naturalism bankrupts humanism like it bankrupts religions. ... Where atheism rejects godnaturalism goes one step ... and human rights, like god, are not rational concepts. ...
    (talk.philosophy.humanism)
  • Re: Humanism in 2006
    ... >> others should do as well, within a reasonable range of behaviour. ... By that argument Osama is a humanist. ... humanism, I was arguing with your statement on the lines of suggesting that ... human rights do not exist and that humanists can not provide a rational ...
    (talk.philosophy.humanism)