Humanist view of human nature?

[smof]

I've been wondering something about the humanist view. I've only been learning about humanism for a few days and am still new to it all so excuse me if I've totally failed to pick up on something ;)

One of the items in the list of things humanists believe, from the BHA website, is: "that people can and will continue to find solutions to the world's problems ‑ so that quality of life can be improved for everyone."

That sounds really positive, which is good obviously, but it got me wondering what the humanist view is of 'human nature'. Do humanists believe that people are inherently good, as this quote seems to suggest? What is the humanist interpretation of people, and entire societies, who deliberately inflict suffering on others? Are these people seen as products of their environment or are they 'bad' people?

Basically I guess I'm asking, do humanists look around themselves sometimes and despair at humanity? Or is it really a consistently positive outlook?

I hope that made some sense!

[Gurdur]

I think only personal answers can be given; there is no set "humanist" answer.


Humanism is often described as a faith in humanity; I would disagree with that, recognising that humanity can be bloody stupid at times.

Nonetheless, I am a humanist; my personal answer is that I would say it is egotisitical and self-pitying to simply despair at humanity; one does what one can, and one simply plugs away at muddling through at doing one's humanist best, without emotional dramatics of despairing.

[Oxfordrocks]

I dont agree with the definition "Faith in Humanity".
"Faith in Yourself" may be a better expression.

We all get a bit fed-up, now and again, with the state of the world we're living in ....just keep reminding yourself that there are decent people out there trying to do their best....after all that's all we can ever do.

Damn, I'm sounding a bit like a preacher!

[Maria Mac]

Hi smof

I hope you don’t mind that I’ve changed the title of this thread to give an indication of what it’s about.

As far as the BHA quote is concerned, sometimes I think it’s too optimistic and would be better phrased simply as ‘people have to find solutions to the world’s problems…’.

Then again, if we look at what humankind has achieved thus far, perhaps it isn’t so optimistic. Our ‘faith’ in the ability of human beings to do great things is based on our knowledge that great things have already been done. This isn’t to suggest that we haven’t also done and continue to do terrible things. We are all members of the animal kingdom and overcoming the worst parts of our natures so that we can make progress for the good of humanity is a challenge for the whole human race and is the crux of what humanism is about, in my opinion.

[smof]

Thanks for the replies, very informative. The idea I'm getting is it's more about having faith in the <i>potential</i> of humanity, and striving to reach that potential in yourself and, where possible, help others in reaching theirs.

[Gurdur]

Thanks for the replies, very informative. The idea I'm getting is it's more about having faith in the potential of humanity, and striving to reach that potential in yourself and, where possible, help others in reaching theirs.

Bingo! Sums up my own point of view perfectly.

Look, some people are just trash; others are treasures. Some people you can only restrain, others ignore, others encourage, others build up, others engage with. It all depends on the individuals and the causes. But indeed, it is all about (for me) acheiving a realization of a good potential.

[God]

Look, some people are just trash; others are treasures. Some people you can only restrain, others ignore, others encourage, others build up, others engage with. It all depends on the individuals and the causes. But indeed, it is all about (for me) acheiving a realization of a good potential.

Problem with this outlook is, who is to be the judge as to who is trash and who is treasure? Who does the restraining? etc.

[lewist]

Look, some people are just trash; others are treasures. Some people you can only restrain, others ignore, others encourage, others build up, others engage with. It all depends on the individuals and the causes. But indeed, it is all about (for me) acheiving a realization of a good potential.

Problem with this outlook is, who is to be the judge as to who is trash and who is treasure? Who does the restraining? etc.

And who is to say that the trash may not in time become treasure? That is why it is so important to remember that we look for people to realise potential. One example is former Glasgow hard man Jimmy Boyle, graduate of the infamous 'cages' at Inverness Prison and the Barlinnie Special Unit, who is now a respected artist.

Strangely in the eBay values there is one that runs something like:

People are basically decent.

I have wondered about the source of this! It has struck me that there must be a humanist in there.

[God]

And who is to say that the trash may not in time become treasure?

Certainly happens in politics - the other way round though!

[Gurdur]

Problem with this outlook is, who is to be the judge as to who is trash and who is treasure? Who does the restraining? etc.

How do you think it turns out in real life? There is your answer.

[Gurdur]

And who is to say that the trash may not in time become treasure?

You actually raise a topic dear to my heart, that being redemption. It's quite unfortunate that for the most part the religious have lockhold on the vocabulary of this and similar subjects, because it really is a very important part of life. Any meeting of a secular group of Alcoholics Anonymous, or Drugs Anonymous, can tell gallons about that.

People are basically decent

I beg to disagree.

I would say most people start off as basically decent; but some don't at all -- sociopaths are basically born sociopaths and will never be anything but sociopathic throughout their lives. Some also choose in life to leave all decency behind, and never regain it.

[God]

Problem with this outlook is, who is to be the judge as to who is trash and who is treasure? Who does the restraining? etc.

How do you think it turns out in real life? There is your answer.

Sorry - don't understand that answer.

[Gurdur]

Problem with this outlook is, who is to be the judge as to who is trash and who is treasure? Who does the restraining? etc.

How do you think it turns out in real life? There is your answer.

Sorry - don't understand that answer.

Dunno why you don't understand it. Just who does the judging, restraining and so on in real life? How and why is it done? Surely you've looked at the real world from time to time.

[God]

Dunno why you don't understand it. Just who does the judging, restraining and so on in real life? How and why is it done? Surely you've looked at the real world from time to time.

Oh. You mean leave everything as it is. Interesting.

[Nick]

I've been wondering something about the humanist view. I've only been learning about humanism for a few days and am still new to it all so excuse me if I've totally failed to pick up on something ;)

One of the items in the list of things humanists believe, from the BHA website, is: "that people can and will continue to find solutions to the world's problems ‑ so that quality of life can be improved for everyone."

That sounds really positive, which is good obviously, but it got me wondering what the humanist view is of 'human nature'. Do humanists believe that people are inherently good, as this quote seems to suggest? What is the humanist interpretation of people, and entire societies, who deliberately inflict suffering on others? Are these people seen as products of their environment or are they 'bad' people?

Basically I guess I'm asking, do humanists look around themselves sometimes and despair at humanity? Or is it really a consistently positive outlook?

I hope that made some sense!

I agree with Gurdur that:

I think only personal answers can be given; there is no set "humanist" answer.

I would approach the question form a different angle. I have not read enough Dawkins to be certain (The Blind Watchmaker is sitting patiently on my shelves) but, as would seem reasonable of a biologist, his approach to evolution seems more concerned with the science of change, not so much an examination of the results (is it good or bad).

A very influential book for me was Desmond Morris's "The Naked Ape", which made sense to me. Viewed from this perspective, it would be logical that, not only are there all sorts of people in the world, but that there is no reason why the conflicts inherent in evolution should produce a harmonious position at any one time. For example, our physical evolution has vastly outpaced our mental evolution. It's no wonder we are screwed up at times!

Our mental capacity is also able to comprehend things which may depart from our evolutionary path. For humans therefore, I do not think it is logical to think in terms of inherent good and evil, not least because it is humans who decide what the definition of good and evil actually is. But as a humanist, I can make judgements which may depart from evolutionary processes. After all, evolution, in certain circumstances, may lead to destruction, not advances ('unstable cobwebs', in economic theory). For example, religion may be good for us humans in evolutionary terms, but is now in conflict with our more highly developed reason. As humans we have to play the cards we are dealt. It is how we play the cards that makes us humanists. We can either play what might seem an appalling hand, or fold. The humanist plays.

You worried that your question might not make sense to us. I'm having the same doubt about my answer! Anyway, there it is. It might get knocked into a better shape in due course.

[Chris]

Smof

People are what they are, neither all good or all bad, but a mixture, and all different, depending upon their life experience, their genes, and what they have learned. All this shapes their attitudes, behaviour and life chances and depend on chance - luck - of where they were born, to whom, parents, family friends and society, at school, at work, adult relationships and how they are treated.

My belief is that if people are treated well and feel wanted and respected they will care for and respect others and vice versa. And to me this is the most important lesson for adults and society to learn - the care they give will be repaid for better or worse and it is short-sighted not to treat people well.

I believe, from experience and observation, that harsh punitive traditional attitudes and treatment, breed hatred and discontent, and are to blame for most of the bad behaviour and conflict between individuals and societies.

What makes this a secular humanist issue, is the importance of the individual person and how they are treated - that they are not predestined by notions such as 'original sin' or 'spare the rod and spoil the child' of tradtional religion. Nor are people exhorted to 'change themselves' by believing in a saviour but should be taught to think for themselves and not rely on rigid, narrow doctrine.

I think people always do what they do for a reason.