What makes a good humanist?

[Compassionist]

A Christian declared to me that there is no such thing as a good humanist. She claimed that there are good Christians but no good humanists. I said that was inaccurate. I said that there are many good humanists. Then we reached an impasse as she wouldn't budge from her opinion and I wouldn't budge from mine. So, are there good humanists? What makes a good humanist? Are you a good humanist? What do you think and feel about this topic?

[Dave B]

It is sad there there are people who are so ironclad in their beliefs that they cannot see the rest of the world beyond. It is their actions towards the rest of humanity, on a local or global scale, by which people should be measured - not their beliefs.

I can only say that I aspire to be a good humanist - may never get there 100% because there are habits, attitudes and beliefs that go back to childhood, that are almost hard-wired into my mind, but I am mostly aware of them.

[Fia]

I think there are good people. Some are religious, some aren't. Just like not so good folk. The only difference between atheists and believers is that we don't need god/s to be good. Some of us do it because it's the right and human thing to do, not because we're trying to get into the good books of an imaginary almighty.

[animist]

A Christian declared to me that there is no such thing as a good humanist. She claimed that there are good Christians but no good humanists. I said that was inaccurate. I said that there are many good humanists. Then we reached an impasse as she wouldn't budge from her opinion and I wouldn't budge from mine. So, are there good humanists? What makes a good humanist? Are you a good humanist? What do you think and feel about this topic?

I suspect that your Xian contact was not interested in how a humanist might be good, and simply meant that no one in principle could be good unless they were a Xian. So there are two quite different questions: can one be a humanist and good? (in the same way as the question arises of whether one can be a Tory and good); and what is the essence of humanism, ie what does it take to be a true humanist (in the same way that the question arises about the essence of Toryism and what constitutes being a "good", ie true, Tory)

[Compassionist]

A Christian declared to me that there is no such thing as a good humanist. She claimed that there are good Christians but no good humanists. I said that was inaccurate. I said that there are many good humanists. Then we reached an impasse as she wouldn't budge from her opinion and I wouldn't budge from mine. So, are there good humanists? What makes a good humanist? Are you a good humanist? What do you think and feel about this topic?

I suspect that your Xian contact was not interested in how a humanist might be good, and simply meant that no one in principle could be good unless they were a Xian. So there are two quite different questions: can one be a humanist and good? (in the same way as the question arises of whether one can be a Tory and good); and what is the essence of humanism, ie what does it take to be a true humanist (in the same way that the question arises about the essence of Toryism and what constitutes being a "good", ie true, Tory)

Thank you to everyone who posted their thoughts about this. The foundation of her belief that there can be no good humanist is a verse from the Bible: "The fool says in his heart, “There is no God.” They are corrupt, their deeds are vile; there is no one who does good." - Psalm 14:1, The Bible (NIV). Contrary to the claim of the verse, I know many non-Christians and even non-religious people who do a lot of good.

[Dave B]

That there is only one real difference between a Christian and a Humanist - a lack in the belief of any form of supernatural world - has already been said I think.

Perhaps I misunderstood but I am not sure about the juxtaposition of "Good Humanist or not" v "Good Tory or not"!

To my mind "Humanist" self defines the person - if a person claims to be a Humanist and then does "anti-humanist" things they are not a Humanist, just a confused person or liar. The label defines the person and his or her behaviour (within the limits of being a mere human). Whereas I feel that there can be both "good" and "bad" members, in the "sincere contribution to the community" area in all political parties. The higher up the hierarchy they get perhaps the attitude to "serving" changes . . .

Interesting, we all know that there have been some pretty "evil" Christians in history, as there have been Evil Tories and evil socialists, have there been any "evil" Humanists in objective terms? Or are we still too new and too few on the ground and tend to choose our ethical system after rational consideration?

[Altfish]

The BHA definition is useful here...

“Humanism is an approach to life based on humanity and reason – humanists recognise that moral values are properly founded on human nature and experience alone and that the aims of morality should be human welfare, happiness and fulfilment. Our decisions are based on the available evidence and our assessment of the outcomes of our actions; not on any dogma or sacred text”

[Dave B]

The BHA definition is useful here...

“Humanism is an approach to life based on humanity and reason – humanists recognise that moral values are properly founded on human nature and experience alone and that the aims of morality should be human welfare, happiness and fulfilment. Our decisions are based on the available evidence and our assessment of the outcomes of our actions; not on any dogma or sacred text”

Yeah, agree with that definition but does it fully explain what a Humanist is? Does the definition fully describe the person, in every aspect of what makes the individual a real Humanist? Or just one who holds to the definition?

It is a little like trying to describe the mind in terms of the brain perhaps?

[animist]

The BHA definition is useful here...

“Humanism is an approach to life based on humanity and reason – humanists recognise that moral values are properly founded on human nature and experience alone and that the aims of morality should be human welfare, happiness and fulfilment. Our decisions are based on the available evidence and our assessment of the outcomes of our actions; not on any dogma or sacred text”

so a "good" humanist objectively is someone who subscribes to these values and acts on them. Obviously, for Compo's Xian friend, such a person cannot really be "good" because they refuse to acknowledge the divinity of Jesus Christ.

Dave, what I have in mind was stimulated many years ago when I saw Roy Thompson, the Canadian newspaper magnate, being interviewed by John Freeman. Thompson went through various of his beliefs - eg in free enterprise and the benefits of the Common Market - and said, laughing "So yes, I'm a good Tory". Presumably he would have thought that Toryism was good in itself, so that he was both a good Tory and a good person, but obviously the first is an objective judgement, the second a subjective one. A "good" old-style Communist, to take another example, would be one who followed the Party line wherever it led; whether such loyalty was a virtue from an outsider's perspective is another matter

[Compassionist]

The BHA definition is useful here...

“Humanism is an approach to life based on humanity and reason – humanists recognise that moral values are properly founded on human nature and experience alone and that the aims of morality should be human welfare, happiness and fulfilment. Our decisions are based on the available evidence and our assessment of the outcomes of our actions; not on any dogma or sacred text”

so a "good" humanist objectively is someone who subscribes to these values and acts on them. Obviously, for Compo's Xian friend, such a person cannot really be "good" because they refuse to acknowledge the divinity of Jesus Christ.

Dave, what I have in mind was stimulated many years ago when I saw Roy Thompson, the Canadian newspaper magnate, being interviewed by John Freeman. Thompson went through various of his beliefs - eg in free enterprise and the benefits of the Common Market - and said, laughing "So yes, I'm a good Tory". Presumably he would have thought that Toryism was good in itself, so that he was both a good Tory and a good person, but obviously the first is an objective judgement, the second a subjective one. A "good" old-style Communist, to take another example, would be one who followed the Party line wherever it led; whether such loyalty was a virtue from an outsider's perspective is another matter

Is there such a thing as objective morality? "There is nothing either good or bad, but thinking makes it so." - Hamlet, Act 2, Scene 2, William Shakespeare. Isn't Shakespeare correct? For example, Vegans would say that meat-eating and using animal skins, bones, etc. are evil. Isn't morality subjective and is dependent entirely on one's point of view? When European colonisers were either killing the natives or converting the natives to Christianity and robbing the lands of the natives weren't they convinced of the righteousness of their actions? At the same time, didn't the natives find the actions of the European colonisers to be evil? Isn't good and evil just a matter of opinion? Isn't reality morally neutral and is totally untroubled by moral concerns and the suffering of any and all sentient organisms?

[Dave B]

Is there such a thing as objective morality?

Probably about as much as there is a "purpose" in life. It is how one uses it that gives it value, otherwise it is a meaningless abstract quality.

[animist]

The BHA definition is useful here...

“Humanism is an approach to life based on humanity and reason – humanists recognise that moral values are properly founded on human nature and experience alone and that the aims of morality should be human welfare, happiness and fulfilment. Our decisions are based on the available evidence and our assessment of the outcomes of our actions; not on any dogma or sacred text”

so a "good" humanist objectively is someone who subscribes to these values and acts on them. Obviously, for Compo's Xian friend, such a person cannot really be "good" because they refuse to acknowledge the divinity of Jesus Christ.

Dave, what I have in mind was stimulated many years ago when I saw Roy Thompson, the Canadian newspaper magnate, being interviewed by John Freeman. Thompson went through various of his beliefs - eg in free enterprise and the benefits of the Common Market - and said, laughing "So yes, I'm a good Tory". Presumably he would have thought that Toryism was good in itself, so that he was both a good Tory and a good person, but obviously the first is an objective judgement, the second a subjective one. A "good" old-style Communist, to take another example, would be one who followed the Party line wherever it led; whether such loyalty was a virtue from an outsider's perspective is another matter

Is there such a thing as objective morality? "There is nothing either good or bad, but thinking makes it so." - Hamlet, Act 2, Scene 2, William Shakespeare. Isn't Shakespeare correct? For example, Vegans would say that meat-eating and using animal skins, bones, etc. are evil. Isn't morality subjective and is dependent entirely on one's point of view? When European colonisers were either killing the natives or converting the natives to Christianity and robbing the lands of the natives weren't they convinced of the righteousness of their actions? At the same time, didn't the natives find the actions of the European colonisers to be evil? Isn't good and evil just a matter of opinion? Isn't reality morally neutral and is totally untroubled by moral concerns and the suffering of any and all sentient organisms?

reality is morally neutral, but I don't think ethics is totally subjective either. The colonialists had religion to justify their actions, and our treatment of animals, however bad even today, has improved somewhat: eg big-game hunting is no longer thought OK. IMO it is a bit like the free will debate: it is easy to pick holes in our ethical judgments, and it is impossible to "prove" that one thing is right and another wrong, but that does not mean that it is quite at the totally subjective level of liking apples more than pears, and in fact most people, including humanists very much so, do make what are in fact "objective" judgments about right and wrong

[Dave B]

@ animist, re "good"

Yes, I agree that "good" is mostly a point of view!

[Compassionist]

reality is morally neutral, but I don't think ethics is totally subjective either. The colonialists had religion to justify their actions, and our treatment of animals, however bad even today, has improved somewhat: eg big-game hunting is no longer thought OK. IMO it is a bit like the free will debate: it is easy to pick holes in our ethical judgments, and it is impossible to "prove" that one thing is right and another wrong, but that does not mean that it is quite at the totally subjective level of liking apples more than pears, and in fact most people, including humanists very much so, do make what are in fact "objective" judgments about right and wrong

Is what we hold to be good and evil any more objective then our preference for apple or pear? I don't know. How and why would that be so? I think that our values are as subjective as our perceptions of reality.

We might not go on big game hunting any more but we still kill cows, pigs, lambs, chickens, turkeys, etc. to eat their meat. Vegans and vegetarians believe that this is wrong. Meat-eaters believe that what they are doing is right. I presume predators such as tigers, lions, cheetahs, etc. also consider killing to eat to be right. I don't know what it is like to be a tiger or lion so I don't know how they perceive reality and what they think and feel about reality. I don't think it is actually possible to be objective about reality. This is because our sensory perceptions about reality (e.g. a red car rushing towards us) is not an absolute and objective perception but a subjective one. When more than one person perceive the same aspect of reality (e.g. a red car rushing towards us) then they have a shared subjective view of reality but it is still not an objective view. Our subjective view might be enough to keep us alive by jumping away from the red car but we might be missing out on many aspects of reality e.g. dogs can smell things much better than us and is therefore aware of aspects of reality we are not.

[Compassionist]

@ animist, re "good"

Yes, I agree that "good" is mostly a point of view!

Yes, as the Supreme Chancellor Palpatine (who becomes the Emperor) said in 'Star Wars: Episode III - Revenge of the Sith', "Good is a point of view." What one views as 'good' maybe 'evil' from another point of view. For example, spending millions of pounds on making movies could be called 'evil', the money could be spent on 'good' things such as health and education.

[animist]

@ animist, re "good"

Yes, I agree that "good" is mostly a point of view!

Yes, as the Supreme Chancellor Palpatine (who becomes the Emperor) said in 'Star Wars: Episode III - Revenge of the Sith', "Good is a point of view." What one views as 'good' maybe 'evil' from another point of view. For example, spending millions of pounds on making movies could be called 'evil', the money could be spent on 'good' things such as health and education.

yes indeed, so from what POV is making movies good?

[animist]

reality is morally neutral, but I don't think ethics is totally subjective either. The colonialists had religion to justify their actions, and our treatment of animals, however bad even today, has improved somewhat: eg big-game hunting is no longer thought OK. IMO it is a bit like the free will debate: it is easy to pick holes in our ethical judgments, and it is impossible to "prove" that one thing is right and another wrong, but that does not mean that it is quite at the totally subjective level of liking apples more than pears, and in fact most people, including humanists very much so, do make what are in fact "objective" judgments about right and wrong

Is what we hold to be good and evil any more objective then our preference for apple or pear? I don't know. How and why would that be so? I think that our values are as subjective as our perceptions of reality.

We might not go on big game hunting any more but we still kill cows, pigs, lambs, chickens, turkeys, etc. to eat their meat. Vegans and vegetarians believe that this is wrong. Meat-eaters believe that what they are doing is right. I presume predators such as tigers, lions, cheetahs, etc. also consider killing to eat to be right. I don't know what it is like to be a tiger or lion so I don't know how they perceive reality and what they think and feel about reality. I don't think it is actually possible to be objective about reality. This is because our sensory perceptions about reality (e.g. a red car rushing towards us) is not an absolute and objective perception but a subjective one. When more than one person perceive the same aspect of reality (e.g. a red car rushing towards us) then they have a shared subjective view of reality but it is still not an objective view. Our subjective view might be enough to keep us alive by jumping away from the red car but we might be missing out on many aspects of reality e.g. dogs can smell things much better than us and is therefore aware of aspects of reality we are not.

I think you go too far towards relativism. On the sensory aspect, dogs can smell things we cannot, but we have ways to know this - in other words, the world of nature can be known in some way by us even if we cannot experience everything directly. As regards ethics, we do not necessarily slavishly think that whatever we do is right - eg, I eat meat but feel that I should not because I do not need to; and I doubt if animals like tigers have any view at all about what is right or wrong. Standards of raising animals for meat or other purposes have become a lot more "humane", and going back to the OP, maybe a humanist is allowed to eat meat but not inhumanely killed meat

[Compassionist]

@ animist, re "good"

Yes, I agree that "good" is mostly a point of view!

Yes, as the Supreme Chancellor Palpatine (who becomes the Emperor) said in 'Star Wars: Episode III - Revenge of the Sith', "Good is a point of view." What one views as 'good' maybe 'evil' from another point of view. For example, spending millions of pounds on making movies could be called 'evil', the money could be spent on 'good' things such as health and education.

yes indeed, so from what POV is making movies good?

The people who finance the movie making profit hugely so from their point of view making movie is good. For example, 'Star Wars: Episode III - Revenge of the Sith' cost $113 million to make but it made $848,754,768 in box office alone. It made more money by selling memorabilia, DVD sets, etc. to fans. Also, the movie making industry employs many people. They would be out of a job if the industry didn't exist. Fans derive great enjoyment from watching movies. So, they might consider making movies to be a good thing. Of course, people who are starving, dying of treatable illnesses and children who work in sweat shops instead of getting education might justifiably argue that the money should be given to them. Sadly, we live in a reality where might is right is right and if one has enough power one can get away with anything e.g. genocides, taking over lands of the natives, etc.

[Compassionist]

reality is morally neutral, but I don't think ethics is totally subjective either. The colonialists had religion to justify their actions, and our treatment of animals, however bad even today, has improved somewhat: eg big-game hunting is no longer thought OK. IMO it is a bit like the free will debate: it is easy to pick holes in our ethical judgments, and it is impossible to "prove" that one thing is right and another wrong, but that does not mean that it is quite at the totally subjective level of liking apples more than pears, and in fact most people, including humanists very much so, do make what are in fact "objective" judgments about right and wrong

Is what we hold to be good and evil any more objective then our preference for apple or pear? I don't know. How and why would that be so? I think that our values are as subjective as our perceptions of reality.

We might not go on big game hunting any more but we still kill cows, pigs, lambs, chickens, turkeys, etc. to eat their meat. Vegans and vegetarians believe that this is wrong. Meat-eaters believe that what they are doing is right. I presume predators such as tigers, lions, cheetahs, etc. also consider killing to eat to be right. I don't know what it is like to be a tiger or lion so I don't know how they perceive reality and what they think and feel about reality. I don't think it is actually possible to be objective about reality. This is because our sensory perceptions about reality (e.g. a red car rushing towards us) is not an absolute and objective perception but a subjective one. When more than one person perceive the same aspect of reality (e.g. a red car rushing towards us) then they have a shared subjective view of reality but it is still not an objective view. Our subjective view might be enough to keep us alive by jumping away from the red car but we might be missing out on many aspects of reality e.g. dogs can smell things much better than us and is therefore aware of aspects of reality we are not.

I think you go too far towards relativism. On the sensory aspect, dogs can smell things we cannot, but we have ways to know this - in other words, the world of nature can be known in some way by us even if we cannot experience everything directly. As regards ethics, we do not necessarily slavishly think that whatever we do is right - eg, I eat meat but feel that I should not because I do not need to; and I doubt if animals like tigers have any view at all about what is right or wrong. Standards of raising animals for meat or other purposes have become a lot more "humane", and going back to the OP, maybe a humanist is allowed to eat meat but not inhumanely killed meat

How does one decide how much relativism is too much? I agree with what you have said about dogs, tigers and the standards of raising and killing animals. I was a vegan for two years but had to quit due to health problems. I wish I could be vegan all the time. Christians and other religious people argue that without a God or gods to decide what is right and what is wrong humans would just do whatever served their interests. Of course, religious people have killed and robbed in the name of their God or gods. I wish reality came with absolute moral standards but it doesn't. I wish we were all omniscient and omnipotent and omniculpable but we are not. We will just have to muddle through all the uncertainties of life.

[animist]

yes indeed, so from what POV is making movies good?

The people who finance the movie making profit hugely so from their point of view making movie is good. For example, 'Star Wars: Episode III - Revenge of the Sith' cost $113 million to make but it made $848,754,768 in box office alone. It made more money by selling memorabilia, DVD sets, etc. to fans. Also, the movie making industry employs many people. They would be out of a job if the industry didn't exist. Fans derive great enjoyment from watching movies. So, they might consider making movies to be a good thing. Of course, people who are starving, dying of treatable illnesses and children who work in sweat shops instead of getting education might justifiably argue that the money should be given to them. Sadly, we live in a reality where might is right is right and if one has enough power one can get away with anything e.g. genocides, taking over lands of the natives, etc.

well, this is one of the many many arguments which show what a flexible and almost meaningless word "good" is. "Good for you!" means "Lucky for you and I don't mind". Yes, obviously movie moguls, plus all the thousands of people credited on every film made, got lucky, or a good time, from their commercial success, but I doubt they would call their efforts "good" in the sense of justified or beneficial to society as a whole. Of course, some miserable do-gooder would have a tough job in persuading people to donate money to good causes rather than having a good time watching some film or other - our society is not set up to devote our priorities to "good" causes, but who knows, maybe the time will come...