Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10.1 6/24/83; site hou3c.UUCP
Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!burl!hou3c!ka
From: ka@hou3c.UUCP (Kenneth Almquist)
Newsgroups: net.religion
Subject: Re: Annotating Annotated Annotators
Message-ID: <538@hou3c.UUCP>
Date: Sun, 6-May-84 18:38:15 EDT
Article-I.D.: hou3c.538
Posted: Sun May  6 18:38:15 1984
Date-Received: Mon, 7-May-84 01:18:03 EDT
References: <1052@qubix.UUCP>
Organization: Bell Labs, Holmdel, NJ
Lines: 146

> I will state, however, that the HM declaration removes all restrictions
> on forms of pleasure - even those that would be disgusting by *others'*
> standards.

Other responses have dealt with this, but I want to drive home the point
that when I talk about something being disgusting, I am describing an
emotional response.  I am *not* passing moral judgement.  For example, I
am not overjoyed by the thought of eating raw oysters, but that does
not mean that I want to outlaw raw oysters or that I consider somebody
who eats raw oysters to be a bad person.

Humanism does not remove all restrictions on forms of pleasure.  Hidden
in the original article was the statement, "I have faith in that part
of humanism  which sees the human being as ... an end not a means."  This
is Kant's categorical imperative (which is a more sophisticated formulation
of the Golden Rule).


Larry quotes a section "A Humanist Manifesto" which advocates socialism.
Dick Dunn has already pointed out that this position owes as much to
Christianity as it does to Marx.  One additional point is that this
manifesto is not the humanist equivalent of the Bible.  I have never
read it, and the article which started this discussion is the first
time that I have never heard a humanist mention it.  It was written
in 1933, and thus reflects the humanism of 50 years ago, not the
humanism of today.  Since it was written in the middle of the Great
Depression, it is hardly surprising that capitalism is not pictured in
very glowing terms.  I think that present day humanists would agree
that capitalism has problems, but many might support the current
approach of most western governments, which is to patch over the
worst deficiencies of capitalism rather than to abandon it all together.

> > "Any constructive nontrivial logical system requires some
> > postulates"?  Is that it?

> Exactly. Humanism hides its.

I don't think that this is a fair argument.  The original article
listed lots of things that its author believes.  If you think he left
some out, say what they are and we can discuss them.   (I would caution
you, however, that just because Jerry Falwell says that Humanists
believe certain things doesn't mean they do.)

Speaking of unfair arguments, I am at a loss as to how to respond to
the claim that humanism says that one can ignore future consequences
of ones actions.  I have stated that this claim is false but Larry
has repeated it anyway.  If Larry insists on using his own definition
of "humanism", then I hope he will realize that it is his version of
humanism, and not anybody else's, that he has revealed the true colors
of.

> >>Either that, or you've got a *very* short-sighted definition of "harm."
> >...or, more likely, Larry Bickford has an *extremely* short-sighted,
> > pessimistic view or humans.
>
> Reality consumes 47 times its weight in religion, and it has taught me
> two things:
>     Left to their own, people will do mischief. Witness Montreal when
>	  the city police went on strike. ...

One weakness of humanism is that humanists seem to be prone toward
overly optimistic views of human nature.  There are, however, certain
things that can be said in defense of humanism.

1)  While I am not familiar with the situation in Montreal, I would
    guess that you are talking about the actions of a small percentage
    of the population.  To get a balanced picture, you should look at
    what the rest of the population as well.

2)  Human beings are influenced by their environment; thus "human
    nature" is not an unalterable constant.

3)  If everybody in Montreal had been a humanist, there wouldn't
    have been any problem.

> >If "I conflict with you satisfaction," that does not mean that it is
> >all right for you to kill me. Killing me might lead to a satisfactory
> >life for you (although I suspect that many humanists would disagree),
> >but it would probably not lead to a satisfactory life for *me*, and I
> >am part of the "all" above.

> Tell that to all the aborted children. Tell that to Infant Doe. According
> to the New York Court of Appeals, the legislature has the power to
> define you as not 'part of the "all" above.'

I suspect that you are misstating the court's decision, but that really
beside the point anyway since it was a legal rather than a moral decision.
You have found a couple of cases in which humanism does not come solidly
down on the pro-life side.  It is a mistake to assume that this means that
humanists do not respect life.

"Many humanists believe that a fetus does not qualify as a human life
(this issue has been discussed in net.abortion) and that euthanasia
enhances rather than conflicts with respect for the individual."  That
was my previous response to this issue.  I have never been in a position
(and don't want to ever be in the position) of having to make decisions
related to either abortion or euthanasia, so I am not in a very good
position to argue either of these issues.  Perhaps what was not emphasized
in my previous posting was humanism's emphasis on the *quality* of life,
and on the emphasis on the ability of humans to think.  Humanists don't
value life per se so much as the creative or effective use of that life.
Thus a humanist might not consider a fetus to be human until it developed
the ability to think, while it is possible for a humanist to consider the
possibility that a person might lack the ability to have a meaningful
life and thus it would really be a mockery of the value of life to assign
value to the continued functioning of that person's bodily processes.
For the humanist, these considerations at least raise doubts, which
make them moral questions which are too complex for a humanist to have
much confidence in the ability of the political process to resolve them
correctly, thus humanists are likely to be "pro-choice" regardless of
where they personally come down on the issues.  This does not negate
the basic humanist position that murder is wrong.

> Humanism uses a lot of language that sounds fine - until someone comes
> along and sees it for what it is.

I have no objection to having the true colors of humanism exposed.
I do have two quarrels with Larry's approach.  The first is that he
tends to use "straw man" arguments, responding to what he thinks
humanism is instead of to what was written.  The second is there seems
to be implicit in his writings the idea that Christianity does not
suffer from any of the problems that humanism does.  The notion
that there must be a God for absolute moral values to exist doesn't
make any sense unless you claim that God could have equally well have
chosen a different set of moral values but that since he chose a
particular set that set is absolute.  The implication that God gives
Christains the answer to all moral questions is silly when you look
at the number of disagreements which Christains have had over such
issues.  Since Christianity initially opposed capitalism, it is a
little surprising to see Larry Bickford defending it with a straight
face.  As for the concern that humanism doesn't value human life enough,
Larry might reflect on the Christain treatment of heretics or the notion
of a "just war" (which justified killing soldiers in response to the
actions to their masters).  On the subject of abortion specificly, he
might note that humanists are at least willing to support sex education
and programs to make contraceptives readily available to teenagers.
Apparently, the concern of many Christains over abortion does not extend
this far.

OK, this newsgroup has discussed the deficiencies of Christianity many
times before and beaten the subject to death, so I won't go on for another
two pages.  The point is that religions are easy to attack.  Humanism has
carried a lot of baggage over from Christianity, but in dropping the
notion of God it has at least gotten rid of one of the least defensible
tenets of Christianity.
					Kenneth Almquist