philosoraptor42 (![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png)
philosoraptor42) wrote2007-06-25 09:35 am
philosoraptor42) wrote2007-06-25 09:35 am
Entry tags:
Problems with Humanism
Much as I would love to say that Secular Humanism didn't have its problems, this simply isn't true. This isn't really surprising as no organisation is without its flaws. 'Humanist' is meant to be easier to accept as a label than 'atheist' because, while 'atheist' has a history of stigma and taboo linking it with immoralism and nihilism, 'Humanist' is a term specifically highlighting a non-religious acceptance of values. (If such a combination were impossible the accusation would be that humanism was impossible, not that humanism was nihilistic.) Nevertheless, for some reason many people who perfectly fit the bill as 'Secular Humanists' seem reluctant to be labelled as such, even if they accept the labels 'atheist' or 'agnostic' without any trouble at all.
Update: I posted this to Sluts4Choice a while back and I've realised I probably ought to re-post it here so I have a record of it:
Looking back at the response I got from my MP, I've discovered that that wasn't terribly comforting either. (I actually remember feeling a lot happier about it at the time and I think it's a sign of how my understanding of this issue has moved on that I now recognise how dodgy this reply is):
Dear ---------,
Many thanks for your email. I'd like to hear the debate on the issue before making up my mind on this, but will keep the points that you make in mind - I've also heard from a constituent who was directly affected herself and is against any significant reduction (as well as other constituents who want quite drastic reductions all the way down to 14 weeks).
I have two amendments myself - one is a technical one to help a constituent who is seeking to have frozen embryos kept for longer than the current 5 years (this isn't controversial) and the other is to make it mandatory to offer current, neutral, scientific guidance to anyone who is advised that the foetus is suffering from a disease or abnormality which would allow a late aboriton - the advice would give informaiton on life expectancy, chance of treatment, availability of help, etc. The idea is not to influence the choice but to help ensure that it's based on the best available information.
Yours sincerely,
------------------------
Oh how wonderful. He wants to give women mandatory counselling regarding abortions. That's not remotely condescending. And what kind of advice does he think the two doctors who are already required in order to sign off on any abortion are going to give? Out of date, biased or unscientific guidance?
To be honest, I too shared this reluctance to identify with Humanism. I have slowly become more and more comfortable with the label and I think the actions of the British Humanist Association have helped with this, but there's always been a nagging at the back of my mind.
The other day someone gave me a link to the following web page:
http://www.uuworld.org/ideas/articles/27173.shtml
It's an article entitled "Does humanism need to be new?" It talks about a Harvard conference discussing the possibility of a 'New Humanism'. While the suggestion that 'Spock' from Star Trek gives us a clear idea of what is wrong with Humanism seems a little far fetched to me, there were some points in the article which I found very interesting, and seemed to touch upon the kinds of qualms that had been in my mind on this issue.
These concluding paragraphs were particularly thought-provoking:
Inside the encrustations of hostility, pride, and other generic human weaknesses, humanism’s positive core presents the same challenge as ever: to combine sophisticated reason with naïve goodness, to celebrate the world as it stands before us, and to (gently and lovingly) coax it to be better than it ever has been. The what of humanism isn’t new and doesn’t need to be.
1. How can Humanist organisations have any kind of orthodoxy (by which I mean 'common agreement amongst members') or authority without falling into the old traps of religious organisations?
2. So much effort is spent on disproving religious claims to divine authority and rationality that it is not always obvious that sufficient thought is being given to what positive claims Humanism should make. I had several emails recently about sending a free copy of Richard Dawkins 'The God Delusion' to my MP. Why should I wish to do that? (Not only is Dawkins not the best writer on this issue, but I am not even sure that my MP would read any book I sent - never mind agree with it.)
3. The term 'naive goodness' is not a term I'd like to use for humanistic ethics. Goodness cannot afford to be naive. We need to take into account the facts concerning ethical dilemmas as well as the power-drives which surround such issues. One issue is that we cannot always be sure that humanists are really taking such an approach to ethics. I saw a shocking example of this recently. There was an attempt in parliament to pass a bill which would force women to have a compulsory week of counselling prior to an abortion. This delay is not for the good of the 'potential child' since it gets an extra week to develop before the abortion takes place. This delay was purely for the sake of frightening women out of having abortions, no matter what the reason (whether it be because the pregnancy was caused by a rape, or for medical reasons, etc.). I sent out a group email encouraging all the local Humanists to lobby their MP about this. Here is a response that I was given:
Hello ---------,
I received your e requesting support against the bill about to be introduced in parliament but unfortunately I am not going to able to add my name. Not that I am completely against abortion, but somehow I feel, like a lot of freedoms for the individual, it is being abused in that if a pregnancy happens because of the careless and lazy precautions of the woman involved it is OK and easy to get rid of the kid down the drain. OK so it has to be down to the woman to take the precautions to ensure there is safe sex, but that should be part of the responsibility of a mature woman, and lets face it with freedom of will, there is also responsibility for ones actions to go with that freedom.
That is not to say there are not grounds for abortion at times, but that is another argument.
Regards, ---------.
I could not believe that anyone claiming to be a humanist could make such ridiculous comments. The fact is that 1 in 3 women have been sexually assaulted and most are too ashamed to tell anyone at the time. Another fact is that there is no contraception which 100% effective. Yet another fact is that some people suffering from extreme depression are on medication which would be detrimental to the development of a baby should they choose to have one, so going through with an unwanted pregnancy could cause them an exceptionally high level of mental distress (on top of the extra high levels of mental and physical strain that one would expect from a pregnancy anyway). And finally one other fact is that not all women who find themselves pregnant are in a good position to raise a child.
Comments like "it is OK and easy to get rid of the kid down the drain" are clearly the sign of a naive view of ethics. They are not, however, views which I would describe as 'humanist'.
Humanism needs an orthodoxy. Some kind of established body of knowledge which can be added to and critiqued. Humanism needs to focus on its positive elements and not just on polemics against religion. Most importantly though, humanism must never ever be 'naive'.
The other day someone gave me a link to the following web page:
http://www.uuworld.org/ideas/articles/27173.shtml
It's an article entitled "Does humanism need to be new?" It talks about a Harvard conference discussing the possibility of a 'New Humanism'. While the suggestion that 'Spock' from Star Trek gives us a clear idea of what is wrong with Humanism seems a little far fetched to me, there were some points in the article which I found very interesting, and seemed to touch upon the kinds of qualms that had been in my mind on this issue.
These concluding paragraphs were particularly thought-provoking:
Inside the encrustations of hostility, pride, and other generic human weaknesses, humanism’s positive core presents the same challenge as ever: to combine sophisticated reason with naïve goodness, to celebrate the world as it stands before us, and to (gently and lovingly) coax it to be better than it ever has been. The what of humanism isn’t new and doesn’t need to be.
But the how is something we have never gotten right. How do we unite communities without enemies? How do we organize without coercion? How do we love what is and yet strive for what can be? How do we dream without giving our loyalty to fantasy worlds and betraying the only world we can live in? And if a few people here or there manage to answer those questions in their own lives, how do we capture those answers in words and stories and images that anyone can understand?
Maybe soon we’ll start seeing new answers to those questions. That would really be a new humanism.
The major problems this highlights for me are these:1. How can Humanist organisations have any kind of orthodoxy (by which I mean 'common agreement amongst members') or authority without falling into the old traps of religious organisations?
2. So much effort is spent on disproving religious claims to divine authority and rationality that it is not always obvious that sufficient thought is being given to what positive claims Humanism should make. I had several emails recently about sending a free copy of Richard Dawkins 'The God Delusion' to my MP. Why should I wish to do that? (Not only is Dawkins not the best writer on this issue, but I am not even sure that my MP would read any book I sent - never mind agree with it.)
3. The term 'naive goodness' is not a term I'd like to use for humanistic ethics. Goodness cannot afford to be naive. We need to take into account the facts concerning ethical dilemmas as well as the power-drives which surround such issues. One issue is that we cannot always be sure that humanists are really taking such an approach to ethics. I saw a shocking example of this recently. There was an attempt in parliament to pass a bill which would force women to have a compulsory week of counselling prior to an abortion. This delay is not for the good of the 'potential child' since it gets an extra week to develop before the abortion takes place. This delay was purely for the sake of frightening women out of having abortions, no matter what the reason (whether it be because the pregnancy was caused by a rape, or for medical reasons, etc.). I sent out a group email encouraging all the local Humanists to lobby their MP about this. Here is a response that I was given:
Hello ---------,
I received your e requesting support against the bill about to be introduced in parliament but unfortunately I am not going to able to add my name. Not that I am completely against abortion, but somehow I feel, like a lot of freedoms for the individual, it is being abused in that if a pregnancy happens because of the careless and lazy precautions of the woman involved it is OK and easy to get rid of the kid down the drain. OK so it has to be down to the woman to take the precautions to ensure there is safe sex, but that should be part of the responsibility of a mature woman, and lets face it with freedom of will, there is also responsibility for ones actions to go with that freedom.
That is not to say there are not grounds for abortion at times, but that is another argument.
Regards, ---------.
I could not believe that anyone claiming to be a humanist could make such ridiculous comments. The fact is that 1 in 3 women have been sexually assaulted and most are too ashamed to tell anyone at the time. Another fact is that there is no contraception which 100% effective. Yet another fact is that some people suffering from extreme depression are on medication which would be detrimental to the development of a baby should they choose to have one, so going through with an unwanted pregnancy could cause them an exceptionally high level of mental distress (on top of the extra high levels of mental and physical strain that one would expect from a pregnancy anyway). And finally one other fact is that not all women who find themselves pregnant are in a good position to raise a child.
Comments like "it is OK and easy to get rid of the kid down the drain" are clearly the sign of a naive view of ethics. They are not, however, views which I would describe as 'humanist'.
Humanism needs an orthodoxy. Some kind of established body of knowledge which can be added to and critiqued. Humanism needs to focus on its positive elements and not just on polemics against religion. Most importantly though, humanism must never ever be 'naive'.
Update: I posted this to Sluts4Choice a while back and I've realised I probably ought to re-post it here so I have a record of it:
Looking back at the response I got from my MP, I've discovered that that wasn't terribly comforting either. (I actually remember feeling a lot happier about it at the time and I think it's a sign of how my understanding of this issue has moved on that I now recognise how dodgy this reply is):
Dear ---------,
Many thanks for your email. I'd like to hear the debate on the issue before making up my mind on this, but will keep the points that you make in mind - I've also heard from a constituent who was directly affected herself and is against any significant reduction (as well as other constituents who want quite drastic reductions all the way down to 14 weeks).
I have two amendments myself - one is a technical one to help a constituent who is seeking to have frozen embryos kept for longer than the current 5 years (this isn't controversial) and the other is to make it mandatory to offer current, neutral, scientific guidance to anyone who is advised that the foetus is suffering from a disease or abnormality which would allow a late aboriton - the advice would give informaiton on life expectancy, chance of treatment, availability of help, etc. The idea is not to influence the choice but to help ensure that it's based on the best available information.
Yours sincerely,
------------------------
Oh how wonderful. He wants to give women mandatory counselling regarding abortions. That's not remotely condescending. And what kind of advice does he think the two doctors who are already required in order to sign off on any abortion are going to give? Out of date, biased or unscientific guidance?