NationStates Jolt Archive

Hey everyone,

I'm relatively new to this forum, and I've decided to see what you guys think about the philosophical viewpoint I've converted to recently.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Humanism

Bear in mind I am a reformed Catholic, and have converted to secular Humanism.

Just give me your opinions on the humanist viewpoint and if you think it's good or bad. I've wanted to see what other people think of humanism, so feel free to completely flame me if you feel the need. :D

There are too many humans.

since humanism purports to a "universal morality" it is inherently flawed like any other religous movement. From whence comes this universal morality? there can be no such thing in the absence of a god figure. The alternative is morality by consensus which is fine, but since the morals would change based on your population, it negates the possibility of universiality.

Im a ex- Catholic too. I have always believed everything about humanism, I just hadn't realised it had a name. yet some how your NS is the antithesis of mine. Hmm...

since humanism purports to a "universal morality" it is inherently flawed like any other religous movement. From whence comes this universal morality? there can be no such thing in the absence of a god figure.

No, there can be no such thing even in the presence of a god figure. Why should I accept God's view of morality as correct?

The alternative is morality by consensus

No, it isn't. The alternative is subjective morality. Why should I care what anyone else thinks is moral?

since humanism purports to a "universal morality" it is inherently flawed like any other religous movement. From whence comes this universal morality? there can be no such thing in the absence of a god figure. The alternative is morality by consensus which is fine, but since the morals would change based on your population, it negates the possibility of universiality.

Who says that morality can only come from the divine?

I've never been very fond of humans...

Anyway, I'm an Atheist and believe in explaining the universe through science, so from what I've heard, Humanism could be an appropriate ethical system for me, but I've never really felt the desire to devote myself to any kind of philosophy though.

Who says that morality can only come from the divine?

no one.

read the next sentence.

no one.

read the next sentence.

I meant objective morality.

in the absence of the divine we are all just accidents of chemistry, combinations and chains of molecules. we are simply constructs based on the blueprints of our dna. Keep in mind im fairly irreligous. My argument isnt for the existance of God, but the absence of universally applied moral principles. even a utilitarian ethical structure leaves room for interpretation. This leads back to morality being subjective, coming about through consensus, and lacking in universiality.

give me one inviolable moral. just one. and while ill probably hate myself for doing so in certain circumstances... pretty much anything can be argued and twisted so its a gray area.

in the absence of the divine we are all just accidents of chemistry, combinations and chains of molecules. we are simply constructs based on the blueprints of our dna. Keep in mind im fairly irreligous. My argument isnt for the existance of God, but the absence of universally applied moral principles. even a utilitarian ethical structure leaves room for interpretation. This leads back to morality being subjective, coming about through consensus, and lacking in universiality.

give me one inviolable moral. just one.

The language of morality and the morals themselves may eb subjective with a lack of God, that does not mean morality as a concept does not exist. It is human nature after all to protect the species, is it not?

The language of morality and the morals themselves may eb subjective with a lack of God, that does not mean morality as a concept does not exist. It is human nature after all to protect the species, is it not?

protection of the species at what cost? is it moral to protect the species at the cost of another species? and i never said morality doesnt exist. i said universal morality doesnt exist.

It is human nature after all to protect the species, is it not?

Maybe as long as the group remains (somewhat) coherent. If group coherency fails selfpreservation and procreation of ones genes takes precedence.

protection of the species at what cost? is it moral to protect the species at the cost of another species? and i never said morality doesnt exist. i said universal morality doesnt exist.

Ok I think I misunderstood you then. Lets go back to the original point. Humanism is subjective in terms of the morals they use, but how is that a flaw?

its a flaw because it purports universiality according to the articles posted.

One does not necessarily need to "convert" to secular humanism. Secular humanism doesn't on its face deny a creator, it just is capable of working in the absence of one.

its a flaw because it purports universiality according to the articles posted.

So? Again that is not necessarily a flaw. The UN itself bases it's ideas on natural law, that purports universiality.

I'm not entirely sold on their optimistic view of humanity. If they switched that for a pessimistic/cynical worldview I'd be right there.

I'm not entirely sold on their optimistic view of humanity. If they switched that for a pessimistic/cynical worldview I'd be right there.

But you have to admit; we humans do have potential.

I'm a humanitaryan misanthrope.

What is Misanthropic Aryan Humanitarianism you may be asking yourself? To understand what this term means to me, and to fully understand what I mean by using the term "Misanthropic Aryan Humanitarianism", we must firstunderstand what the two words mean separately. First we will look at humanitarianism, or rather it's root word, humanitarian. Wikipedia defines humanitarianism as:

".....an informal ideology of practice, whereby people practice humane treatment and provide assistance to others.

Humanitarianism is based on a view that all human beings deserve respect and dignity and should be treated as such. Therefore, humanitarians work towards advancing the well-being of humanity as a whole. Humanitarianism is the antithesis of the "us vs. them" mentality that characterizes tribalism and ethnic nationalism. Humanitarians abhor slavery, violation of basic and human rights, and discrimination on the basis of features such as color of skin, religion, ancestry, place of birth, etc. Humanitarianism is embraced by movements and people across the political spectrum, and particularly (but not exclusively) by leftists."

Like you might have expected, it seems like leftist, multicultural non-sense that denounces tribalism and ethnic nationalism, 2 VERY important issues to me. I believe that these two important characteristics that make up who we are must be preserved. Think of it like this: our own people with their own people, fighting for our own people with our own people, against anything that threatens us or our own people.

This definition also describes how a humanitarian is against slavery, violation of basic human rights and discrimination based on "...color of skin, religion, ancestry, place of birth, etc.". I would agree, that I am not pro-slavery, but on the other hand, I do not agree with humanitarianism's views of race and religion. Race exists. It's a fact. Some try to say that we are all the same, it's just skin difference. They are sadly wrong and either are brainwashed by the liberal pro-zionist media to believe that the multiculturalist spectrum is working, or they truly believe this garbage and wish to spread their hate(anti-white, pro-everything else). If race does exist, then one must be better, just as it is in the rest of the natural world. Think of dogs for example, some breeds are smarter then others, some are more able to perform certin tasks then other breeds, and some are more likly to attack a human then other breeds. Well, this applies to the human world as well, and we see it all around us. I'm sure you can guess which breed of human I consider the best of the best. Now to the point. You may be wondering how I consider my self a humanitarian yet condon what many call a racist ideology. Well, I do not consider myself a humanitarian. I am a humanitaryan. Did you notice that in the Wikipedia quote that they point out that not all humanitarians are leftists? I'm one of these people. Infact, I consider myself a misanthropic humanitaryan, but I'll get to the Misanthropic part later.

Now let us examin the word "Aryan". The original use of this word and it's meaning seems to be the topic of contraversy among almost anyone who discusses it. Let's refer to Wikipedia again. It describes "Aryan" and the "Aryan Race" as follows:

"Aryan (/ɑːrjən/) is an English language word derived from the Iranian and Sanskrit terms ari-, arya-, ārya-, and/or the extended form aryāna-. The Old Persian and Sanskrit languages both pronounced the word as arya-/ɑːrjə/) and aryan. Beyond its use as the ethnic self-designation of the Proto-Indo-Iranians, the meaning "noble/spiritual" has been attached to it in Persian and Sanskrit. In linguistics, it is sometimes still used in reference to the Indo-Iranian language family, but it is primarily restricted to the compound Indo-Aryan, the Indic subgroup of the Indo-Iranian branch.

Because of ethnolinguistic arguments about connections between peoples and cultural values, "Aryan" peoples were often considered to be distinct from Semitic peoples. By the end of the nineteenth century this usage was so common that "Aryan" was often used as a synonym for "gentile", and this popular usage persisted even after academic authors had ceased to use the term in any other meaning than "Indo-Iranian". Among White supremacists the term still sometimes functions as a synonym for non-Jewish 'white person.'......

.......The "Aryan race" is a concept in European culture that was influential in the period of the late nineteenth and early twentieth centuries. It derives from the idea that the original speakers of the Indo-European languages constitute a distinctive race. In its best-known incarnation, under Nazism, it was argued that the earliest Aryans were identical to Nordic people. Belief in the superiority of the "Aryan race" is sometimes referred to as Aryanism. This should not be confused with the unrelated Christian religious belief known as Arianism."


You may or may not know what a Gentile is. A gentile is a non-jewish white person. An Aryan is the same thing, BUT it also means Nobel. I personally believe you must be a nobel white person to be an aryan, not just white. Some consider Germanic/Scandinavian/Nordic blonde haired, blue eyed tall people to be what Aryan is, and only this. This stereotype was inforced by National Socialist Germany durring war times. I do not consider myself a "Nordicist", and this type of chauvinism is frowned upon by me. If you are white, act in a civil mannor, and do not adopt the ways of forgin culture all while staying pure and true to your own race, you are an Aryan, and that is all that matters.

Now that we have discussed what a humanitarian is, and what I consider an Aryan, let's get to Misanthropy. Again, we will use Wikipedia for our reference of the definition of what Misanthropy is.

"Misanthropy is a hatred or distrust of the human race, or a disposition to dislike and mistrust other people. The word comes from the Greek words μίσος ("hatred") + άνθρωπος ("man, human being"). A misanthrope is a person who hates or distrusts mankind and in most cases his or her own humanity. Misanthropology is the scientific study of the origin, the behavior, and the physical, social, and cultural development of hatred in humans.

Misanthropy does not necessarily imply an inhumane, antisocial, or sociopathic attitude toward humanity.

While misanthropes express a general dislike for humanity on the whole, they generally have normal relationships with specific individuals. Misanthropy may be motivated by feelings of isolation or alienation. It may also resemble intellectual arrogance, where a person dislikes humanity because of a sense of mental superiority over other humans."
Damn, do I ever hate the human race. It makes me so sick, that I refuse to embrace almost all of what it has to offer. For the most part, the human race are like someone who is mentally retarded......by choice. They will accpet anything said to them as fact, even if it is brainless trash like organized religions belief in a jewish god. As I pointed out, gentiles are non-jewish white people(not that jew are white or anything, although people assume they are based on looks: genetics are what count). I ask you to ponder this: How can you believe in a god that is jewish, who has chosen the jews as "...a people above all other peoples of the earth", if you are not a jew? Christianity, or Christinsanity as I like to call it, is exactly that. The acceptance of a forgine god into our society has weakened our people. It teaches them to "turn the other cheek", "love your neighbour" and to forgive your fellow man no matter his sin. This mindset is what will destroy the white race, and infact the whole world, if something is not done about it. My absolute hatred for this and other similar things in society, such as multiculturalism, capitalism and pollution/enviromental damage are what make me misanthropic.

Since you now know what misanthropy, an Aryan and humanitarianism are, we can start to piece together what a Misanthropic Humanitaryan is. A humanitarian misanthrope is a term that describes somone that hates people and the world around him/her, yet always tries to better it. The Chinese philosopher Confucuis is someone that is considered to be a humanitarian misanthrope. If you apply the word Aryan to that, it indicates that I'm refering specifically about the White Race. The White Race makes me sick, yet, I shall forever strive to better the world around me for my people. To me, this is exactly what discribes a Misanthropic Humanitaryan, and I'm proud to be one.

Longest....

Post....

Evar....


:eek:

I'm an agnostic humanist, and I've found humanism to be a near perfect fit for the way I feel about morality and ethics. I simply cannot abide the idea of subjective morality (which really means no morality, at least regarding the way I think of morality)

Humanism is more of a philosophy than a religion, and I think is the purest form of human goodwill in practice.

Longest....

Post....

Evar....


:eek:

Oh I have seen much longer posts then that.

Wow guys this is great. It's cool to hear different viewpoints of humanism.

To Cyrian space, I agree with you completely. The whole reason I joined humanism is that it is so human for lack of a better word, where you work towards the good of humanity and the human race.

Also, I'd like to mention another great thing about humanism is that we really don't judge based on religious ideals. For example, Cyrian said he is an agnostic humanist. I am a secular one. But humanists really don't care about that. The thing about religion is that there's a lot of hate: hate for offshoots and hate for other religions that contradicts yours. But humanism not only stays away from that habit, but we have also managed to integrate both our ideals together. When secular humanists disagreed with agnostic humanists, we didn't form an offshoot humanist religion, we simply integrated on the fact that we were all human.

Also, I'd like to say that I believe there is such thing has universal human morality. Morality only differs by teaching. All human beings are born and begin with essentially the same types of morals: we experience curiosity, we feel love for our mothers, we don't like to hurt others, etc. Morality only changes when we are taught otherwise. When we are taught that blowing up Christians is right, we believe it. That is the biggest flaw of religion. You think you're right, when in fact you probably aren't: considering there are 10 000 religions in this world and 1 million gods. Religion is based upon being universally correct, about having the religious highground over others. This leads to religious hatred, and religious wars. Millions have died in the name of religion. I simply couldn't live with a religion I know has caused so many to die.

..racist, seemingly Neo-Nazi bullshit...

first off, this really needs it's own thread, because it will take the majority of this one to tear down the horrible, stupid arguments you support your position with, and that will hijack it away from the discussion of humanism. But anyway...

Think of it like this: our own people with their own people, fighting for our own people with our own people, against anything that threatens us or our own people.
A romantic notion, but like many of the notions of the old world, it has become useless. Tribes become nations, and nations become regions, as we have slowly begun to realize that everyone else is really not that much different to us, at least not in a way that matters as more than a curiosity.

If race does exist, then one must be better, just as it is in the rest of the natural world. Think of dogs for example, some breeds are smarter then others, some are more able to perform certin tasks then other breeds, and some are more likly to attack a human then other breeds. Well, this applies to the human world as well, and we see it all around us. I'm sure you can guess which breed of human I consider the best of the best.
A black man may be, on average, more athletic than me. And asian man may be, on average, more studious than me. Part of this is the product of culture, and part of it is probably genetic. (not a genetics expert) however, that really means jack shit when evaluating someone's worth as a person. To paraphrase the words of the great reverend MLK, we should judge by the content of one's character, on an individual basis (the content of yours seems to be sorely lacking, I might add.)

It teaches them to "turn the other cheek", "love your neighbour" and to forgive your fellow man no matter his sin. This mindset is what will destroy the white race, and infact the whole world, if something is not done about it. My absolute hatred for this and other similar things in society, such as multiculturalism, capitalism and pollution/enviromental damage are what make me misanthropic.
This is where I really can't argue with you anymore. How can one argue properly against someone who has revealed themself to be a monster, who'se values are monstrous, who embraces hate and fear as virtues? We share no values, so we cannot argue morality, until you or I have a sudden change of heart. I deeply hope it is you who changes.

Oh I have seen much longer posts then that.

Oh, I probably have too. But it just impressed me :p .

No, there can be no such thing even in the presence of a god figure. Why should I accept God's view of morality as correct?

The same reason you should accept the instruction manual on your Sony DVD player where it tells you that AA batteries will work in the remote control, and not AAA or AABB or AB etc. Because they made it, ergo they know how it works


No, it isn't. The alternative is subjective morality. Why should I care what anyone else thinks is moral?

By that logic, no government is ever legitmate, since it forces onto everyone else a morality.

But you have to admit; we humans do have potential.

Oh, absolutely. We humans as a species have unbelievable potential. Our tragedy is that we waste most of it, and what little we have left we use to ensure that other humans can't use theirs either.

Cyrian space, that was probably one of the most humanist things I've ever heard. Good stuff lol.

The same reason you should accept the instruction manual on your Sony DVD player where it tells you that AA batteries will work in the remote control, and not AAA or AABB or AB etc. Because they made it, ergo they know how it works

But for such an assumption to be correct, one would have to believe that a god exsisted and created us, right? Well I don't believe in him and as a result, I don't take his form of morality to be the correct, or only one.

Try again.

By that logic, no government is ever legitmate, since it forces onto everyone else a morality.

Quite correct. That's exactly what governments do.

The same reason you should accept the instruction manual on your Sony DVD player where it tells you that AA batteries will work in the remote control, and not AAA or AABB or AB etc. Because they made it, ergo they know how it works

"How it works" is irrelevant to what is right.

By that logic, no government is ever legitmate, since it forces onto everyone else a morality.

Why is forcing a morality illegitimate?

Oh, absolutely. We humans as a species have unbelievable potential. Our tragedy is that we waste most of it, and what little we have left we use to ensure that other humans can't use theirs either.

We just have to hope that one day every individual human realizes this potential and willingly uses it to further the causes of not only himself, but all of humankind.

But you have to admit; we humans do have potential.

Yep. By my calculations, the average human has a potential of 4.5 exajoules.

"How it works" is irrelevant to what is right.

What is right is determined by culture, time, place, habits, emotions, etc. and is defined by the majority of people in that society.

Why is forcing a morality illegitimate?

It is if you believe in self-determination.

Yep. By my calculations, the average human has a potential of 4.5 exajoules.

Aw. I was hoping for at least 4.6. I guess we'll have to make do :p

Aw. I was hoping for at least 4.6. I guess we'll have to make do :p

It's the equivalent of a gigaton of TNT.

It's the equivalent of a gigaton of TNT.

No wonder we're so good at blowing things to bits :p

What is right is determined by culture, time, place, habits, emotions, etc. and is defined by the majority of people in that society.

No, it isn't.

That may be what they think is right. Why should I care? Why do I have a moral obligation to agree with them?

It is if you believe in self-determination.

No, if you believe in self-determination you believe in defending it from those who would deny it - that is, "imposing a morality."

No, it isn't.

That may be what they think is right. Why should I care? Why do I have a moral obligation to agree with them?

You might think eating other people is right, but the majority of people might not agree. As a result you will either be outcast, locked up or killed. So you don't have to agree, sometimes it is just the rational thing to do. You know, in the interest of self-preservation and all that.

So yes, in effect, the majority rules and they do determine what it right. It's the playing along - or not - that's up to you.


No, if you believe in self-determination you believe in defending it from those who would deny it - that is, "imposing a morality."

Good point. I can see some conflicting situations arising from this.

So yes, in effect, the majority rules and they do determine what it right. It's the playing along - or not - that's up to you.

No, all you've shown is that they determine what is punished, not what is right.

It may be in my self-interest to follow the rules, but that does not mean that I ought to accept them as just.

No, all you've shown is that they determine what is punished, not what is right.

It may be in my self-interest to follow the rules, but that does not mean that I ought to accept them as just.

Most times when you're punished it means you have done something thought to be wrong, bad, or in any case 'not-right'. So yes, I have determined what is right. :rolleyes:

And I never said you had to accept them. Sometimes it's just wise no to protest too loudy against them.

how do you convert to something that isnt a religion?

how do you convert to something that isnt a religion?

Errrr.

You can convert distances, temperatures, valuables and stuff into other units of distances and temperatures and other valuables.

One can also convert in a convertible car :D

Errrr.

You can convert distances, temperatures, valuables and stuff into other units of distances and temperatures and other valuables.

One can also convert in a convertible car :D

I had an epiphany in a convertible once, but that's another story.

You can convert to a philosophy, conversion's not just for religions.

Most times when you're punished it means you have done something thought to be wrong, bad, or in any case 'not-right'.

"Thought to be" and "is" are two different things.

"Thought to be" and "is" are two different things.

I am using "thought to be" to indicate the constantly shifting opinions on what is 'right' in history. In fact, majority rules and thus determines what 'is' right for the majority of people in a particular timeframe.

Errrr.

You can convert distances, temperatures, valuables and stuff into other units of distances and temperatures and other valuables.

One can also convert in a convertible car :D

ooohhhhh yeahhhh

i do remember that time i saw god in a convertable, at least i was calling his name....

I am a reformed Catholic

I find this to be a funny statement. I don't really no why.

Go ahead, ignore me. I don't have anything of value to this conversation to say.

I am using "thought to be" to indicate the constantly shifting opinions on what is 'right' in history. In fact, majority rules and thus determines what 'is' right for the majority of people in a particular timeframe.
So what is widely believed to be right, not what 'is' right.

Things that are true are objectively so. That's how truth works.

I am using "thought to be" to indicate the constantly shifting opinions on what is 'right' in history. In fact, majority rules and thus determines what 'is' right for the majority of people in a particular timeframe.

I do think it's funny that people who don't believe in objective morality not only seem to believe objectively in the lack of it, but like to use objective statements like "In fact" preceding very subjective statements.

Just because everyone agrees with it doesn't make it right, nor does it make the world flat or the stars holes poked in the night sky. What moral subjectivists do is try to redefine morality, when they really mean "Morality doesn't exist, and the only reason I should help you rather than hurt you is because it will have an effect on my own life."

This redefinition of the issue succeeds only in obfuscating it.