Humanism is Nonsense

[Norsemaiden]

Perhaps humanist universalism could best be described as speciesism. Humanists believe in equal human rights and that there are clear reasons why humans should have more rights than animals. They reject both ethnic nepotism - where priority is given to one's own ethnically defined biological group or tribe - and find kin preference to be an objectionable, or even "sick" barrier to the utopia of human universalist equality.

When was the first human born? Supposing he did arrive as a mutant whose brain was, all of a sudden, twice as big as his chimp-like parents - who then would he have bred with?
Surely, were it not for the fact that the intemediates between humans and our common ancestor with chimps are dead, the actual moment when the first human was born would be impossible to pinpoint?

Supposing this intermediate type was found to be still existing on an undiscovered island. How would the Humanists deal with this discovery? Surely it would be as hard for them to fit into their ideology as it would be for a Jehovah's Witness?!

Humanists are zealots and they are no more interested in logic and dispassionate science than the most fervent of Christians are.

If all the intermediates back to the common chimp/human common ancestor were alive now, our laws and our humanist morals would be turned upside down. Interbreeding occuring along the spectrum is to be expected, so either the whole spectrum, including the chimps would have to have the universal rights, or else some sort of appartheid system would have to be thought up.
Imagine this long chain going back to the chimp/human ancestor. Just try to picture it. Can you? (Don't forget to include a chain of humans in your imagination...)

 

[speed]

Perhaps humanist universalism could best be described as speciesism. Humanists believe in equal human rights and that there are clear reasons why humans should have more rights than animals. They reject both ethnic nepotism - where priority is given to one's own ethnically defined biological group or tribe - and find kin preference to be an objectionable, or even "sick" barrier to the utopia of human universalist equality.

When was the first human born? Supposing he did arrive as a mutant whose brain was, all of a sudden, twice as big as his chimp-like parents - who then would he have bred with?
Surely, were it not for the fact that the intemediates between humans and our common ancestor with chimps are dead, the actual moment when the first human was born would be impossible to pinpoint?

Supposing this intermediate type was found to be still existing on an undiscovered island. How would the Humanists deal with this discovery? Surely it would be as hard for them to fit into their ideology as it would be for a Jehovah's Witness?!

Humanists are zealots and they are no more interested in logic and dispassionate science than the most fervent of Christians are.

If all the intermediates back to the common chimp/human common ancestor were alive now, our laws and our humanist morals would be turned upside down. Interbreeding occuring along the spectrum is to be expected, so either the whole spectrum, including the chimps would have to have the universal rights, or else some sort of appartheid system would have to be thought up.
Imagine this long chain going back to the chimp/human ancestor. Just try to picture it. Can you? (Don't forget to include a chain of humans in your imagination...)

I suppose I have a different view of humanism. And as I consider myself as classical humanist, I dont see my beliefs in any of these ideas you've attributed to humanism. BUt I suppose humanism has run off the tracks since the renaissance. In fact, this seems to be a liberal as in American political liberal view.

 

[Seditious]

Funnily enough I disagree with humanism because I see "human rights" as our being robbed of the rights animals have (a la Hobbes) so in fact what human rights means is having less rights than animals, not more.

 

[Seditious]

When was the first human born? Supposing he did arrive as a mutant whose brain was, all of a sudden, twice as big as his chimp-like parents - who then would he have bred with?
Surely, were it not for the fact that the intemediates between humans and our common ancestor with chimps are dead, the actual moment when the first human was born would be impossible to pinpoint?

yea, it's interesting that if A gave birth to B, and B produced C, and C wasn't able to reproduce with A, defining species as a breeding group, if you defined the species by C, A and C are different species, but if you defined them by B, A and C are the same species since B can mate with either.

science doesn't have all the kinks worked out, but I think Humanism is happy to consider anything without any kind of self-awareness up for grabs/killing. (wasn't there another thread where someone brought up a Philosopher whose morality permitted infanticide? Personally I would welcome some sort of intelligent-life-form-respect'ism similar to Humanism (but less 'humanitarian') if it did indeed treat the lesser humans as equal to the lesser animals (not allowing them to be abused or anything, but killing them 'humanely' as you please as long as it isn't someone elses property).

 

[JoeVice]

If all the intermediates back to the common chimp/human common ancestor were alive now, i'm sure things would be different. i assume that we would be trying to establish communication with them, trying to figure out their key to longevity. was it their diet, the metaphysical impact of their belief system, etc.?

i like to view humanism as branch of study, not a religion with concrete values. lumping people into a category based on their values, then assuming that everyone who falls into the category adheres to the aformentioned beliefs, is not a practice of mine.

but, i can address some of the ideas you mentioned.

kin preference - i hope, that in the good nature of human beings, given our capacity for critical thought, this would depend on the context of the situation that brings rise to this issue.

human rights over animal rights - this is a tough one. do animals have moral code that is compatible with humans'? one would think not. legalize and encourage cannibalism!!!

 

[JoeVice]

Funnily enough I disagree with humanism because I see "human rights" as our being robbed of the rights animals have (a la Hobbes) so in fact what human rights means is having less rights than animals, not more.

everyone has animal rights. its the ability to do whatever is in your power. some things that you have the power to do might land you in jail though, thanks to the powers-that-be's animal rights.

 

[Seditious]

everyone has animal rights. its the ability to do whatever is in your power. some things that you have the power to do might land you in jail though, thanks to the powers-that-be's animal rights.

yea but our whole society is about making people believe they don't have that right, that various things are 'immoral' and even if they can get away with them they shouldn't act as if they have the right to. it's the fundamental thing I disagree with in our world.

 

[Seditious]

human rights over animal rights - this is a tough one. do animals have moral code that is compatible with humans'? one would think not. legalize and encourage cannibalism!!!

uploaded this on another forum once for some vegan arguing for animal morality (most succinct clear argument against 'animal rights' I've heard)

http://www.yousendit.com/transfer.php?action=download&ufid=703E94AE5BC39625

 

[JoeVice]

yea but our whole society is about making people believe they don't have that right, that various things are 'immoral' and even if they can get away with them they shouldn't act as if they have the right to. it's the fundamental thing I disagree with in our world.

i know what you mean. there are several rules that i must adhere to everyday that i don't agree with, that in fact, i think are just downright silly and pointless. you know, the "because i have the power to" rules. but once again, it is in your power to break those "rules". your animal rights are intact. they aren't even rights. the only reason that we can coin the term "animal rights" in this context is because of their opposition to human rights, both of which only humans can comprehend.

"uploaded this on another forum once for some vegan arguing for animal morality (most succinct clear argument against 'animal rights' I've heard)"

lol

 

[Cythraul]

Funnily enough I disagree with humanism because I see "human rights" as our being robbed of the rights animals have (a la Hobbes) so in fact what human rights means is having less rights than animals, not more.

So...what would you consider to be a better alternative? What are these extra rights that animals have? How would the world be a better place if we had said rights?

 

[Seditious]

So...what would you consider to be a better alternative? What are these extra rights that animals have? How would the world be a better place if we had said rights?

well you wouldn't have to sit and watch rapists get out of prison on parole in 10 years for one.

 

[Cythraul]

well you wouldn't have to sit and watch rapists get out of prison on parole in 10 years for one.

Why is that?

 

[Seditious]

Why is that?

because you would have the right to shoot his head off?

 

[Scourge of God]

I've always considered myself a humanist in the Classical sense - that is, that I measure men against men, not against the idols we make of our fear and desire for certainty.

 

[Norsemaiden]

I suppose I have a different view of humanism. And as I consider myself as classical humanist, I dont see my beliefs in any of these ideas you've attributed to humanism. BUt I suppose humanism has run off the tracks since the renaissance. In fact, this seems to be a liberal as in American political liberal view.

Why is it called humanism though? Does this require classifying humans as your species - and separate from other species? How would this be possible if the intermediates between the "humans" and the common ancestor we share with chimps were still in existence?

(I did not understand what JoeVice was saying ealier about longevity btw - any of these intermediates could have short life spans).

Imagine the chain of intermediates (now exinct)between our common ancestor with chimps and humans today, just considering the branch that led to humans. Some of these common ancestors went on to develop into chimps and others possibly into some other primates that have gone extinct - maybe Neanderthals. Are humans a straight branch from when the first human appeared, or are we a cluster of new growths heading in different directions - just starting to bud off and develop in different directions?
Thats the way I think of it. So some types of humans are going to go extinct and others may survive and go on to become various newly evolved varieties. Nature always wants different groups with different characteristics to select from. She is not going to take all of "humanity" with her.

 

[Blowtus]

I agree with Norsemaiden, up to the point where we start the old favourite topic up again
Treating everyone as 'equal' simply destroys all possible value in people. Favouring kin / race specifically over others, is the most effective way genetic evolution has come up with for improvement and survival. Myself, I believe we have moved beyond the point (or soon will) where genetic evolution is of worth to us. We have the capacity to control our bodies, societies, worlds, to such a degree that evolution stands no / little chance of keeping up. As such, being able to find the worth in anyone that bears it, and ignoring (even legislating against if need be?) throwback instinctual tendencies that now only serve to damage us, (when in the past they have served us) seems most worthwhile.

 

[Seditious]

I've always considered myself a humanist in the Classical sense - that is, that I measure men against men, not against the idols we make of our fear and desire for certainty.

But 'what is man'---do you take Hobbes view (the dominant beast), or the Christian view (a feather short of an angel), where in between does your estimation of man fall???

 

[Blowtus]

yea but our whole society is about making people believe they don't have that right, that various things are 'immoral' and even if they can get away with them they shouldn't act as if they have the right to. it's the fundamental thing I disagree with in our world.

What better method of survival do you have in store for us? In groups we are more powerful (better able to meet our instinctual needs) than as individuals alone... do you propose that there should be no shared learning? Individuals should reach every conclusion with no impetus provided by others?

 

[Seditious]

Why is it called humanism though? Does this require classifying humans as your species - and separate from other species? How would this be possible if the intermediates between the "humans" and the common ancestor we share with chimps were still in existence?

Have you read Orson Scott Card's 'Speaker for the Dead'? We'd probably figure out some such Raman/Varelse type idea to address your concern if apemen existed.

if not
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_concepts_in_the_Ender's_Game_series#Hierarchy_of_Alienness

 

[Seditious]

What better method of survival do you have in store for us? In groups we are more powerful (better able to meet our instinctual needs) than as individuals alone... do you propose that there should be no shared learning? Individuals should reach every conclusion with no impetus provided by others?

I never said I have a problem with that. I only have a problem with any other "method of survival" being judged immoral.