The Manifesti
“Humanism is a progressive philosophy of life that, without supernaturalism, affirms our ability and responsibility to lead ethical lives of personal fulfillment that aspire to the greater good of humanity.
[…]
Humanists are concerned for the well being of all, are committed to
diversity, and respect those of differing yet humane views. We work to uphold
the equal enjoyment of human rights and civil liberties in an open, secular
society and maintain it is a civic duty to participate in the democratic
process and a planetary duty to protect nature's integrity, diversity, and
beauty in a secure, sustainable manner.
Thus engaged in the flow of life, we aspire to this vision with the
informed conviction that humanity has the ability to progress toward its
highest ideals. The responsibility for our lives and the kind of world in which
we live is ours and ours alone.”
Humanism and its Aspirations, 2003.
In 1933, a
group of signatories led by Raymond B. Bragg, drafted and published the
original Humanist Manifesto. In 1976, a revised version was published
acknowledging both the shortcomings and the strengths of its predecessor. Another
forty years on the clock, and out came Humanism
and its Aspirations (known as The
Humanist Manifesto III).
Many things
have changed since the first version of 1933.
Although it
never adhered to any kind of dogma, the Humanist movement dropped its previous self-concept of “new religion” and learnt a great deal from the atrocities of Nazism, WWII
and other major conflicts of the 20th century, thus realigning its
concerns and priorities: “recent decades have shown that inhuman wars can be
made in the name of peace. The beginnings of police states, even in democratic
societies, widespread government espionage, and other abuses of power by military,
political, and industrial elites, and the continuance of unyielding racism, all
present a different and difficult social outlook”. (The Humanist Manifesto II, 1973).
The Third
Manifesto of 2003 -the introduction and conclusion of which are cited at the
beginning of this post- was signed by more than a hundred humanists and Nobel
laureates like Richard Dawkins, James Randi and Mexican scientist Mario J.
Molina (Chemistry, 1995).
This Manifesto
provides the blueprints for applying the humanist philosophy and ideals. The
six tenets in Humanism and its
Aspirations represent the building blocks for a better society. It is a
cool piece of work and I certainly recommend the quick read:
The choice of “–ism”.
I personally dislike “–isms”. Atheism, Agnosticism, Buddhism, Catholicism, Capitalism, Marxism, Socialism, Sadomasochism; these words are nothing but restrictive labels that confine opinion and belief to a rigid mould. Moreover, those standpoints are often misunderstood, misrepresented or prejudged.
I adhere to
the atheistic proposition in the sense I do not worship any God, but I’m also an
agnostic since it is impossible for me to prove the inexistence of God. Adding
to the labeling confusion, I’m equally an anti-theist. Unfortunately, in
certain ultra-conservative circles (including a big chunk of the southern US), ignorance
and prejudice have given any of these labels the same moral stature of
pedophilia.
This labeling
thing is quite tricky and affects every area of opinion.
I’m a fervent
believer in competitive free-markets, which is certainly a distinctive
capitalist trait, but that doesn’t turn
me, per se, into a full breed
capitalist pig. I do think that capitalism is the better -albeit imperfect- system,
but I could never wish for those who cannot thrive in it to be unjustly marginalized.
My belief is that an equalitarian welfare system, which is a socialist
proposition, is an absolute necessity in any dignified country. But again, I could hardly be defined as a socialist.
I like to think of myself as scientific (at least in spirit), but since I only hold a degree in Finance, I think I’d come across as a pretentious wannabe, or a
fake, if I described myself as a scientist. I
really enjoy writing and that doesn’t automatically make a writer.
It is very
hard, almost impossible in fact, to define a personality via a label or a set
of labels. I’m made out of bits and pieces of “-isms” and “-ists”, but any given term only
explains a very small fraction of what I actually am.
The one label
that explains most of my being is Humanism. It is not everything I am, but I
adhere to most of what it stands for.
Humanism
Humanism is
the use of scientific inquiry and critical intelligence in order to build a
consensual moral guide for Humanity. It’s actually that simple.
The Humanist
worldview doesn’t feel ashamed of our natural origins and understands that our
ethical values should have, at their core, a true common interest. Humanists
embrace life to its full extent, up to its natural conclusion in definitive and
nonnegotiable death. Humanists take responsibility; for their actions, for their
fate, for their joys and for their woes. By doing so, humanists override the noise
of dogmatic rigidity and superstition.
To me, the
great appeal of Humanism springs from applying a scientific approach in
building a moral framework that is as just and unbiased as possible. Reality, unpleasant
as it may seem to the obtuse, is what should cement a
comprehensive understanding of what is best for all of us.
As every branch of knowledge, morality ought to be a dynamic process; adapting, fine-tuning and readapting along the way. Not everything on morality should be set in stone. As our understanding of the natural world advances, so should certain boundaries of what is right and wrong, and everything in between.
As every branch of knowledge, morality ought to be a dynamic process; adapting, fine-tuning and readapting along the way. Not everything on morality should be set in stone. As our understanding of the natural world advances, so should certain boundaries of what is right and wrong, and everything in between.
This is so
evidently true, that even the most unbending fundamentalists have seen their
morality evolve through the ages. I think it is safe to say (although you never really
know) that most fundies don’t look into
the the book of Leviticus for parental guidance:
“For anyone who curses his father or his mother shall surely be put to
death; he has cursed his father or his mother; his blood is upon him.”
Leviticus 20:9
Humanism
acknowledges the unknown and the possibility of the unknowable. The humanist approach factors-in
our propensity to err and leaves wiggle room for future generations to adjust
the bearing.
Humanism is applied science in the quest for a better world for all.
Humanism is applied science in the quest for a better world for all.
Comparison with Dogma
As always, it
is easy to see how the Humanist standpoint contrasts with the dogmatic rigidity
and chronic disregard for reality on which the religious base their creed.
Religion has coercively established a monopoly on the rights to morality. Up until today, a
recurrent argument against secularism is that religion is sine qua non to morality. I have quoted Christopher Hitchens ad nauseam on this topic, and I’ll do it
again: “Human decency is not derived from religion, it precedes it”.
The argument regarding which approach serves humanity best does not have to remain hypothetical;
a real-life experiment has already been carried out. Stubbornness is clearly more
resilient than memory, and many forget that religious dogma had its try at ruling the realms of Good and Bad, unconstrained, and for a very long time.
Its
domination spanned for the best part of a millennium, and historians coined a
perfectly illustrative term to describe that era: The Christian Dark Ages. After
much suffering, oppression, and an overly expensive opportunity cost in terms of foregone
progress, the 15th century finally welcomed the unbelievers, the philosophers,
the artists, the freethinkers, the scientists, the naturalists and the
revolutionary. After pitch-black darkness there was indeed light. The French named it “La Renaissance”
and the Italian “Il Rinascimento”, I personally prefer the name truest to what that
epoch represents: The Age of Reason.
After the
huge struggle to break free (let's not forget it took a fair amount of bloodshed), some are still happy to grant the former oppressors a
role of massive consequence in matters of morality. To portray such a stance as abhorrent schizophrenia would be a
massive piece of understatement.
In Conclusion
“The lifestance of Humanism -guided by reason, inspired by compassion,
and informed by experience- encourages us to live life well and fully.”
Reason, compassion and experience. Add a pinch of audacity, stir with a little love and enjoy life responsibly.
No comments:
Post a Comment