More like boot the arrogant attitude from the perspective.
I can see a case for something called humanism. We have the set of morals we do because we are human. It's built right into the structure of any morality created. We're going to have morals determined by the fact that we eat food that's either plant based or animal based, that we reproduce sexually, that we are social, intelligent, and rather weak on our own.
If we were a species that fed ourselves with photosynthesis, reproduced asexually, were anti-social, unintelligent, and overwhelmingly strong on our own we'd be a completely different thing and a human set of morals would be completely incomprehensible to them, just as the set of morals for such a hypothetical creature would be completely incomprehensible to us.
The issue is that there isn't a straight line from our current morality to our humanity. It's a winding path that involved may different humanistic ideas that were decided in one way or another over millennia. It's equally human to say "slavery is wrong because those are humans too and we're social animals" as it is to say "Slavery is ok because humans are tribal creatures and those humans are not part of our tribe", or to say "Slavery is ok because we decided the people who are slaves did something to deserve slavery", such as the slavery that was outlawed in Ghana in 1998 (and whose justification looks chillingly like woke ideology).
So why would we choose one direction over the other? The answer lies in our culture, and it's inarguable that in the west, Christianity dominated our culture for over 1000 years.
If we ditch our culture, and ditch the driving force our that culture, then we will inevitably have to come up with answers from scratch, and as we're seeing now those answers might not be so nice. They might be reprehensible.
So for that reason, humanism is fine as a concept, but too arrogant as a fully baked ideology.
I can see a case for something called humanism. We have the set of morals we do because we are human. It's built right into the structure of any morality created. We're going to have morals determined by the fact that we eat food that's either plant based or animal based, that we reproduce sexually, that we are social, intelligent, and rather weak on our own.
If we were a species that fed ourselves with photosynthesis, reproduced asexually, were anti-social, unintelligent, and overwhelmingly strong on our own we'd be a completely different thing and a human set of morals would be completely incomprehensible to them, just as the set of morals for such a hypothetical creature would be completely incomprehensible to us.
The issue is that there isn't a straight line from our current morality to our humanity. It's a winding path that involved may different humanistic ideas that were decided in one way or another over millennia. It's equally human to say "slavery is wrong because those are humans too and we're social animals" as it is to say "Slavery is ok because humans are tribal creatures and those humans are not part of our tribe", or to say "Slavery is ok because we decided the people who are slaves did something to deserve slavery", such as the slavery that was outlawed in Ghana in 1998 (and whose justification looks chillingly like woke ideology).
So why would we choose one direction over the other? The answer lies in our culture, and it's inarguable that in the west, Christianity dominated our culture for over 1000 years.
If we ditch our culture, and ditch the driving force our that culture, then we will inevitably have to come up with answers from scratch, and as we're seeing now those answers might not be so nice. They might be reprehensible.
So for that reason, humanism is fine as a concept, but too arrogant as a fully baked ideology.
- replies
- 1
- announces
- 0
- likes
- 1