What is the difference between secular humanism and objectivism?

[ImaginalDisc]

I guess it's time for an Objectivist to pipe in.

To preface...there has been mention of Objectivism as a philosophy, or a "school of thought," something a person subscribes to, like a magazine subscription or something. If you were to ask an Objectivist, "What is your philosophy?" his or her response would most likely be something like, "None."

I see a philosophy as a set of beliefs, values and standards that a person chooses to believe in. Objectivism is anything but that. As arrogant and narrowminded as it sounds, Objectivism is simply the recognition of objective truths.

Now to nitpick.



Such a statement leans more towards Secular Humanism than towards Objectivism (still very far away from either, though.)

To recognize the natural-born rights of a human being, one has to imagine if there were only one human being on the planet. What rights does he have? Obviously he has a right to his property, to feed himself, to pursue happiness...but what does this all matter, when there's nobody to take those rights away? Until another man appears, and hits the first man with a stone to steal his meat, the first man has no concept of his own rights. In this sense, natural-born rights are just that...natural born, inherit in all human beings...but they can only be realized when they are threatened. The great human ability to empathize grants us the knowledge of what constitutes a transgression, a violation of another man's natural-born rights.



It's anything but. Again, look at the lone man on the planet. This lone man is initially wholly selfish...self-serving. He seeks food for himself, he seeks stimulation for himself, happiness for himself, etc. When that one man meets another man on an open plain, the virtue of selfishness can show its legitimacy in the social arena, in the form of trade. The first man has a stick, but needs a stone. The second man has a stone, but needs a stick...so the two trade, to each others' selfish benefit.

When the man meets a woman and bears a child, he hunts for and gathers food for the child, because he values it. Again, he is being selfish.

So the virtue of selfishness does not need communism or socialism to exist or be legitimate...such things only make it more evident.



I would agree wholeheartedly. This is certainly the most significant difference between the two.

In my observation, Secular Humanism appears to be a more "friendly" kind of Objectivism. While it still advocates reason over mysticism, rationalism over irrationalism, non-contradiction, and creativity...Secular Humanism also advocates social responsibility...and in so doing contradicts itself. You cannot force one man to be beholden to another without violating his natural-born rights and sovereignty.

Secular Humanism attempts to reject the most hated dogma of Objectivist thinking...the idea of virtue in selfishness. There is a great deal of stigma attached to that root word, "Selfish." (I think if Ayn Rand had chosen to use another word in its place, like "Tastycakes," Objectivism would be much more popular.)

As to that:



I don't really think there's any PR friendly way to say, "I don't believe in God." In my American experience, anyway, when someone asks you what you believe in and you say anything other than Christianity...you're immediately pigeon holed with Satanists, Anarchists, Communists, Socialists, and all the other condemned folks.

Ah, would that be the "Everyone who came before me was an idiot" schema of philosophy?

 

[Tsukasa Buddha]

Objectivism oddly seems to embrace subjectivism.

For example, an objectivist explained it to me as "If you had a choice to save one person you knew and liked, or ten people you don't know, you should choose the one person, because you value him or her."

I mean, I would think that thinking objectively would endorse unselfish points of view. I would even say objectively there is no such thing as "property".

Also, I give credit for having a definition for "natural rights" other than "whatever we say are". But I don't think the definition of "whatever a person can do in the absence of other people" offers any moral weight. Why should we protect those rights? Especially since living in community offers many more benefits once some rights are given up.

 

[TheRevenant]

# Ayn Rand is the greatest human being who has ever lived.
# Atlas Shrugged is the greatest human achievement in the history of the world.
# Ayn Rand, by virtue of her philosophical genius, is the supreme arbiter in any issue pertaining to what is rational, moral, or appropriate to man's life on earth.
# Once one is acquainted with Ayn Rand and/or her work, the measure of one's virtue is intrinsically tied to the position one takes regarding her and/or it.
# No one can be a good Objectivist who does not admire what Ayn Rand admires and condemn what Ayn Rand condemns.
# No one can be a fully consistent individualist who disagrees with Ayn Rand on any fundamental issue.

Those sound like the musings of a Randroid, one of those people who, among other silly things, believes that the only way America could curb the slow steady drift-towards socialism is for the thinking men to strike - exactly as it happened in Atlas Shrugged.

Although some worship her as such, Ayn Rand is not a god.

Especially since living in community offers many more benefits once some rights are given up.

A person does not have to give up any rights to live in a proper community. If you're alluding to the rules and laws that a community agrees upon, and the methods for enforcing those, those laws if proper should be designed to protect persons' rights (your right to your body, life, and property, etc.) as well as their negative rights (your right to NOT be raped, NOT be murdered, NOT be robbed, etc.)

I figured this thread would drift off of the main subject and end up in everyone poking at the arrogant Objectivist.

 

[drkitten]

Other than the explicitly atheistic statements (mainly point #5), I think that 99% of the world's population would sign on to these statements. Who doesn't at least claim to value ethical behavior, rationality, democracy and human rights, a balance of personal liberty and social responsibility, etc.? So I don't see any real content beyond "I'm an atheist, and I'm also a nice human being."

A significant fraction of the religious populace, I'm afraid.

Let me take this piece by piece:

1. Humanism is ethical. It affirms the worth, dignity and autonomy of the individual and the right of every human being to the greatest possible freedom compatible with the rights of others.

Taken seriously, this eliminates almost all religious-based restrictions on behavior (such as "no beer sales on Sunday" or laws against divorce.

Humanists believe that morality is an intrinsic part of human nature based on understanding and a concern for others, needing no external sanction.

'nough said. If you can't justify your morality rationally, then it's not valid.

2. Humanism is rational. It seeks to use science creatively, not destructively. Humanists believe that the solutions to the world's problems lie in human thought and action rather than divine intervention.

This flies in the face of thousands of years of "trust in God to solve your problems." Stem cell research, for example, is a GOOD thing under the SH framework.

3. Humanism supports democracy and human rights.

This is pretty universal.

4. Humanism insists that personal liberty must be combined with social responsibility.

Many religious believe that one is responsible, not to society, but to God and that God in many cases calls upon one to oppose the wants of secular society. See point #1 above.

Humanism is undogmatic, imposing no creed upon its adherents. It is thus committed to education free from indoctrination.

This is directly incompatible with the Great Commission among other things.

 

[drkitten]

I guess it's time for an Objectivist to pipe in.

To preface...there has been mention of Objectivism as a philosophy, or a "school of thought," something a person subscribes to, like a magazine subscription or something. If you were to ask an Objectivist, "What is your philosophy?" his or her response would most likely be something like, "None."

I see a philosophy as a set of beliefs, values and standards that a person chooses to believe in. Objectivism is anything but that. [ As arrogant and narrowminded as it sounds, Objectivism is simply the recognition of objective truths.

And thus we have a demonstration of the flaws of Objectivism. Objectivists know so little about their philosophy they don't even recognize it as a philosophy.