Socially Responsible Humanism

Thad Yep, J'Carlin. That's my sense of "prick", too. And I reiterate: unfortunately, any prick can be a father, too. "Father" is not some noble vocation, unfortunately, and neither is "parent". In the U.S. today, the terms seem to be increasingly confused with "unpaid juvie officer". ...
 
Thad J'Carlin, you're doing a lot of generalizing there and in my experience, that sort of thing doesn't work very well. "Humanism" is also a grand phrase that's devoid of any practical meaning. What does one do if one is a humanist? What does treat everyone as if they had inherent worth really mean, in practice?

As my virtual friend Stream Angel well knows, I believe that it's quite easy to make these great sweeping statements about justice and equality and human worth and what not. What I think is difficult is to actually boil those down into concrete practices.

It's all well and grand to talk about "good parenting", for example, but what does that really mean in terms of practices? Some people will tell you a good parent needs to swat their kid's rear end occasionally. Others are horrified by the very idea and feel no compulsion against dropping a dime on a parent who'd do that.

Is it "good parenting", for example, to take a child to a brothel? Be careful: the question is a hell of a lot more tricky than you might expect.

 I may be generalizing, admittedly a harder row to hoe, but cherry picking specific examples, what we call in Bible arguments prooftexting, is really worthless in any argument.  For any shit you sling on the wall I can find different shit to cover it up.  The only result is a shitty wall.  
 
 The takeaway is that it is all solved by the principles of humanism (lc h) that is all people are humans.  Not men, not women, not children, not Christians, not Jews, not [whatever.]  Simply humans. Not all the same humans certainly, humans are all different, but if you put "human" before the [whatever] it really does change the way you think about and look at people.

 If it is a human body builder does it really make a difference which costume the human is wearing?

If it is a human dancer does it really make a difference which costume the human is wearing?

If it is a human CEO does it really make a difference which costume the human is wearing?

If it is a human street person does it really make a difference which costume the human is wearing?

or for more difficult cases 

If it is a human bigot does it really make a difference which -ism the human is wearing?

If it is a human criminal does it really make a difference which suit the human is wearing?

 Humanism does not mean noble or even not a prick.  But the assumption of inherent worth and dignity does change the way you think even of a prick.  Maybe a victim of bad parenting, or the wrong associations while an adolescent, or any of a host of factors.  Hesh is still a prick, a crippled human, but a human nonetheless.  

 Please note.  I am saying nothing about what a humanist society will do to protect itself from crippled humans.  It must do so.  Even humanist societies remove threats, but even threat removal must recognize the dignity and humanness of the threat. The current US paradigm of throwing the threat in a for-profit prison benefits no one as "prisoners" are by definition not human.  The Norwegian model of assuming the person temporarily removed from society is not only human but is a potentially good citizen if properly educated in the mores of the society.   

 Parenting is a different issue.  But the same principles apply.  A parent, that is a person or persons who chooses to accept a child into their family, also accepts the societal obligation to nurture and socialize the child to become a responsible human adult in the society.  The society will provide resources to help, but ultimately it is the responsibility of those who choose to parent to choose the most useful resources to supplement their nurturing guidance.  This is a joint effort of the parents and the society but parents have some choice in the society they wish to associate with, and even within the society they choose may make choices to emphasize certain mores vs others. 



 

 

Social Humanism

It is self-evident that atheism rejects a dualist worldview. But that is only the starting point for the worldview of an atheist. Materialism and naturalism may be small and unimportant parts of that world view, but social humanism would generally be the foundation of the world view. Many individual nuances as there is no supernatural unifier. But I for one would be comfortable with a social humanist worldview description as a first layer cut.

Social humanism is based on the fact that humans are extremely intelligent, rational, social animals whose very existence is based on support from a large group of other humans for child socialization, food production, social support, and economic activity. The beginnings of social humanism were in tribes of closely related people that were nomadic hunter-gatherers, and herders. Compliance with the mores of the tribe was reinforced from childhood as children played games based on those mores. The mores were also reinforced at social gatherings where music and dancing provided the mate selection opportunities for the single members of the tribe. Once families were established shortly after puberty, living was essentially support for the family and tribe in that order.

As agriculture became more important to the tribe expanded to a village and the social humanism focused on a central gathering place where the culture of the village was maintained and supported. Specialization and leisure permitted the the lore masters to become respected and supported members of the village. Titles varied, but they generally were healers, councillors, and leaders of the group activities for mate selection and lore reinforcement again with music and dance.

(To be continued.)