When 140 words are not enough to give credit to one's thoughts being thrown into the open forum, I remember this blog. So why do I call myself a humanist? A.C. Grayling published a wonderful book this year (The God Argument) that highlights many of the points concerned with humanism. But to summarize my own thoughts on the matter, is the purpose of this entry. First off, I make the statement that we are bound to decide our ethics with what can be known. This cuts out the entire supernatural domain, to which many others revert to, to explain the reasons for behaving one way or the other. Second, I see and accept the enormous improbability with which life is possible on this planet, to be mindful of its significance. So do I want to scream more when a whale is hunted with spears, or when complete rain forests are burned down, for the sake of some peoples tastes? Yes I do, and even more than when I read about the atrocities committed by humans on their own fellow humans. So to call myself a materialist, which is to say I believe in the measurable, and to say I am a humanist, to rely on the human ability to reason, is self explanatory.
But the buck doesn't stop there. People then want to know if I am an atheist or a naturalist or a feminist and on and on and on. The thing is simple. Being an atheist is as simple as being an afairist, or even better a aharrypotterist. I can't define myself through things that I do not consider existent. But to be able to separate the wheat from the chaff, one has to have a few tools up one's sleeve to counter the innumerable ways one can fall prey to false beliefs. This would in principle make me a skeptic, but being is skeptic is only a tool and it doesn't define my ethical or moral outlook. So having gone through the material part of the definition, with slight references to my non-belief and my skepticism, why would I choose the term humanism to define my ethics.
A.C.Grayling states in his chapter defining the term: Humanism is the ethical outlook that says each individual is responsible for choosing his or her values and goals and working towards the latter in the light of the former, and is equally responsible for living considerably towards others, with a special view to establishing good relationships at the heart of life, because all good lives are premised on such. Humanism recognises the commonalities and, at the same time, wide differences that exist in human nature and capacities, and therefore respects the rights that the former tells us all must have, and the need for space and tolerance that the latter tells us each must have.
And further, humanism requires no commitment to teachings beyond its two fundamental premises and it imposes no obligations on people other than to think for themselves.
At this point, I shall stop quoting Grayling and just say, this book gives a good first indication of the term in use. But since the term humanism is a relatively new term, one can be justified in asking why not pick and stick with one of the older ones, such as feminism, which is a valid argument to begin with. Trouble is only that, at least in the western democracies, the feminists have had their day and have significantly got their message across, for which all of us are eternally grateful. But events such as the elevatorgate and random abuses hurled at men for finding women attractive has given the term more negative headlines than it deserves. Furthermore, the feminists were right to call themselves that, because they were at that time fighting primarily for the upliftment of women in the society. You don't call the anti-apartheid movement a feminist movement, just as you wouldn't be calling the gay movement (for LGBT) a feminist movement. Granted, a feminist movement is still much needed in countries that are still stuck in the middle ages, but at least in the western world, calling yourself a feminist, arguing that it caters to gender equality, just doesn't cut it. You are most welcome to call yourself a feminist, where such issues are still a major social issue.
On a more personal note, knowing fully well that this view is not there to substantiate any claim but since this is my own blog (I say what the heck), I have noticed almost every woman I meet to call herself a feminist. And every single one has her own definition, as it suits her. I am yet to meet a woman, who won't raise her eyebrows when I say, I demand my future better half to earn and contribute equally. Most women want this to be their choice! Feminists want equality and when we expect it, it is mind-boggling.
So the term humanist is my choice, at the moment, to define my ethical outlook.
But the buck doesn't stop there. People then want to know if I am an atheist or a naturalist or a feminist and on and on and on. The thing is simple. Being an atheist is as simple as being an afairist, or even better a aharrypotterist. I can't define myself through things that I do not consider existent. But to be able to separate the wheat from the chaff, one has to have a few tools up one's sleeve to counter the innumerable ways one can fall prey to false beliefs. This would in principle make me a skeptic, but being is skeptic is only a tool and it doesn't define my ethical or moral outlook. So having gone through the material part of the definition, with slight references to my non-belief and my skepticism, why would I choose the term humanism to define my ethics.
A.C.Grayling states in his chapter defining the term: Humanism is the ethical outlook that says each individual is responsible for choosing his or her values and goals and working towards the latter in the light of the former, and is equally responsible for living considerably towards others, with a special view to establishing good relationships at the heart of life, because all good lives are premised on such. Humanism recognises the commonalities and, at the same time, wide differences that exist in human nature and capacities, and therefore respects the rights that the former tells us all must have, and the need for space and tolerance that the latter tells us each must have.
And further, humanism requires no commitment to teachings beyond its two fundamental premises and it imposes no obligations on people other than to think for themselves.
At this point, I shall stop quoting Grayling and just say, this book gives a good first indication of the term in use. But since the term humanism is a relatively new term, one can be justified in asking why not pick and stick with one of the older ones, such as feminism, which is a valid argument to begin with. Trouble is only that, at least in the western democracies, the feminists have had their day and have significantly got their message across, for which all of us are eternally grateful. But events such as the elevatorgate and random abuses hurled at men for finding women attractive has given the term more negative headlines than it deserves. Furthermore, the feminists were right to call themselves that, because they were at that time fighting primarily for the upliftment of women in the society. You don't call the anti-apartheid movement a feminist movement, just as you wouldn't be calling the gay movement (for LGBT) a feminist movement. Granted, a feminist movement is still much needed in countries that are still stuck in the middle ages, but at least in the western world, calling yourself a feminist, arguing that it caters to gender equality, just doesn't cut it. You are most welcome to call yourself a feminist, where such issues are still a major social issue.
On a more personal note, knowing fully well that this view is not there to substantiate any claim but since this is my own blog (I say what the heck), I have noticed almost every woman I meet to call herself a feminist. And every single one has her own definition, as it suits her. I am yet to meet a woman, who won't raise her eyebrows when I say, I demand my future better half to earn and contribute equally. Most women want this to be their choice! Feminists want equality and when we expect it, it is mind-boggling.
So the term humanist is my choice, at the moment, to define my ethical outlook.
