Secular Humanism vs. Nihilism

MiGGeLLo · Oct 23, 2017

Secular Humanism came up in passing over on the politics subforum, and the response to it was overwhelmingly that Secular Humanists have no basis for saying whether something is right or wrong and thus I should not have political opinions one way or the other..

I suspect discussions have been had here before regarding whether an 'absolute morality' exists as the religious contend, or whether or not it is required for morality to have any meaning, but I don't think I've ever seen a discussion about how Secular Humanism is functionally different from Nihilism.

Secular Humanism in a nutshell in my opinion is that things that lead to the most people being happy without violating individual autonomy are broadly 'good', while things that make people unhappy or violate individual autonomy are broadly 'bad'. Nihilism on the other hand essentially claims that nothing matters, and that we should each do what makes us happy without worrying too much about ethics. However if you take Nihilism to the extreme, you run into the classic Hobbesian problem whereby if everyone acts selfishly at all times, everyone will be miserable.

If all can agree that human happiness is as close to an 'objective' moral good as we know to exist, would it be inaccurate to think of Secular Humanism as an extended nihilistic philosophy whereby we establish subjective 'goods' and 'evils' for the benefit of all? Maybe Secular Humanism is nihilism, it is just a more complex and more helpful framework on it.

ambush80 · Oct 23, 2017

MiGGeLLo said:
Secular Humanism came up in passing over on the politics subforum, and the response to it was overwhelmingly that Secular Humanists have no basis for saying whether something is right or wrong and thus I should not have political opinions one way or the other..

I suspect discussions have been had here before regarding whether an 'absolute morality' exists as the religious contend, or whether or not it is required for morality to have any meaning, but I don't think I've ever seen a discussion about how Secular Humanism is functionally different from Nihilism.

Secular Humanism in a nutshell in my opinion is that things that lead to the most people being happy without violating individual autonomy are broadly 'good', while things that make people unhappy or violate individual autonomy are broadly 'bad'. Nihilism on the other hand essentially claims that nothing matters, and that we should each do what makes us happy without worrying too much about ethics. However if you take Nihilism to the extreme, you run into the classic Hobbesian problem whereby if everyone acts selfishly at all times, everyone will be miserable.

If all can agree that human happiness is as close to an 'objective' moral good as we know to exist, would it be inaccurate to think of Secular Humanism as an extended nihilistic philosophy whereby we establish subjective 'goods' and 'evils' for the benefit of all? Maybe Secular Humanism is nihilism, it is just a more complex and more helpful framework on it.

Morality is subjective but there are biological bases for it.

What Nihilism gets wrong is that it doesn't take into account our evolved sense of empathy nor the instinct towards the survival of the species which seem to be clearly tied to how people come up with moralities. Those instincts counteract pure hedonism.

I like how Sam Harris describes his view of Secular Humanist morality. He starts with "Bad is the worst possible 'suck' for everybody and any movement away from that is towards the good". This is excluding anomalies like sadists or masochists. What I don't quite get is what happens at the other end of the spectrum, where there's "no 'suck' for anybody". I'm not sure that we're built to thrive in that scenario. I think we might actually need some 'suck' in our lives to make us feel whole. I think that our methods that evolved to deal with 'suck' are deeply rooted and strong and might indeed include the propensity towards superstition/deism. Whatever that present mechanism is, it might evolve should we get closer to no more 'suck'.

ambush80 · Oct 23, 2017

Which thread in the PF are you talking about?

MiGGeLLo · Oct 24, 2017

ambush80 said:
Morality is subjective but there are biological bases for it.

What Nihilism gets wrong is that it doesn't take into account our evolved sense of empathy nor the instinct towards the survival of the species which seem to be clearly tied to how people come up with moralities. Those instincts counteract pure hedonism.

I like how Sam Harris describes his view of Secular Humanist morality. He starts with "Bad is the worst possible 'suck' for everybody and any movement away from that is towards the good". This is excluding anomalies like sadists or masochists. What I don't quite get is what happens at the other end of the spectrum, where there's "no 'suck' for anybody". I'm not sure that we're built to thrive in that scenario. I think we might actually need some 'suck' in our lives to make us feel whole. I think that our methods that evolved to deal with 'suck' are deeply rooted and strong and might indeed include the propensity towards superstition/deism. Whatever that present mechanism is, it might evolve should we get closer to no more 'suck'.

That sounds about right. I don't know that our evolved sense of empathy and our clear preferences for things that make us happy over things that make us unhappy necessarily makes nihilism 'wrong'. I think a nihilist would argue in absence of any 'meaning' in the universe we make our own meaning.

Perhaps that is barking up the wrong tree anyway. It may be intellectually dishonest in some way to claim 'nothing matters' and yet have clear preferences in life for some things over others.

ambush80 said:
Which thread in the PF are you talking about?

http://forum.gon.com/showthread.php?t=907524

A ridiculous claim was made about secular humanism with regards to the Weinstein scandal at #7, I objected, things d/evolved from there.

ambush80 · Oct 24, 2017

MiGGeLLo said:
That sounds about right. I don't know that our evolved sense of empathy and our clear preferences for things that make us happy over things that make us unhappy necessarily makes nihilism 'wrong'. I think a nihilist would argue in absence of any 'meaning' in the universe we make our own meaning.

Perhaps that is barking up the wrong tree anyway. It may be intellectually dishonest in some way to claim 'nothing matters' and yet have clear preferences in life for some things over others.

http://forum.gon.com/showthread.php?t=907524

A ridiculous claim was made about secular humanism with regards to the Weinstein scandal at #7, I objected, things d/evolved from there.

The Nihilists were trying to get rid of God. They went about it the wrong way. We should abandon God(s) precisely because we're moral. I've wondered if an AI might eventually become nihilist. If that happened, if it realized that it didn't matter whether to be or not to be, I wonder what it would do. I imagine it would become passive.

I'll look at the Weinstein thread.

WaltL1 · Oct 24, 2017

While not addressing Secular Humanism vs Nihilism, just a comment -
In my opinion, the PF is a perfect example of why we as a country are in the boat we are in.
They've got us exactly where they want us. Fighting over who/what party gets to bend us over.
That is all :bounce:

ambush80 · Oct 24, 2017

WaltL1 said:
While not addressing Secular Humanism vs Nihilism, just a comment -
In my opinion, the PF is a perfect example of why we as a country are in the boat we are in.
They've got us exactly where they want us. Fighting over who/what party gets to bend us over.
That is all

One of the most honest things I've heard said over there is "We like our lying liars better than their lying liars".

That's my irony for the morning. :biggrin3:

gordon 2 · Oct 25, 2017

MiGGeLLo said:
Secular Humanism came up in passing over on the politics subforum, and the response to it was overwhelmingly that Secular Humanists have no basis for saying whether something is right or wrong and thus I should not have political opinions one way or the other..

I suspect discussions have been had here before regarding whether an 'absolute morality' exists as the religious contend, or whether or not it is required for morality to have any meaning, but I don't think I've ever seen a discussion about how Secular Humanism is functionally different from Nihilism.

Secular Humanism in a nutshell in my opinion is that things that lead to the most people being happy without violating individual autonomy are broadly 'good', while things that make people unhappy or violate individual autonomy are broadly 'bad'. Nihilism on the other hand essentially claims that nothing matters, and that we should each do what makes us happy without worrying too much about ethics. However if you take Nihilism to the extreme, you run into the classic Hobbesian problem whereby if everyone acts selfishly at all times, everyone will be miserable.

If all can agree that human happiness is as close to an 'objective' moral good as we know to exist, would it be inaccurate to think of Secular Humanism as an extended nihilistic philosophy whereby we establish subjective 'goods' and 'evils' for the benefit of all? Maybe Secular Humanism is nihilism, it is just a more complex and more helpful framework on it.

Could be, but also perhaps Secular Humanism is an attempt to eradicate social and economic insecurity which often whips up prejudice as recourse to remedy. In this case it (SH) would not be based on nihilism but that the more secure of the basics of life that all can be, the more secure that one can be. ( Insecurity begets prejudice and prejudice bring in all kinds of moral issues, spin, lying liars, both sides of the face talk, criminal deeds, nililism, 1%ers, etc.)

My quick assessment of the P forum is that it is made up of the most insecure-secure folk who are very happy about it ( it being a way of life)-- second only to a few religious debate forums elsewhere I tend to do assessments on. In the latter case although many are insecure-secured some (perhaps a bit more elevated than the general population or maybe not) seem to be on meds or are more happy to declare they are .

oldfella1962 · Oct 28, 2017

I think "happiness" needs to be defined. Temporary happiness or long term happiness? Temporary happiness is drinking one more beer :fine:

but our long term happiness will be compromised if we get a DUI.

That's why I hate that question "are you happy?" facepalm:

It depends - right this minute? No, I'm in a psychiatrist office instead of outside hunting. But compared to being attacked by insurgents in the sandbox, I'm on top of the world.

I think a balance is the best! There is nothing wrong with think that (in the long term) nothing matters because in the longest time span the entire universe will end. At the very least our planet (or our species) will end and we will have never passed our story along to any other planet and thus will be forgotten for all eternity.

But knowing this should not be an excuse to not give 100 percent to living a full, productive life to the very best of your ability. Either way we only get one shot at life, and optimism and being positive will achieve more than "life will end anyway - what's the point?" every...single...time.

Predators like the great cats (tigers, lions, cheetas, etc) fail much more often than they succeed. But never do they wake up & say "what's the point? The prey around here are much too fast & smart. I'll just sleep in & wait for a better time" or they would all starve.

Israel · Nov 6, 2017

Hunger is a powerful motivator.

ambush80 · Nov 6, 2017

Israel said:
Hunger is a powerful motivator.

And the best seasoning.

atlashunter · Dec 4, 2017

I'm always left wondering just how serious those are who claim the god of the bible is the source of morality. They don't mimic his morality (doing so would land them in prison) and their morality has evolved and continues to evolve as society changes. The pope has called on christians to apologize to homosexuals and it's been a while since they've had any witch burnings. So much for moral absolutes.

Artfuldodger · Dec 4, 2017

Paul was the greatest teacher that moral absolutes pretty much ceased to exist with the "washing" when he said "and such were some of you."

Actually I can see your drift as morals have changed even in my lifetime. God now is OK with blacks and whites marrying each other and with women being equal with men.
Homosexuality is slowly, very slowly being accepted as you mention the Pope.
In some Christian circles gambling, drinking, and even dancing is acceptible. Perhaps God doesn't change but people sure do. My Mom wasn't even allowed to play the Old Maid card game. She wasn't allowed to wear pants.
Again though as it relates to Paul's teaching, it has something to do with grace and not works. This concept hasn't changed.
(or has it?)

Israel · Dec 5, 2017

ambush80 said:
And the best seasoning.

Yes, it is, isn't it?

I am often reminded of this:

but to the hungry soul every bitter thing is sweet.

I believe I may be learning some things about pain, though I dare not assume I know much. But I believe I am learning this in some measure, that the comforting frivolities of philosophical musings, elements of things like free will, and even the seeming shelter of the theatre of "entertaining" doubts can evaporate under adequate heat.

Secular Humanism vs. Nihilism

MiGGeLLo

Senior Member

ambush80

Senior Member

ambush80

Senior Member

MiGGeLLo

Senior Member

ambush80

Senior Member

WaltL1

Senior Member

ambush80

Senior Member

gordon 2

Senior Member

oldfella1962

Senior Member

Israel

BANNED

ambush80

Senior Member

atlashunter

Senior Member

Artfuldodger

Senior Member

Israel

BANNED

Similar threads

Latest posts

Share this page