Featuring fresh takes and real-time analysis from HuffPost's signature lineup of contributors
Doug Thomas

GET UPDATES FROM Doug Thomas
 

How Secular Humanists Develop Ethics

Posted: 02/08/2013 9:13 am

How do Secular Humanists develop their ethics? This is the most consistently repeated question about Secular Humanism. Theists, in particular, have difficulty with the notion that ethics need not come from a set of rules laid down in an ancient book. Even Secular Humanists, put on the spot, have some difficulty giving a clear and convincing answer. Often they are stuck saying, "Well, we just are moral."

Secular Humanists actually develop ethics using three characteristics of human beings: a kind of ethical tripod, if you will.

The first of these characteristics is a trait that evolved in all vertebrate species, a long time ago. When primates do something positive for fellow primates, their brains get a little charge of dopamine. Apparently, this happens in all vertebrates, but for some reason seems more pronounced in primates. This chemical gives pleasure so ancient human ancestors tended to do positive things for each other because of this reward even though they did not understand it. Modern neurological research supports this idea in both human and non-human primates.

The effect of this trait for human beings is that they are social, preferring to work positively with others and to co-operate in positive social ways.

The second of these characteristics, tribalism, is also an evolved trait. It, too, is present throughout the primate family, although it seems somewhat diminished in bonobos. Tribalism is the tendency to form small groups or sets of primates that co-operate with members of the same tribe, but not so much with other tribes

Tribalism seems to be the result of finite limits to food resources for foragers and hunter-gatherers. Without the science of cultivation to enhance food production, ancient human ancestors needed a minimum area for foraging and, later hunter-gathering. This, combined with relatively limited ability to travel long distances, also tended to isolate social groups geographically. This tribalism continues in modern ape species. Chimpanzees, for example, are very tribal with well establish territories. Their tribes often get into serious conflict along the borders of adjoining territories. Sound familiar?

This trait, then, in its extreme form, is a negative characteristic that can cause real conflict between different tribes. In the modern world, human beings use different terms for tribes-nations, churches, clubs, and so on, but these entities retain most of the characteristics of tribes.

There are, then, two seemingly opposing instincts: dopamine addiction and tribalism. How can Secular Humanists claim to develop ethics or moral codes from that teeter-totter?

Enter the third, predominantly human, characteristic, reason. Human beings have the most highly developed ability to reason on the planet (until cetaceans mount a good lobby group). Sophisticated human language skills, including the tendency to think in word form as well as communicate with each other give human beings considerable control over the first two traits.

This third characteristic allows human beings to balance the two other characteristics. Yes, balance is necessary. One might think that human beings would be better off abandoning tribalism completely.

However, without it, dopamine pursuit would lead to gullibility and make human beings very vulnerable. Pulling a thorn out of a lion's paw is a noble idea, but in a purely dopamine-driven psychology very dangerous without the due caution one would need to pull it off -- sorry out.

Controlled tribalism serves a purpose. It makes human beings sufficiently wary of unknown people and circumstances to reduce their vulnerability. This is the basis of the street smarts that help a child resist helping the stranger to look for the puppy.

When reason fails, either dopamine pursuit or tribalism takes over. The result is that human beings become either victims or predators and ethics go out the window. That is essentially what happens if tribalism is strong enough to give someone a dopamine response from following a dogma without the balance of reason.

Secular Humanists use reason to develop ethical guidelines balancing the dopamine reflex and tribalism to make moral decisions. This isn't necessarily easy and not always successful, but the technique works at least as well as the technique of following a fixed set of rules set down in the past, often with tribalism as the predominant consideration.

Secular Humanists do not rely on a dogma-based answer to an ethical question, but will take time to apply reason to make the best possible decision under the circumstances present.

 

Follow Doug Thomas on Twitter: www.twitter.com/@DJT_Humanist

FOLLOW CANADA
 
 
  • Comments
  • 51
  • Pending Comments
  • 0
  • View FAQ
Comments are closed for this entry
View All
Bloggers
Recency  | 
Popularity
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
Stephen Solyom
I am me
01:53 AM on 02/23/2013
And from that flow certain basic attitudes which constitute the majority of our ethical decision making. So virtue truly is its own reward, because being virtuous allows us the confidence of knowing that others will likely be so also. I'd rather live in a universe where I did not regard every unknown as a threat, regardless of whether it was or was not. And to do so, I must be able to live up to my own expectations at least most of the time.
And that is how I choose to think of secular ethics, even if it's less utilitarian than your explanation.
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
Stephen Solyom
I am me
01:52 AM on 02/23/2013
(2 of 3)
Teaching intro to philosophy I came up against the same question time and again: what does it mean to say that "virtue is its own reward"? Isn't just, as Nietzsche and others have suggested, just a coded injunction designed to suppress the powerless? Well, here's my explanation from a philosophical (logical) viewpoint, making explicit reference to internal mental states, as to why virtue is its own reward...
We humans create our own narratives to explain ourselves to ourselves and others, and to make sense of the world around us. These narratives take the form of a world-view or paradigm, and even if they are inaccurate or wholly wrong, form the basis of all our decision making. While we may derive our sense of what is right from dopamine, or tribalism, we pursue it because of another imperative, which is a variation on Kant: By doing so ourselves, we guarantee that the principle of our actions could be universalized. In other words, if we "do the right thing" we guarantee the possibility that others will also "do the right thing". Conversely, if we fail to do what we know we ought, we create a universe where we must accept that others probably will not either. One of these two narratives in turn becomes the basis upon which our being in the universe depends.
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
Stephen Solyom
I am me
01:52 AM on 02/23/2013
I think your suggestions about the tripodal basis for ethics in a secular context make sense as an empirical description of how neurochemistry and genetic programming may underlie the complex behaviours, the totality of which we call "ethics". The problem with these and the rather nebulous concept of "reason" that you refer to is that they do not account for human beings' deep-seated need to explain the consciousness of moral decision making, when not unduly influenced either by dopamine or tribal imperatives. I am an atheist and have met many atheists, secularists and humanists who reject religion, but nevertheless accept faith. Some also accept dogma, with unfortunate irony. Faith is a description of the inner mental state of certainty, whether it is based on fidelity to religious dogmas, or not. History reveals over and over again that today's unshakable scientific principles are tomorrow's quaint but erroneous notions, so to credit all explications as pure science seems at best ill-advised. Even if, as it turns out, it is the best information we have to go on.
04:01 AM on 02/10/2013
Interesting discussion. I am curious. How did the primates know if something was positive? If it is just dopamine, child molesters get a similar charge of dopamine from child porn and abuse of children. Very few if anyone would say that is a positive thing. Studies have also shown the link between porn addiction and dopamine, which again is released when viewed. I am curious how this supports your argument.
09:45 AM on 02/11/2013
There is no question that the dopamine response does not guarantee good behaviour since, as you point out, that is often a subjective decision. The dopamine response is not limited to primates so the question really is, how do any vertebrates know what is good. Wolves exhibit many of the same characteristics, and raise their cubs in what could be considered a village.

Drug addiction is also caused by the dopamine result since addictive substances trigger it artificially.

I do not claim that the dopamine response always leads to what we would agree are positive social results. Certainly, our fellow apes do not always act in what we would consider moral ways. Leadership is decided by the strongest male, who manages to breed with the most females and cannibalism is common. The dopamine response in the absence of reason, however, does lead to general support of the society they live in.

The key for us human beings is abstract reasoning which has generated the notion of equality and is a result of our ability to reason. That is why reason is essential in developing ethical positions.
10:43 AM on 02/09/2013
Actually, it's quite simple: if you have some petulant theist demanding to know how you can develop ethical standards without God you simply reply "by thinking for myself; you should try it some time".
06:03 PM on 02/09/2013
Yes, that is true. Sometimes they like a little more detailed answer, though.
05:36 AM on 02/10/2013
I specified "petulant" because in that case it doesn't matter how much detail you go into they won't accept it. So you might as well give a pithy answer and move on. And if someone is accusing an atheist of having no moral base, they're far more likely to be petulant than reasonable.
photo
jarnakak
fava beans and sweet breads are for sissies
10:25 AM on 02/09/2013
what made me a humanist is a life-long commitment to the study of the classics (granted, it came only in my twenties because i wasn't taught in the liberal arts as a child). the judeo-christian bible; the greek discourse on philosophy, ethics, aesthetics, poetics, and methods of reasoning; the american/european literary tradition (ie, in sharp contrast to canadian literature which i find rather unsatisfying); the literary criticism and social commentaries of northrop frye, umberto eco, richard rorty, john dewey; the love of history and politics...

i 'discovered' the method of historical-development pedagogy quite by accident but it's given me the world (people to emulate, principles to strive for, and appreciation that knowledge and ethical behaviour are not god-given but gained through the efforts and genius of the human spirit).

there is an image in lao tzu's te ching that i try and live by, the getting rid of things as a program to enlightenment, and how i try and approach it is by educating myself and the peeling away of my prejudices and preconceived notions and get to the first principles of discourse. i know it sounds paradoxical, but i believe true education is one that rids you (by way of reasoning) of detritus you inevitably accumulate as you grow older.
12:00 AM on 02/10/2013
Wow kudos to you.
I'm a humanist because it just makes sense.
09:23 AM on 02/09/2013
What a great explanation! Thank you. This does more to motivate be to be altruistic than do all the threats of hell fire and promises of a better seat in paradise. Wooooohoooooo. Thank you Mr. Thomas.
09:11 AM on 02/09/2013
As a secular humanist, I'd say my ethics was developed mostly through thinking about my relationship to the world around me. Science shows that the matter and energy that I am made of emanated from the Big Bang, the same as the matter and energy that makes up everything else. So the point is clear that humans (and in fact the entire Universe) are all "one." With that understanding, I am not able to make egocentric judgments and actions towards others when my "faith" teaches me a unicentric reality. So I live according to my faith, which is grounded in atheism and a concern for others that is equal to or greater than concern for myself.
This user has chosen to opt out of the Badges program
photo
11:36 PM on 02/08/2013
God is a delusion by Dawkins
06:06 PM on 02/09/2013
And your point is?
This user has chosen to opt out of the Badges program
photo
11:33 PM on 02/08/2013
Really,
09:46 AM on 02/11/2013
Are you suggesting that Dawkins' book supports the ideas I have presented or is a counter example?
This user has chosen to opt out of the Badges program
photo
12:17 PM on 02/19/2013
not sure where you are coming from. The BOOK explains it all about those who believe in a god and the science that explains there was never a god. Delusions come from MAN's mind. There are many in this world. God is one .
photo
HUFFPOST BLOGGER
Diane Weber Bederman
10:16 PM on 02/08/2013
The definition of a tribe is all members are alike.Similar DNA There are tribal nations today whose reasoned ethical system includes honour killings, child soldiers, the selling of children, infanticide,etc..

Humanism assumes all people are rational.. Yet, history shows we aren't. Humanism cannot claim to be as successful as extrinsic based ethics. Take a look at North Korea, today and then back into the 20th century where multi-millions of people died in countries ruled by the unreasonable, irrational.

Getting along with "others" is not instinctual.

“We are predisposed to break the world up into different human groups based on the most subtle and seemingly irrelevant cues, and that, to some extent, is the dark side of morality... to some extent, a bias to favor the self, where the self could be people who look like me, people who act like me, people who have the same taste as me, is a very strong human bias. It's what one would expect from a creature like us who evolved from natural selection, but it has terrible consequences.” (Paul Bloom,Yale University, studies from the Baby Lab in 2012)

Evolution predisposes us to be wary of "the other" for survival, so we need society and parental nurturing to intervene. “And the truth is, when we're under pressure, when life is difficult, we regress to our younger selves and all of this elaborate stuff we have on top disappears.” (CBS 60 Minutes Nov 18, 2012 transcript) DWB
11:23 AM on 02/09/2013
I don't recall saying the concept is perfect any more than religious moral rules are. It is just our way. Nice summary of what I said in different words, by the way.

If getting along with others is not instinctual, how to our fellow apes (bonobos, chimpanzees, etc.) not to mention other animals like wolves get along socially?

The most effective balance between tribalism and "dopamine-ism" is reason unless one accepts the the presence of some supreme being which we don't.
photo
HUFFPOST BLOGGER
Diane Weber Bederman
04:11 PM on 02/09/2013
We teach children to get along. Selfishness is the default position. Caring for one's own, one's tribe has a genetic component. But it is far from perfect. Mothers of animals have been known to leave behind wounded babies. Instinct for personal survival takes over. Some of our closest genetic relatives kill each other.

Caring for those outside your tribe requires an ethic that teaches it.

Reason isn't an absolute. Again, your assumption is that people are rational and can keep emotion out of the equation. Scientific research says differently-Dr. Herbert Benson, Dr. Antonio Damasio, Gary Latham, Ronald F Piccolo.

Regarding morals and ethics.-the Judeo-Christian ethic-it is perfect-it is human beings who are not. I can't think of anything to argue about regarding the Ten Commandments. Murder,child sacrifice, incest, gossip that led to killing, coveting that led to killing were all accepted as part of the culture prior to the arrival of commandments.

I know you mentioned Hammurabi-that ethical system did not survive.The ethics included killing the children of those who "sinned."

History has shown that the Enlightenment brought great things into the world- but it led to deism, then atheism and secularism that brought the greatest killing machine known to man into the world. Reason made it possible for Hitler to redefine the meaning of human and Stalin just decided that it made sense to let multiple millions of people starve. DWB
12:40 PM on 02/09/2013
I think most of the negative situations in "tribes" are caused by a small number of aberrant members taking control. The majority may go along with the situation due to fear and the difficulty of living outside what has now been imposed as the norm. There are examples all through history of the tribe evolving, abandoning and forcefully overthrowing negative influences. On the whole, over time, the way the majority of people wish to conduct their lives and interactions follows the article's point. I feel it often comes down to those who look outward, seeing, thinking and understanding the world and beings around them create an ethical, successful tribe. Those who are the opposite, seek to control tribes for themselves. Sometimes they do. You can try to teach ethics. A person can recite ethics by rote. But to be ethical, you must learn them, understand them, feel their rightness.
This user has chosen to opt out of the Badges program
09:52 PM on 02/08/2013
While I agree humans are social, in the sense that we are close & intimate with those close to us, immediate family & close friends.

Humans are not social in the context that is used today. That of major events & large social functions, clubs & groups. These are created social situations that have been propagated creating the belief such are the norm when they are not an innate human characteristic or trait.

Humans are in fact no more social than a bear, fox or deer. This is easily evidence by our human history dating back thousands of years.

Tribalism is no different, it is a trait created through propagation, it's not an innate human characteristic.

What all your secular humanist notions amount to is indoctrination to create conformity. Fine for those in control & setting the rules to suite their needs, not so good for those forced to suffer such fools!
11:12 AM on 02/09/2013
Yet recent studies have found that babies show compassion and empathy at a very young age, and more recent work on animals, elephants, primates and many others show that they too show compassion and kindness and will act contrary to the dictates one would expect from wild animals even with those considered to be their prey or enemies. The more we learn about the brain the more we learn about behaviour but we have years to go in delving into the mystery of the brain. I am inclined to think looking at the history of religion that it has not added much to the question of ethics or reasoned compassion toward others. It just tries to take the credit when none is due. .
This user has chosen to opt out of the Badges program
06:32 PM on 02/09/2013
Compassion & empathy are expressions of Love, children display such because they have not yet been programmed by our society. Observe children after immersion in our education systems for a few years. The compassion & empathy are gone, not permanently since Love is an integral part of our being & can never be removed. Our society however can & does suppress Love through it's indoctrination.
11:27 AM on 02/09/2013
Indoctrination? Since when is an appeal to use reason indoctrination.

We are just offering a positive philosophy. I haven't met many Secular Humanists who agree totally on anything and we certainly don't ask them to - and, yes, I am going to get as much flak from my fellow Humanists for using Secular with the word and probably for much else that I say. It is called rational discussion - a process that is not enhanced by dismissive, inaccurate accusations of indoctrination.
This user has chosen to opt out of the Badges program
06:30 PM on 02/09/2013
I never said using reason was indoctrination, I said your notions were "indoctrination to create conformity". You want everyone to follow your beliefs, no different than religion or anyone who uses ideals to control others.

I also pointed out your methodology of looking at & using traits is rather suspect.

Were those rules laid down in religious text not the result of reason, are what humanists suggest not also being laid down in text?

You are simply claiming humanist suggestions are more valid than religion suggestions because you use reason. Well everyone uses reason including religion which destroys your entire argument, does it not?
This user has chosen to opt out of the Badges program
12:45 AM on 02/12/2013
I couldn't reply to your last comment directly, seems we are running out of options.

Certainly opinion is indoctrination, as per Websters definition.

Your blog was based on the notion that using reason in your context supersedes religions ancient text when it comes to ethics. Is that not an attempt at discrediting religious belief?

Empiricism is great for the present tense where observation & experience are at play. That isn't the case when dealing with the past of future. The past & future require rationalism (philosophy) to acquire knowledge & understanding.

Do ethics change, or does societies wants & desires attempt to dictate that ethics should change to suite that's societies needs?

Lying, killing & stealing were deemed ethically bad 2,000 years ago, yet today we have created elaborate exceptions to justify all three. That modernization of ethics based on current rational just doesn't seem that good or inspiring.