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
And that is how I choose to think of secular ethics, even if it's less utilitarian than your explanation.
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.
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.
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.
I'm a humanist because it just makes sense.
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
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.
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
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!
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.
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?
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.