peacefulpete,
Do'nt you think that the present uncertainties about humanist ethics (both of the authors and readers) is to be expected considering the relative newness of the field.
As with any new religion, philosophical wrangling is to be expected, and given enough time should yield a more marketable and practical relevence for its adherents.
I wonder if the arguement you two are engaged in is'nt essentially about interpretation.
Yes, when someone has lost the ability to successfully defend an absolutist statement the likes of what JanH stated, they often times resort to the fall back position of hair splitting definition wrangling. It is merely a vain attempt to avoid embarrassment.
The funny thing is that I often times find myself agueing against what I myself believe to be a good thing just to challenge statements that are clearly designed to manipulate.
A much stronger argument could be made that Ethical Relativism is critical to the "principle" foundation for some Humanists.
The problem is that some Humanists want to codify everything. There are some principles that are so lofty that any attempt to fully capture them with mere words, limits and dilutes them the minute they are characterized and codified. I believe them to be living principles that can only truly thrive in an environment of behavioral expression outside the awareness of the individual. This is where I believe the Humanist movement will end up.
This may be the true role for humanists.To be a stabilizing force in a world torn by ideologies. Religion may be simply a term for the attempt to formulate a more detailed pattern for life.In this sense religion is essential for society.
Stability is one of the main functions any religion plays in society..... whether it be communism, marxism, Christianity, Hinduism, or secular humanism. Any world view organized enough to disseminate its ideas to a populace is religious by virtue of its function. Whether its evangelists choose to call it a religion or not is more a decision based on marketing rather than Sociology.
The true believers of any movement have no problem with this truth, even if it is only characterized as such privately.
The criteria used by such a religion would no doubt include subjectivity and perceptual norms.Thats OK.
I'm in total agreement with this. However, if one of the main marketing tools of an ideology is to deny its religious function and to promote laughable claims about its total objectivity and its adherence to only factual criteria in the expression of such in social policy formation; then a critical mass will be reached where the benefits of dropping such claims will outweigh the liabilities associated with the marketing strategy change.
When that happens, it is then possible for a more relevant religion to emerge for the masses that will no doubt openly include the subjectivity and perceptual norms you describe.
The only problem with that is that you will have exactly the same type of heiarchal religion that we see today with the exception that it's moral foundation will then be openly intrerpreted by those in power; and if information is controlled tightly enough .....completely unchallenged by those subjected to it. I see a sound basis for an eventual Orwellian world when religion is based strictly on an internal perception rather than an external toouchstone.
Adherents of any ideology should openly fight to have all major world views taught, openly debated and fairly critiqued. That is the responsibility of each and every member of this planet IMHO. Without rigorous critique our leaders will inevitably become corrupt and our societies will inevitable be "dumbed down"
After God is gone from the collective mind, the hunger to be led will continue.
You can bet that the social engineers understand this fact 100% Are you really so nieve to believe that this will not be exploited to the advantage of the powerful?
Fictious or not, the concept of God is far more critical to freedom than many would like to imagine.