Chosen Plaintext Indistinguishable from white noise

When you’re making a list of what’s naughty and nice, check it twice.

Yesterday, somebody posted this puff piece on secular ethics to one of the discussion groups that I frequent. It's called "Ten Commandments for a Global Humanism", and it's pretty disappointing for something written by a guy with a Ph.D in Economics who wrote a book on secular ethics. Here's a slightly-revised version of my original reaction:

TEN COMMANDMENTS FOR A GLOBAL HUMANISM
(Dr. Rodrigue TREMBLAY)
http://www.moralitywithoutreligion.com/
and
http://www.amazon.com/Code-Global-Ethics-Humanist-Principles/dp/1616141727

Wow, is this fellow actually serious? This list seems vague, dogmatic, and exclusionary. The author crashes through some very difficult and contentious questions by bluntly asserting arbitrary answers that aren't even consistent with each other.

I can't see this ever serving as a manifesto for any kind of social movement. At best, it raises more questions than it answers:

1- Proclaim the natural dignity and inherent worth of all human beings.

What are "dignity" and "worth"? Are they physical quantities? If so, how can they be measured? If not, how can they be "natural" or "inherent"? Surely, they aren't supernatural if we're going to assume the principles #5 and #6.

2- Respect the life and property of others.

Is it impossible for a humanist to function in a culture that lacks a concept of property? What happens when a person's property includes slaves?

Also, what exactly does it mean to "respect" life? Is killing someone, but giving them a dignified burial, more or less respectful than spitting in their face?

3- Practice tolerance and open-mindedness towards the choices and life styles of others.

Do we need to be "open-minded" towards all choices and lifestyles? What would such open-mindedness entail? What does it mean to 'practice tolerance of the choices and lifestyles' of serial murderers like Paul Bernardo and Karla Homolka?

Is drawing conclusions allowed at all, or must we, as the saying goes, "be so open-minded that our brains fall out"? If there is a line to be drawn, how do these principles help us determine where to draw that line?

4- Share with those who are less fortunate and mutually assist those who are in need of help.

I'm not sure what it means to "mutually assist" in this context. Why not just assist those who are in need of help, unequivocally (or at least where it's not too difficult)?

Shouldn't we also share with those who are more fortunate? Why are we talking about Fortune, anyway? I thought spiritual doctrine was out of bounds:

5- Use neither lies, nor spiritual doctrine, nor temporal power to dominate and exploit others.

What is meant by "exploit" here? Under a broad definition of the term, I think it would be impossible for any employer to comply with this. If a narrower definition is implied---meaning to "unfairly exploit"---how do these principles help to us determine what's fair?

Can I use lies, spiritual doctrine, or temporal power for other reasons, for example, if I decide that it's for other people's own good? (You all need to be saved by Jesus, after all.)

6- Rely on reason, logic and science to understand the Universe and to solve life's problems.

Ok.

7- Conserve and improve the Earth's natural environment—land, soil, water, air and space—as humankind's common heritage.

What does it mean to "improve" the Earth's natural environment? Is genetic engineering okay?

8- Resolve differences and conflicts cooperatively without resorting to violence or to wars.

Is humanism necessarily unsustainable? This sure is. Being non-violent only works when nobody uses violence, or when one side will stop using violence before an unacceptable amount of loss is suffered.

Is it impossible to be a humanist and a police officer at the same time? Should police officers and SWAT refuse to resort to any violence?

Would it be unacceptable to use violence to shorten any of the following events?

• 1966 University of Texas massacre
• 1989 École Polytechnique massacre
• 1999 Columbine High School massacre
• 1999 W.R. Myers High School shooting (in Taber, Alberta)
• 2007 Virginia Tech massacre

A useful ethical system should withstand the fact that not everyone is going to adhere to it all the time. How did Dr. Tremblay, who apparently has a Ph.D. in economics, not recognize this as a prisoner's dilemma?

9- Organize public affairs according to individual freedom and responsibility, through political and economic democracy.

Can there be a conflict between individual freedom and individual responsibility? If not, why is this impossible? If so, how do these principles help us to resolve such a conflict?

Does being a humanist necessitate being a proponent of economic democracy? What should happen when people, through political democracy, choose to organize themselves in a fashion not compatible with economic democracy?

What if people, again through political democracy, severely restrict the freedom of a subset of individuals? If twenty wolves and ten sheep use democracy to decide what to have for dinner, is it acceptable for the sheep to resort to violence or to war to assert their independence? (See #8.)

10- Develop one's intelligence and talents through education and effort.

Ok, sure, that's good advice. It's also good to be a non-smoker and to eat a healthy diet. I don't think that defines humanism, though.

The Code for Global Ethics: Ten Humanist Principles
Prometheus Books,
(ISBN: 978-1-61614-172-1), 2010.

The whole idea of having "ten commandments of humanism" is silly and utterly embarrassing. Why should humanists adopt any number of "commandments" dictated by someone? Isn't relying on authority contrary to relying on reason, logic, and science?

Why is it necessary for humanists to be such a homogeneous group, anyway? What happened to open-mindedness and individual freedom?

I think, once we remove all the arbitrary crap, we're left with this:

1. Rely on reason, logic and science to understand the Universe and to solve life's problems.
2. Don't smoke; it's smelly and it's bad for everyone. Also, lose weight, you fat bastard.

I think that makes for a much better humanist manifesto, don't you? ;-)

Atheist Week on Facebook – from an apartment in Ottawa

Some people on Facebook are running a campaign this week they're calling 'A'theist Week on Facebook. The idea is to raise awareness of atheism by asking atheists to assert themselves by simply changing their profile photos to the Out Campaign's scarlet letter A for the week of March 29 - April 6, 2010. Here's the advertisement I posted on my wall:

An atheist is a person who does not believe the statement, "God exists".

In the 2001 Census, "No religious affiliation" accounted for 16.5% of the population in Canada. That's more than Jews, Muslims, Sikhs, and all other non-Christians combined (6.4%). It's more than seniors (13%), more than teachers (Social science, education, government service and religion: 7.7%), more than aborigional peoples (3.3%), and more than all visible minorities combined (16%). And it's growing: a Harris-Decima poll conducted in 2008 found that fewer than 75% of Canadians believe in a god.

Atheists disagree with each other constantly. We share neither god, nor leader, nor political ideology. We argue over what to call ourselves. We are not left-wing or right-wing. We are not a fringe group. We are not baby-eaters. We are your neighbours, your co-workers, your relatives, and your friends. We are Canadian, we are citizens, and we expect to be taken seriously.