Viewing a single comment thread. View all comments

soynadie-66 t1_iqxcbsd wrote

Is the so-called "evolutionary humanism" is philosophy to be taken seriously? The German philosopher Michael Schmidt-Salomon even wrote a book entitled "Manifesto of Evolutionary Humanism".

In my opinion it is even a contradictiion in terms.

On the one hand the theory of evolution, which tells us that Homo sapiens too is nothing else than an animal, an evolved living being like millions of others. If Sapiens also has specific characteristics that distinguish us from apes, for example, this is nothing unusual, since many species have such characteristics or abilities that are not found in other species, without this entailing a special position.

But this is exactly the basic idea of humanism: that man has a special position within nature. Classical humanism saw this special position in the fact that man alone connects the material world with the spiritual and divine worlds ; man therefore has a mediating role between the "above" and the "below".

Modern humanism is no longer based on the idea of the spiritual or even the divine. Nevertheless, it grants man a special position by ascribing to him a unique DIGNITY (from which then special "human rights" can be derived). This dignity distinguishes Sapiens - and only him ! - It marks the qualitative difference, the gap which separates the human being from the animal kingdom.

Here's a question for those who would deny that such a qualatitive gap exists: imagine a herd a migrating wildebeests somewhere in Africa. They cross a river and 50 of them drown. Now image a group a migrating humans, and 50 of them drown while trying to cross the Mediterranean or the Rio Grande. Is there a difference in value between the two accidents? The first incident is just something that happens every day in nature; animals are born, they surive, they die. But the death of 50 human migrants is not something in the category "things happen": is a tragedy. Because of special human dignity.

To sum it up: The evolution theory says: no special role / special position for the H.sapiens. Humanism says: yes, because only the human being, regardless of his abilities, has a special dignity.

Therefore the "evolutionary humanism" is a philosophical impossibility, the attempt of a squaring of the circle.

1

Particular-Alfalfa-1 t1_iqxh10i wrote

Evolution makes no claim about human worth either way. It's the scientific theory that explains the origins of humans, and human morality. Humanism is not a scientific theory, it's an assertion that humans have worth. We assert it because we're humans.

2

soynadie-66 t1_iqxjhee wrote

In this case humanism is the equivalent of racism, just on the level of species. We ascribe to ourselves a special human dignity just as white racists ascribe a special value to themselves. There is no justification behind this assertion, just pride (be it as a race or a species)

3

regberdog t1_ir0a5xy wrote

this is so bad man holy crap. please read some philosophy, please.

Racism is not the statement that "we are deserving of valued" it's the statement that "they are not deserving of being valued".

It's the opposite thing, and it's incoherent. Where as the humanist says human life is valuable, the racist says that human life is and is not valuable.

2

Particular-Alfalfa-1 t1_ir29g45 wrote

Humanism doesn't assert that animals don't have value, but simply that humans have value. More importantly it claims that humans must be the solution to human problems, as opposed to deities. Considering value in this definition is a broad and subjective philosophical word, it can certainly be compatible with an scientific understanding. Also it's not really pride, although pride in moderation is a good thing. We should be proud of ourselves and of humanity for many things, and disappointed for other things. The fact that we evolved doesn't mean we shouldn't value human life.

2

regberdog t1_ir0a7v1 wrote

holy crap that reply you got is messed up, and it's upvoted. is this sub always so bad?

2

regberdog t1_ir0ab8t wrote

did you read the book, or did you literally read the title and just imagine that that's all there was to it.

literally 4 second google says they care about humanist values in an evolutionary context. Context =/= values.

wait... do you think no one who believes that natural selection exists can have morals. ffs.

2

Ennethkay t1_iroji3j wrote

Here is an idea. Computer software is non-material & functions only when integrated with computer hardware. Similarly, human mental processes are non-material & function only when integrated with physical body "hardware". Hardware of the body is designed to house the software of the spirit.

1