But one could reasonably expand Popper’s line without (necessarily) distorting the meaning: “If an act results in a reduction of needless suffering, all else being equal, it is a good act.”

Clearly, we have many values. We value the absence of suffering, which is why the death of a man with a terminal and excruciatingly painful disease is, at least partly, a relief to the survivors who loved him. But we also value people’s active well-being, their capacity to thrive and enjoy life, and of course their ability to direct own lives without undue coercion from others.

Killing people just because they are suffering may eliminate the “evil” of their suffering, but it also cuts short any possibility of their thriving in the future, and it denies their capacity to choose for themselves.

It is true that balancing these values is a difficult task. Humanism (or any appropriately thoughtful ethical stance) asks us to face these difficulties rather than hiding behind other people’s directives (be they religious, legal, or whatever).

I also think that people who, like Steve, play the relativism card, are overstating the issue. The values that humanists (and most other ethical people) assert are not arbitrary. They are products of our human nature. Whether you ascribe that nature to mindless evolutionary forces, an abstract moral order to the universe, or to a personal creator god, the (observable, measurable) fact is that most people share these values.

Those elements of our moral values that virtually everyone agrees on have come to be part of the language of universal human rights. The various legal systems around the world have developed (in part) to arbitrate those instances where individuals honestly differ on the appropriate ethical stance on a particular issue.

Hugo, as for the definition of humanist/Humanist – in our student society we briefly debated between calling it the Edinburgh University Humanist Society and the Edinburgh University Secular Humanist Society. In the end, we went with the simpler option. It’s more straightforward, and there are relatively few humanists who are not also secular, so it’s unlikely to be misleading. Also, many humanist organizations use “humanist” to indicate “secular humanist”, so I think the distinction isn’t that clear in the language anyway. See, for example, IHEU (International Humanist and Ethical Union), HSS (Humanist Society of Scotland), BHA (British Humanist Association), IHS (Institute for Humanist Studies).

People who have no internal compass, have no problem killing other people, are typically labelled psychopaths. They are considered deviating from what is typically considered “human”.

I think limited reproductive rights would be a good thing. (It saved China… hehe.) See how often it is addressed in sci-fi novels… Though, I wonder, maybe the opposite will eventually be necessary. Everyone is required to have at least one child… considering how developed, wealthy countries rather have somewhat of a problem maintaining their population.

Anyway, I digress. Shall we try keeping the comments on-topic? (Or maybe better, let the conversation die? Euthanasia! )

The law also puts a bit of a damper on these arguments because even if we wanted to cull people (or whatever) then the law will not be on our side. Which sure isn’t an argument that it is wrong. The law is about what is “good” if everybody follows the law, and obviously doesn’t directly apply to individual situations. Also breaking the law will hamper a person’s individual freedom – so although we maybe can’t make an argument about the moral authority of the law, most people wouldn’t want to have their personal freedom hampered.

Still…talking about human society in its whole…the world is already overpopulated. And sure there is a statistical decrease in births as societies get wealthier, but I mean even today in certain cultures its okay to have quite a lot of children. Jung actually mentioned towards the end of his life that the greatest threat to the human species isn’t war, poverty, or any of the things we usually worry about…but overpopulation…

So in this sense people are indicated as a problem. And this is probably something that will only be solved by limiting people’s freedom to have a lot of children. But “freedom” and the concept that limiting someone’s freedom is actually moral\immoral is probably a whole different discussion.

I would like to disagree that my feelings are more correct than another’s feelings though. My feelings are not correct… except, of course, that you probably mean my “feelings” that “reason” is the best method to determine right and wrong… (oh, and add to that “compassion”, I believe in compassion…) So true, I guess I didn’t need to answer that, oops.

Culling: typically, no. Because I consider that “suffering”, wasted life, wasted potential. But yes, it is quite tricky. Euthanasia is tricky. Suicide is tricky… I happen to have a quote about ethics and suicide in my quotes collection:

“There is but one truly serious philosophical problem, and that is suicide. Judging whether life is or is not worth living amounts to answering the fundamental question of philosophy.”
— Albert Camus

Hmm, and now this comes to mind:

“The ability to quote is a servicable substitute for wit.”
— W. Somerset Maugham

Oh, and culling is typically one group deciding what’s best for another, that would be “wrong” from my perspective. They have the right to life. If they beg for euthanasia though, what then? (And there, I don’t know…)

Don’t answer that, I’m just doing the echo thing of what I hear when I’m reading what you write.

So, back to the question: culling. Yes or no? And why?

We strive with imperfect knowledge, often end up with an imperfect solution… but we try. Making use of religious texts could be useful, you’d be drawing inspiration from other people from long ago. Critical thinking and use of reason remains important then, though. I don’t find the “alleged revealed nature” to be valid. If you stone your child, I’d call it wrong.

I’d hope Christians would typically be “guided by the spirit”, rather than by the literal words from the Bible? I’d hope that effectively means employing reason…?

Reason and compassion. (Compare Christian values: Be compassionate, as God is compassionate…)

What if your reasoning and my reasoning on culling people differs? Does that just mean it’s wrong for you and it’s right for me? Suppose our conclusions disagree only because I made a logical error which I would correct if I knew about it. Is it still wrong for you and right for me?

I suggest that religious people employ their reasoning when they make inferences from their religious texts (whether by literal acceptance, or by exercising interpretation and taking context into account). Their reasoning may start with for some reason accepting their religious text as revealed, but that is either an axiom or a conclusion of their world view.

So if it’s a wrong-for-you-right-for-me situation, their revealed-text solutions are perfectly valid (unless there’s some logical error in accepting the revealed text you’d have to convince them of). And if it’s a “there’s-an-absolute-right” situation, who says they should trust someone else’s reasoning over their revealed text?

“Should we go with Leviticus, which suggests slavery is O.K. and that eating shellfish is abomination? How about Deuteronomy, which suggests stoning your child if he strays from the faith? Or should we just stick to the Sermon on the Mount — a passage so radical that it’s doubtful that our Defense Department would survive its application?…”

I must say, I like the way Obama thinks. Maybe I should be paying more attention to my own country’s politics than US politics, though?

‘So what is the best way to determine whether or not it is good to cull people? Not literalistic interpretations of your favourite … “revealed text”…’

Does that mean it’s better to motivate it because the internal moral compass said it would reduce suffering? And if so, why?

Euthanasia is a similar example where the lines must be pretty blurred as a humanist.

Effectively, then, without an objective measure, we’re reduced to doing what “feels right” (which links to what you call “our own intentions”). But then what does ‘ good ethics and “spirituality” ‘ mean? Isn’t that implicitly saying there’s some sort of gold standard of goodness for which we should be aiming?
And if so, where does it come from?

This humanism-thing seems *VERY* interesting as they (Humanists) seems to be proponents of skepticism, critical thinking, but also drawing on philosophy in the form of e.g ethics to live a better life. And what can be wrong with that?

The following snippet from Wikipedia was also interesting: (as my first thought when I started reading your recent posts was how Humanism differs from nontheism – and does help to indicate the difference between It and other more religious or anti-religious (constrained) philosophies)

“Agnosticism or atheism on their own do not necessarily entail Humanism; many different and sometimes incompatible philosophies happen to be atheistic in nature. There is no one ideology or set of behaviors to which all atheists adhere, and not all are humanistic.[4][5]

As Humanism encompasses intellectual currents running through a wide variety of philosophical and religious thought, several strains of Humanism allow it to fulfill, supplement or supplant the role of religions, and in particular, to be embraced as a complete life stance.”

About Steve’s comment. Is it really able to have a discussion on things like that? Because the consequences of certain actions can just not be calculated. So in a sense we are working with incomplete information. How can one do good in a system where one works with incomplete information about the system? Because the information about the system being incomplete…the long-term effect of anything can’t really be determined.

Maybe its better to just focus on our own intentions. I mean if we differentiate between inner and outer states, where outer states refer to reality and inner states refer to our own thoughts…then the only thing we can be assured of in the end (and can control) is the inner states. And hopefully if our inner states is congruent with good ethics and “spirituality”…then hopefully the long-term effects on the outer states would be the best we can hope for…

But not necessarily… >:-D