Humanists are defined not only by their emphasis on reason and critical
thinking in evaluating truth claims, but also by their acknowledgement of
humanist values.
|
By "humanist values" I mean those that elevate, sustain and integrate a
society beyond merely physical or mechanical operations. I mean values that
profoundly influence a culture and people to liberate itself from excessive
legalistic or artificial constrictions - particularly those that deny
maximizing humane conditions for the largest number of its citizens.
|
For example, a humanist manifesto - which appeals to the application of
humanist values, would embrace all of the following:
|
- A living wage to support families, not merely a minimum wage that
only permits barest survival (currently the living wage movement posits this
at $9.50/hour).
- Affordable housing set aside in every community, as a preventive to
homelessness.
- A universal health care benefit applicable to all citizens - not
merely those with the assets, or jobs to afford it. (The U.S. was also a
signatory to a 1994 UN Declaration making health care a right. It cannot be
if it bankrupts particular groups without insurance.)
- Treating drug addiction as the brain illness it is, rather than a
crime to be punished - further depriving millions of civil liberties, and
converting the society overall into a police state.
- Establishing a set of rights applicable to all workers, in whatever
venue - rights that include the most basic such as ability to use lavatory
facilities whenever needed, not merely when convenient to employers.
|
Most original humanists (including Julian Huxley in his "Evolutionary
Humanism") would regard the rejection of any or all of these as an effective
rejection of humanism. If so, then the values embraced are not only
non-humanist but also inhumane. And rather than supporting the "promotion of
the general welfare" (see e.g. the preamble to the U.S. Constitution) these
groups are probably supporting an artificial human construction designed to
limit humane conditions to the few or elite groups.
|
To be sure, the sincere humanist appreciates that at its core, his philosophy
bids him to personally assist his fellow man. That's why I, and many others,
joined the Peace Corps, for example. It's also why many of us volunteer our
time in community projects or one-on-one assistance, such as reading to the
blind, preparing meals for the elderly or whatever.
|
However, the sincere humanist is also a realist who recognizes that the
maximization of the welfare of the aggregate society cannot come by personal
or individual efforts alone. There must also be a role here for the positive
influence of government - and not by abdicating to "faith based" charities,
either.
|
It is government that commands the resources - in pooled tax dollars or what
I call the "economic commons" to assist the society at large. It also
commands the infrastructure capable of distributing these resources to the
maximum number of beneficiaries wherever they may reside. This is, indeed, a
legitimate role for the government - given the objective I referenced earlier
in the preamble.
|
Franklin Delano Roosevelt once wrote: "Necessitous men cannot be free men."
|
Meaning that as long as our fellows are in need - any kind of need: food,
housing, and decent health care -- then they cannot truly be free. The
sincere humanist recognizes this and doesn't write off government as his ally.
|