This Idea of Humanism

A while back in this piece I talked about one of my central life-lenses: a kind of overriding humanism, a deep-seated “fondness” for people and the belief that they should should take priority over all else. I want to explain this a little bit more.

I’m not sure when it first came about for me. Certainly it wasn’t spelled out in any way until the last few years, during which time it’s gotten more and more concrete. Very possibly this is a product of reverse modeling, which would make sense given the way that what I now consider to be such a central part of my thinking seemingly sprang out of nowhere. However, some of the general ideas here have certainly been floating around in my head for a long time, and seem to have guided my actions for even longer.

Basically, this is a model for behavior. I don’t care to call it “right” or the proper way for the world to act, and I’m not going to run around with a flaming sword trying to convince people of it. There are countless other models. I didn’t set out to create another. I just looked around one day, realized that this is more or less how I think, and then put it into words. So if you have similar ideas, then this may be a concept that reflects your ideas equally well. If you have radically different ideas, than this is just an amusement.

First, let me distinguish my terminology from the more classic definition of “humanism,” which is a more general term (though focused on the same center) involving ideas like art and human pursuits, particularly as distinct from theological aims. This is not what I mean. I mean humanism as something solely “of or relating to humans.”

The way this gets motivated for me is by starting with the assumption that people come first. That is, all goal-setting and cost-benefit analyses should be performed with the highest “positive” being human benefit. Naturally, you don’t have to link everything to this; there can be other goals neutral to this one. But if it comes to a conflict, nothing else is higher on the agenda.

Pretty vague, so let’s spell it out a little more. First, what do I mean by “people”? (By garn, I may be a wet-behind-the-ears philosophy major, but I’ve read my ethics too, and I can put things in quotes with the best of them.) I mean human beings. I do not know for sure what the quality is which defines them, and astute critics will see the flaws in this. The epistemological flaw is that I can’t actually say what’s so great about people. The practical flaw is that vagueness in the definition makes it difficult to extend it. For instance, what about a sentient alien race? I don’t know; instinctively I would put them under the “person” category, but I can’t say for sure. What about animals? I do not include them. They may have myriad other pluses, but they are not, for the purposes of our reckoning, people; therefore they lack that trump card. So do I value the life of a useless shithead over that of an adorable kitten? Unfortunately.

Okay, now in what way do people come first? This is intentionally vague, because it’s not easy to clarify. Utilitarianism (which, if you’re familiar with it, will probably look awfully similar to this theory) often calls the property “happiness.” The utilitarian’s goal is to maximize happiness for the most people. That’s not bad, if you acknowledge that it’s still pretty vague. For the most part, I don’t find that this is a major issue; you don’t often end up having to decide whether one kind of benefit for a person is more or less important than another. When it does come up, my instinct is usually to value the longer-term benefit, the broader benefit, and most importantly, whatever they articulate as their own preference. In truth, everyone’s got a different take on what’s important, so it seems wrong to say something like “mental health is more important than physical health!” on a universal basis. (Though hopefully the dichotomy is less banal than that.) In any case, yes, there is some lack of clarity here, and in a formal philosophical context it could be ripped to shreds. But in this case the main point I’m making is the distinction between valuing the person over valuing anything else, and that’s an easy, broad brush. Any deeper than that, all of the usual problems and complications with utilitarianism manifest, and I can’t defeat those any better than my predecessors.

Anyway, what are some of the ramifications of this idea? Well, first of all you can forget about a lot of other stuff. For example, there’s not the least whiff of any deontological rules to be seen. There aren’t any ultimate virtues that should be served above the interests of the masses. You need never kill six people for “honor,” it’s incorrect to ruin someone’s life for “truth,” and I can’t even quantify the power of “tradition.” Nor do religious mandates of any sort show up; this undoubtedly betrays a secular approach to ethics, but… well, yes. If you can reconcile the rules of your god to the interests of people, then more power to you.

You can admire things like “honor,” you can serve it and pursue it, but if it comes to choosing between it and real people, it loses.

Certainly there’s no value at all to the brilliant teachings of “getting fed up,” “being too old for coddling,” or “just not caring anymore.” No value at all. Sounds like it amounts to being perfect, doesn’t it? Well, I’m not going to code in human flaws; you can introduce those on your own. At least try starting from a position of perfection.

If you have two or more neurons, you have probably noticed a certain short-sightedness to all this. Meaning, many would say that a fixation on something like “truth” is built to ultimately help people; if a journalist drives you into depression with his true story, it’s still ultimately better for the rest of us. What about a parent disciplining his child? That’s for the child’s ultimate good, presumably. Indeed, the entire role of law and order in society plays this game. It’s easy to argue that putting someone in prison, which is a big negative to him, can be an overwhelmingly positive for the rest of us.

To this I say, yes. You are right, and serving some overriding value at the expense of a few people may perhaps prove best, on the whole. My concern is in the emphasis. It’s all too easy to imagine—or remember—cases where absolutely no larger good is served, but someone is harmed merely for the sake of mindless service to some rule, some disembodied notion that has grown too influential for our good. (We’re not supposed to serve the rules—they’re supposed to serve us!) As long as rules or virtues are established and followed for the direct and concrete betterment of people, then I have no argument, though of course the complexities of how this plays out are a ceaseless battle. But no matter how similar it may look, to set out commandmants instead for their own sake or for any other reason at all beyond human good, I consider wrong. And I think there’s a slippery slope from one to the other… because it’s hard for anyone to go around every day reminding themselves of what their ultimate aim is.

These details aside, one of the biggest implications of this is merely a call to hold yourself to a higher discipline. That is, to remind yourself that doing the best you can for people (yes, including yourself, but not above anyone else) is the thing, and that it permeates everything. You don’t have to be a serial killer to be in violation of this; if we look up as we’re being angry or vindictive, using power to diminish another, causing problems for someone to help yourself (or to help no one), it’s pretty easy to see where we can make a shift. Like I said, is the goal to be perfect? Well, that’s the goal. You won’t be. But you don’t accept that “you won’t be perfect”; you strive for it as best you can, note the slips as they occur, but keep working for the ideal. Just having this pegged as the point you aim for on the horizon is vastly different from having no such end; you may wander all over in your day-to-day life, but you’ll still know how to orient yourself overall, and that, I think, will keep you on the right track.

Getting too preachy for you? Maybe “don’t be a dick” is an adequate mantra.