What is the difference between secular humanism and objectivism?

[DiskoVilante]

Yeah, what the thread title says.

There seems to be quite an overlap between the two and I'm kind of confused. I was reading some pamphlets about both philosophies and I'm having a hard time determining what the core differences are.

Help?

 

[Dunstan]

Yeah, what the thread title says.

There seems to be quite an overlap between the two and I'm kind of confused. I was reading some pamphlets about both philosophies and I'm having a hard time determining what the core differences are.

Help?

I don't know a lot about humanism -- in fact, one of my apprehensions about it at the moment is that it seems rather vague -- but I'm not seeing much overlap with objectivism. Other than "reason is good."

 

[Earthborn]

I was reading some pamphlets about both philosophies and I'm having a hard time determining what the core differences are.

Philosophies are often like political views. After you summarised them in a propaganda pamphlet to appeal to a large number of people, suddenly you'll find that they all start to look suspiciously alike.

For stuff like this, Wikipedia always comes in handy: Objectivism, Secular humanism.

There is overlap, but there are also differences. Objectivism supposedly argues in favour of laissez-faire free market capitalism, secular humanism does not necessarily and has in fact been a philosophy endorsed by socialists. Secular humanism argues that religion is not necessary for people to be altruistic, while Objectivists reject altruism. Secular humanism is often criticised by religionists for not offer any eternal truths, while Objectivists tend to regard the laws by which the free market operates to be eternal truths.

 

[Wolfman]

I don't know a lot about humanism -- in fact, one of my apprehensions about it at the moment is that it seems rather vague -- but I'm not seeing much overlap with objectivism. Other than "reason is good."

I think Earthborn has done a good job of explaining the difference between the two. As to Humanism being rather "vague", here is a statement of Humanist beliefs from the International Humanist and Ethical Union.

Amsterdam Declaration 2002

Humanism is the outcome of a long tradition of free thought that has inspired many of the world's great thinkers and creative artists and gave rise to science itself.
The fundamentals of modern Humanism are as follows:

1. Humanism is ethical. It affirms the worth, dignity and autonomy of the individual and the right of every human being to the greatest possible freedom compatible with the rights of others. Humanists have a duty of care to all of humanity including future generations. Humanists believe that morality is an intrinsic part of human nature based on understanding and a concern for others, needing no external sanction.
2. Humanism is rational. It seeks to use science creatively, not destructively. Humanists believe that the solutions to the world's problems lie in human thought and action rather than divine intervention. Humanism advocates the application of the methods of science and free inquiry to the problems of human welfare. But Humanists also believe that the application of science and technology must be tempered by human values. Science gives us the means but human values must propose the ends.
3. Humanism supports democracy and human rights. Humanism aims at the fullest possible development of every human being. It holds that democracy and human development are matters of right. The principles of democracy and human rights can be applied to many human relationships and are not restricted to methods of government.
4. Humanism insists that personal liberty must be combined with social responsibility. Humanism ventures to build a world on the idea of the free person responsible to society, and recognises our dependence on and responsibility for the natural world. Humanism is undogmatic, imposing no creed upon its adherents. It is thus committed to education free from indoctrination.
5. Humanism is a response to the widespread demand for an alternative to dogmatic religion. The world's major religions claim to be based on revelations fixed for all time, and many seek to impose their world-views on all of humanity. Humanism recognises that reliable knowledge of the world and ourselves arises through a continuing process. of observation, evaluation and revision.
6. Humanism values artistic creativity and imagination and recognises the transforming power of art. Humanism affirms the importance of literature, music, and the visual and performing arts for personal development and fulfilment.
7. Humanism is a lifestance aiming at the maximum possible fulfilment through the cultivation of ethical and creative living and offers an ethical and rational means of addressing the challenges of our times. Humanism can be a way of life for everyone everywhere.

Our primary task is to make human beings aware in the simplest terms of what Humanism can mean to them and what it commits them to. By utilising free inquiry, the power of science and creative imagination for the furtherance of peace and in the service of compassion, we have confidence that we have the means to solve the problems that confront us all. We call upon all who share this conviction to associate themselves with us in this endeavour.

 

[Bikewer]

All three iterations of the Humanist Manifesto are available online; the first is a pretty quick read.
I subscribed to an objectivist bulletin board for a while before it folded; and recall that I found little to argue with from a humanist perspective other than the differences noted above.

 

[joobz]

objectivism requires that you use rational thought to critically everything, except that which Ayn Rand says.

 

[JoeEllison]

Objectivism is the cult of spoiled self-centered immaturity. It has formalized the whining of brats against their mommies, and called it a "philosophy". It claims to respect and even demand rational thinking, except that it rejects applying critical thinking towards its own pseudo-religious tenets.

 

[volatile]

I recently picked up Leonard Peikoff's compendium of Ayn Rand's philosophies precisely because they seemed in summary to be rather close to the liberal humanism with which I identify - sadly, Objectivism when read first hand is just blunt, unsophisticated and built on various strawman positions she labels "materialism".

That said, I think perhaps the most striking difference is that "Humanism insists that personal liberty must be combined with social responsibility". Objectivism actively rejects social responsibility in favour of individual self-interest. "We advocate plain egoism", says Peikoff in summary of Rand's position, "the kind that actually achieves the selfish goal of sustaining one's own existence".

Having read "Objectivism: The Philosophy of Ayn Rand" this week, I can state that she's wrong on art and aesthetics, wrong on economics and wrong on psychology. She is somewhat right on metaphysics, epistemology and ontology, but states her positions in such an un-nuanced way as to make her assertions fairly useless.

 

[joobz]

I recently picked up Leonard Peikoff's compendium of Ayn Rand's philosophies precisely because they seemed in summary to be rather close to the liberal humanism with which I identify - sadly, Objectivism when read first hand is just blunt, unsophisticated and built on various strawman positions she labels "materialism".

That said, I think perhaps the most striking difference is that "Humanism insists that personal liberty must be combined with social responsibility". Objectivism actively rejects social responsibility in favour of individual self-interest. "We advocate plain egoism", says Peikoff in summary of Rand's position, "the kind that actually achieves the selfish goal of sustaining one's own existence".

Having read "Objectivism: The Philosophy of Ayn Rand" this week, I can state that she's wrong on art and aesthetics, wrong on economics and wrong on psychology. She is somewhat right on metaphysics, epistemology and ontology, but states her positions in such an un-nuanced way as to make her assertions fairly useless.

Well, obviously, you came to that conclusion using superstitious magical thinking. Had you been rational,you would see the objective truth.

 

[volatile]

Well, obviously, you came to that conclusion using superstitious magical thinking. Had you been rational,you would see the objective truth.

In other news, I have a copy of "Objectivism: The Philosophy of Ayn Rand" by L. Peikoff for sale at a knock-down price, if anyone's interested...

I think what annoyed me the most is that she's *nearly* right a lot of the time, but she tries to furrow some gap in materialism into which she can funnel "objectivism" when materialism was doing fine already. For example, whilst her somewhat sensible and quasi-phenomenological conception of mind has some merit (and has it's roots all the way back to Spinoza), Peikoff says "Ayn Rand describes materialists as 'mystics of muscle' - 'mystics' because, like idealists, they reject the faculty of reason. Man, they hold, is essentially a body without a mind"!

I can't think of one "materialist", or indeed any philosopher, who would claim that man is a body without a mind, or that, as he says earlier, "conciousness [for materialists] is either a myth or a useless by-product of brain". She seems to want to pretend that the whole field of the philosophy of mind doesn't exist!

 

[joobz]

In other news, I have a copy of "Objectivism: The Philosophy of Ayn Rand" by L. Peikoff for sale at a knock-down price, if anyone's interested...

I think what annoyed me the most is that she's *nearly* right a lot of the time, but she tries to furrow some gap in materialism into which she can funnel "objectivism" when materialism was doing fine already. For example, whilst her somewhat sensible and quasi-phenomenological conception of mind has some merit (and has it's roots all the way back to Spinoza), Peikoff says "Ayn Rand describes materialists as 'mystics of muscle' - 'mystics' because, like idealists, they reject the faculty of reason. Man, they hold, is essentially a body without a mind"!

I can't think of one "materialist", or indeed any philosopher, who would claim that man is a body without a mind, or that, as he says earlier, "conciousness [for materialists] is either a myth or a useless by-product of brain". She seems to want to pretend that the whole field of the philosophy of mind doesn't exist!

My biggest complaint with objectivism has been with the attempts at using "the virtue of selfishness" to address all issues. It reads like a knee jerk reaction to solcialism/communism. This is especially true when considering their stance on environmentalism, stating that having all land as private property is the only way to protect the environment. It is the assumption that with public land, no one treats it well but private ownership encourages responsibility.

The problem with this argument is that the evidence doesn't support it. Therefore, an objectivist should have abandoned the premise long ago. Check out the list of superfund sites, and you'll see most of our most polluted lands (which pose health risks) were privately owned businesses on private lands who were dumping chemicals onto thier property. (e.g., Peerless Plating facility in MI).

 

[Apology]

I think Ayn Rand very strongly opposed the development of the Social Security System, which occurred in her lifetime. In hindsight, I think her position was harsh. She created a strawman of never-ending forced altruism which we can see now, years later, was easily prevented by making the qualifications for benefits extremely stringent.

Objectivism is one of those things that sounds good enough on paper until you begin analyzing the work of its proponents. If you find their work questionable, then it follows that you would begin to question objectivism's overall validity as a school of thought. I don't see how one could ascribe to objectivism yet still think Ayn Rand is wrong, so it also begs the question as to whether it's a "cult of personality" or an actual separate school of thought.

I welcome comments by any objectivists that might be on the board. It could be that in my disagreement with Rand I've failed to understand something else about objectivism.

 

[Lonewulf]

I'm not sure if I lean towards Humanism or Objectivism, or what. To be honest, I have a lot of differing opinions, and I admit, some of them might be shown to be contradictory...

I probably lean towards Humanism. While I'm a moral Relativist when it comes to logic, I'm a moral Objectivist when it comes to emotion and politics. I think that there should be a moral standard that the world should be upheld to, because it recognizes the needs and desires of the greatest majority of people; and that society should be there to serve the majority of people, not the minority. I.E., the whole "Life, Liberty, and Pursuit of Happiness" ideal that the Founding Fathers imagined.

At the same time, I haven't fully explored Secular Humanist philosophy. The whole "human rights" thing is great, because I think that there are certain rights that should be granted to all human beings (note that I say "granted", not "recognized"; I really don't think that you're magically "gifted" with rights from birth from some higher power or somesuch).

Overall, I can't really say what my opinions are...

 

[Dunstan]

I think Earthborn has done a good job of explaining the difference between the two. As to Humanism being rather "vague", here is a statement of Humanist beliefs from the International Humanist and Ethical Union.

I've read this before, and it's exactly the kind of thing I mean when I say it's vague. A lot of nice statements about human rights and "we value this" and "we value that," but I have no idea what any of it actually means in practice.

Other than the explicitly atheistic statements (mainly point #5), I think that 99% of the world's population would sign on to these statements. Who doesn't at least claim to value ethical behavior, rationality, democracy and human rights, a balance of personal liberty and social responsibility, etc.? So I don't see any real content beyond "I'm an atheist, and I'm also a nice human being."

 

[Lonewulf]

I've read this before, and it's exactly the kind of thing I mean when I say it's vague. A lot of nice statements about human rights and "we value this" and "we value that," but I have no idea what any of it actually means in practice.

Other than the explicitly atheistic statements (mainly point #5), I think that 99% of the world's population would sign on to these statements. Who doesn't at least claim to value ethical behavior, rationality, democracy and human rights, a balance of personal liberty and social responsibility, etc.? So I don't see any real content beyond "I'm an atheist, and I'm also a nice human being."

Oh, thank goodness.

I thought you were Dustin for a second.

Seriously, I loathe your name sometimes. I thought I saw, "New post by: Dustin", and was thinking, "Oh great, there goes the neighborhood."

And yeah, it's essentially that atheists are "nice human beings", with the philosophical underpinnings that being "nice" is "good", not that they're just nice for the hell of it, because they randomly chose to be.

 

[Dunstan]

Oh, thank goodness.

I thought you were Dustin for a second.

Seriously, I loathe your name sometimes. I thought I saw, "New post by: Dustin", and was thinking, "Oh great, there goes the neighborhood."

Many people still have that reaction when they realize it's me.

And yeah, it's essentially that atheists are "nice human beings", with the philosophical underpinnings that being "nice" is "good", not that they're just nice for the hell of it, because they randomly chose to be.

That's fine. Personally I don't see the point, but if other people value being able to say "I believe in humanism" over "I don't believe in a god," or think that there's a PR value in doing so, I don't see the harm.

 

[Lonewulf]

That's fine. Personally I don't see the point, but if other people value being able to say "I believe in humanism" over "I don't believe in a god," or think that there's a PR value in doing so, I don't see the harm.

I honestly don't think that there is necessarily just PR value in doing so. There is more to it than just saying, "I don't believe in God". That's one message: "I don't believe in God." That's the Secular part.

But then there's another message behind that: "I also believe in these moral principles:"

Essentially, I consider "secular humanism" to be a mixture of two concepts, not just a "good PR" way of saying, "I don't believe in God". (though, I admit, it DOES help). And there is meaning to it; There are differences between the philosophies of Objectivism and Secular Humanism, as you've seen demonstrated in this thread. So it's not quite like it's still saying the same thing.

I will admit, though, that if you say that you're non-secular but pro-humanist, you can still believe in deities, spirituality, or whatever, and still adhere to the moral precepts explained by Secular Humanism.

So, yeah, I can see how it might seem that it's just a good PR way to "blend in with the crowd" while simultaneously saying "I also don't believe in God"...

 

[Ivor the Engineer]

Objectivism is the cult of spoiled self-centered immaturity. It has formalized the whining of brats against their mommies, and called it a "philosophy". It claims to respect and even demand rational thinking, except that it rejects applying critical thinking towards its own pseudo-religious tenets.

Hmmm...

http://www.objectivistcenter.com/ct-1852-M_Shermer.aspx

TNI: Speaking of self-interest brings us to the philosophy of Ayn Rand. I know that you have said that you’re an admirer of Rand, that among the pictures you have on your wall—Isaac Asimov and Darwin and others—you actually have Ayn Rand. But you’ve also been critical of the Objectivist movement or, I should say, certain Objectivists. Could you say a few words about what positive insights you get out of Rand?

Shermer: In fact, my daughter and I just listened to the entire audio reading of Atlas Shrugged, which you can download from Audible.com.

TNI: Yeah, we sell the MP3 of that now.

Shermer: I love the idea of personal responsibility and rugged individualism and all that. And the philosophy itself, I think, is perfectly sound. It’s the best thing going out there. Is it perfect? Well, I’m not a philosopher, but, for example, once you go down the path that there are objective truths and realities, particularly in the moral realm dealing with values, then it doesn’t take long for some people to go from there to judging other people fairly harshly.

I remember Dr. Leonard Peikoff saying something about being on the same page as the Catholics who condemn people, because though we Objectivists disagree with them on what the ultimate values are, I like their idea of the heavy-hammer approach. Well, that’s just not my style. I actually I like your approach, Ed, and the approach of your organization about what’s the larger goal here of my life. I like the big-tent and let’s-be-tolerant approach. If we’re close enough on the same page about many things, I think it’s more useful to cut people some slack, rather than going after them on some smaller points. I don’t see the advantage of saying, “You shouldn’t have liked that movie because ultimately, if you were an Objectivist, you wouldn’t have.” I guess it was those sorts of judgments made by some Objectives that I objected to.

And also, from studying science, I have a certain humility about how wrong we all are on many matters—that the discovery of truth is an ongoing process that means correcting lots of errors. So, it makes me nervous to think a system is giving us absolute truth in a way that can blind us to errors that we might need to address.

 

[TheRevenant]

I guess it's time for an Objectivist to pipe in.

To preface...there has been mention of Objectivism as a philosophy, or a "school of thought," something a person subscribes to, like a magazine subscription or something. If you were to ask an Objectivist, "What is your philosophy?" his or her response would most likely be something like, "None."

I see a philosophy as a set of beliefs, values and standards that a person chooses to believe in. Objectivism is anything but that. As arrogant and narrowminded as it sounds, Objectivism is simply the recognition of objective truths.

Now to nitpick.

The whole "human rights" thing is great, because I think that there are certain rights that should be granted to all human beings (note that I say "granted", not "recognized"; I really don't think that you're magically "gifted" with rights from birth from some higher power or somesuch).

Such a statement leans more towards Secular Humanism than towards Objectivism (still very far away from either, though.)

To recognize the natural-born rights of a human being, one has to imagine if there were only one human being on the planet. What rights does he have? Obviously he has a right to his property, to feed himself, to pursue happiness...but what does this all matter, when there's nobody to take those rights away? Until another man appears, and hits the first man with a stone to steal his meat, the first man has no concept of his own rights. In this sense, natural-born rights are just that...natural born, inherit in all human beings...but they can only be realized when they are threatened. The great human ability to empathize grants us the knowledge of what constitutes a transgression, a violation of another man's natural-born rights.

My biggest complaint with objectivism has been with the attempts at using "the virtue of selfishness" to address all issues. It reads like a knee jerk reaction to solcialism/communism.

It's anything but. Again, look at the lone man on the planet. This lone man is initially wholly selfish...self-serving. He seeks food for himself, he seeks stimulation for himself, happiness for himself, etc. When that one man meets another man on an open plain, the virtue of selfishness can show its legitimacy in the social arena, in the form of trade. The first man has a stick, but needs a stone. The second man has a stone, but needs a stick...so the two trade, to each others' selfish benefit.

When the man meets a woman and bears a child, he hunts for and gathers food for the child, because he values it. Again, he is being selfish.

So the virtue of selfishness does not need communism or socialism to exist or be legitimate...such things only make it more evident.

That said, I think perhaps the most striking difference is that "Humanism insists that personal liberty must be combined with social responsibility". Objectivism actively rejects social responsibility in favour of individual self-interest.

I would agree wholeheartedly. This is certainly the most significant difference between the two.

In my observation, Secular Humanism appears to be a more "friendly" kind of Objectivism. While it still advocates reason over mysticism, rationalism over irrationalism, non-contradiction, and creativity...Secular Humanism also advocates social responsibility...and in so doing contradicts itself. You cannot force one man to be beholden to another without violating his natural-born rights and sovereignty.

Secular Humanism attempts to reject the most hated dogma of Objectivist thinking...the idea of virtue in selfishness. There is a great deal of stigma attached to that root word, "Selfish." (I think if Ayn Rand had chosen to use another word in its place, like "Tastycakes," Objectivism would be much more popular.)

As to that:

So, yeah, I can see how it might seem that it's just a good PR way to "blend in with the crowd" while simultaneously saying "I also don't believe in God"...

I don't really think there's any PR friendly way to say, "I don't believe in God." In my American experience, anyway, when someone asks you what you believe in and you say anything other than Christianity...you're immediately pigeon holed with Satanists, Anarchists, Communists, Socialists, and all the other condemned folks.

 

[Puppycow]

I guess it's time for an Objectivist to pipe in.

To preface...there has been mention of Objectivism as a philosophy, or a "school of thought," something a person subscribes to, like a magazine subscription or something. If you were to ask an Objectivist, "What is your philosophy?" his or her response would most likely be something like, "None."

I see a philosophy as a set of beliefs, values and standards that a person chooses to believe in. Objectivism is anything but that. As arrogant and narrowminded as it sounds, Objectivism is simply the recognition of objective truths.

Are these "objective truths"?:

# Ayn Rand is the greatest human being who has ever lived.
# Atlas Shrugged is the greatest human achievement in the history of the world.
# Ayn Rand, by virtue of her philosophical genius, is the supreme arbiter in any issue pertaining to what is rational, moral, or appropriate to man's life on earth.
# Once one is acquainted with Ayn Rand and/or her work, the measure of one's virtue is intrinsically tied to the position one takes regarding her and/or it.
# No one can be a good Objectivist who does not admire what Ayn Rand admires and condemn what Ayn Rand condemns.
# No one can be a fully consistent individualist who disagrees with Ayn Rand on any fundamental issue.

http://www.2think.org/02_2_she.shtml

To recognize the natural-born rights of a human being, one has to imagine if there were only one human being on the planet. What rights does he have? Obviously he has a right to his property, to feed himself, to pursue happiness...but what does this all matter, when there's nobody to take those rights away? Until another man appears, and hits the first man with a stone to steal his meat, the first man has no concept of his own rights. In this sense, natural-born rights are just that...natural born, inherit in all human beings...but they can only be realized when they are threatened. The great human ability to empathize grants us the knowledge of what constitutes a transgression, a violation of another man's natural-born rights.

"Rights" are not "objective truths" at all. They are human concepts. "Man" did not appear on an empty planet, he had parents, grandparents and ancestors going back to ancestors who aren't even human. I'm all in favor of human rights, but let's not pretend that they are "objective truths."