Humanists assert there are no gods, but that a non-god morality is still possible.
Herewith, a straw man, based on different assumptions, to the ones I hold myself.
Evolutionists assert that evolution is undirected, and without external meaning. That competition to reproduce is the driving factor. That there is no intrinsic “good” or “evil” in which species survive and prosper. Success is the only criteria. That when the lion eats the gazelle, or the cow eats the grass, they are is not morally accountable, but just obeying their genetic imperatives. That homo sapiens are just a clever kind of ape, with no more intrinsic right to succeed and survive than neanderthals, cro-magnons, bonobos, gorillas, gazelles, dodos, maize, ebola, or E Coli. Humans are only able to assert their power, because an accident of evolution gave them a temporary reproductive advantage. If humans are in any way special, it is merely a temporary quantitative advantage and not a permanent qualitative advantage.
Humans destroy polio because they can. Because the polio virus represents a challenge to their dominance. Evolution tells us this is a pragmatic choice, and not a moral choice.
Humans cut down the rain forest because they can. Because the perceived short term advantage to the loggers outweighs any considered long term damage to all species. Evolution tells us this is a pragmatic choice, and not a moral choice.
Humans destroy the habitat of the great apes because they can. Because the perceived short term advantage to the farmers outweighs any conceivable long term damage to all primates. Evolution tells us this is a pragmatic choice, and not a moral choice.
Humans invade whole continents, steal all the land, and kill or corral the previous people who lived there. Because they can. Because of the reproductive advantage it gives to the conquerors. The children of the conquerors will prosper and multiply. The children of the conquered will suffer. Evolution tells us this is still a pragmatic choice, and not a moral choice.
Because humans are not different in kind to primates, trees, or viruses. Just a bit more successful. Currently.
Humans murder, rape, and steal because they can. Evolution tells us this is still a pragmatic choice, and not a moral choice.
A logical evolutionist should have no problem with the concept of eugenics. That the most powerful humans should use their power to weed out the weaker members of the species, however they choose to define “weaker”. Galton, Spencer, and Russell all understood this. It is the inescapably logical conclusion of a humanist, evolutionary view. Why is my handsome and witty banter, or my voluptuous figure, or my penetrating intellect a valid technique to secure a better mate, but my strength and will to kill a rival is not? Remember that in evolution, survival of the fittest is undirected, and without moral meaning.
The logical consequence of the humanist evolutionary view is the eugenics programmes of the nazis. Present power is used to eradicate competition. (I recognise that the political programme of the national socialists was a lot more complex than just eugenics).
In choosing the genes of homo sapiens as worthy of special respect, and denying that respect to bonobos and chimpanzees, the humanists make the same error as those who ascribed personhood to european humans and denied it to their african slaves.
https://newhumanist.org.uk/articles/2471/rationalisms-dirty-secret detects the problem, but has no solution apart from a plea for “enquiry and debate”.
A modern humanist may instinctively recoil from supporting eugenics, rape and conquest, and perhaps assert a qualitative difference in humans, which separates humans from other animals such as our “ability to act as moral agents, to reason and use language, and to empathise” [Fukuyama p162]. This difference is then used to support a legal or moral framework, which specifically protects the rights of humans (and by contrast doesn’t assign the same rights to apes, dolphins, ravens, trees, and viruses). A cynic might regard this as re-introducing the “soul” by the back door, that special sauce which only humans have.
But in the same way that a humanist regards all religion as merely an delusional emergent rationalisation of behaviours conducive to harmony in larger settlements, this special pleading for the rights of humans appears to be a similar, delusional rationalisation of a philosophy which has no demonstrable basis in reality.
Human Rights don’t exist, except as given by other humans. There is no intrinsic entitlement.
Humanism is just another expression of racial power. Asserting “we” as all humanity, rather than a specific subset of it. Only a pragmatic case in favour, and not a philosophical case. A plea for humans to be nice to each other, lest we destroy each other. But with a more immediate benefit to do the opposite. The future of humanity framed as a Prisoners Dilemma.
How interesting that the evolutionists and humanists have trashed the religious ideas which might have held humanity in check….
RJ7: Oct 2021
[Fukuyama: Francis Fukuyama: Agency or Inevitabllity: Will Human Beings Control Their Technological Future? in: Thomsen, et. al: The Posthuman Condition: Ethics, Aesthetics and Politics of Biotechnological Challenges, pp. 162, Aarhus University Press, 2012]