Comments on: Has the west forgotten what civic virtue is? No, say humanists http://www.humanistlife.org.uk/2010/07/has-the-west-forgotten-what-civic-virtue-is-no-say-humanists/ Humanist perspectives on the here and now Wed, 08 Feb 2012 08:47:42 +0000 hourly 1 http://wordpress.org/?v=3.3.1 By: Edwin Salter http://www.humanistlife.org.uk/2010/07/has-the-west-forgotten-what-civic-virtue-is-no-say-humanists/comment-page-1/#comment-3288 Edwin Salter Fri, 30 Jul 2010 13:33:09 +0000 http://www.humanistlife.org.uk/?p=3577#comment-3288 Materialism as desire for money and possessions has no link with humanism and atheism (though philosophical materialism is relevant). Civic virtue usually doesn't match up to requirements (present and past, Western and other), but now so many in power - politicians, royalty, celebrities, evangelists, bankers, and all the other examples for our aspirations - are clearly shown mired in greed. It may shock all the ordinary decent folk, but such individuals go on unrebuked and unhampered. The stock villains of our society are obese benefit scroungers and teenage hoodies on drugs. But these symptons of relative deprivation and ignorance are harmless compared to the wealth stolen by tax evasion and the careless industrial pollution of the world for profit (as in the current scandalous oil leak). So do we claim that all's okay? The alternative would be to attribute such defects fully to selfish values, which often find religious support. International comparison clearly correlates virtue with less, not more, religion. There is need for a reasoned, compassionate ethics. Rather than deny a problem perhaps we should insist that humanism is the best solution. Materialism as desire for money and possessions has no link with humanism and atheism (though philosophical materialism is relevant). Civic virtue usually doesn’t match up to requirements (present and past, Western and other), but now so many in power – politicians, royalty, celebrities, evangelists, bankers, and all the other examples for our aspirations – are clearly shown mired in greed. It may shock all the ordinary decent folk, but such individuals go on unrebuked and unhampered.
The stock villains of our society are obese benefit scroungers and teenage hoodies on drugs. But these symptons of relative deprivation and ignorance are harmless compared to the wealth stolen by tax evasion and the careless industrial pollution of the world for profit (as in the current scandalous oil leak).
So do we claim that all’s okay? The alternative would be to attribute such defects fully to selfish values, which often find religious support. International comparison clearly correlates virtue with less, not more, religion. There is need for a reasoned, compassionate ethics. Rather than deny a problem perhaps we should insist that humanism is the best solution.

]]> By: C.J. Wilton http://www.humanistlife.org.uk/2010/07/has-the-west-forgotten-what-civic-virtue-is-no-say-humanists/comment-page-1/#comment-3275 C.J. Wilton Thu, 29 Jul 2010 08:45:19 +0000 http://www.humanistlife.org.uk/?p=3577#comment-3275 Well done Andrew; let it not be said that any sense of valour or chivalry is the private reserve of the religionist. Indeed I would think the very opposite to be the case. The religionists assume they are good because they are religious, where as non-believers are good because they do good. In this respect religion is the lazy approach to being treated as good because it requires only the basic gesticulations of faithfulness, where as to actually be good requires so much more. This is not to deny that some religionists do good in their own way, but how many of them do so out of fear, out of guilt, out of coercion? Some might argue that the good consequences are the only real factor here, that the ends justify the means. But surely a god who sees all and knows all should weigh the hearts of those who are intrinsically good with greater favour than those who are merely superficially good? Should not every act of Christian charity be laden with guilt in the certain knowledge that said charity is a mere supplication to God Almighty, in the hope that He might grant one's passage to heaven? Whereas when I give to charity I think only that, were our situations reversed I would wish others to give unto me as I - and many other non-believers - give unto them. This may seem self-serving, but only in theory, for I am so blessed - by fortune - as to be born in an affluent country to a family of means, however modest; to grant me the opportunity to be charitable to my fellow human beings, in practical terms. Humanists and non-believers do not pray for people, they help people; and only an ingrate would favour the former for the latter. For what is prayer but a masturbatory act in which one "feels" the illusory gratification of doing good when one has in fact done nothing at all to help one's fellows? Well done Andrew;

let it not be said that any sense of valour or chivalry is the private reserve of the religionist. Indeed I would think the very opposite to be the case. The religionists assume they are good because they are religious, where as non-believers are good because they do good. In this respect religion is the lazy approach to being treated as good because it requires only the basic gesticulations of faithfulness, where as to actually be good requires so much more.

This is not to deny that some religionists do good in their own way, but how many of them do so out of fear, out of guilt, out of coercion? Some might argue that the good consequences are the only real factor here, that the ends justify the means. But surely a god who sees all and knows all should weigh the hearts of those who are intrinsically good with greater favour than those who are merely superficially good?

Should not every act of Christian charity be laden with guilt in the certain knowledge that said charity is a mere supplication to God Almighty, in the hope that He might grant one’s passage to heaven? Whereas when I give to charity I think only that, were our situations reversed I would wish others to give unto me as I – and many other non-believers – give unto them. This may seem self-serving, but only in theory, for I am so blessed – by fortune – as to be born in an affluent country to a family of means, however modest; to grant me the opportunity to be charitable to my fellow human beings, in practical terms.

Humanists and non-believers do not pray for people, they help people; and only an ingrate would favour the former for the latter. For what is prayer but a masturbatory act in which one “feels” the illusory gratification of doing good when one has in fact done nothing at all to help one’s fellows?

]]>