5.                       Author’s Perspective

 

Introduction

A. My Life Philosophy

B. My Right to Freedom and Well-Being

C. My Concerns with Secular Humanism

 

Introduction

As reiterated in the text, to really understand something, one needs an explanation of its origin, its development over time, and its connections to other parts and the larger whole. Also, on needs to consider alternative views that range from nuanced differences all the way to contrarian or opposing points of view. Only then does one have a good grasp about the matter in hand. And the foregoing certainly applies to the parts of a world-class education organized into an organic whole as a worldview that is a comprehensive conception of the world and of human life. However, an explanation is also influenced by the author’s biography, for no matter how hard he tries to be objective and neutral, it will always be imperfectly so because there is no escape from one’s life experiences. And this always imperfect background leads to aberrations in the author’s work. Therefore, for the reader to take this into account, the author should include the macro content of his life philosophy and his briefest of views on relevant major issues. This info will then bridge the gap between the writer and his writing. And with the author's perspective in mind, the reader can then make adjustments to his understanding of the text with his perhaps more correct views in order to reach better conclusions.  

 

A.                                 My Life Philosophy

I expect to pass through this world but once. Any good, therefore, that I can do or any kindness I can show to any fellow creature, let me do it now. Let me not defer or neglect it for I shall not pass this way again.
 
This maxim by an unknown individual sums up my life stance because I have no higher ambition than good life-conduct that comes from a critically thinking conscience, not from one grounded in unthinking conformity. This includes the life-time quest of achieving a humane and rational personality and act accordingly. It is humane when it has the best and noblest qualities human beings are capable of--one can do no better. These traits urge me to do what is right because it is the right thing to do, and to advance for their own sake what is true, good, and beautiful while opposing what is false, bad and ugly.
     I believe, as most educated people do--including atheists--that God exists at least as an ideal together with the ideals of non-theistic religions. These ideals often tell us or promise what humans want to be: immortal, all-good, all-powerful, all-knowing etc. However, concerning the "all-good" or moral perfection, the ideal alone is perfect. For people are limited by being human and thus can only become fully humane that is practicing their best and noblest qualities. If they do so, then they reflect the image of the ideal or divine--to think that they could do better is an illusion because:
The difference between what is "divine" and what is "humane"
is merely the difference between the ideal and the real.
.     My allegiance is not with the undeserved rich, the illegitimate powerful, and the deceivers of the multitude, but with the underprivileged, the exploited, the oppressed, those who “live simply that others may simply live,” and those who make real contributions to society, such as those who raise families often under difficult circumstances and get the work done that keeps society going. More general, I accept my share of responsibility for the freedom and well-being of society.  
     I hold that natural phenomena and reason can tell us what can be known:
Hence, to the extent that this mode of knowing is actually practiced, I have a great regard for what is known as natural-- law, philosophy, religion, and theology. Usefulness not origins of an idea is the deciding factor for acceptance.
Hence, I will consider the ideas of those who claim their source of knowledge or inspiration is other than that of science. I believe that anybody who practices or at least strives for good life-conduct has nothing to fear in this life or any other future life if there should be such a thing—the good person is invincible. I am tolerant of other people’s belief systems and evaluate them only by their usefulness. If it works for the individual and the community, then it is all right with me.
Hence, I am tolerant of a wide variety of religions that promote social living through social justice. I believe in freedom of and from religion and in the separation of church and state. Applicable to all religions, I support modern “Protestantism” that emphasizes freedom from oppressive tradition and authority. This movement improves belief systems when it reforms them in accordance with modern knowledge.
Finally, with Thomas Paine (1737-1809) I declare: “my mind is my church” because I strive to follow the dictates of a humane, rational conscience--and the way I see it, I could do no better.
  
B.                       My Right to Freedom and Well-Being

Science is organized knowledge.

Wisdom is optimized life.

Philosophy is the love of both.

                                This writer 

 
I claim a right to the ultimate values of freedom and well-being because all other values—things that interest me--can be derived from them. I want others to respect that I have this fundamental right. However, I can only expect my right to be honored by others if I grant them the same right, which I unequivocally and emphatically do. To achieve freedom and well-being for all, the right to privacy, and the democratic way of life, I hold these points of view:
·       Utility or usefulness significantly determines the worth or value of anything, e.g., the degree to which it provides bodily or psychological comforts, “we shall know it by the fruit it brings forth”. This is a further development of the idea that the purpose of all action should be to bring about the greatest happiness of the greatest numbers by Jeremy Bentham (1748-1832). Therefore, I believe:
 
People below a minimum acceptable standard of living, the poor, will gain more utility from money for additional spending than the wealthy. Therefore, aggregate or total utility would be maximized by taking in a fair manner the opportunity to earn excess money from those who have more than they justifiably need and distribute it to the poor so that they can earn crucially needed money to live a life we call human. However, this may not be a very practical solution. But progressive taxation would have a like effect when it diminishes the incentive for making more than an individual needs. Rightfully, progressive taxation makes those who disproportionately benefit from society carry a more proportionate burden of society.
 
    And while each person avoids pain and seeks his or her own pleasure, this does not necessarily lead to egoism. Instead, through a humane nurturing of our emotions or feelings, we can find pleasure in the pleasure of others as John Steward Mill (1806-73) observed. Bentham’s and Mill’s philosophy of utility is known as utilitarianism.
 
·       Education—pragmatic mind-enabling learning--should be the essential method of building humane, free, and democratic societies. It should start in elementary school with moral education structured to develop an appreciation for moral virtues, critical intelligence, and the building of character. Education can be holy, divine, and sacred in a secular sense-- not to displace the religious sense--but to elevate education to its rightful place in society.
 
·       Liberalism—the political theory founded on the natural goodness of humans and the perfectibility of human nature and society. It promotes the autonomous (self-governing) and authentic (genuine) life for all individuals. This kind of life is justified by each person’s natural rights and made possible by a social contract that guarantees human rights, civil and political liberties, free and fair elections, government by law with the consent of the governed, and protection from arbitrary authority. Liberalism became a powerful force in The Age of Enlightenment. See this chapter for the contributions of liberalism’s most prominent thinkers: John Locke, Adam Smith, Marquis de Condorcet, Montesquieu, Thomas Jefferson, and John Stuart Mill. And more recently John Dewey and Paul Kurtz. Their ideas on major concepts such as liberty, democracy, tolerance, the economy, etc., vary; hence, we should speak of their liberalisms.
 
·       Justice is served if and only if everyone gets what he or she deserves. The benefits and burdens of living in a society must be distributed according to fair laws. Laws that do not yield justice, or are outright unjust, unfair, or immoral, are not really laws and they need not to be obeyed, though it is sometimes prudent to do so. This is contrary to some religious and philosophical teachings that demand slavish obedience regardless of the oppressiveness and brutality of the law. They demand, blindly follow and swallow!

 

·        Politics determines who gets what, how much, when, where, and how. If a government does not implement justice, and if this leads to the suffering of the many or even a few, then those responsible must be removed by democratic means, and if this is not possible as in totalitarian states, removal by any other means, e.g., revolution, is justified.

 

·       Economic systems should yield an optimal distribution of goods and services while taking into account consumer’s preferences, the individual’s contribution to society, and the environment—yes, let us move toward a green economy! This is part of utilitarianism’s moral framework. A system has to be tailored to reflect the conditions in a country. There is no single one system that works satisfactorily in all situations. Hence,
    “there is no such thing as left or right political economy, there is only good and bad.”
    For example, the economic system in social democracies (capitalism tempered by social legislation), though not necessarily fair, seems to work fairly well in industrialized, rich countries. However, in poor countries where there are fewer goods to go around, and where excessive private property leads to an unfair distribution, a more for the benefit of the community oriented system is in order (see Predatory Political Economy). Free trade is acceptable only if it lifts the well-being of the people in the trading nations. This is often not the case because the trade does not take place between the people but between corporations who then get the lion’s share of the benefits.
 
C.                    My Concerns with Secular Humanism
The chapters Reforming the World's Religions and To Be Democratic, Modern, and Humane urge that much can be learned from the tenets of secular humanism. However, this otherwise noble movement largely ignores non-scientific beliefs in general and religious beliefs in particular, though, in the words of W. A. Kaufmann:
 
A large part of reality—the part which most engages our feelings and emotions and which one might actually consider the most valuable—it is discounted as either inconsequential or even as in some sense unreal.
 
Goethe’s character Mephistopheles puts it this way:
 
What you can’t calculate, you think cannot be true;                
What you can’t weigh, that has no weight for you.
And,
Gray, my dear friend, is every theory,
And green alone life’s golden tree.
 
For example, almost all of humanity believes in ethical concepts and ideals. But for most this is too abstract unless it is personified into some role model such as God or turned into a cosmic force such as the law of dharma. Unfortunately, incomprehensible and less than ethical theories are common place in many religious and political systems. It is here where the tenets of humanism can make a demystifying thus clarifying contribution. But modern humanism will always be a mini minority’s belief as long as it ignores the therapeutic part of beliefs. For example, the Stoic philosopher Seneca (ca. 4 BCE-65CE) had such therapeutic counsel, e.g., quoted in Ben F. Kimpel’s Stoic Moral Philosophies: Their Counsel for Today (1985). Humanists should heed the words of Epicurus (341-270 BCE):
 
Vain is the word of a philosopher which does not heal any suffering of man. For just as there is no profit in medicine if it does not expel the diseases of the body; so there is no profit in philosophy either, if it does not expel the suffering of the mind.
 
I have made an earnest attempt in this work to follow Epicurus’ advice.
      Still another weakness of secular humanism is its inadequate analysis and critique of political economy, which is as influential as religion. Although incomplete and imperfect, my above stated views should adequately indicate to the reader the major characteristics of the springs that influenced my writing.