Wednesday, 19 November 2014

The Deception of Humanism

The world has changed dramatically each century, and the changes of the 21st century are no less dramatic.  One of the most significant changes is the dominance of humanism and its selfish sympathy for groups deemed to be marginalised or oppressed. Such is the starkest manifestation of humanism.

Humanism is the ideology that people are good, moral and even righteous by nature. It assumes that whatever evils humans may commit, it is not because of an inherently evil nature, but rather because of environmental factors such as poverty, inequality or a lack of education. Environmental factors, thus, must be taken into account to determine the moral culpability of an act.  The good deeds of a person must also be taken into account to determine the moral culpability of an immoral act of a person since moral culpability is not determined by the act per se, but determined according to the person’s overall character. Therefore, if a person has stolen from others and murdered others, but also has been involved in anti-violence campaigning, he or she is still deemed to be a morally good person.

The media being almost silent, if not completely silent about the anti-violence campaigner who ironically committed murder of his girlfriend demonstrates this. Whenever a white woman is being murdered, the media would spend days and perhaps weeks of commentary engaging in discussion about the alleged mistreatment of women and misogyny based on that single murder case alone. However, the media in this case, while not explicitly praising the ‘anti-violence campaigner’ appears to be doing so, by even revealing this about the murderer. It also seemed to attribute the murder to depression rather than regard the case as an evil act, by recommending people to call the hotline if they are feeling depressed. It is not that the media does not know murder is an evil act in and of itself – it does know as is evident in its aggressive condemnation of other murder cases.

Based on the assumption that humans are naturally good, it follows that different acts of evil are to be judged in comparison to each other, rather than being judged for the act of evil itself. If one does not regard evil to be of the evil nature of human beings, not act committed by human can be deemed evil in the absolute sense, but only as a product of the environment. Therefore, an act is only evil where it causes harm that is sensed by people, whether physical, emotional, or social harm.

Many in the modern pro-life movement, for example, deem abortive women to be “deserving” of sympathy and compassion, and that anger against them is wrong, but yet that only those who lie of them deserve to be treated with anger. For one to say that one believes abortion as an act is wrong, one must believe it to be wrong in and of itself. If one says it is right to be angry at the act of abortion, and those who lie to others to encourage abortion, one must accept that it is also right to be angry at those who seek abortions. To say that one must be sympathetic towards ‘abortive’ women, but yet that it is right to be angry at those who lie to them, is to be inconsistent with one’s conviction that abortion is wrong at best, and hypocritical at worst. It is to treat the morality of abortion as dependent on how it affects people, rather than on the act itself. This logic is another example of humanism operating in moral debates.

Humanism is really a means for people to decide what moral values they want to follow, and what they do not want to follow or even exist. Humanism provides no anchor for absolutes, and as a result of this, legitimises moral relativism. Since there are no absolutes, moral standards can be twisted to determine when such standards apply and when such standards do not. In addition to this, moral standards are twisted to determine when justice should be done, and when justice should not be sought.

Moral relativism justifies punishing a person for a particular act, and dismissing the moral culpability of another person who committed the exact same act or even excusing it by making up an excuse for that person. This is most evident in family courts that favour giving child custody to mothers, even to the ones who are clearly abusive, on the pretext that women are less morally culpable of child abuse than men are, in the pursuit of transforming the society into one that justified child abuse committed by women.

Many argue that people of the 21st century are morally good or perhaps superior to those of other centuries because they are more sensitive and respectful of personal beliefs and sensitivities of others.  Indeed, it is true that that society of the 21st century is characterised by the fear of offending people. This itself is a humanistic viewpoint, as it assumes that one is morally good because has a fear of what others feel about what one says. What people think personally determines right and wrong. 

Since, morality is determined according to the individual, therefore the reaction of an individual towards others based on one’s own beliefs also determines what is morally right and wrong. This reveals the proud, arrogant and selfish philosophy of humanism, which deems offence to be determined according to whether one has “hurt” another or annoyed another by disagreeing with another.

That humanism makes people kinder is a real myth. It is amazing how people can see the hypocrisy of others, and yet not realise their own, making one even more hypocritical. Humanists often accuse people of being intolerant for not being moral relativists, but yet through being tolerant for all beliefs, because intolerant. The humanistic framework accepts all frameworks that allow people to believe in whatever they choose and conditionally choose when to follow it. Thus, it is diametrically opposed to one which requires absolute loyalty to a moral framework which, when not complied with, is to oppose that framework.

The humanist sees such frameworks as intolerant, oppressive and bigoted as it is unable to allow a person to think freely. The humanist believes that to allow people to think and act freely is to be kind to others, as long as they do not cause perceived harm to others. Thus, the humanist sees people of moral absolutist frameworks which demand absolute compliance to them for one to be deemed consistent in one’s beliefs to not merely be tools of unkindness, but unkindness itself. This is because the humanist thinks that right is determined according to an individual’s own desires, aspirations and visions. Right and wrong is subjective is the central humanist tenet, one that is absolute itself.

Morality is that which determines that which is right or wrong for an act, deed or thought to be carried out. Since it is concerned with whether an act, deed or thought is right or wrong itself, morality, by its very definition is absolute. Moral relativism is not morality. Rather, moral relativism, the most central tenet of humanism, is an irony as it purports that morality need not be concerned with right or wrong. Moral relativism by its nature is self-contradictory. Owing to this self-contradictory nature, moral relativism enables people to determine individual “moral” standards, and can only do so.

This is not “tolerance” or “respect” for the views of those who hold a minority moral position in anyway. Rather, it provides a means for tyranny by the majority – control of the minority by the majority is legitimised by the oxymoronic term ‘moral relativism’.  ‘Moral relativism’ would be more rightly called rejection of morality, or immorality.

Morality and immorality are diametrically opposed to each other. Morality upholds not merely “respect”, term that is always abused in the immoral modern world, but does not respect persons. Rather, it concerned uphold whether an act, deed or thought is of legitimate authority. It also rejects any prospect of gain in judging whether an act, deed or thought is right or wrong. Immorality, on the other hand, has no regard for the rightness or wrongness of acts, deeds or thoughts, and cared only for one’s own self-interests. As such, it is often hypocritical as demonstrated by the many non-government organisations. Many non-government organisations call themselves “charities”, but only seek to advance the self-interests of certain groups. The classic examples are the varied ranges of “rights” groups.

What is moral cannot be mixed with that which is immoral, or else that which is moral is corrupted and becomes immoral. That which is moral must be absolute, and which moral value is consistent in all cases. To be inconsistent in apply moral standards would be to allow unfairness and injustice. Therefore, there is no such thing as respect for the moral view of others, as immoral people claim in the name of tolerance. Respecting the views of others is to agree and accept it a one that is legitimate. The immoral person, a so-called moral relativist, does not agree and accept moral standards.

The immoral person is inevitably always a self-seeking and self-centred person by virtue of the inability to accept and agree with moral standards. Rather, he or she dismisses morality as a “social construct” or non-existent. This is in one’s selfishness that one dismisses morality which requires one to not be self-seeking or self-centred. Thus, the immoral person cannot truly care for others. The immoral person, who is the typical person of the 21st century, cannot be truly concerned with the needs of others. He or she may be concerned with the needs of others, but only on conditions of how one is benefited.

Such is the root of humanism which is the ideology and spirit behind all political, social, economic or cultural ideologies. One cannot blame any individual or group for all the evil and suffering in the world. Rather, those who are self-centred and self-seeking, which not every single person is, can only blame themselves for their contribution to all the evil and suffering in the world. Humanism legitimises the idea that one is entitled to do as one chooses and blame evil and suffering on others, and yet also that humans are good.

Humanism degrades morality, and mocks it by taking the benefits of such moral standards and then twisting it for the pursuit of one’s gain.  Yet, it takes credit for the good it creates, which “good” is a perversion of morality, and attacks the moral standard for its “repression” when those standards supposedly fail society.

Humanism is evil, wicked, and an abominable ideology. It is the ideology of perversion, proud and arrogant. It legitimises hatred in the name of love and tolerance, and immorality in the name of kindness.  Humanism is a disease of the human heart which must be eradicated.