Aaron the Humanist
A late arrival to the humanist family, class of 2014, Aaron has been a solid humanist for a whole decade now. What started for him as the “unseen essence” of humanism has now become the firm bedrock of his entire worldview and values. But why is the world still so divided?
Humanism drew me in... but what was I missing?
When I attended my first humanist meeting, a talk about night shelters for homeless young people, I hadn’t grasped what humanism was about. I knew it was non-religious, but what else brought people together in a humanist meeting? Surely it wasn't just being non-religious? I had of course Googled ‘humanism’, but information provided by the then British Humanist Association didn’t nail it for me. Wikipedia didn’t either. Humanist International’s “Amsterdam Declaration” just talked about living a good life but surely that’s what we all do, isn’t it? What was I missing?
As time went on, and after asking a lot of questions, I volunteered to redesign the humanist group’s information leaflets. I was learning what the message was at the same time as trying to craft and deliver that message to people like me who hadn’t grasped it. But it felt as if I was taking someone into an ancient forest and inviting them to relax so that they could see the wood for the trees, although the people I had in mind might never have entered such a forest of confusing information.
Values and ethics are NOT on everyone’s radar. I can think of friends and family who just wouldn’t grasp the concepts at all, and would be stumped if I invited them to tell me their own values and ethics. In fact I'm going to do this! But people are busy living life and paying the bills. They may have a concept of what’s right and wrong. Of course, this will vary from person to person. But when we bring these internal moral guidelines out into the open, we may find some starting points on which to agree, to bond over, and to move the conversation forwards.
Star Trek: Gene Roddenberry’s golden vision
I've often referred to Star Trek in my articles, especially Star Trek: The Next Generation (1987-1994), where Captain Jean-Luc Picard, played by humanist Patrick Stewart, adheres to Starfleet principles, including the Prime Directive which prohibits interference in alien civilisations. Gene Roddenberry’s golden vision of good guys working together for a common cause was deeply woven into the fabric of the series. It's what drew me in. But the latest series, Star Trek Picard (2020-2023) lost the ethos of a Federation of Planets committed to peace, exploration, and mutual cooperation across its member planets. It was very much about Picard’s one-man quest for justice and redemption. It didn’t add anything to my ethical takeaways from the first season. I liked the ethos of aiming for a perfect world and a future full of good people living by a moral compass. Even if they were sometimes blown off course they returned to their true sense of humanity. When these values and ethics were removed from the series I lost interest.
Back in the real world
Why do humans go to war? Why did the Nazis want to dominate the continent of Europe? Why did Putin invade Ukraine? Why did Hamas attack Israel? Why does China threaten Taiwan? From a humanist perspective, it seems that some conflicts are fought over different religious beliefs, while others are fought over borders even when the two sides are ethnically and culturally similar. Some conflicts generate fierce disagreement across the world. Each side is entrenched in their ‘ethical subroutines’ and a sense of their own rightness. Their reasoned positions are cross-checked against their values and both sides may shout loudly in defence of their beliefs. But if distant spectators to such conflicts with time on their hands for calm and reasoned assessment cannot agree, how can we expect those involved to do so?
We don't live in a world of universal values. People are not born equal, and human life is often expendable. There’s a multiplicity of religions and ethical systems. But underneath all of this diversity, could there not be a common human morality?
Would not all sides in conflict agree that killing is wrong, that invading a neighbouring country without provocation is wrong, that it’s wrong to attack non-combatants, even in retaliation, and that all people have a right to life? There are, of course, many other moral questions to raise, such as female equality, acceptance of different sexualities, capital punishment, and more. Are all of these areas subject to universally accepted values or are we in danger of forcing ‘Western’ values onto religious nations?
World value system
The United Nations published the Universal Declaration of Human Rights in 1948, and more recently, the Global Goals in 2015. As of 2023, 100% of the 193 member states of the United Nations are considered signatories or supporters of the UDHR and the Global Goals. But it seems to me that not all countries respect such rights and goals in their culture, society or national laws. So does the world as a whole hold a shared value system, or only part of it? Do some countries sign up because to fail to do so would lose them aid, protection, trade or a seat at the table?
As humanists we’re not in the business of forcing people to agree with us, so should we support Trump when he threatens to end US involvement in foreign wars? Should we just let them be, pull out, and leave said countries to their own devices? Should we seek to isolate rogue countries in terms of travel and trade? As a gay man, I have a mental list of countries I wouldn't step foot in for fear of arrest. Maybe everyone in the free world should follow the same list. But, I hear you say, what about the good people, the humanists, in such blacklisted countries? Do we forget about them? Returning to my main question, can we impose liberal democratic values on other countries? And when refugees want to flee oppressive countries, should we just accept them?
Preserving liberal values
One thing I do want for sure, is for liberal countries to uphold their ethical traditions and not allow them to be diluted in the name of multiculturalism. Of course, I am not claiming that native Brits are more ethical than immigrants. But we should be vigilant about protecting the liberties and freedoms which have taken us centuries to establish. We don't want a country of robots, but surely to goodness, if you enter the UK with a desire to live here, be sheltered here, to work and build a life here, the very least we would demand is that you uphold so-called British values: democracy, rule of law, individual liberty, mutual respect, and tolerance of those with different faiths and beliefs. It is, after all, these very principles that probably make Britain a destination for so many. We certainly don’t want immigrants to bring ethnic and religious conflicts with them, to be fought on our streets as seen in some clashes in UK cities in recent years.
So how do you rate my chances of a new career as a UN mediator? Do you think I need to do some more work?
Comentários