The conclusion is logically inevitable: Not only Humanism cannot be deduced from evolution: there is no common ground of "evolution" on the one side and "humanism" on the other side; the two have no "interface", just the way an old mechanic typewriter and a computer are incompatible. Both are based on totally different principles. — Matias

But you don't have to deduce morality from Evolution. You can believe that evolution, some form of it, is the case. That in fact this process or set of processes is what led to the vast arracy of flora and fauna. The you can also have humanistic values. You just don't use evolution to justify them, which I don't see humanists doing. These same humanists could view humans as the most complicated life forms or use some other adjective and therefore value humans in ways they do not value other speciies. But saying you cannot deduce humanism from evolution is a bit like saying you can't deduce humanism form current theories on the life cycle of stars. You simply don't need to. Humanism is not contradicted by evolutionary theory.

- no species is superior to other species — Matias

in terms of evolution. IOW all that are alive are adapted to their environments, sure. But outside of evoutionary theory, using criteria that one developes using the brains evolution has given us, one can decide that we are best or most important (to us) and center on that. In fact evolution would tend to lead to creatures most concerned about themselves, and amongst social mammals, most likely to value highly other members of their own species. But, in any case, there is nothing contradictory about valuing our species over others. It would be contradictory, at this point, to say we are objectively better in evolutionary terms than other species, since there are no values in evolution, there is just survival or not. Evolution is a process, in one sense of the word, or a theory. And it is a theory that has nothing to do with values. It's a category error to say that our values must somehow be based on what evolutionary theory describes. It's a category error to say that our values must be based on a description of a process. One could argue that claiming there are objective values becomes problematic for those who believe in a naturalistic realism. But there is nothing to say that valuing humans most highly and developing values from our natural instincts to care about our species more than others and to value our skills and abilities more than others contradicts evolutionary theory. In fact it is fairly predictable that we would. Wolves care about other wolves most.

Morality, from an evolutionary standpoint, is a handicap. — Tzeentch

If this were true, morality would have gone extinct, would have disappeared long ago. But Homo sapiens is an inherently moral animal, moral rules and values are a kind of "operating system" for human societies, and one can even say that morality helped Homo sapiens become the "master of this planet", because this strange naked bipedal animal is only strong as a member of a group, and morality provided (among other things) the social glue for effective groups.
Therefore morality is the outcome of evolutionary forces but evolution itself is not moral.

Humanism has nothing to do with some mythical being up in the skies. It's a secular thing. — Frotunes

Humanists believe in the unique value of the individual human being, in human dignity. These are fictions like other religious fictions, they are "superhuman" as karma or spirits or heaven.

These same humanists could view humans as the most complicated life forms or use some other adjective and therefore value humans in ways they do not value other speciies. — Coben

Yes, humanists value human beings in a way they do not value other animals, but they are unable to justify this special treatment if they base their philosophy / ideology on evolution. What is the justification for the basic value of "human dignity"? Is humanism just a form of "speciesism"? Do (atheist) humanists prefer and value humans in the same or a similar way that white supremacists prefer and value white people? Just because it is "us"? That would be a strange sort of justification.

Evolution led to the development of morality, first in protomoralities in many animals, perhaps even fully morality in some of the higher mammals, and then in us. — Coben

Of course: morality is a feature that is the result of evolutionary processes and mechanisms, but that does not mean that the process and its mechanisms (variation, selection, reproduction, drift) are inherently moral. Sexuality is another feature that evolved, but evolution is not sexual.

Truly moral and virtuous people are exceedingly rare. Most people live in such comfort that there is little incentive to be immoral, but given a little pressure one would be amazed at how quickly morals go out of the window. Experiments like that of Milgram or the Stanford Prison Experiment show how thin this veil truly is. Fear of the law or social stigmatization are much greater incentives to cooperate. It has, in most people, nothing to do with being moral.

When referring to evolution, one overlooks the fact that the reason humanity generally seeks to cooperate, is because it often generates a more favourable outcome when compared to the antagonistic option. However, when faced with an "us or them" scenario, humanity universally chooses war.

It varies in degree though. Human morals and magic are hardly the same thing.

agree

humanism is an optimistic theory

war is a great example

Are you trying to gather as many points as possible, or why are you posting single words and half-sentences instead of arguments?
These threads are already quite frayed out sometimes.

i suppose im going for quality over quantity

Yes, humanists value human beings in a way they do not value other animals, but they are unable to justify this special treatment if they base their philosophy / ideology on evolution. — Matias

But where are you getting the idea that humanists are basing their ideology on evolution (thereby committing the naturalistic fallacy)? This is not a rhetorical question: I don't know much about humanism as a contemporary movement, although I suspect that it doesn't have anything like a unified, theoretically motivated ideology.

Truly moral and virtuous people are exceedingly rare. — Tzeentch

Oh sure, No True Scotsmen Moral and Virtuous People would be favored by evolution! Which isn't far from the truth, for what that is worth. Evolution is not so much an optimizing process as a satisficing one: it doesn't need to create a population of Truly Moral and Virtuous People, it only needs to create a population of people who are, on the whole, moral enough to get along together in common circumstances - which, not coincidentally, is just what we are.

i suppose i often dont have too much to say — Frotunes

Then don't.

Oh sure, No True Scotsmen Moral and Virtuous People would be favored by evolution! Which isn't far from the truth, for what that is worth. Evolution is not so much an optimizing process as a satisficing one: it doesn't need to create a population of Truly Moral and Virtuous People, it only needs to create a population of people who are, on the whole, moral enough to get along together - which, not coincidentally, is just what we are. — SophistiCat

Human beings cooperate because going at it alone means missing out on all the things the collective provides. It has nothing to do with morality. The prospect of a more favorable outcome has caused many wars and conflicts, laying bare the weakness in your argument.

You are making it sound like cooperative behavior is motivated entirely by self-interest, which just isn't true. I don't even care to argue the point, I think it should be obvious if you think about it for a moment.

Most of it is. There's defnitely not enough cooperative behavior that is motivated by selflessness to justify the claim that morality is a trait inherent in all humans.

Humanism already presupposes a moral code, Evolution does not. That makes them incompatible from the start, at least if one is going to ask a moral question.
But I suppose it is possible, that one can have a spiritual/ evolution view point, where evolution has a spiritual purpose in itself, therefore and possibly some morality.

While humanism may value life, evolution values survival. And if survival is of the highest value, is that not just another expression of value in life? Survival not of the individual, but survival of the species.

Of course: morality is a feature that is the result of evolutionary processes and mechanisms, but that does not mean that the process and its mechanisms (variation, selection, reproduction, drift) are inherently moral. — Matias

I generally agree with your post. But I'd like to consider the sense in which morality really is a result of evolutionary processes.

Evolutionary theory is a biological theory devised to account for the origin of species; but there's also considerable cultural confusion and equivocation, because, apart from being a scientific theory, it also directly concerns our identity (unlike, say, physics); and is understood, rightly or not, to have displaced or superseded the previous religious accounts of divine creation.

This has tended to create a dichotomous outcome, on which two mutually-exclusive worldviews are based, as you note in the OP. But a lot of that is cultural, rather than scientific, and those antagonists of religion who use evolution as a tool of philosophical polemics, are strangely like the fundamentalists they often oppose.

I say that to frame my response, which is critical of the approach taken by secular theorists, but which is not, on those grounds, aligned with creationism, either. I don't question the veracity of evolutionary theory in the least, but I do question the basis it provides for moral theory.

People can perform extraordinary acts of altruism, including kindness toward other species — or they can utterly fail to be altruistic, even toward their own children. So whatever tendencies we may have inherited leave ample room for variation; our choices will determine which end of the spectrum we approach. This is where ethical discourse comes in — not in explaining how we’re “built,” but in deliberating on our own future acts. Should I cheat on this test? Should I give this stranger a ride? Knowing how my selfish and altruistic feelings evolved doesn’t help me decide at all. Most, though not all, moral codes advise me to cultivate altruism. But since the human race has evolved to be capable of a wide range of both selfish and altruistic behavior, there is no reason to say that altruism is superior to selfishness in any biological sense ¹ . — Richard Polt

I think h. sapiens did indeed evolve, but once at the stage of being a language-using, tool-using being, then we're no longer simply animals, as we can consider whether this or that action is the right one. We can consider the meaning of things and not simply react by instinct. That marks the division between conscious, self-aware beings, and animals - a distinction which our secular culture now has difficulty mapping.

Also see this discussion of Thomas Nagel's 2012 book Mind and Cosmos, which is exactly about this topic.

Yes, humanists value human beings in a way they do not value other animals, but they are unable to justify this special treatment if they base their philosophy / ideology on evolution. — Matias

But why do they need to do that? Why must they base their values on evolution or the theory of relativity or any other scientific theory or process that science has described?

Humanists believe in the unique value of the individual human being, in human dignity. These are fictions like other religious fictions, they are "superhuman" as karma or spirits or heaven. — Matias

They often believe that humans are smarter than other animals and capable of more things. I am not sure if 'human dignity' is one of their beliefs. They value human capabilities and nature. Those are values. People have different values.

Of course: morality is a feature that is the result of evolutionary processes and mechanisms, but that does not mean that the process and its mechanisms (variation, selection, reproduction, drift) are inherently moral. — Matias

I didn't say that evolutionary processes are moral. You seem to be saying that since humanists believe in evolution they must base their values on evolutionary theory. I don't see that. They can base their values on whatever they like.

Is humanism just a form of "speciesism"? — Matias

In most cases it probably is. Though certainly some humanists work to protect other life forms and it is utterly clear that man secular people do.

Do (atheist) humanists prefer and value humans in the same or a similar way that white supremacists prefer and value white people? Just because it is "us"? That would be a strange sort of justification. — Matias

From what i can see, just like most non-humanists they value living things are that most like them. From there, like for example religious people, they come up with was of justifying this. I think humanists tend to think they are special becuase of their intelligence and tend to be more empathic regarding other intelligent social mammals. Religious people, like some humanists, often justify the kiling of or the hatred of people less like them. Whether this difference is in belief for perceived intelligence or whatever. It seems to be a universal bias.

I know a few self proclaimed humanist and they are honestly some of the most bigoted people. They hold an air of superiority and condemnation to anyone who does not 100% agree. I believe many of them identify as humanist, unconscious even to themselves, as a justification to believe they are morally superior to others.

They can base their values on whatever they like. — Coben

An ethical system is typically named after its core value. The core value of humanism is the human being. If they are basing this value on something else, then they shouldn't be called humanists - they should be something else-ists (rationalists perhaps, if they claim to have purely rational foundations for their values).

else-ists — SophistiCat

Love it.

I don't question the veracity of evolutionary theory in the least, but I do question the basis it provides for moral theory. — Wayfarer

Here you go again conflating the sensible idea that morality evolved (and that moral behavior is not unique to humans) with the silly idea that morality "has a basis" in evolution. The latter is an incoherent notion if by "basis" you mean something like 'justification'; the latter is a category error, whereas the former is obviously plausible.

moral behavior is not unique to humans — Janus

Can you provide examples of animals acting immorally?

Social animals may behave aggressively towards one another within groups, but they generally act "sociably", (and with kindness to their own kind, for example they don't kill or even beat each other). They are not generally as stupid, selfish and anti-social as humans often are.

Of course as usual you pick a minor point in my response instead of responding to my main criticism of your conflation.