Is "evolutionary humanism" a contradiction in terms ?

Matias

There is supposed to be a philosophy called "evolutionary humanism". The German philosopher Michael Schmidt-Salomon even wrote a book entitled "Manifesto of Evolutionary Humanism".
Isn't this term a contradiction in terms ?
My answer is Yes, and here are my thoughts about it.

On the one hand we have the theory of evolution, which tells us that Homo sapiens too is nothing else than an animal, an evolved living being like millions of others. If Sapiens also has specific characteristics that distinguish us from apes, for example, this is nothing unusual, since many species have such characteristics or abilities that are not found in other species, without this entailing a special position.

But this is exactly the basic idea of humanism: that man has a special position within nature. Classical humanism saw this special position in the fact that man alone connects the material world with the spiritual and divine worlds ; man therefore has a mediating role between the "above" and the "below".

Modern humanism is no longer based on the idea of the spiritual or even the divine. Nevertheless, it grants man a special position by ascribing to him a unique DIGNITY (from which then special "human rights" can be derived). This dignity distinguishes Sapiens - and only him ! - It marks the qualitative difference, the gap which separates the human being from the animal kingdom.

Here's a question for those who would deny that such a qualitative gap exists: imagine a herd a migrating wildebeests somewhere in Africa. They cross a river and 50 of them drown. Now image a group a migrating humans, and 50 of them drown while trying to cross the Mediterranean or the Rio Grande. Is there a difference in value between the two accidents? The first incident is just something that happens every day in nature; animals are born, they survive, they die. But the death of 50 human migrants is not something in the category "things happen": is a tragedy. Because of special human dignity.

To sum it up: The evolution theory says: no special role / special position for the H.sapiens . Humanism says: yes, because only the human being, regardless of his abilities, has a special dignity.
Therefore the "evolutionary humanism" is a philosophical impossibility, the attempt of a squaring of the circle.

noAxioms

Classical humanism saw this special position in the fact that man alone connects the material world with the spiritual and divine worlds ; man therefore has a mediating role between the "above" and the "below". — Matias

This doesn't seem to be the sort of humanism of which MSS is speaking. I read the wiki page and it seems to focus very much on natural everything, and that humans, given their abilities, play some sort of special role, but not a supernatural one.
A wiki quote about the thesis:
"The manifesto outlines, that humanity will be able to create more life-friendly, free, and just conditions than can be found today."
The life-friendly thing is quite a strange assertion for a species responsible for the Holocene extinction event. I'm pretty sure the other animals would rather we had not appeared on the scene at all.

Matias

↪noAxioms

No, of course MSS's "humanism" has nothing to do with the humanism of, say, Erasmus of Rotterdam or Pico della Mirandola. But atheist humanists like MSS have great problems to explain what their 'humanum' is supposed to be that makes the human animal so special. They are unable to explain human dignity. That's the basic flaw of their theory
A philosophy that can be summed up by "We are all together on this boat; so let's be nice to each other" does not need a pretentious name like "humanism", especially if there is a gap between the postmodern and the classical variety.

T Clark

Here's a question for those who would deny that such a qualitative gap exists: imagine a herd a migrating wildebeests somewhere in Africa. They cross a river and 50 of them drown. Now image a group a migrating humans, and 50 of them drown while trying to cross the Mediterranean or the Rio Grande. Is there a difference in value between the two accidents? The first incident is just something that happens every day in nature; animals are born, they survive, they die. But the death of 50 human migrants is not something in the category "things happen": is a tragedy. Because of special human dignity.

To sum it up: The evolution theory says: no special role / special position for the H.sapiens . Humanism says: yes, because only the human being, regardless of his abilities, has a special dignity.
Therefore the "evolutionary humanism" is a philosophical impossibility, the attempt of a squaring of the circle. — Matias

But atheist humanists like MSS have great problems to explain what their 'humanum' is supposed to be that makes the human animal so special. They are unable to explain human dignity. That's the basic flaw of their theory — Matias

I have always thought of humanism as a perspective that sees the world from the viewpoint of human values. If that's a valid definition of humanism, and I think it is, then there is no contradiction.

A philosophy that can be summed up by "We are all together on this boat; so let's be nice to each other" does not need a pretentious name like "humanism" — Matias

I do agree with this.

introbert

Certainly if you look at some of the premises of both evolution and humanism you will find contradictory ones as you have. But I dont think the two terms in themselves are contradictory. In fact I think evolution is such a rational process and demands rational adaptation of humans to environment that it does not conflict with humanism.

Pantagruel

Evolutionary humanism I think views humanity as a kind of apex of naturalism. This certainly fits my perspective.

180 Proof

Man is a rope, tied between beast and overman - a rope over an abyss. A dangerous across, a dangerous on-the-way, a dangerous looking-back, a dangerous shuddering and stopping. — Thus Spoke Zarathustra

Joshs

↪Pantagruel

Evolutionary humanism I think views humanity as a kind of apex of naturalism. This certainly fits my perspective. — Pantagruel

“We have learned differently. We have become more modest in every way. We no longer derive the human being from “the spirit” or “the deity”; we have placed him back among the animals. We consider him the strongest animal because he is the most cunning: his spirituality is a consequence of this. On the other hand, we oppose the vanity that would raise its head again here too—as if the human being had been the great hidden purpose of the evolution of animals. The human being is by no means the crown of creation: every living being stands beside him on the same level of perfection. And even this is saying too much: relatively speaking, the human being is the most bungled of all the animals, the sickliest, and not one has strayed more dangerously from its instincts. But for all that, he is of course the most interesting.”(Nietzsche,GM 111:25)

Tom Storm

I have always thought of humanism as a perspective that sees the world from the viewpoint of human values. If that's a valid definition of humanism, and I think it is, then there is no contradiction. — T Clark

I agree.

There is of course a view from some folk, who believe in transcendent realities, that it is impossible to elevate or enshrine 'the human' because any such valuation is religious in nature, evoking a sense of the sacred, which in a godless world, where values are arbitrary, can have no justification. It's an old argument.

The evolutionary argument against naturalism seems to be a nice companion this.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evolutionary_argument_against_naturalism#:~:text=The%20evolutionary%20argument%20against%20naturalism,evolution%20and%20philosophical%20naturalism%20simultaneously.

My glib response is there are lots of things people will argue can't be done and yet they are done.

T Clark

The evolutionary argument against naturalism seems to be a nice companion this.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evolutionary_argument_against_naturalism#:~:text=The%20evolutionary%20argument%20against%20naturalism,evolution%20and%20philosophical%20naturalism%20simultaneously.

My glib response is there are lots of things people will argue can't be done and yet they are done. — Tom Storm

The argument, to the extent I can understand from the article you linked, seems to be that without outside guidance, evolution could never develop reliable rational intelligence and without reliable rational intelligence no human belief, including in evolution, can be trusted. Seems a lot like the fine tuning argument.

Tom Storm

↪T Clark

Kind of. Wayfarer was a big fan of this argument and I find it hard to summarily dismiss, although I don't accept it as a path to a transcendent truth.

Charles Darwin in a letter to William Graham, July 3, 1881, put it thus:

With me the horrid doubt always arises whether the convictions of man’s mind, which has been developed from the mind of the lower animals, are of any value or at all trustworthy. Would any one trust in the convictions of a monkey’s mind, if there are any convictions in such a mind?

The argument (and there are philosophers like Donald Hoffman who holds something like this view too) is that the process of evolution does not require truth, only survivability. The probability of our cognitive faculties reliably producing true beliefs is low if ontological naturalism is true, and therefore all other beliefs produced by these faculties, including naturalism itself, are self-defeating.

Alvin Plantinga puts it like this:

...the probability of our cognitive faculties being reliable, given naturalism and evolution, is low. (To put it a bit inaccurately but suggestively, if naturalism and evolution were both true, our cognitive faculties would very likely not be reliable.) But then according to the second premise of my argument, if I believe both naturalism and evolution, I have a defeater for my intuitive assumption that my cognitive faculties are reliable. If I have a defeater for that belief, however, then I have a defeater for any belief I take to be produced by my cognitive faculties. That means that I have a defeater for my belief that naturalism and evolution are true. So my belief that naturalism and evolution are true gives me a defeater for that very belief; that belief shoots itself in the foot and is self-referentially incoherent; therefore I cannot rationally accept it.

- Alvin Plantinga Where the Conflict Really Lies

I have no doubt that a clever argument like this has equally clever philosophical escape routes.

T Clark

The argument (and there are philosophers like Donald Hoffman who take this view too) is that the process of evolution does not require truth, only survivability. — Tom Storm

Another way of saying that survivability is what matters is to say the truth is what works. That's the battle cry of the pragmatist. As far as we can tell, the theory of evolution by natural selection works. It helps us predict the future. Predicting the future makes it easier for us to survive.

T Clark

↪Tom Storm

A question - if the argument is true, what is the alternative? God?

Tom Storm

A question - if the argument is true, what is the alternative? God? — T Clark

For Plantinga, who is a theologian and philosopher, yes. For Donald Hoffman, we live in a simulation.

I think the takeaway message is that for many people certainty or truth, even the possibility of intelligibility itself must rest upon a transcendental foundation (idealism/will/theism/deism/Tao).

Tom Storm

Another way of saying that survivability is what matters is to say the truth is what works. That's the battle cry of the pragmatist. As far as we can tell, the theory of evolution by natural selection works. It helps us predict the future. Predicting the future makes it easier for us to survive. — T Clark

Yes. There are of course philosophers who would argue (Rorty) that humans indeed do not have access to truth, so this is correct. We simply use language to manage our environment and while we can justify our ideas, there is no truth 'out there' to find - this notion being a remnant of Greek philosophy (Plato, et al). A lot of where one lands on this seems to depend upon the scale you are working within.

T Clark

I think the takeaway message is that for many people certainty or truth, even the possibility of intelligibility itself must rest upon a transcendental foundation (idealism/will/theism/deism/Tao). — Tom Storm

Well, it's clear to me that truth, certainty, intelligibility, belief, and all the rest are concepts and reflect values created by our imperfect human minds. That makes it a circular argument.

Tom Storm

↪T Clark

Circular arguments make the world go around.

ThinkOfOne

But this is exactly the basic idea of humanism: that man has a special position within nature...
Modern humanism is no longer based on the idea of the spiritual or even the divine. Nevertheless, it grants man a special position by ascribing to him a unique DIGNITY...
This dignity distinguishes Sapiens - and only him ! - It marks the qualitative difference, the gap which separates the human being from the animal kingdom. — Matias

On what do you base this assertion?

Why is there such a large gulf between the underlying concepts of what you wrote and the underlying concepts of the following?:
Humanism is a progressive philosophy of life that, without theism or other supernatural beliefs, affirms our ability and responsibility to lead ethical lives of personal fulfillment that aspire to the greater good.
– American Humanist Association
From <https://americanhumanist.org/what-is-humanism/definition-of-humanism/>

To say that human beings have dignity is to say that human beings also have an obligation or duty to respect the rights of all people. These rights include the right to life, liberty, and security of person; the right to be freed from slavery; equal protection before the law; freedom from arbitrary arrest, detention or exile; and so on.
From <https://www.apadivisions.org/division-32/publications/newsletters/humanistic/2014/01/dignity>

180 Proof

Another way of saying that survivability is what matters is to say the truth is what works. That's the battle cry of the pragmatist [except for e.g. Peirce & Dewey]. As far as we can tell, the theory of evolution by natural selection works. It helps us predict the future. Predicting the future makes it easier for us to survive. — T Clark

If by "survivability" what is meant is adaptivity, then, as far as I can tell, this deflation of "truth" is spot on. :up:

↪T Clark

No doubt god-of-the-gaps ...

T Clark

If by "survivability" what is meant is adaptivity, then, as far as I can tell, this deflation of "truth" is spot on. — 180 Proof

Hey!!! You changed my text.

Anyway - I'm ok with adaptivity for survivability. I'm not sure of the difference in this context.

Agent Smith

Syat, I quite like the idea of evolutionary humanism. Despite the fact that Yuval Noah Harari (Israeli historian who penned the sutra titled Sapiens) calls humans the most prolific serial killer the world has ever seen (probably referring to the human-induced Holocene extinction), humans are also the only animal with a moral compass, a sense of right and wrong. We will continue to murder no doubt, but we've now reached the stage where we want to do it gently (Forrester's paradox, humane killing) and the endpoint of this if we stay on course is ahimsa.

180 Proof

↪Agent Smith

As long we h. sapiens, like every other metabolically complex organism, must live by consuming corpses, "ahisma" will remain just another mirage in the desert of the real. Rather, mi amigo, conatus :point: amor fati!

Agent Smith

As long we h. sapiens, like every other metabolically complex organism, must live by consuming corpses, "ahisma" will remain just another mirage in the desert of the real. Rather, mi amigo, conatus :point: amor fati! — 180 Proof

Syād, true! Allow/permit evolution, sensu latissimo, to do its thing.

Deus

As we are given the senses that we have through evolution and furthermore intellect reason logic and context derived morality. A human being is not limited by the senses gifted to it by evolutionary processes alone. In this regard they have the ability to affect their own evolution to enhance those very senses bestowed by nature.

god must be atheist

No, of course MSS's "humanism" has nothing to do with the humanism of, say, Erasmus of Rotterdam or Pico della Mirandola. But atheist humanists like MSS have great problems to explain what their 'humanum' is supposed to be that makes the human animal so special. They are unable to explain human dignity. That's the basic flaw of their theory — Matias

Can you give a quotation or reference where humanists say "we ascribe dignity to humans and not to other species"?

Is it your own interpretation and explanation what separates humanists from others who also want a symbiotic, and harmonious existence among living creatures?

I need to know this before we proceed. I am sure others would like to know too, whether the insistence on dignity to be an exclusively human trait is an official humanist idea or it is your own conclusion that humanists MUST think that.

Please give an answer to this, Matias.

Matias

↪god must be atheist

There is no need of a quotation from MSS or any other humanist. The American Declaration of Independence talks about the "self-evident truth" of inalienable human rights. The first paragraph of the German Constitution reads: "Die Würde des Menschen ist unantastbar = Human dignity is inalienable" and so on. They say nothing about some animal dignity. A few activist try to ascribe dignity to the Great Apes, but they are a minority, and lesser animals are never mentioned (inalienable dignity of pigeons or rats, anyone ?)
So, where does this "self-evident" dignity comes from? Where is it derived from? Is is just asserted, a mere self-attribution, just like white racists attribute a special value to the white race, humanists attribute a special value to the human race ? It seems so.

Tom Storm

So, where does this "self-evident" dignity comes from? Where is it derived from? Is is just asserted, a mere self-attribution — Matias

Yes. You make this sound like a bad thing. :wink: Humans practice speciesism which seems to be an aspect of our fairly robust and self-explanatory propensity for self-interest. Consider it a presupposition.

Are you concerned about this as a religious believer or idealist who holds that only gods or universal will guarantees foundational value to the human/soul? Or are you merely despondent that there appears to be no foundation other than one settled on by communities of shared agreement?

god must be atheist

"Die Würde des Menschen ist unantastbar = Human dignity is inalienable" and so on. They say nothing about some animal dignity. — Matias

So it's not a humanist thing, it's a human thing. So stop saying that it's humanists who ascribe dignity to humans. You are cherry-picking worse than the worst bible-thumper.

god must be atheist

Modern humanism is no longer based on the idea of the spiritual or even the divine. Nevertheless, it grants man a special position by ascribing to him a unique DIGNITY (from which then special "human rights" can be derived). This dignity distinguishes Sapiens - and only him ! - It marks the qualitative difference, the gap which separates the human being from the animal kingdom. — Matias

Here you say as if only humanists rode on human dignity as a special characteristic. Then you say it's even in the Mein Kampf. "Die Würde des Menschen ist unantastbar (und so weiter)".

Is "evolutionary humanism" a contradiction in terms ?

Welcome to The Philosophy Forum!

Categories

More Discussions