Humanism: a Response to Nihilism and Existentialism

Nihilism is a philosophy of negation; this negation can take many forms: a negation of life's meaning, of morality, of objective knowledge, etc. Nihilism has been a common topic explored by philosophers, especially in the last 200 years or so. In this essay I will be addressing the two forms most commonly discussed in philosophy and most important sociologically: existential and moral nihilism. Although they may not be identified as being the causative factor, certain nihilistic views create many of the problems we see in contemporary society, e.g. amoralism (which plays a factor in violence and other forms of abuse), self-destructive hedonism (drug abuse, unsafe and promiscuous sex, etc.), depression, suicide and apathy/inaction. Bear in mind that individuals with nihilistic views are not necessarily knowledgeable about philosophical concepts.

Moral Nihilism

Moral nihilists hold the view that morality is meaningless as it is only an invention of the human mind - therefore nothing is "right" or "wrong". I believe the general premise of moral nihilism is accurate - morality is invented by humans, it does not exist independent of us - but I do not arrive at the same amoral conclusion as moral nihilists. I do believe we can develop a method sufficient for making ethical decisions as to what is right and what is wrong: a humanistic (based on scientific reason, not religious dogma) morality that is not only compassionate and just but pragmatic as well. The basis of this morality is that it is immoral to cause the suffering of any being capable of sentience, i.e. capable of experiencing suffering. With the only exception being temporary suffering that is necessary in order to treat illness or injury and the suffering inflicted by the use of defensive force against an aggressor's attack. Any concrete morality must be based on this strict precept otherwise it becomes too open to the human tendency to rationalize that which is clearly harmful to others. An obvious implication of this morality is that it will extend beyond our current sphere of moral concern, i.e. our own species and a few "cute" species of non-human animals. Although our current standard of morality falls short of this there is much evidence to support the idea that our collective ethical views are progressing in this direction.

Since the beginning of recorded civilization we know that humans developed moral codes or philosophies. These moral codes/philosophies provided the framework for societal laws. Moral codes or systems of ethics are a human invention - nothing more than an attempt to create a system of order and justice in society - a necessity for social animals like humans who recognize that a just society is in everyone's best interest. The cliche of the carrot and the stick summarizes how moral systems work in human society: all social animals being dependent upon mutual aid for survival often come to understand that to behave in what is considered to be ethical and therefore socially acceptable ways is in line with their own self-interest, to do otherwise would be to ostracize oneself and to jeopardize one's survival. In this way the idea of "you scratch my back, I'll scratch yours" becomes "the carrot". Also, our ability to empathize with others compels us to want to behave in a way that is beneficent or "moral" and if that empathetic imperative should fail "the stick" of societal law creates negative consequences for unethical behavior. Problems invariably arise when societies do not have a rational basis for the underlying system of ethics or morality which laws are constructed upon. In the US societal laws are constructed in reference to the US Constitution - an imperfect document to be sure - but a vast improvement over religion-based laws common to theocracies. The US Constitution was not based on specific religious dogma as it was mainly authored by the secularist freethinker James Madison.

Primitive cultures and many contemporary cultures often did base their morality on religious moral codes. Due to a lack of proper understanding most religious moral codes are not based on empirical evidence or compassionate consideration of other sentient beings but more often than not on misconceptions and prejudices. For this reason religious morality has failed to create truly just societies. Religious based morality (excluding some of the eastern "theophilosophies", e.g. Buddhism, Jainism) is best described as a false morality: its intent is not to prevent suffering or create liberty, tolerance, pluralism, and social order but to create conformity, obedience and antipathy for anything alien thus leading to a strict tribal or group unity. Tribal or group unity is usually a good thing but when combined with a dogma-inspired enmity toward outside groups (groups with other religions) a recipe for conflict is created. Perhaps due to a violent climate of scarcity this tribal unity at the expense of endemic warfare was seen to be in the best interest of the "common good" of one's own group. This deadly recipe for conflict now only serves to unite disparate groups in the slaughter of one another as technology shrinks the distance between them. Modern society can now, if people demand it, eschew this anachronistic morality and formulate societal law based on humanistic ethics, i.e. ethics based on reason and empathy, instead of religious dogma. This emergence of humanistic ethics is increasingly seen in communities and subcultures that use direct democratic systems of organization and in countries where protections are in place to prevent the entanglement of religion and government. When human society as a whole does away with theocracy and commits itself to higher ideals such as equality and participatory democracy, then we may see the first human society that is worthy of being called socially just.

Existential Nihilism

Existential nihilism is the view that existence has no inherent meaning or purpose. Religion that posits the existence of an afterlife could also be considered a type of existential nihilism as it devalues this life as merely a waiting room for the supposed paradise to come. Passive nihilism is the term used by some philosophers to signify the acceptance of this view coupled with a resultant resignation to apathy. Passive nihilism is characterized by feelings of despair, anxiety, ennui, confusion, or indifference; to a passive nihilist, life and all of one’s endeavors are trivial because of perceived meaninglessness. Attempts to better society or one's life seem pointless to the passive nihilist. Passive nihilism is a type of defeatism usually culminating in self-destructive hedonism and depression - a despondent view that many have experienced, from atheists to the religious who suffer a crisis of faith; some have given up on life after coming to such a bleak conclusion.

Existentialism

I, like many others who have grappled with the absurd and uncaring nature of the universe, eventually progressed from this bleak outlook of passive nihilism to that of existentialism (or active nihilism), a positive view that accepts that life has no inherent meaning or purpose but goes on to declare a sense of liberation due to the fact that we are free from the imagined confines of fatalism or subservience to a deity. Existentialism asserts that as conscious beings who crave a purpose for living (a raison d'être) we must create our own meaning and purpose for our existence. Simply put, the meaning of life to an existentialist is that which he or she gives to it. Ironically most individuals who develop an existentialist outlook, though once shocked by the realization of existential nihilism, could not imagine themselves happy any other way. I for one could never be happy as a slave made to worship a creator who manufactured some "purpose" for my life without my input in the matter. Some who come to hold the existentialist view progress further to embrace the philosophy of secular humanism.

Secular Humanism

Secular humanism (sometimes just referred to as humanism) is a form of existentialism that goes a step beyond. It makes all of the declarations of existentialism but then states a method by which we may derive our ethics and how we can best provide meaning for our existence. A humanist has come to the conclusion that the universe and our lives do not appear to be divinely governed, nor is there any apparent prefabricated purpose or objective meaning for our existence, but asserts that despite this we can ascribe meaning and purpose to our lives by helping one another and striving for a better future. A humanist has come to understand that there is nothing that compares to the positive feeling of knowing that you are making the world a better place than it would have been had you not existed. Humanists focus on the joy and pleasure that can be found in life in spite of the negative realities of existence and we draw strength from a sense of solidarity with others that comes from recognizing that we are all in this together. Corliss Lamont defined modern humanism in this way, "I would say that it is a philosophy of joyous service for the greater good of all humanity in this natural world and advocating the methods of reason, science, and democracy."

Humanists base their morality on scientific reasoning and by focusing and relying on the more noble aspects of our psyches, such as the human sense of empathy and compassion for fellow sentient beings. A simplified explanation of reason driven morality is based on the idea that actions that have a negative impact on oneself and others are generally immoral actions, those which have a positive or even a neutral effect are considered good (moral) or acceptable. Abraham Lincoln, who was often critical of organized religion, succinctly expressed this by stating, "When I do good, I feel good; when I do bad, I feel bad, and that is my religion." The use of science is of utmost importance to humanists though we recognize that science alone will not give us all of the answers or tell us what is always the best course of action; we must also rely upon our compassion for others, and all the varieties of human expression and thought. Humanists are progressive thinkers, we strive for a world of equals, free from wars of conquest and conversion; we are extremely concerned about our environment and developing better and more ethical ways to live together. Central to humanism is the need for enforcement of human rights and a genuine democracy by a well informed and educated public.

Humanism seeks to combat not only nihilism-inspired apathy but also the arresting influence of dogmatic religion on cultural progress. This is apparent as we can see that humanism in our time is most concerned with refuting the continued surge of religious fundamentalism and extremism in an attempt to free our fellow humans from the bonds of intellectual slavery. Although this is a necessary and noble aim I disagree with some of the tactics being used. I feel that too much of our energy and creativity is being directed toward evangelizing freethought instead of focusing on the positive attributes of humanist philosophy. Humanism will not stand a chance of usurping the dominance of religion if it cannot provide what religion currently does. We must offer an alternative to religion that eschews the negative aspects of religion but retains the positive: the humanitarianism, the social support network, and the sense of purpose. More than anything humanism must become a radical force for social change and social justice, for as long as we live in a world where there is widespread suffering passive nihilism will plague society and religion will always be around as a tantalizing political tool for some and an opiate-like form of escape for others. We cannot sit on the fence any longer and allow capitalism to ravage the planet while billions remain impoverished, to do so is beyond immoral. Until we destroy the societal conditions (poverty, inequality, etc.) that allow moral or passive nihilism, blind conservatism and religiosity to thrive we will constantly be fighting an uphill battle.