What Is Humanism?
The American Humanist Association defines “humanism” as “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.”¹ This definition adequately conveys one of the most important consequences of humanism: the rejection of the belief that traditional theistic conceptions of God, conceived as the intelligent, anthropomorphic creator of the universe, is necessary for living morally.
The shortcoming of this definition is that it does not positively describe the contents of the humanistic philosophy of life. It could lead one to conclude that humanism is simply a reaction against traditional religious doctrines and practices, without which it would not be necessary. However, this would be an unfortunate misjudgment. Undoubtedly, humanism is a needed corrective to the often misanthropic tendencies of religious dogma and morals, but it is also much more than this. It is an affirmation of the intrinsic value of human existence against all views of the world that place its value or purpose elsewhere, such as in the service of a metaphysical, moral, or political order in which individual lives are only valuable insofar as they fulfill their roles within this order.
I propose the following definition of “humanism,” which will guide my future discussions on this blog: Humanism is the belief that the value of human existence is intrinsic to human life itself.
Several elements of this definition are worth emphasizing. First, humanism is a belief about existence, specifically human existence. It thus involves a particular understanding of what it means to exist and to be human.
What does it mean to exist? In my view, existence in the natural world involves two elements. First, every existing being is the product of natural causes. Everything results from natural processes, such as the composition and decomposition of atoms and subatomic particles. Second, every existing being is capable of causing new effects. At a minimum, it can leave some sensible trace of its existence detectible directly through our sensory organs or indirectly using specialized measuring instruments. In short, every existing thing is part of a physical process. There is nothing that is not the result of a natural process. In other words, there is nothing “supernatural.”
What does it mean to be a human? Theistic belief systems often answer this question by positing a fundamental human “essence” modeled on their understanding of God. Thus, for instance, Christians cite Genesis 1:27, which says, “God created humankind in his image,” to argue that the essence of a human being is that they bear God’s image. Humanists reject this characterization of human nature, not because the theistic conception of God necessarily includes certain attributes of human nature they find morally objectionable (although this is often the case, as when scriptures describe God as angry or as endorsing holy wars and genocide), but because of the circularity of its central premise. Theists believe their conception of human nature is derived from an understanding of God’s nature revealed a priori to humankind. However, the reality is that their doctrine of God is simply a projection of human attributes onto the universe’s first cause. The method of defining human nature that first projects human attributes onto an anthropomorphic deity and then derives one’s understanding of human nature from this projection is easily susceptible to manipulation, in that anyone can project any characteristics they like onto God, regardless of their ethicality.
Nonetheless, explaining what it means to be human without being overly reductionistic is difficult. At a minimum, the humanist conception of “human being” must include the notion of being or existence described above. Every human individual, and the human species as a whole, is the result of physical processes, and each person can produce effects—in other words, they can act. However, these characteristics by no means distinguish humans from other physical things.
Biologists describe humans as a species of hairless, bipedal primates in the genus Homo with a high level of intelligence. As with all biological species, what differentiates humans from other animals is that they can only exchange genes with other humans. Thus, the species Homo sapiens denotes a definite collection of similar organisms that persists over time through sexual reproduction.
No humanist would reasonably doubt this biological definition of the human species, which accounts for its evolutionary origins. However, this objective description of the human organism does not fully convey what it subjectively means to be a human. While affirming that evolutionary biology is valid, humanists seek an inclusive understanding of the human essence that accounts for the diversity of individuals and their actions, beyond those behaviors directly conducive to propagating the human species.
Even to define humans as rational beings, as many philosophers throughout history have done, is potentially problematic. The word “rational” is often contrasted with “irrational” or “animalistic,” with the implicit suggestion that behaviors that are not rational, such as those motivated by feelings or biological drives, are inferior to those that are relatively unique to human beings, such as critical thinking. However, these behaviors are no less essential to human nature than those considered “rational.”
No naturalist would suggest there is no reason for our seemingly “irrational” behaviors. All our drives and emotions can be traced to natural causes, including genetic predispositions or environmental factors. Thus, if we define humans as rational beings, we must mean something other than that our decisions are less affected by genetic traits or external influences than other animals. Rather, it must mean that humans generally have a greater capacity for remembering past experiences and forming conclusions about what may happen in the future based on these memories than other animals. Nevertheless, even this is not so much a definition of humans as a description of our capabilities relative to other animals.
Ultimately, what defines humans is our lived experience as such. There is no difference between our essence and our existence. To quote the seventeenth-century philosopher Baruch Spinoza, “The striving by which each thing strives to persevere in its being is nothing but the actual essence of the thing.”² Our endeavor to live, and to live well, is our essence. We thus define our essence through living. All that is subjectively valuable about human existence—all that is desirable or good—is valuable precisely because it is conducive to living well.
This is the second point about my definition of humanism worth emphasizing: its affirmation that the value of human existence is intrinsic. As I stated above, humanists do not believe people are valuable only because they fulfill some role or purpose within a transcendent metaphysical or moral order. Those who hold the contrary belief can only regard others as valuable if they serve their purpose within this order. Throughout history, both religious and non-religious groups have dehumanized others by defining humanness in terms of serving a role or purpose within such an order, allowing them to justify the persecution and murder of their opponents. Even those who do not resort to these extremes see no problem labeling their opponents as sinners and relegating them to hell for dissenting from their doctrinal and moral opinions. In doing so, they deprive their opponents of dignity, respect, and even, at times, their freedom.
Humanists deny that believing in a transcendent metaphysical, moral, or political order is necessary for conceiving life as valuable. They also deny that it is needed to act morally. From the humanist standpoint, if human existence has any value, it must be because we judge the experiences comprising it to be valuable, especially as they positively contribute to our self-determination and -actualization. Humanists believe that by reasoning about the best means of achieving these ends, we can arrive at an adequate understanding of our moral responsibilities to ourselves and others. We can do this without relying on religious or political authorities, many of which deprive people of their innate dignity and worth because they do not abide by their teachings. If, like these authorities, we deny that the value of human existence is intrinsic to our experience, we can admit any arbitrary exception to the fundamental premise of morality and justice, namely that we ought to treat others fairly and well. Humanists believe that only those who affirm people’s innate worth can act morally and justly unconditionally.
[1] American Humanist Association, “Definition of Humanism,” (n.d.). Available at https://americanhumanist.org/what-is-humanism/definition-of-humanism/.
[2] Benedict de Spinoza (trans. Edwin Curley), Ethics (London: Penguin Books, 1994), 3P7.
