The secular humanist is often challenged thusly: “If you do not base your ethics on religious foundations, then in what sense can you be good?” The ethics of secularism has a long history in human culture. In the following, I wish to present four contemporary aspects of the ethics of secular humanism: liberation, enlightened self-interest, altruism, and goodwill. These principles are grounded in human experience and are thus natural. They are herein delineated in answer to the charge that the “new atheists,” with whom secular humanists are often conflated by public opinion, lack an ethical outlook. On the contrary, one can be a secularist and also be a good person.
Historically, secularism has been an ethic of liberation for those revolting against repressive institutions of society, such as those originating with the Puritans, the Victorians, and the Catholic Church. Secularists wished to realize happiness here and now rather than focus on alleged divine rewards in the afterlife. They objected strenuously to the barriers to this pursuit laid down by authoritarian-theological dogmas. Intimate relationships outside of marriage, the termination of unhappy or even abusive marriages, birth control, interracial marriage and miscegenation, homosexuality—in most countries, these were forbidden by church and state. Similarly, alcohol consumption and activities like gambling, which can be pleasurable if done in moderation, were often condemned as sinful vices.
Paradoxically, the upper classes were allowed to enjoy themselves, while the poor were considered debauched if they pursued similar activities. Often, the enforcement of the standards was hypocritical; the elites used them to hold the lower classes in check. More often than not, religious morality became the instrument for maintaining the social order.
Libertarian ethics emerged with the rise of democratic liberties. Freedom from repression became the battle cry of generations of liberal secularists and humanists. Thus the right of privacy became a central moral ideal and still is; with this came the demand for toleration of diversity in tastes and lifestyles. This led to the conviction that society should not seek to legislate adult moral behavior so long as it does not harm others.
Today, the battle over same-sex marriages illustrates this issue. Although progressives now champion equal rights for homosexuals, gays and lesbians, many authoritarians still remain adamantly opposed.
The recent ruling by the California Supreme Court that the denial of marriage to gays, lesbians, and transgendered persons was unconstitutional is a welcome development for secular libertarians. California now joins Massachusetts in this regard. The Council for Secular Humanism filed an amicus curiae brief (drafted by Edward Tabash, chairman of the First Amendment Task Force), which pointed out that much opposition to same-sex marriage is based in religion and as such is a violation of the First Amendment. The California Supreme Court chose not to use this argument but instead focused on other issues, such as equal protection of the laws. What is at stake is fairness in the application of tax and inheritance laws, eligibility for healthcare coverage and retirement benefits, access to loved ones and input into decisions about their care in medical settings, equal considerations of applications for the adoption of children, and other rights enjoyed by heterosexuals but generally denied to same-sex relationships. Then there is the fundamental right to marriage itself, which many believe strengthens the commitment between two persons who have freely chosen to tie their lives together.
In many countries, same-sex marriage is already recognized—Belgium, the Netherlands, Spain, Canada, and South Africa. In other countries and in some U.S. states (Connecticut, Vermont, New Jersey), civil unions or domestic partnerships are recognized, allowing homosexuals many of the same privileges and rights as heterosexual couples.
A key argument used by the California Supreme Court is that laws prohibiting same-sex marriage are similar to those that prohibited interracial marriages and miscegenation in the United States sixty years ago. At that time, twenty-nine states had restrictions against interracial marriage. The California Supreme Court’s decision notes that California was the first state (in 1948) to repeal this law. Today, no states in the U.S. prohibit interracial marriage.
By contrast, forty-four states now prohibit same-sex marriage or define marriage as the union of a man and woman; twenty-seven have already enacted similar amendments to their state constitutions. Indeed, in California such an amendment is on the November ballot—an estimated 1.2 million names were gathered by petition. If enacted, it would overturn the California Court’s decision.
Parenthetically, it would be regrettable if the liberation of gay people from discrimination were to engender a new and bitter phase in the impending elections in the United States. There are too many other important issues that ought to be at the top of the political and social agenda, not a Kulturkrieg against moral freedom.
Implicit in the democratic revolutions of modern times is the realization that the pursuit of happiness is an essential secular goal. This is true for all men and women no matter what their station in society. Intrinsic to this is the concept of self-interest. It is not wicked or evil to be concerned with one’s own good. This has high priority on the secular ethical agenda. Each individual has but one life to live, and in the last analysis every person is responsible for his or her own well-being. Neither the church nor the state should dictate how a person is allowed to live. Although each person is dependent on others—on parents during the formative years of nurture and growth, on teachers during the period of education and development, on society and the economy for income and providing jobs—the project of every person is that he or she is in some sense autonomous and that what a person becomes depends on the personal choices that are made. These decisions concern our attitudes toward others, our selection of sexual partners and degree of commitment, our career paths—intellectual, emotional, social, political, educational, medical, and moral choices are made every day. Hence, every person needs to be self-interested. He or she should not abdicate his or her right to personal freedom to others. A person’s sense of self is at the center of his or her existential world; it identifies a person’s needs and shapes dreams, plans, and projects, values and ideals. Thus, self-interest is the crux of how a person lives and determines whether he or she merely survives or thrives by realizing the fullness of life.
There is a whole constellation of needs that a person must satisfy if he or she is to flourish. First of course are the basic biological needs for food, water, shelter, and protection needed to satisfy the built-in homoeostatic conditions necessary to live and function. Beyond that are the sociogenic needs that emerge in every community—the family, tribe, town, society, or nation at large. There are psychogenic needs as well: the capacity to relate to others, to love and be loved, to develop rationality, to exercise creativity and achieve some degree of realization of one’s own unique talents and aspirations. Individuals exist both in a sociocultural setting and a geographical location. Each person is conditioned by vast impersonal forces—yet each has some measure of freedom of choice that is real.
I have written so much about this in my books and articles that I hesitate to elaborate further other than to say that a person’s potential goals are multifarious and depend on who he or she is and where he or she lives at a particular time in history. For every person, the first challenge of life is to live, and the second is to live well and achieve some measure of happiness—or as I have described it, a meaningful and enriched life overflowing with the possibility of creativity, joy, and exuberance.
It is, of course, essential to recognize that our lives are interjoined with other human beings, and so among our noblest values are those we share with others. Secular humanists, whatever the cultural context, have extolled enlightened self-interest, not solely egoistic or selfish behavior but a life in which persons can relate to each other and enjoy consummatory experiences together.
Accordingly, self-interest is central, but enlightened self-interest emphasizes personal excellence and the qualities of a life well-lived. Excellence depends on proper nutrition and health, self-discipline and self-restraint, the capacity to love and be loved; some measure of rationality, some aesthetic appreciation, and some fulfillment of one’s talents. Included in a good life is the development of moral relationships with others.
Although secular humanists have heroically defended the rights of individuals to pursue their own interests, altruism, I submit, is also intrinsic to the good life—though some radical libertarians have denied that anyone is capable of genuine altruistic behavior. I do not think that human motivation is simply based on egoism or selfishness, for there is abundant evidence of altruism in human conduct. Some libertarians have been accused of being indiscriminate fleshpots (for whom “anything goes”) or ruthless Machiavellians to achieve their aims. This need not be the case. Moral libertarians have internalized principles of self-control and have a compassionate regard for the needs of others. Therefore, I see no contradiction in espousing both self-interest and altruism as concomitant in a full life well-lived. Such self-interest may be said to be enlightened when we take into account the interests of others in addition to or instead of our own.
Such altruism is justified in two senses: on utilitarian grounds because of the positive consequences of assisting people who need help, and intrinsically because altruism is praiseworthy for its own sake. “Why should we be concerned with the good of others?” asks the egoist or cynic—to which I respond: we should be concerned with the good of others because that helps other persons in need and it bestows upon persons who perform such altruistic acts a quality of experience and a deep sense of right. Examples of altruistic behavior in relationships are abundant: it occurs between parents and children, teachers and pupils, medical professionals and patients, lovers and loved ones, siblings, colleagues, and friends. It is the bond of a friendship that especially illustrates this moral quality, for it ties people together and implies recognition that one person is willing to perform favors and make sacrifices for another and exceed the normal obligations of a relationship. This is based on a sincere sense of caring.
The real test of altruism arises when we encounter strangers in our midst to whom we voluntarily offer a lending hand, although we are not required to do so. The helping professions minister to those in need every day. This is their job and a source of income, of course, and they perform what is expected of them. But their actions have a moral dimension and are often rooted in empathy. For the average person, altruistic concerns may awaken a sense that if I can, I should help another, not simply out of self-interest but because I have a moral sense that I ought to deep within my being, even if I am reluctant to do so because it is inconvenient or demanding. A deed can be an eloquent expression of our highest moral capacities—as the Old Testament recognized when it stated that we should treat aliens in our midst with some moral compassion. Kant’s categorical imperatives to treat other persons as ends in themselves and not as means can be generalized, for if the maxim under which I act were flouted, it would mean a breakdown of all moral standards. These rational considerations have persuaded innumerable persons to behave altruistically. A self-interested person may calculate that it is to his or her long-range advantage to help others. But even these reasons may not be sufficient for insensitive individuals who may be selfish, lack the milk of human kindness, and are disinclined to adopt a moral frame of mind. Such a person may be motivated by ambition, wealth, sexual gratification, glory, or power and be impervious to any sense of responsibility to others, as the tyrants and despots throughout history so blatantly illustrate. When a lack of altruism develops into a criminal mindset that causes actual harm, victims must be protected by laws. Fear is a deterrent used to maintain law and order. However, we should insist that laws be just and fairly applied.
There is still another powerful motivation for altruistic moral conduct: passion for empathy, which can be developed within children and adolescents; that is, by nourishing within the young an appreciation for the interests of other human beings within their immediate communities and the world beyond. The justification for altruism is thus a combination of rational considerations and emotions. It has, if you will, a rational-passional source: it draws upon both the mind and the heart, reason and emotion, cognition and caring. The best guarantee of morality is to cultivate within human beings concern for other human beings. This is the task of moral education. Social approval also exerts a powerful influence on motivation: there is disapprobation for callous deeds committed and approbation for those based on beneficence.
The question is often raised, what is the ultimate source of altruism and moral caring? Self-interest is no doubt a strong motive for many people: persons may donate to a charity because of social recognition—their names may be placed on a plaque. Or perhaps they will receive a tax deduction. Yet over and beyond that, I submit that altruism has deep sources within human nature and is valued for its own sake, considered worthwhile for both the giver and receiver. Indeed, there is a good deal of evidence that such moral conduct is a result of biological evolution. This would mean that human beings are potentially moral and that whether these tendencies come to fruition depends on the social context in which a person is nourished and cultivated. There is a moral sense implanted within humans through the long process of evolution, though sociopaths tragically may lack that sense. To be fully human, I submit, is to develop our moral sensibilities.
Goodwill is a key secular virtue, but it is most effective when it is based on an affirmative attitude toward living. Individuals who have a positive attitude are more likely to express goodwill toward other human beings.
For persons of goodwill, life is intrinsically worthwhile—indeed, it can be bountifully overflowing with zest and exuberance—and their affirming attitude has an effect on other people. By loving life, such people are able to share their sense of the good life and are considerate of others’ needs and interests. This affects those they encounter—children and pets, parents and grandparents, lovers and partners, brothers and sisters, aunts and uncles and cousins, friends and colleagues, and even strangers whom they meet in the world of affairs. A person of goodwill usually has confidence in his or her capacities for enjoying the good life and self-respect. He or she is well motivated and expresses it with spontaneity and vitality.
Life presents us all with challenges: a self-reliant person can seize the opportunities and realize their promise and deal with defeats with some equanimity. For such people, life is rich with meaning and significance—there are always new plans and projects down the road.
Reflective thinking and rational behavior have vital roles to play, but this leaves room for passion and emotion. The intensity of living is thus enriched by the heart as well as the mind. Life can be interesting and exciting despite its disappointments, which must be balanced with its promises and achievements.
Alas, we are all too often surrounded by naysayers—people of bad will, the pallbearers of the world. They spread doom and gloom, negativity and despair. They are pessimists and nihilists. Such people are profoundly ill at ease. They find little satisfaction in living, and they resent that other people are enjoying life. For them, life is a vale of tears. They leave all who meet them with a bitter taste.
No doubt everyone faces adversities. But there are also attainments. In any case, persons of goodwill endeavor to manifest constructive attitudes toward one and all. Such persons are willing to be helpful, and they express amiability, especially when the occasion arises. They endeavor to be polite and do not knowingly insult other people and are sensitive to their feelings.
The person of goodwill is of good character, good-hearted, good-humored, agreeable, and honorable. He or she has internalized what I have called in my book Forbidden Fruit “the common moral decencies” and “excellencies.”*
Such people are well-intentioned and well-meaning, striving to be cooperative, beneficent, empathetic, and altruistic. They are good companions, friendly and fraternal, especially toward colleagues and acquaintances encountered during various activities. They understand that they should try to be helpful and agreeable with coworkers. In times of defeat or tragedy, they will seek to assist or console other persons who are demoralized or suffer.
Secularists do not need to look outside the world of human affairs to a transcendental source to bolster this attitude. Pivotal to goodwill is that such persons endeavor to be reasonable, rational, and sensible yet also are empathetic, sensitive, and supportive. They do not need religious commandments to tell them not to harm others and to be kind and considerate. The secular humanist, especially in an open society, recognizes that this life affords manifold opportunities to achieve goals and discover satisfactions not only for oneself but also for others. Persons of goodwill seek to overcome obstacles, solve problems, and ameliorate the human condition wherever he or she can; such persons are not easily demoralized or embittered. Blended with the resolve to improve life for oneself is the need to respect others and applaud their achievements. A person of goodwill is gratified if other people they know succeed. If others prosper, they prosper.
There is a stoic attitude about those situations in life that are beyond our power to repair, such as an incurable disease, crushing defeat, or an accident. One goes on in spite of suffering the blows of outrageous fortune.
A person of goodwill is a morally decent person capable of attaining some measure of excellence in life. And goodwill is among the most eloquent of human excellences. Such a person has integrity, is truthful, keeps promises, and is sincere and honest. He or she is trustworthy and shows fidelity to friends, relatives, colleagues, coworkers, and fellow citizens.
Such persons are dependable, reliable, responsible, and are prepared to help others. They hold themselves accountable for what they have or have not done but avoid vindictiveness. Persons of goodwill bear malice toward none and do not harbor hatred, envy, jealousy, animosity, or resentment. They do not carry grudges and do not blame others for their travails or misadventures.
They are thus considerate, thoughtful, caring; every effort is made to reduce suffering and pain whenever they can; not only for other human beings but other sentient beings in the biosphere. Such persons are beneficent, charitable, kind, and appreciative of the needs of the helpless, the weak, the forlorn, the disadvantaged, and the handicapped.
People of goodwill are not awed by those who wield power, seek fame, or amass wealth; they do not seek to confer favors only on the high and mighty. A person of goodwill is fair and shows gratitude and appreciation for deeds well done.
Although such people may disagree with the beliefs or predilections of someone else, they will accord them the same rights as is expected of themselves. Thus they are tolerant of diversity in tastes and lifestyles, however different they may be, provided they are not destructive to the freedom and rights of others.
Persons of goodwill will not resort to violence to achieve their aims and wherever possible will urge peaceful means to achieve shared goals and values. Ever willing to sit down and break bread with others, to forgive and forget past mistakes and misdeeds, they eschew revenge and retribution. Wherever possible, they seek to negotiate differences and work out compromises in the spirit of fair play and reasonableness, recognizing that cooperation is a virtue that enables civilizations to flourish.
Secular humanists are impressed by the magnificence of nature and are in awe of the immensity of the expanding universe— on both the macrolevel of galaxies and on the microlevel of subatomic particles—and by the teeming biosphere. The evolutionary history of the universe as revealed by the sciences is the history of humankind as well, for the human species emerged from the same natural processes that formed galaxies, stars, and planets. Each of us is composed of recycled stardust to which we will eventually return. Of the billions of seeds, sperm, spores, and eggs that appear and are wasted in the fecundity of reproduction, so very few are fertilized and survive as an individual form of life. Every living person is unique, equal in dignity and value, possessed of the potentialities of creative living.
A person of goodwill has a deep appreciation of the meaningful opportunities for finding joy in living and of excitement and thrill of achieving a full life. It is hoped that he or she has discovered that life is its own reward. Fortunate is the person who has actualized the bountiful satisfactions of a life well-lived. He or she recognizes with some humility that human beings are fallible and that we should seek to be the best that we can become.
In the light of this, a person of goodwill is able to express a positive, accepting attitude toward oneself and others and has developed a reflective intellect and an open heart. For such a person, life can be beautiful and is to be enjoyed and adored. He or she is eager to share this attitude with others so that they too can exult in the enrichment of the full life. Such a person realizes that after all is said and done, and in spite of limitations, life— this life—for ourselves and other sentient beings, is a wonder to behold and appreciate. And this applies to everyone that we touch or encounter in the planetary community of humankind. Goodwill is thus an exemplary, essential humanist virtue on the path toward a New Enlightenment.
*A new edition with a Prologue, entitled Forbidden Fruit: The Ethics of Secularism, is due out later this year from Prometheus Books.
Paul Kurtz is a professor emeritus of philosophy at the State University of New York at Buffalo, the chair of the Center for Inquiry, and editor in chief of FREE INQUIRY.
CFI SUMMIT
OCTOBER 24-27 2013
TACOMA, WASHINGTON
Joint Conference of the Council for Secular Humanism, Center for Inquiry, and Committee for Skeptical Inquiry
The transnational secular humanist magazine
Renew your FREE INQUIRY subscription