A new humanitarianism

What we need is a new humanitarianism, one that unifies the truthful and useful aspects of the old (current) humanitarian ideal while purging its weaknesses. Where the humanitarian ideal leads to an increase in capacity for valuing, it can be considered true and useful, productive of useful truths; where the ideal leads to a decrease in valuing capacity it can be seen as unproductive, harmful, a weakness, productive of “falsehoods”. How might we tell the difference?

The ideal functions by pushing in the direction of certain types of conceptual mediators, e.g. of tolerance, compassion, empathy, mutual respect and understanding, equality in terms of rights, etc. A smoothing of the ways in which we differentiate each other in terms of worth, respect, value. So: is this smoothing productive or unproductive, from the perspective of capacity for valuation? It can be either, which makes it a tricky notion. This tendency for the ideal to be both productive and unproductive means that most people tend to simplify their approach to the notion, effecting a certain conceptual ignorance of those aspects of it which do not sit well with their pre-conceived values and ideas. For example, the Nietzschean “will to power” fascist or “authoritarian” sort of thinker tends to view the humanitarian ideal only in terms of its weaknesses, while the Marxist socialist leftist sort of thinker tends to view the ideal only in terms of its strengths.

So what must be accomplished is a purging of the ideal’s weaknesses and an empowerment of its strengths. What are its weaknesses? That is can certainly lead to decrease in valuing capacity, decrease in personal “power”, of intellect, reach, influence, vision, possibility. What are its strengths? That is can be productive of increases in valuing capacity, increasing personal “power”, of intellect, reach, influence, vision, possibility. Does the ideal inspire qualities in us that are useful in terms of our own and our species’ further advancement, survivability, growth in consciousness, ability to conceive a future for ourselves, to understand how to write this future with our own blood?

A new humanitarianism will not be infected with notions of “equal worth” for all people - all people are not all equal. In every way we might measure a person, the worth will vary from one individual to another. So a new humanitarianism will recognize essential differences among people. But it will also recognize the worth of all people in terms of their being members of the species and thus being potentially productive members. To be human is to be filled with capacity for achievement, growth, work. Certain of us have this capacity in differing ways, along differing characteristics and personal abilities. A new humanitarianism will evaluate people based on their worth in terms of their ability to participate in the production of the/a future for humankind. A new humanitarianism will not PRETEND to value humanity, it will not use these sentiments as means to other ends, but rather it will STRENGTHEN and build these sentiments until they resonate with a new sort of potency and urgency. Brother-love itself is not weakness, but it can be produced from weakness and be used for the ends of weakness (decrease of valuing capacity, “strength”, “growth”). A new humanitarianism will push a brother-love that recognizes all people are NOT equal but are UNEQUAL in worth, from the point of view of the species, of society, of the future. This would produce the incentive for all humans to strive to the highest of their potentiality, to earn the greatest amount of respect/worth for themselves.

As respect-worth increases potential productivity increases as well, as one EARNS the right to greater degrees of freedom. This sort of humanitarianism looks down on no one by default, and it looks up to no lone by default: everyone has merit as a human being, everyone’s life is at least POTENTIALLY of worth, and thus no one is excluded or demeaned or degraded. There is a basic respect for all people, even the contemptuous, but this basic respect falls far short of the respect given to individuals who produce more, contribute more, build more, work more, strive most and value most.

The single way a new humanitarianism would grant implicit value to all people, other than the value of their being potentially productive toward a better future, is that it would recognize humans as the sole guarantors of value and creators of meaning - as a living human being we all construct value and meaning “from nothing”, from the moment we find ourselves in, from the conditions of this moment (from each other). Even the most impotent, weak, incompetent human might still find some worth in this basic capacity for valuing. This human would certainly need to be given his or her values, others stronger and more productive would need to feed him or her new values and meanings, but the weak human by itself can still participate in the valuing-sustaining act, even if he lacks true ability to create. How might these lesser humans be used? I’m a bit unsure on this point, but I know if I spend enough time contemplating it certain usefulness for these individuals will emerge. I am confident in this because their basic capacity for valuation, meager as it is, is still a participation in the most singular and crucial act of humanity. Even if they must be fed values, they are still capable of absorbing, resonating with and sustaining these values by default of what it means to be a human being.

So a new humanitarianism would find a place for all people, it would recognize the basic worth of all humans by virtue of what it means to be a human, it would not give equal respect but would teach respect based on merit and productive worth (of which there are a multitude of types) oriented toward building humanity’s future. The worth of this future project is not grounded in “will to power”, in personal glorification, in greed or accumulation of wealth, in ideological struggles, in war and conquest, or in “basic human dignity” - this project is grounded in the act of valuing and creating, imagining and conceiving, “building and dwelling” to use Heidegger’s terms. It is grounded in what it means to be a human, and where the real worth of this human lies, now and for a future. The future is not worthwhile for its own sake, it is worthwhile because it is a human future, which means: a pure potentiality on which the highest achievements and increases in value might be written. A new humanitarianism would not make use of metaphysical speculations and religions or after-lifes, it would seat the act of achievement and inspiration directly in the world, this world, and most importantly in this world’s tomorrow, which is the only “metaphysical” speculation that can be employed without diffusing or co-opting the potency of the creative-valuing act.

I think I like the old one.

How so?

What do you consider its strengths? Its weaknesses? Where do you think we might improve upon it?

Fair enough… but who has earned the right to decide what values the species, society and the future have most need of? Is this open to reason and contemplation, or is it just whoever can fight their way best to the top of the political pile - in which case, how does it differ practically from the current situation?

Haha :slight_smile:

Of course it is based on the dictates of the “philosopher-kings”, those minds who alone are capable of understanding.

I’ve been discussing in another topic just how we might come to recognize these individuals. Once a testing process that measures “consciousness” is developed, those higher individuals capable of scope of vision, morality and higher understandings will emerge, because a platform for such an emergence will finally exist.

As it currently stands, the only platform allowing men to rise above each other is one based on cut-throat greed and manipulation, inherited “wealth” or brute force. Exceptions exist, but they are just that, exceptions. Society needs new incentives. A new humanitarianism is one step in that direction.

How is that funny, to you? He “resopnded” to my entire argument with a one-line dismissal, offering no reasons or even bothering to try and engage me intellectually. Perhaps you, as a moderator here, find this sort of behavior appropriate, or amusing?

Perhaps it’s still unclear what the difference is between this new humanitariansim and the old one.

I know it’s unclear to me what the difference really is.

Sometimes people are pressed for time, and especially on internet forums a skillful one-liner is what we depend on to convey a message. I doubt either aranofsky or O_H were being intentionally mean or anything.

Perhaps, if you think that wikipedia quote is actually describing what I call a “new humanitarianism”, you simply have not read my OP. In which case, why are you posting here?

I did read the OP. I don’t believe the “old” humanitarianism is “metaphysical”, for instance.

How is this different from plain ol’ humanitarianism? Maybe if you provided an example or something…

I never said it is.

I edited my post, sorry. Maybe you’ll find something in there now to reply to.

Your final line made it sound to me like that was a major difference:

Its most essential difference is that my humanitarianism does not grant unearned merit or respect as does current humanitarianism. Under the current ideal all humans are equal and deserving of equal treatment and rights. My humanitarianism differs in that it grants a basic automatic respect only in the sense that all humans are potentially creators or sustainers of value/meaning. Some humans are worth more than others, some are in fact above others morally speaking, or in terms of respect and rights given. This is a characteristic of my humanitarianism, not of the old one.

What is the worth of a human being? Modern humanitarianism argues that it is intrinsic worthiness based on the fact that we are human alone, that our different abilities and strengths/weaknesses or even intentions do not alter this basic worthiness and value. This is a contention which my new humanitarianism violently opposes.

That line is in reference to how my humanitarianism will not employ metaphysical images that diffuse or co-opt the basic valuing act. It was not my intention to imply that current humanitarianism is such a metaphysical employment, rather my intention was to further clarify my own position.

I don’t think this is different. Don’t humanitarians work to bring tyrants and oppressors to justice?

I apologize for the confusion.

Are you meaning to imply that because modern humanitarians work against tyranny and oppression that they value in the same manner as my humanitarianism dictates? This is not the case at all. Don’t modern humanitarians do this work because they value the rights of the oppressed and downtrodden, simply because they ARE oppressed and downtrodden? Doesn’t modern humanitarianism argue that all humans deserve equal respect? Yes, this is the reason why they oppose those who do not give this respect, including tyrants.

My humanitarianism, on the other hand, doesn’t give equal respect either, in fact it actively teaches that some humans are worth more than others, some are morally more valuable than others. Is this the case with current humanitarianism? No. It is only in the sense that tyrants and oppressors trod on the supposed “equal human rights of all people” that they are fought against by modern humanitarians. Their basic principle of equality is always the source of their work against tyranny and oppression. This is not the case with my humanitarianism (which also works against tyrants and oppressors, of course), far from it in fact. My humanitarianism resists tyranny and oppression because it robs humans of their potential for creating meaning and value, because it is an inefficient way to organize a society to allow one or a group of some to prey on others. My humanitarianism is not a defense of oppression or fascism, it is a call to organize society in a way that recognizes people as worthy of rights and respect based on what they do and are capable of doing, not simply by virtue of their very existence itself, or by virtue of their being a victim.

What makes you think humanitarians don’t value these same things? Don’t humanitarians work to create societies within which a great scientist can emerge, for instance? This is highly improbable in societies where women are so disrespected that infant mortality rates are extremely high, for instance. Not to mention that in such a society, the number of available great scientists is cut in half right from the start due to the fact the only men are even allowed to get a higher education. Protection of basic human rights, and keeping people from starving (for instance) are what allow for individual “peaks” such as the great scientist. I think it’s unfair to assume that current “humanitarians” don’t already think this way.

I think you don’t understand humanitarianism as well as you think. I suggest re-reading my OP here. Otherwise, I have nothing to offer you.

Probably true, but perhaps your OP isn’t as clear as you think, either. Maybe some hypothetical examples to illustrate the differences, as you see them?

i like the old one better too i think. how are you ever going to get everyone to agree on measures of worth? i guarantee there will be disagreements among your philosopher kings in that regard. what does “worth” even mean? worth what? to whom? the future of the species? the planet? you talk as if humanity has some job to fulfill.

have you ever been in a fist-fight? because if you’ve ever been in a fistfight and lost you might have a better understanding of the value of equal rights for all humans and the assumptions that underly what you are calling humanitarianism’s weaknesses.

there are obvious and serious dangers of having a world where some people can be considered morally worth more than others, giving you the benefit of the doubt, i will assume they are not lost on you - do they not concern you or even merit mention alongside such a radical new ideology as your “new humanitarianism”?