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.
