Humanitarianism

[CCitizen]

Humanitarianism is the idea that all Humans have innate Value. All Humans have innate Rights, some of which are inalienable. The ideology existed for at least 4 millennia, but it became particularly popular among top thinkers during XVIIIth and XIXth centuries.

One of the first achievements of Humanitarian ideology was the abolition of cruel punishments during 1750 -- 1900 time frame. In 1750, torture and Capital Torture were routine in Europe, Colonial America, and Worldwide. By 1900, torture has been abolished and penal systems became much more humane. President George Washington and President Thomas Jefferson strongly believed in Humanitarian Values and Inalienable Human Rights -- the first ten Amendments were signed by them. Unfortunately these great men also had great flaws -- their ownership of slaves went against their principles.

Many nations returned to cruel punishments during 1930 -- 2018 time frame. First, Communist Nations introduced harsh penal systems with long prison terms and massive incarceration. Since 1990s, USA adopted similar system, and now several other nations including Brazil are following USA.

One thing Humanitarians tried to achieve globally, but achieved only on very small scale is Universal Welfare. Under Universal Welfare, everyone would have a right to food, shelter, and medical care of reasonable quality. Universal Welfare was a part of Jewish communities for 3,300 years -- the community was obligated to support poor members. In the late XXth century, Scandinavia developed a Welfare system which provided reasonable quality of life to people who could not or did not work. Universal Welfare greatly reduces crime and drug use.

Humanitarian policies follow from the idea that all Humans have inalienable innate value. Even the worst criminal has Constitutional Rights. A person who is 100\% law abiding, but is unable to provide for him/herself should have many more rights. In Scandinavia, even the worst criminals are housed in very humane prisons. People whose only crime is inability to earn money have many more rights -- and in Scandinavia they do get the support they deserve.

In modern USA, both Liberals and Conservatives have many opponents of Humanitarian ideas. Many Liberals support Identity Politics rather then Humanism.

Many Conservatives support Social Darwinism. Darwinism does not consider Humans innately valuable -- some Darwinists believe that Humans are highly evolved animals. One of the ideas of Darwinism is Survival of the Fittest. Some Darwinists believe that Society has little or no duty to help "non-productive" members.

[nathanbforrest45]

“I swear by my life and my love of it that I will never live for the sake of another man, nor ask another man to live for mine.”

Ayn Rand

[Chris]

I think you conflate humanitarianism and natural law to begin with.

Social Darwinism is a Progressive thing, not a conservative one. Darwin considered humans valuable. Survival of the fittest was not his idea but a $#@!ization of his ideas on evolution. SeeLarry Arnhart's Darwinian Conservatism for a conservative view of Darwin.

You seem to confuse the right to pursue life, liberty, and happiness with being provided with it by society.

[CCitizen]

You seem to confuse the right to pursue life, liberty, and happiness with being provided with it by society.

I do not know. In Scandinavia, even the worst criminal will have a humane a comfortable prison life.

A law abiding citizen who can not (or rarely would not) work is given much more -- housing, food, and medical care.

[CCitizen]

Darwin considered humans valuable. Survival of the fittest was not his idea but a $#@!ization of his ideas on evolution.

Thanks. I was not referring to the historical Darwin but to Social Darwinism.

PS. I disagree with Darwin's Atheism 100%.

[Chris]

Thanks. I was not referring to the historical Darwin but to Social Darwinism.

PS. I disagree with Darwin's Atheism 100%.

It's just important to keep Darwin separate from Social Darwinism. Darwinian evolution is biological, though some of his ideas were borrowed from David Hume and Adam Smith, but they are strictly biological. Social Darwinism is an attempt to apply evolutionary theory to social evolution, which while interesting and perhaps insightful as a metaphor, just doesn't really apply. Survival of the fittest implies progress when biological evolution is not so.


Darwin's atheism?

It seems to me absurd to doubt that a man may be an ardent Theist & an evolutionist.— You are right about Kingsley. Asa Gray, the eminent botanist, is another case in point— What my own views may be is a question of no consequence to any one except myself.— But as you ask, I may state that my judgment often fluctuates. Moreover whether a man deserves to be called a theist depends on the definition of the term: which is much too large a subject for a note. In my most extreme fluctuations I have never been an atheist in the sense of denying the existence of a God.— I think that generally (& more and more so as I grow older) but not always, that an agnostic would be the most correct description of my state of mind.

@ Letter to To John Fordyce 7 May 1879

[Crepitus]

“I swear by my life and my love of it that I will never live for the sake of another man, nor ask another man to live for mine.”


Ayn Rand

Ayn Rand was a total and complete moron.

[Chris]

Ayn Rand was a total and complete moron.

That was astute.

[nathanbforrest45]

Ayn Rand was a total and complete moron.

And like most morons she made scads more money than you did. And she still has a sizable and growing following. You only get recognition on an obscure political forum.

[nathanbforrest45]

That was astute.

That's exactly what it was: an Ass Toot