….In This Issue.

Discussion at the March 19^th Meeting.

Quote of the Month - Gloria Steinum.

"Jim Oakes, Freethought Fighter" by Paul Ricci.

"Humanist Ethics and a Brief History of Utilitarianism" by Dave Silva.

Humor "The Atheist and the Loch Ness Monster" contributed by Paul Ricci.

"Lois Lyons to Speak in Whittier" by Dave Silva

"What is Ethics (or Moral Theory) and Why is it Important to Us?" by Paul Ricci

Cartoon "Voluntary Prayer?"

DISCUSSION AT THE MARCH 19^TH MEETING: HOW POLITICAL DO HUMANISTS NEED TO BE?

This meeting will be a broad ranging discussion on politics. President Pete Anderson will moderate and anything political that you want to talk about is fine. Political decisions not only effect our daily lives, but also shape the future state of the world. Should we actively lobby for or against specific legislation? What organizations with common interests should we support? Should the A.H.A put out a voter guide? How can we make our voice heard in the media?

Our meetings are open to the public and give people a chance to express how they feel about the issues that effect their lives.

Quote of the Month:

"It's an incredible con job when you think about it, to believe something now in exchange for something after death. Even corporations with their reward systems don't try to make it posthumous."

---Gloria Steinum.

JIM OAKES, FREETHOUGHT FIGHTER

BY PAUL RICCI

I have just received some late information on the death of Jim Oakes

from one of his close friends, Al Griffin. There was a memorial service

for Jim on January 27, at Heritage Park in Dana Point, CA. He died

January 10, rather suddenly, from complications of cystic fibrosis and

pneumonia along with his being diabetic. Unfortunately, only two of his Humanist friends made it to the service.

He was president of one of the Humanist groups here in Orange

County though it had been inactive for some time. I had not been

associated with his group nor had I spoken to him for a number of years

and--I presume-- his A.H.A chapter will now become defunct. His

newsletter had ceased being published some two years ago where he (and

it) tried to unite all free-thinking groups between San Diego and L.A.

It seems those efforts were only partially successful.

He was not one who liked to discuss issues as we now do at most

Humanist meetings, but rather he preferred to confront the fundies and

other conservative groups, often chiding some of the rest of us for not

following suit. He protested against the B.S.A. here in Orange County

for disallowing atheists to join, along with other kinds of protests,

law suits involving money due to atheist and Humanist groups, etc.

His activist efforts will be sorely missed.

HUMANIST ETHICS AND A BRIEF HISTORY OF UTILITARIANISM

By Dave Silva

One topic we spent some time discussing, at the February meeting, was "moral relativism"; what we mean by that term and whether it's good or bad. As it turned out there was little real disagreement outside of semantic interpretations. Humanists certainly believe in acts or consequences that are good and bad. Moral relativism means only that all considerations need to be evaluated to reach an ethically sound decision. At least that is what Humanists try to do instead of dogmatically applying a rule that would lead to a bad result.

Most Humanists are utilitarians, (or in very close agreement with its principles) although many feel pragmatism or objectivism more accurately reflect their views. Back in 1933, when Humanist Manifesto I was written, the ideas contained in it didn't just come out of thin air; some of humanity's most brilliant minds had worked hard to devise philosophies that were universally fair and practical.

Not surprisingly, we have to go back to the Greeks to find the ideas that started Humanism. Thales of Miletus, born about 624 BCE, proposed a rational explanation for the natural world. Around 300 BCE, Epicurus said that life wasn't preordained, that much of life is subject to chance. He believed in living a simply life, avoiding pain and seeking pleasure. Although he was a hedonist Epicurus didn't believe in the wanton pursuit of pleasure. It would be nearly 2,000 years before some of his ideas were adopted into utilitarian theory.

A long and accurately named "Dark Age" befell western philosophy, under the stifling influence of the Church. What few philosophers were allowed to be heard during this period were Arabic or Christian. At last, the Dutch Humanist Erasmus, in 1524, defended the moral freedom of the individual and satirized the religious and political institutions of his time.

Humanist ethical values started to come together as well thought out systems in England, and to a lesser degree France, during the late 17^th century, and the 18^th and 19^th centuries. These philosophers greatly influenced American philosophers like Paine, Jefferson, Charles Sanders Pierce and John Dewey. In 1690, John Locke published "Concerning Human Understand" and "Two Treatises of Civil Government", which argued for democracy and against the rule of kings and advocated the sort of individual freedoms that are contained in our Constitution and Bill of Rights. Locke's friend Anthony Cooper, 3^rd Earl of Shaftesbury, in 1699, set out a list of practical rules for living that he claimed to arise from the nature of all humans without regard to religious considerations. In 1748, David Hume wrote that skepticism is the only defensible world view and a great many other things that upset supernatural believers.

The father of utilitarianism, Jeremy Bentham, devised an ethical system based on the utility of particular action with the greatest happiness of all people as its goal This was published in "An Introduction to the Principles of Morals and Legislation", in 1789. Scottish philosopher James Mill, who was a close friend of Bentham, further argued that since each individual acts in self-interest, any collection of people must therefore act in the interest of the whole. John Stuart Mill seemed destined to be a great philosopher, growing up with his father, James Mill, and Bentham as a mentor, he applied his brilliant intellect to refining and improving the theory of utilitarianism. By making clear distinctions about what happiness and pleasure really mean he moved utilitarianism away from the hedonistic foundations that Bentham had originally used, and which were much criticized by moralists of the day. Also, in "On Liberty" (1859) Mill argued for the broadest possible freedom of human though and expression.

Since J.S. Mill's classical version of utilitarianism as expounded in "Utilitarianism" (1861), various philosophers have added their interpretation of what utilitarianism should be. Henry Sidwick (1838-1900) argued that even in utilitarianism there will always be moral conflict that can't be resolved. G. E. Moore, in the early 1900's, regarded aesthetic enjoyment and friendship as the highest ethical values.

The dictionary defines utilitarianism as "Normative theory that human conduct is right or wrong because of its tendency to produce favorable, or unfavorable, consequences for the people who are affected by it." Act-utilitarianism asks "How much pleasure, or pain, would result if I did this now?". Rule-utilitarianism asks "What pleasure, or pain, would result if everyone were always to do this?". Peter Singer writes, "According to preference utilitarianism, an action contrary to the preference of any being is, unless this preference is outweighed by contrary preferences, wrong. Killing a person who prefers to continue living is therefore wrong, other things being equal."

Utilitarianism has the practical advantage of, as the word implies, being useful in dealing with ethical problems that arise in our lives. It seems natural to prefer pleasure over pain and joy over sorrow. In choosing an ethical system you should examine its strengths and weaknesses and compare it to other systems. Those who have chosen a religious ethical system might find it interesting to attempt to objectively compare it with utilitarianism.

The Atheist And The Loch Ness Monster

Contributed by Paul Ricci

An atheist was spending a quiet day fishing when suddenly his boat was attacked by the Loch Ness monster. In one easy flip, the beast tossed him and his boat high into the air. Then it opened its mouth to swallow both. As the man sailed head over heels, he cried out, "Oh, my God! Help me!"

At once, the ferocious attack scene froze in place, and as the atheist hung in mid-air, a booming voice came down from the clouds, "I thought you didn't believe in Me!"

"Come on God, give me a break!!," the man pleaded. "Two minutes ago I didn't believe in the Loch Ness monster either!"

Lois Lyons to Speak in Whittier

By Dave Silva

Lois Lyons will be speaking at what we hope will be a new Humanist Chapter in Whittier. There should be a Humanist chapter in the San Gabriel Valley. If you know anyone who lives in that area let them know about the meeting. It will be on April 6, 7:30pm, at 6755 Newlin, Whittier, corner of Philidelphia, at the Whittier museum. Dr. Clay Costner will moderate. For more information call (562) 9461687.

By Paul Ricci

Before attempting to answer the first question, it might be helpful to say a bit about the historical and traditional importance of morality in civilizations. To my knowledge, no society has ever risen devoid of at least some ethical values and beliefs, usually associated with the predominant religion of the day. In our own society, we make a great issue about moral behavior and there is no shortage of ‘authorities" telling us how to separate right from wrong.

Though not the first, the ancient Greek thinkers made a detailed study of ethical questions and the basis for moral beliefs. Today’s philosophers have built upon what the ancient Greeks started and the debate has gone on for some 2500 years, incorporating influences from other sources as well as the Greeks. Though there is not much agreement today on a philosophical basis for morality, some progress has been made clarifying the nature, scope and sorts of things that seem to be part of what we call moral behavior and noted on the next few pages.

Ethics, then, is the study of right conduct, moral obligation, moral character, moral responsibility, social justice and the nature of the good life. In short, it is the study of what is right and what is wrong (morally); the moral ought or should. Ethics is to be distinguished from the descriptive or scientific study of morality as done by scientists in anthropology, sociology or psychology. Philosophers differ from scientists in that they are not so much interested in what different peoples practice (anthropology or sociology) or what the motivations for their behavior might be (psychology) but rather they are interested in the nature of the moral beliefs that govern ones behavior and the reasons for these beliefs. These questions in moral philosophy are what govern our moral actions and dispositions. Keep in mind, however, that a discussion of ethics is not necessarily going to make you a better person. Nor are we (as teachers, or lecturers) going to tell you what is right or wrong (would that I could!). What then would be the point of such a discussion? It seems to me there are at least four benefits:

I. Increased clarity of your own beliefs. To think critically about ethics should help clarify where you actually stand on various issues and why.

2. Increased assurance that your beliefs are reasonable or true. A belief which has been examined deeply enough to reach the level of critical questioning rests on a firmer foundation than one that has not been so examined.

3. . One reason the ‘unexamined life is not worth living" (Socrates) is because only through constant examination of moral beliefs and practices can we realize if or when we are inconsistent. Although we may not be able to make all our beliefs and actions consistent it is important—not only for our own psychological well-being but to gain the respect of others—to do our utmost to be consistent. Also, inconsistent beliefs negate one another and leave one with no positive course of action in different situations.

4. Uncovering hidden assumptions in our own belief system:. One of the most important benefits of critical questioning is bringing to light hidden assumptions, some of which may be important to us but questionable.

1. Man (most of what we are concerned with in everyday life).

2. Oneself (overlaps psychology and how we regard ourselves, for example, pride, sell-pity, self-hatred, self-esteem, etc,)

3. Nature (or the environment); other non-human creatures, (animals, plants), the physical environment (oceans, mountains, rivers, air, etc.), as well as man-made artifacts and personal property.

4. Some supernatural or metaphysical concept (Brahman, the Absolute, Nature, God, Nirvana, etc.)

course of action.

3 Higher level principles

4. Moral standards upon which rules and principles are based -

5. Justification of Moral standards -

The final (and most difficult) stage of morality— and one into which few people enter— is the justification of moral standards. That is, it’s the effort to supply good reasons to support whatever standard is used. Often called metaethics, this effort tries to answer the question: How can any standard be proved, grounded or supported? Some think it is unnecessary, some impossible and yet some think it doesn’t even make sense to try. Yet most of us have an implied, bask, moral standard from which our rules and principles follow so it would be foolhardy to ignore it altogether.

D. What sorts of things (entities) are moral (or immoral)?

1. Actions; 2. Persons; 3. Moral traits or dispositions (patience, being good-natured, kindly, assertiveness, dogmatic, truthful, etc.); 4. Motives (greed, envy, hatred, vengeance, etc.); 5. Corporations (conglomerates); 6. Nations (?);

7. Groups of people (?)(Nazis, Communists, Gays, Blacks, Jews, et. al.); 8. Beliefs (?);9. Objects (?) (guns, atomic weapons, poisonous gas or germs, etc.).

E. What is needed to make an intelligent moral choice?

1. You must have as many facts relevant to the moral situation as it is possible to gather.

2. All key terms and concepts must be clarified through definition or explanation.

3. Apply all relevant rules, principles and/or standards.

4. The choice or decision must be consistent with other moral rules/principles you claim to hold. Perhaps a hierarchy of moral principles may be needed here in order of increasing importance and, perhaps, some principle of justice. Do not be over-ruled by emotion!

.