| |
 |
|
|
Science Forum Index » Philosophy Forum » Humanitarianism...
Page 1 of 1
|
| Author |
Message |
| turtoni... |
 Posted: Thu May 08, 2008 11:36 pm |
|
|
|
Guest
|
Humanitarianism is an informal ideology of practice, whereby people practice
humane treatment and provide assistance to others; it is the doctrine that
people's duty is to promote human welfare.[1]
Humanitarianism is based on a view that all human beings deserve respect and
dignity and should be treated as such. Therefore, humanitarians work towards
advancing the well-being of humanity as a whole. It is the antithesis of the
"us vs. them" mentality that characterizes tribalism and ethnic nationalism.
Humanitarians abhor slavery, violation of basic and human rights, and
discrimination on the basis of features such as colour of skin, religion,
ancestry, place of birth, etc. Humanitarianism drives people to save lives,
alleviate suffering and promote human dignity in the middle of man-made or
natural disasters. Humanitarianism is embraced by movements and people
across the political spectrum. The informal ideology can be summed up by a
quote from Albert Schweitzer: "Humanitarianism consists in never sacrificing
a human being to a purpose."
[edit] A universal doctrine
Jean Pictet, in his commentary on The Fundamental Principles of the Red
Cross points out the universal characteristics of humanitarianism:
The wellspring of the principle of humanity is in the essence of social
morality which can be summed up in a single sentence, Whatsoever ye would
that men should do to you, do ye even so to them. This fundamental precept
can be found, in almost identical form, in all the great religions,
Brahminism, Buddhism, Christianity, Confucianism, Islam, Judaism, Sikhism
and Taoism. It is also the golden rule of the positivists, who do not commit
themselves to any religion but only to the data of experience, in the name
of reason alone.[2].
[edit] Historical examples
Historically, humanitarianism was publicly seen in the social reforms of the
late 1800s and early 1900s, following the economic turmoil of the Industrial
Revolution in England. Many of the women in Great Britain who were involved
with feminism during the 1900s also pushed humanitarianism. The atrocious
hours and working conditions of children and unskilled laborers were made
illegal by pressure on Parliament by humanitarians. The Factory Act of 1833
and the Factory Act of 1844 were some of the most significant humanitarian
bills passed in Parliament following the Industrial Revolution.
In the middle of the 19th century, humanitarianism was central to the work
of Florence Nightengale and Henry Dunant in emergency response and in the
latter case led to the founding of the Red Cross.
[edit] Emergency response
Today, humanitarianism is particularly used to describe the thinking and
doctrines behind emergency response to humanitarian crises. In such cases it
argues for a humanitarian response based on humanitarian principles,
particularly the principle of humanity. Nicholas de Torrente, Executive
Director of MSF-USA writes:
"The most important principles of humanitarian action are humanity, which
posits the conviction that all people have equal dignity by virtue of their
membership in humanity, impartiality, which directs that assistance is
provided based solely on need, without discrimination among recipients,
neutrality, which stipulates that humanitarian organizations must refrain
from taking part in hostilities or taking actions that advantage one side of
the conflict over another, and independence, which is necessary to ensure
that humanitarian action only serves the interests of war victims, and not
political, religious, or other agendas.
"These fundamental principles serve two essential purposes. They embody
humanitarian action's single-minded purpose of alleviating suffering,
unconditionally and without any ulterior motive. They also serve as
operational tools that help in obtaining both the consent of belligerents
and the trust of communities for the presence and activities of humanitarian
organizations, particularly in highly volatile contexts.[3]
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Humanitarian |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
| Immortalist... |
| Posted: Thu May 08, 2008 11:36 pm |
|
|
|
Guest
|
On May 8, 9:36 pm, "turtoni" <turt... at (no spam) fastmail.net> wrote:
Quote: Humanitarianism is an informal ideology of practice, whereby people practice
humane treatment and provide assistance to others; it is the doctrine that
people's duty is to promote human welfare.[1]
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Humanitarian
You know, I am in favor of humanitarianism myself, but if your looking
for an argument against it, here you go, see where it's weakness -
lies-.
Most of the harm in the world is done by good people, and not by
accident, lapse, or omission. It is the result of their deliberate
actions, long persevered in, which they hold to be motivated by high
ideals toward virtuous ends.
This is demonstrably true; nor could it occur otherwise. The
percentage of positively malignant, vicious, or depraved persons is
necessarily small, for no species could survive if its members were
habitually and consciously bent upon injuring one another. Destruction
is so easy that even a minority of persistently evil intent could
shortly exterminate the unsuspecting majority of well-disposed
persons. Murder, theft, rapine, and destruction are easily within the
power of every individual at any time. If it is presumed that they are
restrained only by fear or force, what is it they fear, or who would
turn the force against them if all men were of like mind?
Certainly if the harm done by willful criminals were to be computed,
the number of murders, the extent of damage and loss, would be found
negligible in the sum total of death and devastation wrought upon
human beings by their kind. Therefore it is obvious that in periods
when millions are slaughtered, when torture is practiced, starvation
enforced, oppression made a policy, as at present over a large part of
the world, and as it has often been in the past, it must be at the
behest of very many good people, and even by their direct action, for
what they consider a worthy object. When they are not the immediate
executants, they are on record as giving approval, elaborating
justifications, or else cloaking facts with silence, and
discountenancing discussion.
Obviously this could not occur without cause or reason. And it must be
understood, in the above passage, that by good people we mean good
people, persons who would not of their own conscious intent act to
hurt their fellow men, nor procure such acts, either wantonly or for a
personal benefit to themselves. Good people wish well to their fellow
men, and wish to guide their own actions accordingly. Further, we do
not here imply any "transvaluation of values," confusing good and
evil, or suggesting that good produces evil, or that there is no
difference between good and evil, or between good- and ill-disposed
persons; nor is it suggested that the virtues of good people are not
really virtues.
Then there must be a very grave error in the means by which they seek
to attain their ends. There must even be an error in their primary
axioms, to permit them to continue using such means. Something is
terribly wrong in the procedure, somewhere. What is it?
Certainly the slaughter committed from time to time by barbarians
invading settled regions, or the capricious cruelties of avowed
tyrants, would not add up to one-tenth the horrors perpetrated by
rulers with good intentions...
http://www.mises.org/story/2739
The Only Path To Tomorrow
Ayn Rand
Readers Digest, January 1944, pp. 88-90
The greatest threat to mankind and civilization is the spread of the
totalitarian philosophy. Its best ally is not the devotion of its
followers but the confusion of its enemies. To fight it, we must
understand it.
Totalitarianism is collectivism. Collectivism means the subjugation of
the individual to a group — whether to a race, class or state does not
matter. Collectivism holds that man must be chained to collective
action and collective thought for the sake of what is called ``the
common good.´´
Throughout history, no tyrant ever rose to power except on the claim
of representing ``the common good.´´ Napoleon ``served the common good
´´ of France. Hitler is ``serving the common good´´ of Germany.
Horrors which no man would dare consider for his own selfish sake are
perpetrated with a clear conscience by ``altruists´´ who justify
themselves by-the common good.
No tyrant has ever lasted long by force of arms alone. Men have been
enslaved primarily by spiritual weapons. And the greatest of these is
the collectivist doctrine that the supremacy of the state over the
individual constitutes the common good. No dictator could rise if men
held as a sacred faith the conviction that they have inalienable
rights of which they cannot be deprived for any cause whatsoever, by
any man whatsoever, neither by evildoer nor supposed benefactor.
This is the basic tenet of individualism, as opposed to collectivism.
Individualism holds that man is an independent entity with an
inalienable right to the pursuit of his own happiness in a society
where men deal with one another as equals.
The American system is founded on individualism. If it is to survive,
we must understand the principles of individualism and hold them as
our standard in any public question, in every issue we face. We must
have a positive credo, a clear consistent faith.
We must learn to reject as total evil the conception that the common
good is served by the abolition of individual rights. General
happiness cannot be created out of general suffering and self-
immolation. The only happy society is one of happy individuals. One
cannot have a healthy forest made up of rotten trees.
The power of society must always be limited by the basic, inalienable
rights of the individual.
The right of liberty means man's right to individual action,
individual choice, individual initiative and individual property.
Without the right to private property no independent action is
possible.
The right to the pursuit of happiness means man's right to live for
himself, to choose what constitutes his own, private, personal
happiness and to work for its achievement. Each individual is the sole
and final judge in this choice. A man's happiness cannot be prescribed
to him by another man or by any number of other men.
These rights are the unconditional, personal, private, individual
possession of every man, granted to him by the fact of his birth and
requiring no other sanction. Such was the conception of the founders
of our country, who placed individual rights above any and all
collective claims. Society can only be a traffic policeman in the
intercourse of men with one another.
From the beginning of history, two antagonists have stood face to
face, two opposite types of men: the Active and the Passive. The
Active Man is the producer, the creator, the originator, the
individualist. His basic need is independence — in order to think and
work. He neither needs nor seeks power over other men — nor can he be
made to work under any form of compulsion. Every type of good work —
from laying bricks to writing a symphony — is done by the Active Man.
Degrees of human ability vary, but the basic principle remains the
same: the degree of a man's independence and initiative determines his
talent as a worker and his worth as a man.
The Passive Man is found on every level of society, in mansions and in
slums, and his identification mark is his dread of independence. He is
a parasite who expects to be taken care of by others, who wishes to be
given directives, to obey, to submit, to be regulated, to be told. He
welcomes collectivism, which eliminates any chance that he might have
to think or act on his own initiative.
When a society is based on the needs of the Passive Man it destroys
the Active; but when the Active is destroyed, the Passive can no
longer be cared for. When a society is based on the needs of the
Active Man, he carries the Passive ones along on his energy and raises
them as he rises, as the whole society rises. This has been the
pattern of all human progress.
Some humanitarians demand a collective state because of their pity for
the incompetent or Passive Man. For his sake they wish to harness the
Active. But the Active Man cannot function in harness. And once he is
destroyed, the destruction of the Passive Man follows automatically.
So if pity is the humanitarians' first consideration, then in the name
of pity, if nothing else, they should leave the Active Man free to
function, in order to help the Passive. There is no other way to help
him in the long run.
The history of mankind is the history of the struggle between the
Active Man and the Passive, between the individual and the collective.
The countries which have produced the happiest men, the highest
standards of living and the greatest cultural advances have been the
countries where the power of the collective — of the government, of
the state — was limited and the individual was given freedom of
independent action. As examples: The rise of Rome, with its conception
of law based on a citizen's rights, over the collectivist barbarism of
its time. The rise of England, with a system of government based on
the Magna Carta, over collectivist, totalitarian Spain. The rise of
the United States to a degree of achievement unequaled in history — by
grace of the individual freedom and independence which our
Constitution gave each citizen against the collective.
While men are still pondering upon the causes of the rise and fall of
civilizations, every page of history cries to us that there is but one
source of progress: Individual Man in independent action. Collectivism
is the ancient principle of savagery. A savage's whole existence is
ruled by the leaders of his tribe. Civilization is the process of
setting man free from men.
We are now facing a choice: to go forward or to go back.
Collectivism is not the ``New Order of Tomorrow.´´ It is the order of
a very dark yesterday. But there is a New Order of Tomorrow. It
belongs to Individual Man — the only creator of any tomorrows humanity
has ever been granted.
http://fare.tunes.org/liberty/library/toptt.html
http://youtube.com/watch?v=q3THCcOMgHc |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
| Sir Frederick... |
| Posted: Fri May 09, 2008 12:06 am |
|
|
|
Guest
|
As good a collection of stories as any, perhaps better than some.
Good to see you practicing them. |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
| turtoni... |
| Posted: Fri May 09, 2008 11:29 pm |
|
|
|
Guest
|
|
| Back to top |
|
| turtoni... |
| Posted: Fri May 09, 2008 11:40 pm |
|
|
|
Guest
|
Quote: "Sir Frederick" wrote:
As good a collection of stories as any, perhaps better than some.
Good to see you practicing them.
turtoni quotes:
(philosophers) "in general do not worry about protecting their
"indigenous culture" but instead eagerly create and adopt new
things and then change or modify to make them their own." |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
| turtoni... |
| Posted: Fri May 09, 2008 11:54 pm |
|
|
|
Guest
|
Quote: "Sir Frederick" wrote
As good a collection of stories as any, perhaps better than some.
Good to see you practicing them.
turtoni quotes:
(philosophers) "in general do not worry about protecting their
"indigenous culture" but instead eagerly create and adopt new
things and then change or modify to make them their own."
"A human being should be able to change a diaper, plan an invasion, butcher
a hog, conn a ship, design a building, write a sonnet, balance accounts,
build a wall, set a bone, comfort the dying, take orders, give orders,
cooperate, act alone, solve equations, analyze a new problem, pitch manure,
program a computer, cook a tasty meal, fight efficiently, die gallantly.
Specialization is for insects. " |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
| |
|
Page 1 of 1
All times are GMT - 5 Hours
The time now is Mon Sep 08, 2008 5:43 am
|
|