Objectevists and secular humanists?

Question

Why are those who call themselves humanists so doubtful of mankinds worth and ability to self govern? Why do they believe- as they seem to, please provide examples if I'm wrong- that the masses should be protected by the few with intelligence, that we are of the same worth as animals and the environment, etc.? And why has the philosophy of Objectivism (true humanism) as espoused by Ayn Rand been abandoned in favor of philosophies of science, economics, and government which doubt the individuals worth and the free market in favor of socialism and government enforced "equality", which in effect means lowering everyone until we reach a plateau?

Note: I am not an Objectivist. I'm far too cynical. I find more and more that I don't fit in any philosophy, because I can find faults with nearly all of them.

Answer 1

I completely agree with you, but you seem to miss the entire point of objectivists. Well, If YOU are the intelligent one ruling the masses, the hell you will believe they are all worth nothing. Humans are not of the same worth as animals or the environment, for we are able to create and emulate the powers of the prime mover, however limited our faculties may be. Animals and environment, in essence, are only the end products of the prime mover's actions. Human kind will never really be able to succeed under anarchy, for the greedy and affluent will always muscle their way to power, and so many ppl are willing to obey direction.



Yes, it IS aggravating when Descartes and Espinoza fall apart under scrutiny, and there is no clear answer. I believe that philosophies should be abandoned if they are not veritable when tested in EVERY circumstance...It's tough out here for a p*imp.

Answer 2

First of all, your question refers to secular humanists but your detail just says humanists. There are, for the record, religious humanists as well.

Second, you seem to be equating humanism with liberalism. While a number of humanists do support nanny-state politics, humanism itself is neutral on political issues, and there are also humanists who are strong free-market supporters. Secular humanism, in fact, is quite in favor of the worth of mankind and the ability to self-govern; it is often the religion that secular humanists oppose which teaches that humans are lowly beings who must be ruled over by a Higher Authority. The idea that animals & "the environment" must be protected even (or especially) at the expense of humans and human prosperity/well-being are liberal--political--ideologies , not the philosophy of humanism.

I'm not an objectivist myself, though as a libertarian atheist I agree with much of what objectivists support: free markets, rugged individualism & personal responsibility, and that humans should be free from the tyrannies of institutions such as govt. and the church. Objectivists are a bit too cultish for me though; too much idol-worshiping of Saint Ayn for my tastes.

Nonetheless, to answer your last question, it's because people are not being taught (not by their parents and CERTAINLY not in the govt. schools) all the important things that would show them the way to valuing these types of things. I'm actually pretty knowledgable about economics, but what little I was taught was in an optional course in college; the rest I learned on my own. There is no reason why the basic concepts of supply & demand, and of market distortions, can not be taught in high school. Similarly, why limited govt. is better than the welfare state, and why the scientific method trumps blind belief, can and should be taught in our high schools.