Wednesday, March 15, 2006

The Anti-Humanitarianism of Humanistic Individualism

Secular humanism is a philosophical system that ultimately results in a terrible hatred for human life. This is most evident in the mentality of the expendability of the unborn. Once, when I argued the subject matter of abortion with a secular humanist, his response was to ask me the question, “Have you never squashed a bug?” This mentality compares the worth of human life to that of a cockroach (and when I heard that, boy did I want to squash him like a cockroach!). Ultimately, in an atheistic worldview, the only thing that separates humans from every other creature on the planet is the biological division of classes based upon scientists’ empirical classification of animals according to their kinds. But what separates human life other than the concept of domination? But even from an atheistic standpoint, abortion has no biological warrant, for this classification would recognize that biologically speaking, the separation of morality between the born and unborn is a horrifyingly arbitrary distinction.

Therefore, there must be some other underlying philosophy behind this distinction. Ultimately, another person’s worth is determined from the perspective of the individual: how this affects me, what other people will think of me, will this obstruct me from accomplishing my goals in life (the victim is no longer the aborted baby, but the “poor” girl who has to live with the consequences for her mistakes). Human life has no intrinsic worth; it is completely relative. Whether or not you are important is based merely upon the collective totalities of the individualistic mindset. Needless to say, this is the opposite of Biblical thinking.

Let’s apply this same mentality to other aspects of life (and hopefully you will understand that these suggestions of mine are hypothetical and that I oppose this mentality in totality and at its core): the mentally handicapped. Parents of mentally handicapped children received a position that, frankly, they did not sign up for. It changes their whole lives. The normative paternal experience is to raise children, but have them mature gradually so that your authoritative influence in their lives slowly decreases. Eventually, they leave your house, go off and get married, and become parents of their own. But often this isn’t the experience of parents of the mentally handicapped. Their influence upon their children may gradually decrease at first, but it can only decrease to a certain degree. Really, parents of mentally handicapped children are parents for life, either that or their parental responsibilities are handed over into another’s care. Either way, somebody’s life gets messed with to a significant degree.

So why hasn’t this mentality driven itself to its fullest potential? Why hasn’t the self-appointed value of individualistic humanism woven outward to the extent that the mentally retarded become expendable based upon my own needs? My answer is the common grace of God. Any other answer is arbitrary at best.

But let’s look at another byproduct of secular humanism: feminism. What could be more degrading to women than feminism? What could be more degrading to a woman than to assume that she lacks the mental and emotional maturity to handle a functional subordination (while retaining an intrinsic equality)? What could be more degrading to a woman than to assume that unless her role looks and functions in the exact same manner as a man she would throw a fit? You see, feminism transforms women into the younger sibling who has to have everything the same as his older brother or else he accuses his parents of not loving him. It isn’t degrading to give Billy a race car and Tommy a monster truck; one is no less loving than the other (and it isn’t degrading to say that a “mom” is a mom and a “dad” is a dad). It is, however, degrading to assume (unless experience tells us) that Billy would throw a temper tantrum unless both Billy and Tommy get a monster truck, or unless they both get a race car. What could be more degrading to a woman than to assume that she lacks the intelligence to distinguish a generic “he”, or a generic “man” (in reference to “mankind”)? What could be more pathetic? I mean, do they really think that women are emotional idiots?

Social feminism and egalitarianism, much like the humanistic mentality of the expendability of human life, are philosophical branches of the root of individualism. With individualism, everyone might as well be the president of the country. No one can have a functional subordination to the authority of someone else without somehow being persecuted and considered unequal. Does the government assume that the governed will not have the emotional and mental maturity to be governed? If here such an assumption would be unheard of, why are some people so willing to degrade women by attributing to them the incapacity to handle a functional subordination? Does the fact that I am a school teacher and you are the president make us unequal? No, it does not. But does our equality mean that we posses the same authority? No, it does not. Individualism ultimately leads to autonomy and anarchy. No one can be governed, for no one has the maturity to handle government without viewing it as a threat on his equality (notice the hateful, sexist generic “his”).

Evan May.

7 comments:

  1. If I understand it correctly, you are saying that it is degrading to women to assume that women lack the mental capacity to understand that they are subordinate to men.

    I think you have a point, but you don't make your case as general as it could have been. Surely it is also degrading to blacks to assume that they are too stupid to grasp that they are subordinate to whites.

    I hate it when people underestimate the lower ranking people.

    ReplyDelete
  2. Um..no.

    Egalitarianism, in the ultimate sense, assumes that no one can be governed. It misinterprets equality in terms of authority. Is the school teacher equal to the president of the country? Yes. Does he have the same authority? No.

    As a Christian, I recognize that in the family, fathers are the head. And in the church, there is a body. A finger is no less important than an eye, etc, but they have different roles. Egalitarianism degrades women by assuming that they lack the emotional maturity to handle a functional subordination yet not interpret it as an attack on their equality. With egalitarianism, everyone must be an eye. But would a body function if everyone was an eye? Is the eye unequal to the hand?

    ReplyDelete
  3. It isn’t degrading to give Billy a race car and Tommy a monster truck; one is no less loving than the other (and it isn’t degrading to say that a “mom” is a mom and a “dad” is a dad). It is, however, degrading to assume (unless experience tells us) that Billy would throw a temper tantrum unless both Billy and Tommy get a monster truck, or unless they both get a race car.

    Wow, your understanding of feminism is juvenile at best. Your example above doesn't have anything to do with feminism in the slightest. Let me help you with a more realistic example. Jill and Tommy both help clean the gutters on the roof. Jill does the front gutters and Tommy does the back gutters. After they are done, Dad gives Jill one dollar and Tommy five dollars.

    Here is another example. Dad won't let Jill clean the gutters on the roof. He tells Jill she can do the dishes instead. Unfortunately, doing the dishes is only worth 50 cents while cleaning the gutters is worth five dollars.

    Now Jill and Tommy are in high school. Tommy wants to go out with the prettiest girl in school. Dad gives him the keys to the car, a few extra bucks, a wink and a nod and tells him to not stay out too late. Jill wants to go out with the hunky quarterback. Dad insists that he give the boy the once-over before she can date him, that she can only go out with him on a group date and that she be home by midnight.

    You see, all of my examples highlight real world problems addressed by feminism. Your example provides nothing other than pointing out the obvious that two kids will fight over a perceived injustice where none really exists.

    Oh, wait a minute, now I get it. You don't think that unequal pay for equal work is an injustice. You don't think that everyone should be given an equal opportunity to compete for meaningful employement. And I guess it goes without saying that you don't think a woman can be allowed to control her own sexuality. Silly me, it is so obvious now. That's why you're not a feminist.

    ReplyDelete
  4. Egalitarianism degrades women by assuming that they lack the emotional maturity to handle a functional subordination yet not interpret it as an attack on their equality.

    Imagine that, a human being might not like being told that they are a subordinate, that they have to play a specific role regardless of whether they want to or not.

    A finger is no less important than an eye, etc, but they have different roles.

    According to you (see your first quote above), one is subordinate to the other. You do know what subordinate means, don't you?

    sub·or·di·nate:

    1. Belonging to a lower or inferior class or rank; secondary.
    2. Subject to the authority or control of another.

    You can call it "functional" and try to sugarcoat it all you want, but when it comes down to it, in your view, women are subordinate to men ("As a Christian, I recognize that in the family, fathers are the head").

    With egalitarianism, everyone must be an eye.

    This is your own fabricated strawman argument. It is not required that everyone must be an eye. We all are born with different abilities and some of us will surely never be able to reach eyeness. But, for those who wish to try, everyone must be given an equal opportunity.

    ReplyDelete
  5. Evan May: "I mean, do they really think that women are emotional idiots?"

    I don't think so.

    But the way they go on and on and on about it kinda makes you think that they do see women as being emotional idiots.

    ReplyDelete