Ethics & Unity in the Atheist/Humanist Movement
Ethics and Unity in the Atheist/Humanist Movement
by August Berkshire
Does being an atheist or a humanist automatically make a person ethical? If we can admit there are some atheist people and groups that are unethical, small in number though they may be, how does this affect the unity we are trying to achieve?
Two of the greatest concerns, internally, of the atheist/humanist movement are ethics and unity. Unfortunately, these are sometimes at odds with each other. For the sake of ethics, it would be necessary to forgo total unity in our movement; unethical people or groups would be excluded. Alternately, for the sake of total unity, it would be necessary to overlook major ethical lapses.
So which is the correct road to take? I would argue that if we forgo ethics, then religion has already won, no matter how much unity we have. Furthermore, if we do not place a priority on ethics, we loose our standing to critique the ethical lapses of religious people and groups without being hypocrites and losing credibility ourselves. We must be consistent and avoid a double standard.
I have noticed that humanists have tended to put more emphasis on ethics and atheists have tended to put more emphasis on unity. There are traditional and definitional reasons for this. Atheism has been more concerned with critiquing religion and humanism has been more concerned with what kind of life we lead once we have dispensed with gods.
This is not to suggest that people who primarily identify as humanists aren’t sometimes unethical too. The point is that most humanist groups make an explicit effort to address the issue of ethics, whereas many atheist groups have not reached that stage yet.
In addition to traditional and definitional reasons, I believe there is a further, evolutionary reason for this difference in emphasis between humanism/ethics and atheism/unity. When threatened, a social species like humans often seeks safety in numbers. Unity for survival is paramount; ethics are a luxury.
Historically, humanists have not felt attacked the way atheists have. In fact, most people don’t even know what a “humanist” is, often mistaking it for a word that already has a positive connotation: “humane.” This has allowed humanists the opportunity to contemplate issues beyond survival, such as how to live an ethical life.
In contrast, there has hardly been a time or place in the history of humanity when atheists have not been under attack. This has caused some atheists to believe that the ends justify the means in fighting back against religion. Ethics fall by the wayside in the fight for survival.
Is the solution, then, for us all to just call ourselves “humanists,” to get religion off our backs in order to give us a breather so we can better pursue ethics? No, the word “atheist” cannot be avoided because it is an accurate description of who we are.
Because survival is paramount (often expressed as victimization by and anger towards religion), many atheists would rather shoot the messenger who points out unethical atheist behavior than examine the message. While we are right to be concerned about unethical religious activity, should we not be equally upset by unethical activity within our own movement?
Tellingly, those who favor the inclusion of unethical people or groups in freethought coalitions will use words like “unity” or “censorship” to defend their position. However, a word I have never heard them use is “ethical.”
One would think, from a marketing point of view at the very least, that atheists would care more about ethics than they do. After all, it is the number one accusation made against us by religious people: That we can’t be good without god.
By embracing unethical atheist people and groups and bringing them into the fold, perhaps some people believe we can get them to improve their behavior. I have not seen this route be successful. Unity should be withheld until ethical behavior is achieved. Unethical people and groups should be marginalized, not embraced.
Or, do some people believe that by enveloping an unethical person or group in a larger freethought group that we can cover it up? How ethical is that?
To those who believe in total unity at all costs, I say that unethical behavior is too high a price to pay for unity. Are we so naïve or desperate that we have to put up with unethical behavior? I hope not.
The vast majority of all atheists and humanists lead ethical lives. And, since atheism and humanism are increasing, this demonstrates that an ethical approach to atheism/humanism works. So, not only can we support ethics above total unity because it is the right thing to do, we can relax and do so because it is also the practical thing to do.
© 2009 August Berkshire
This essay was published in the January-March 2010 issue of Secular Nation magazine.
Comments
3 Comments on Ethics & Unity in the Atheist/Humanist Movement
-
Robert Seidman on
Thu, 21st Jan 2010 5:34 pm
-
abadmin on
Thu, 21st Jan 2010 5:53 pm
-
Robert Seidman on
Sat, 6th Feb 2010 7:59 pm
I am at a loss to understand who you are defining as “unethical atheists”. Are we excluding thieves , cheats, bigots and murderers? Or is “ethical” defining specific political opinions?
I have atheist friends with whom I have political differences. but this does not prevent us from being united in sharing our thoughts and experiences with regard to atheism, reasoned thought, raising children, and other issues relevant to our shared beliefs. It would be very sad and unnecessary, in my opinion, to loose a friend because we had a political disagreement.
Thanks for the comment. There were specific atheist leaders and groups I had in mind when I wrote this. Those who know me well can probably figure out who I’m talking about. Maybe it’s too much “inside baseball” for me to have published it.
I did not have in mind political disagreements when I wrote this. Most political positions are not unethical. (However, a few years ago there was an atheist leader running for public office who was apparently a Holocaust denier. He was rightfully opposed and marginalized by the atheist establishment. He now claims to be a Christian.)
Thank you for your timely reply, it has taken me a while to sort out my thoughts on this. I guess the work “ethical” is kind of a loaded concept, prone to abuse. I was specifically reacting to statements on another atheist blog that would label certain political opinions as being unethical and wrong for an atheist to hold. I appreciate your clarification.
My thoughts are that a holocaust denier, for instance, is unethical because of the severe disrespect for those both living and dead who experienced the holocaust. I know it is very troubling to people who lived during that time to suffer such false statements. I am reminded of many peoples’ personal accounts, including that of a U.S. soldier who was one of the men who discovered the Buchenwald concentration camp at the end of the war, and how he was haunted by the experience and his recollections for his entire life (he passed away last year).
I can’t help but think that promoting such a belief as denial of the holocaust is little different from promoting a belief in young earth creation. Both involve willful ignorance and disrespect for those who witness the evidence and make it knowable to all of us. Similarly, I was raised Jewish and the story of Moses was taught to me as proof of the fortitude of my people, but archeology has proven beyond any reasonable doubt that the story of Moses was written many centuries after the supposed events occurred and that the pyramids were built by Egyptians and that Jews were not present, indeed it is doubtful they existed as a culture at the time the pyramids were built. I am grateful to the people who made these discoveries knowable to me, I would consider it unethical to teach my own children what I was taught, but I recognize that my parents, teachers and rabbi did not have the information I have.
My question is can we say “willful ignorance” rather than “unethical” to separate out the persons not worthy of being within the unity of the atheist circle?