Values for Everyone

"Moral decay" and "lack of values" are routinely blamed for many of society's ills—as they have been in all ages and societies.  Whenever a disturbance occurs at the local school, the corruption of a prominent official is revealed, some well regarded celebrity is found to be doing drugs, or teen pregnancies rise, you can bet that someone will explain it all by sagely observing that "the community's morals are shot."  And most of the heads within earshot will nod in agreement.

But why should this be?  A common reason given is that "We can't teach values in school anymore!"

To which we might well pose the question, "Why not?"

"Those godless humanists won't let us!"

Whoa, there!  Humanism is all about values, if nothing else!  Humanists aren't against teaching values.  They just don't accept the whole package of superstition and traditional taboos that many people insist are a necessary part of "values."

Let's take a look at the biblical Ten Commandments (which many have proposed posting in public school classrooms) to get a handle on the problem.  (These are a little abbreviated here to fit the space, but they should be easily recognizable.)  Beside each commandment we'll list the approximate humanist equivalent (if any) in colloquial terms.

As we can see, the Ten Commandments can be divided into two categories, divine and secular:

Commandments 1 through 4 are divine in character; they specify how (Jewish) people are to behave toward God.  There are no humanist equivalents for these, for there is no reliable way to determine whether or not they are beneficial, given that the existence of deities is purely conjectural.  Furthermore, not all humans worship the same deity; the only thing common to all humans is humanity itself. Therefore humanism suggests itself as the basis for a common secular morality which does not interfere in religious matters, rightly leaving the matter of how people interact with their gods up to their respective religions, each of which has its own rules about such things.

1. Some religions worship one god, some many gods, and some no gods at all.

2. Some religions require the worship of images and symbols while others forbid it.

3. What is considered blasphemy by one religion may be quite all right according to another.

4. The accepted teachings, traditions, and practices of one religion may be considered taboo by another.

5. The holy days of each religion are often different from those of others.

Obviously codes which vary so greatly among religions are not "universal" where man is concerned, and therefore cannot be included in the secular laws of a society which embraces religious pluralism.  Nor will the posting or teaching of this kind of sectarian material in public schools provide any benefit, for troubles in school are typically of the human-to-human variety; human-to-deity problems are best dealt with on an individual level or in the church of one's choice, without the intrusion of the school board or other government authorities.

Commandments 5 through 10 are of secular nature; they specify how people are to behave toward each other.  Since this is also humanism's province (the existence of humans being established as fact for all practical purposes), equivalent humanist guidelines can be specified.  Although humanist ethics are based on reason, and hence do not always produce identical results in different situations, under most circumstances they distill to values similar to those from religious sources.  These standards of secular behavior are almost universal among civilized humans, regardless of their religious beliefs (or lack of them), for the practical reason that their practice helps to stabilize society, facilitate interaction, and thereby make organization and specialization easier and more efficient.  Indeed, we could add many more, such as "Don't mistreat or threaten others," "Don't make promises you don't intend to keep," and "Work to the best of your ability," to the list of humanist standards.  Because such values are virtually universal (with the possible exception of the "adultery" item, since there are societies in which it is considered acceptable and poses no threat), their inclusion in general codes of morals, values, and ethics is quite easy, even natural.

Humanists really have no objection to the teaching of rational and practical values—those embraced by virtually all modern faiths and philosophies—in public schools. Indeed they actually encourage it, provided only that the Sunday-School stuff is sifted out, and left to those whose specialty it is to teach that sort of thing in accordance with individual preferences—families and churches. Indeed, years ago practical values were routinely taught, as "citizenship," in American schools. Citizenship stopped being taught only because some religious fanatics moaned that, without reference to a deity every sentence or two, it was essentially teaching "the religion of secular humanism"—never mind that the behavior taught was essentially the same as that taught by religion, only minus the god stuff. So whose fault is it if solid citizenship values are not being taught in public schools today?

If virtually everyone, whether religious or not, agrees on the secular standards, then there is no reason schools cannot post or teach these.  For they are the product, not of a single religion or philosophy, but of general practical necessity, and are accepted by civilized people everywhere.  Though we understand that there are some situations under which each standard might be ethically violated, we agree (and it can be shown) that the observance of these standards under all but the most extraordinary circumstances contributes to everyone's well-being.

(Or however you prefer to express them.)

And if anyone objects that there are now less than the magical number of ten guidelines, to these we can readily add:

Anyone have a problem with that?

=SAJ=