Like science our humanist morality is provisional and debateable. It is contextual.It serves us,not a god.It is objective in so far as we discern what is good for humans, other animals and the enviornment,using Bentham's pleasure-pain principle.It springs from our evolved moral sense,with empathy included.Rather than us living of the religious morality, theists live off ours if they use reason and facts to do morals.Ignorant men of yore just made up,for the most part, commandments out of their subjectivity- their whims and tastes,such as stoning for working on the sabbath or what woment shoul

A New Enlightenment? What is this New Enlightenment meant for? In the article it states that, “Its goal is to change society into a more free and compassionate place.” [1]
I can see why you (The Secular Student Alliance) would want to transform society for the better by enabling people to be “free’ and “compassionate.” The reality of it is that neither you, nor any other group of people can force people to become compassionate. Now that our society has been so split and cut apart into groups and sects, there is no way to make everyone just start caring about one another. The problem with our society is that people have number one, no class, and number two, no character.

Toward a New Assumption in Law and Ethics
by Michael J. Hanson
Research on how the brain functions raises startling questions about how society's cultural and legal social structure is based on flawed notions about human choice and personal responsibility.
(Read Article in PDF)

http://www.thehumanist.org/humanist/articles/Hanson-JulyAug06.pdf

august?