Moral Discipline

 We'll never raise moral children by disciplining them immorally.

I have been chatting a lot lately with my new friend Izrael Kalman. He is a psychologist who specializes in helping children deal effectively with bullying. We found each other at the World Anti-Bullying Forum. We are both interested in using science to help solve the problem of bullying. 

He has a post about moral discipline of children that I want to share. 

The basic gist is, you can't create moral children using immoral means.  It has to do with how we deal with bullying, using a legal model instead of a behavioral and ethical model.

https://www.psychologytoday.com/intl/blog/resilience-bullying/201006/ten-principles-moral-discipline-introduction

I keep tellling people that - the science tells us that the best way to fix behavioral problems is by taking a humanistic approach, meaning, we treat the person behaving badly, with dignity and compassion. It really does work. It's the only thing that does.

This is why I focus so much of my time teaching applied behavioral science. 

How can good people come to different moral conclusions about politics

 Now that the election is over, hopefully, as I am prewriting this in October, let's talk about how good people can come to such radically different moral conclusions about politics.

This is based on an actual conversation I had with some people on social media. Their names have been deleted, but I thought it was important to discuss this, from an explicitly humanistic perspective.

Question 1: I cannot get into the minds of those who go along with hateful and hypocritical rhetoric and actions. If you are decent, caring, and honest, how can you accept what is contrary to your values?

My first answer: By not knowing and not believing when you are told that something immoral has happened. Also, being told the other side are the bad guys and that your side is the good guys, plays into our tribal biases and short circuits our moral reasoning.

It's having your morality, which we all pretty much share,  hijacked for nefarious purposes. We've had 30 plus years of this happening along with concerted efforts by foreign bad actors to exacerbate this dynamic. But the lying liars thing is just partisanship. It's substituting tribal thinking (our side good, their side bad) over actual moral thinking (these actions are good or bad regardless of who does it).  In other words, morality becomes, it's ok if my side does it - to beat the other side.

Question 2: What you state appears to be the situation. However, morality can be interpreted and practiced many ways. It's personal and based on perspective. What you and I accept as moral is not necessarily what another person goes along with. Biases are factors. Personally, my mind differentiates between what I know, based on experience and facts and data; plus compassion and empathy play a role which I cannot ignore. Sometimes it is difficult to accept truths and maybe that is the problem with people who look the other way and go along with hateful, spiteful rhetoric and acts.

My 2nd Answer:  Studies on global ethics show that there is actually a common global ethic. Compassion is good. Harm is bad. Everything flows from there. I once did a just war session at a conference. We all agreed what a just and unjust war was but when we tried to apply to particular conflicts we couldn't agree at all, because of what we knew or thought we knew. 

Add to that the fact we almost all take short cuts in our thinking. If we had to analyze everything it would be exhausting so we take short cuts and make assumptions. One of those short cuts is our tribe good, our enemies bad. We substitute if our tribe did it it must be good because we are good and everyone I know is good. Therefore they are not capable of doing bad - for actual analysis of any given situation. This happens all the time. The idea that humans are rational is incorrect. We are capable of rational thought,  but most of the time we don't use critical thinking. We use emotional thinking and rational short cuts. Further, we don't have time to learn everything. 

This is how people with a shared morality can come to hugely different conclusions of what is moral or immoral or amoral. And that's when we share the same facts! 

When we don't share facts or when people believe things that aren't true it would be nearly impossible to come to an agreement on what is moral.

Voluntary Desire to Do and Be Good

I want to share a philosophic/theological idea that I find very exciting.  And yes, I know - the idea of theological within a secular humanist concept - seems odd - but it will make sense. I promise.

First  - a little bit of background.  I have been volunteering with the International Humanistic Management Association. I help facilitate a monthly discussion on humanistic management for professionals http://humanisticmanagement.international/humanistic-management-professionals/

One of my colleagues is Manuel Guillén Parra (https://rcc.harvard.edu/people/manuel-guill%C3%A9n-parra). He is organizing a multi-year learnership workshop - http://humanisticmanagement.international/humanistic-management-workshop/

He is also writing a book about human motivation. It expands on the work of Abraham Maslow. Maslow was a Humanist psychologist and is most famous for his "hierarchy of needs."

Manuel is adding 2 more dimensions to this - in addition to intrinsic and external motivations - he is adding 2 more including a high level of motivation that includes spiritual and religious motivation.

He and I have been chatting to discuss how to express these concepts in ways that are universally understood by everyone regardless of belief or non-belief.  We are doing this because he is Spanish Catholic and I am American Atheist/Humanist. So - if we can both agree on the language - it will most likely be universally understood to all humans regardless of belief or non-belief or cultural orientation.  

His basic idea is that in addition to the internal and external motivations - humans also want and desire moral good. This is the level most people think of as spiritual and religious. The concept of good has many dimensions.  Useful good, pleasant good, moral good and spiritual good.   His model incorporates the idea that we all want to give and get these various types of good. 

One of the terms he was using to explain spiritual/religious motivation to do useful good didn't make sense to me - because he was using sectarian religious language to describe it. So he was explaining what he means using - non-religious language so I could understand it and so he can write his book in language that is universally understood - and he said that this is about voluntary desire to do good - useful good. 

This phrase - voluntary desire to do good - set my brain on fire. I LOVE it.  It resonates strongly with me as a Humanist and expresses how I experience moral motivation as an atheist. I have a voluntary desire to do and be good. 

Here is what I wrote him after contemplating it for a while.

"I was so energized by the idea of voluntary desire – and the various goods. I realized – or thought.  Voluntary desire – that is a state of spiritual enlightenment.  When you have that state – the act of doing good – becomes an act of devotion. It is elevated.  People do good all the time, but when you are motivated by voluntary desire – spiritual enlightenment – your acts become devotion. Those 2 things, combine to create a state of being that is the state of connection. I would describe it as feeling connected to life, the universe and everything and everyone.  You probably describe it as feeling connected to God.

When I talk to people about Humanist morality – I tell people – it is not enough to want to do good. You have to do good acts in order to BE good.  

 Wanting to do good, leads to doing good acts, which leads to being good - which is a state of being. 

In other words, Spiritual Desire leads to Acts of Devotion which leads to a connected state of being.

It’s awesome!  It's why practicing Humanism helps me feel so connected to everything. "

Why Humanism matters:

The fact that a devout Spanish Catholic and an American Atheist/Humanist are experiencing the same thing - high levels of spiritual/religious motivation on matters of morality and are experiencing the same benefits from our practice of actively giving love and grace to others - is a testament to the universality of the experience. 

And that's where Humanism comes in.  Humanism isn't atheism.  It's a necessary part of my practice as a Humanist, but Humanism is a philosophy.  It helps me make sense of the things going on around me and helps provide me with a moral framework to think about who I am and more importantly - who I want to be.   Manolo and I are kindred spirits. Coming to the same place through totally different religious journeys. We both love love. And our fellow humans.

Let's not get so caught up in religious specifics that we lose sight of our common humanity. To me - that is the most important lesson of Humanism. 

Species-ism vs Humanism

I am a Humanist, but that does not mean I'm species-ist.

I am a Human. I have made a choice to be the best most ethical human I can be.  That, to me, is what it means to be a humanist.

It does not mean that I don't like other species. Or that I think humans are superior to other species. That concept of species superiority tends to be a religious concept, not a humanistic one.

It just means, given that I was born human and have certain faculties, I should probably put them to good use. And I spend time, thinking about what that means and thinking about how best to manifest whatever I think it means in my daily life.

To me, Humanism is a practice. The practice of trying to be a good person.  It is a commitment to myself - to be a good person.  It's something I do for me.

The fact that being nice helps me slide through life easier - is bonus.

For those of you who consider yourself to be humanists, what does being a humanist mean to you? 

What are the shortcomings of Humanism?

There are 2 things about the philosophy people have difficulty with. And these are things most Humanists consider essential.

The first is that it is a secular philosophy. The second is that ours is a situational ethic.

Lots of people believe in supernatural things. Humanists, reject supernaturalism as an ineffective unproven field of inquiry. If something happens, you can prove it happens. There is no need to appeal to supernaturalism. People who like thinking in supernatural terms, don’t like this aspect of the philosophy.

But for Humanists, the rejection of supernaturalism and our focus on all things secular, is critical to the practice of our philosophy. We are mostly concerned with solving our real problems here and now. Appeals to supernaturalism don’t help us with that. In fact, in many cases, they make solving the problem impossible. Our focus on secular matters and rejection of supernatural - is pragmatic.

The other area people have problems with is that we approach ethics situational-ly. Our value system is based on compassion. Our goal is to do the most good and the least harm - in any given situation. There are no hard and fast rules. Our ethics requires active thinking, critical thinking and a willingness to make difficult decisions.

There are many people who prefer absolute ethics - where you have a rule that is always applied, but we humanists view that as an unrealistic ideal. In the real world, our values compete with each other. For instance, it’s not ok to kill someone. But what if killing that person would save thousands of lives? There is a great quote in the Hindi movie Faana. I’m going to paraphrase. Morality isn’t about choosing between good or evil. It’s about choosing between the greater of two goods or the lesser of two evils. Every situation is different and we are called on to make difficult decisions where the “right” solution that will do the most good and least harm - isn’t clear. Humanists view situation ethics as essential precisely because we understand we live in the real world - where what is “good” isn’t always clear and because - we are willing to do the hard work of thinking through those problems to come to a “good” solution and because we accept the responsibility to do this - is ours.

How do humanists explain evil?

This may seem odd, but I’m not sure that Humanists have a concept of evil. Instead, we view behavior as self-motivated and either adaptive or maladaptive. That doesn’t mean we are moral relativists, it’s more that we view bad behavior through a more compassionate or understanding lens. Let me explain.

I don’t think of people as being evil. But I do judge behavior as good or bad.  I don’t think people wake up and think – today I’m going to do evil, though they may indeed act in a way that harms others.

So let’s start with morality. Good vs bad is a moral judgement. As a Humanist, I judge something as good if it helps people and bad if it hurts people. If it hurts a LOT of people, it’s REALLY bad.  The impact can be so bad that it is easy to view the behavior or action as evil.

But does that mean the person who took that action is evil?  That’s harder for me to accept. Most people don’t chose to do bad. They do bad things because they are trying to do good things. That isn’t an excuse obviously, but it is a way to understand human behavior.

I also think it isn’t helpful to view people as “evil.”  Labeling people as evil is a way to dehumanize them. This may help us in the moment emotionally distance ourselves from behavior we find abhorrent, but I think dehumanizing people does way more harm than good.

When we understand people’s choices as being rational to whatever ideas they hold, we then admit that we could be them.  That’s scary for a lot of people. But for me, recognizing that I too could have gone down that path – there but for fortune – helps me to recommit to not going down that path, whatever that path was/is.

The point is – as a Humanist, I don’t have a conception of evil even though I can look at certain actions as being evil.  How do people do things that are horrendously bad? Because they convinced themselves it was the right thing to do.  Even Hitler thought he was doing something good.
The onus is on us as individuals to make sure we don’t fall prey to bad thinking which results in bad actions which cause harm.  It is our responsibility to make sure we actually do good things and don’t accidently do bad things while thinking we are doing good.

Is this easy to do? No. But it’s our responsibility and we have no one else to blame. And that’s – a good thing.

---

To learn more - get a free copy of my book: Jen Hancock's Handy Humanism Handbook

Practicing Humanism When You Are Angry

Being a good person is sometimes very hard. Especially when mad. The point of morality though, is to do the right thing, even when under stress.

This is why I describe Humanism as a practice. Yes. It’s a philosophy. But it’s also a moral framework through which I make decisions. This framework is only useful – if I actually use it.

Most of the time, that is easy. But sometimes it isn’t. Like when I get mad. It’s very hard to see the humanity in people who scare me and make me mad. Because let’s be clear – we get mad when we get scared.

Knowing this about myself and about everyone really, helps me to step back from my anger and think about the fear that is driving it so that I can think more rationally and therefore compassionately about the situation I find myself in.

Sure, I could blame the people scaring me. Or … I can remind myself to put my Humanism into practice and practice what I preach.   Sometimes this is easier to do than others.  But it is always eventually doable if I keep reminding myself that I should act in accordance with my values.

Do I do this perfectly? Oh heck no. No one does. This leaves all of us open to being called a hypocrite. And we all are. Every one of us. The next time you go all holier than thou on someone and you are ready to call them a hypocrite. Don’t. Look in the mirror first.  In order to claim the moral high ground, you must first be moral.  And that means, stepping back from your anger, reminding yourself of your values and making a conscious decision to use your values in deciding how best to respond to the situation that is scaring you and making you angry. The goal is to not kill your values with the very hands you use to defend them.  It’s a challenge to be sure, but taking on that challenge is what it means to be a moral person.

To learn more about how to more effectively live by your values – take my course – Living Made Simpler.

https://humanistlearning.com/livingmadesimpler1/

Is a Humanist an Atheist?

The answer is not necessarily.

A  humanist approaches the world in a secular way. Problem solving etc are done without the aid of supernaturalism (and that means without the aid of gods). There are lots of people who believe in supernatural things but chose to approach life secularly anyway. These people would be pragmatically a-theist, but not theistically a-theist.

However, Humanism, as a term, was coined to describe a specifically non-theistic, non-religious approach to living well and ethically. Our morality is unapologetically grounded in human compassion and we don't appeal to gods or supernaturalism at all in our moral reasoning.  Lots of people of faith agree with this approach to morality and problem solving and find that it blends well with their theism. For instance, people who have taken my Living Made SImpler course and read my books tell me that it provides additional grounding for the theistic morality they hold. But because the word Humanism is a specifically secular approach and because there is no other term to describe such an ethical approach, people of faith who share this value system describe themselves as being humanistic as opposed to humanist.  Meaning, they agree with humanism, but are still religious or theistic in some way. 

As a result there are groups for Humanistic Judaism, Humanistic Christianity, Humanistic Islam and humanistic whatever.  A Humanist is someone who is secular and therefore not religious.  Someone who is humanistic - approaches whatever their theistic beliefs are in a humanistic way.  

To learn more about Humanism consider getting my book: The Handy Humanism Handbook
or check out this online course: Living Made Simpler

Self Reflection

Is self reflection a starting point for getting unstuck? Can we get where we're going without self reflection .. maybe by luck and instinct? Why do we resist self reflection in so many ways?

I teach an approach that combines philosophy and science, specifically Humanist philosophy.
Self-reflection is hugely important. It helps us define who we want to be – ideally -  and how we want to get there and more importantly WHY!

I tell people to start by thinking explicitly about what they value most. Getting your ethics straight gives you a foundation to ask yourself important questions when stuck.  Without that basis, it’s hard to even begin to know where to start.

A good way to do this is to read a philosophy book or a book about values. (Like this one) Reading about someone else’s values kicks starts your thinking. Do I agree with this? If not why not? What is it I value?  A lot of what I do (in my books and my programs) is designed to cause this sort of self reflection. The goal is not to have you agree with me. The goal is to have you think about what it is you value.

Once you have that in place, you can start considering whether what you are doing now is helping you to realize and live by your values on a day to day basis.  I like to take stock every six months. Like spring and winter cleaning. Are my values still working for me?  Is the path I am on still the right path.

Like anything self-reflection is a practice. 

Oh – when it comes to thinking techniques, I encourage people to think of three. One of the ways we get stuck is in false dichotomies. We can’t see our way clear because we feel like we have two options, both of which suck.  So think of a third. Once you can do that, you can think of a 4th or  a 5th. That usually is enough to get the creative juices flowing and it’s a simple thing to remember. Think of three.

To learn more check out my online course - Living Made Simpler
Or read my book: The Humanist Approach to Happiness

On the subject of service to others

A good friend of mine sometimes posts biblical quotes to discuss motivation and morality. I find these fascinating because of the universality of the problem.

One time she didn’t quote the bible, she simply wrote something about the importance of not just service to others, but of selfless service.

Her post brought up the question of selfish service vs. selfless service.

I am a big fan of enlightened self interest. I do think doing good for others helps ourselves. But I also think there is value in acts of selfless service.

Selfless service is rare and always has been. Jesus’ story stands out because of his example of selfless service. Uncle Tom is a similar character. He’s not thinking of himself. He’s just giving himself over to the experience and helping without expectation of helping himself.

We are moved by these stories, but … almost no one actually lives up to the ideal. The most most of us can accomplish is selfish service. We do it to make ourselves feel better or to notch up points on our internal scoreboard.

So – is selfish service ok? 

There is nothing wrong with getting something out of service, but … you shouldn’t do harm while engaging in service either

The Humanist Service Corps wrote article about the principles they employ when engaging in service for just this reason. They don’t want to accidentally cause harm while trying to do good. https://appliedsentience.com/2016/01/22/secular-is-insufficient-how-hsc-differs-from-the-peace-corps/

Sometimes I think that maybe selfish service is part of the learning to be of service. Maybe people need to start with selfish service in order to learn selfless service?  I know that has been part of my journey. I’m curious about your own relationship with the concept of service to others and how you balance your selfish needs against the need to serve selflessly.

Being an Ethical Nag

I have realized recently that people actually like being nagged.

My most popular posts are where I nag and rant about ethics.  A lot of what I do can be described as ethical nagging.  Here is the moral thing to do, here is why it works, there is no reason not to be good. We all need this sort of reminder from time to time I think.

What I have realized is that people want to be good and sometimes they just need someone to remind them to do the right thing. I was nagging my neighbor the other day about resting after surgery. I nagged him. He thanked me because he wasn’t taking care of himself the way he knew he needed to.  It’s like my nagging gave him permission to rest and recuperate.

And it is hard to do the right thing. We all have competing demands on our time and competing pressures to do different things. Making the time to slow down and consider the moral implications of our actions gets lost in the day to day struggle of living.

Having someone lecture on ethics and morality – helps us to re-prioritize them in our lives.

Another thing I have noticed is that we live in a culture that likes to be outraged especially if that outrage has a moral component.  What I want to caution you is this.  Just because someone is morally outraged doesn’t mean they are speaking the truth. People get outraged about things that aren’t true all the time.

Humanism isn’t just about being a moral person. It’s the recognition that our good intentions can be harnessed to do bad things if we don’t also commit ourselves to critically examination of the situations we find ourselves in.  It isn’t enough to be moral. If what you think is true isn’t true, your moral outrage can and will be harnessed for evil.

So beware people peddling moral outrage. They are manipulating you.  Keep on being moral, but also dedicate yourself to thinking critically. The two mindsets are complimentary. Consider yourself nagged for today.

Nothing is inherently immoral

The only immorality is not to do what one has to do when one has to do it. Jean Anouilh

Humanist ethics are situational ethics. And this makes a lot of people nervous. But it shouldn’t.

Humans all value the same things – for the most part. We value justice, compassion, and responsibility for instance. Studies have shown that there is indeed a common set of widely held human values.

Where these values come from is a matter of debate, obviously. But to me, as a pragmatist, I’m less interested in why we have these values than on how we apply them.  This is why I’m an advocate of situational ethics.

The reality we all face is that while we share common human values, those values are often in conflict with one another. Also, as individuals, given our personal experiences and beliefs, we may value some values higher then we value others.  We are constantly weighing our values to come to what we think are ethical decisions. Even if we don’t realize we do this – we are.

All situational ethics is, is an explicit acknowledgement of the reality of how we humans go about making moral decisions. The reason we do this is so that we can more effectively balance our moral values when making decisions.  We do this because it seems to yield better more moral decisions as judged by the real world effects of our decisions. We do less harm inadvertently when  we take such an explicit approach BECAUSE we considered the possibility that we might do harm while trying to do good.

Let that sink in for a moment. We might do harm while trying to do good. It doesn’t matter what your morality is or how it is based. If you aren’t willing to consider this possibility that you might accidentally do harm while trying to do good and you aren’t willing to think through how you might do the most good with the least harm, then you aren’t doing moral reasoning right.

I started this essay by saying nothing is inherently moral. But that doesn’t mean that anything goes. It just means you have to THINK through the potential consequences of your actions before taking action to insure your decisions are good and moral and will do the most good and least harm.

And this brings us back to the topic of leadership. Want to be a good moral and just leader?  Take the time to think through your actions to ensure you actually do good because good intentions aren’t enough. They never are.  Moral reasoning is hard. Put some effort into it.

Learn more about how to make more moral decisions with Planning for Personal Success – online course - https://humanistlearning.com/planforpersonalsuccess/

Order Out of Chaos: Business Ethics and Priorities

Business Ethics and Priorities: a lesson in humanistic management.

In a previous post I discussed how business ethics and human ethics. http://humanisthappiness.blogspot.com/2015/10/business-ethics-are-human-ethics.html  I want to expand on this concept here.

It isn’t enough to have a set of ethics and values. You have to live by those ethics and make decisions consistent with those ethics to be an ethical person. How you choose to act matters.

Deciding how to act and what to work on is where things get complicated. This is especially true in business.

I’m an entrepreneur. I have a lot of demands on my time. In order to be effective, I have to choose what I work on and what I don’t work on. The ONLY way I can make such decisions and have those decisions help me and my business and my customers is if I have my priorities straight. And the only way I can have my priorities straight is if I have my ethics straight.

I can’t create order out of chaos unless I have a firm grasp of my ethics. My ethics dictate my priorities.  In my case, my family comes first, then helping others through my business. What I am looking for is balance.

I think the thing people have trouble with is that they think of ethics in black and white terms. Either something is good or something is bad. Those questions are easy to decide. Where morality requires extra thinking is when we are forced to choose between the greater of two goods or the lesser of two evils.

What causes problems in our personal and professional lives is when we are confronted with a variety of tasks, all of which are good. How do we choose?  Of what do we do when all of our options are bad?

The chaos in our lives almost always occurs when we are confronted by these greater of two goods or lesser of two evil situations and we chose not to choose.  Some people just can’t say no to a good request. So they become overwhelmed by the demands placed on them. They aren’t capable of saying no or prioritizing between the greater of goods. They have chosen not to prioritize their lives. And they live with the chaos that results.

We also get stuck in chaos limbo overload when all our options are bad. So we choose to do nothing. And instead of working our way out of the bad situation we find ourselves in – we live with a status quo that sucks.

Not choosing is a choice. Not prioritizing is a choice. If you want to create order in your life, you have to step up to the plate and start making decisions, even when the decisions are hard. Do your best. Set your priorities as best you can based on your ethics and see what happens.  It’s very rare that a decision can’t be undone if you change your mind later.

What I can tell you is that based on my personal practice, making choices helps me stay sane. I rarely know if the decisions I made are the right ones. It’s more that they are right for me in that moment. What I do know is that despite the chaos around me, I feel centered. Most of the time. And that’s at least something.

It’s not about what others do

Why focusing on your own morality is more important that focusing on the behavior of others.

As you may know, I have a thing about shopping carts. I believe it is moral to return them for a variety of reasons. It helps keep parking lots clear of carts, reduces damage to other people’s cars, it makes the job of the cart jockey’s easier and it’s just a nice thing to do. Plus, I could use the extra exercise, even if it is just walking 2 spots over to return a cart.

The other day I was very excited to see a guy at a market pick up a cart from the lot that wasn’t put away and take it with him to the store, thus making one less cart left in the wrong spot in the lot.  I felt like giving him a high five of solidarity.  I didn’t. I thought it might be a bit weird, so I just put mine back in the cart return and headed home.

Of course, he could have asked me for my cart, because sometimes people do that, but I realized it was actually better that he took the one that had been left out. If he had taken mine, the other would still have been left out and would have been a hazard. With him and me together, that was two carts put away properly instead of one.

Here is the thing though; he did not know that I am the sort of person who returns my cart. For all he knew, I was going to leave my cart out too.  He took that cart without expectation that anyone would notice or care. He did it because he thought it was the right thing to do, even though it might have been undone immediately by the next person.

To me, this speaks to the heart why I choose to be a Humanist. It’s not about what others choose to do. It is about what I choose to do, regardless of what others do.  And this for me is what makes Humanism so powerful. Yes, it’s about morality, but it’s actually more about how I choose morality for myself. Not to be a self-righteous jerk dictating how others should behave. But because this is who I want to be for me.

Humanism and House Elves

If you haven’t read the novels, you should.  In the last book, Harry inherits Sirius Black’s house which means, he inherits the house elf that goes with the house. This elf is horrid and nasty and mean and they can’t release him from service because he would go and tell Voldemort where Harry Potter is hiding. So, they keep him in their service despite Hermione’s campaign to free the house elves.

But over time, as Harry learns more about what is motivating this house elf and once he begins to treat the elf with compassion and respect as he would any other human worth of his compassion, everything changes. The house elf goes from being a nasty jerk to treating them like royalty! He takes care to make sure the house is clean and cooks up amazing food for them, all because they took the time to be nice to a nasty little old man with a bad attitude.

I thought this was one of the most humanistic lessons in the book. Yes, it’s fantasy and you shouldn’t expect your compassion to make everything hunky dory with everyone you meet.  Rather the story serves to remind us that everyone we meet is real. They have their own lives, their own dreams and their own problems. Don’t assume to know what is motivating them. Treat them with compassion and help them if you can. It’s the least you can do. And who knows, you may just end up turning an enemy into a friend.

Ethical Reminders

We need to remind ourselves to be ethical. It isn’t something that happens automatically. We have to think about our ethics in order to be ethical. This is why Humanists are always encouraging people to think before you act.

I know for myself, my initial gut reaction to things I experience can sometimes be quite negative. In order to be ethical, I have to interrupt my negative thinking and replace it with more ethical and compassionate thinking.  I have to remind myself to behave in a more ethical way.

This isn’t easy to do because it requires practice and, well, thinking. And it’s hard to think well when we are experiencing negative emotions.  This is why we need to be reminders to be ethical. This is why it benefits us as humans to talk about and discuss ethics with each other.  Every time we read about or talk about our ethical values, we are reminding ourselves to do better and to try harder to be the best most ethical person we can be.

The reward for our ethics is that if we can bring ourselves to behave better we will not only get better results, we will also feel better about ourselves in the process.  Is it hard? Yes. Do you have to constantly remind yourself to be a better person? Yes. Is it worth it? Yes.

To cheat or not to cheat

You can win by cheating,
but at what cost?

Obviously – I am a Humanist – so I am not inclined to cheat as I view it as not only an ineffective way to accomplish my objectives, it would also likely cause me more trouble than just pursuing my objectives honestly.

However, my friend Kent responded to one of my posts about why not to cheat in school by saying he disagreed.

“Consider the business cheat - he/she robs those that are honest by stealing money from customers, suppliers, and from competing business.  Consider the tax cheat - those honest pay more in taxes as a result.  The person that cheats at cards robs his fellow players. ... They cheat because it works.  Why invent time and effort into something when you can talk short cuts? Only those that understand the effect of their behavior on others can understand why we can't cheat, and must play fair.”

And, well, I agree with him. My original post was limited to the subject of education. That’s the problem with writing short posts. They can’t possibly be totally inclusive of all possible situations. Humanism is a situational ethic and so, different situations require their own ethical analysis.  

Kent is quite right – cheating in most situations does indeed hurt other people. The reason good people don’t cheat is because they understand the negative effect it will have on others and being the compassionate people they are, they don’t want to cause others harm.

However, there is still an additional self-serving reason not to cheat. It is this reason that I teach my son.  Cheating makes other people not want to have anything to do with you. If he cheats at monopoly for instance, I stop, get up and leave. He can win that way – but not really since I refuse to finish the game with him. What I want him to learn is that the best way to win is to win honestly. First: cheating victories aren’t very satisfying because you didn’t earn them. But even more important than winning is your social relationships. If you want people to like and trust you, you have to play fair. 

Image: Card by Luigi Diamanti -  FreeDigitalPhotos.net

Our Cheating Culture

I was contacted by a researcher who wanted me to share an infographic on cheating. Apparently because I talk about morality- she thought I would have an interest. Well, after looking at the graphic, I do.  If the information in this graphic is correct, cheating is very prevalent.

As I've said before, the only person who is really hurt by your cheating is you. (see blog post here). And that is something I firmly believe. You might achieve some short term gains, but ultimately, if you cheat, you miss out on learning and that is a tragedy. From a humanist perspective, education and knowledge is the key to living a happy and productive life. Cheat yourself out of learning and knowledge and you are essentially cheating yourself out of a happy and productive life. And why would anyone choose that path for themselves.

Anyway- here is the graphic - it's a bit long - but worth looking at:

Created by: OnlineMastersDegree.com

Shopping Cart Morality

Image: xedos4 / FreeDigitalPhotos.net

As far as I can tell, there are three types of people in the world. Those who always return their shopping carts to the cart rack, those who don’t, and those who return their carts only when it is convenient or when someone makes a point of reminding them to do it.

I have said on many occasions, being a moral person isn’t about the big good vs. evil decisions. Those are easy to make. The real challenge of moral living is doing the right thing when the stakes are low. In other words, a moral person does the right thing because it’s the right thing to do and not just because it’s convenient.  

Moral people don’t do the right thing to make themselves look good, though that is obviously a benefit. They do the right thing because they understand they are responsible for their actions and they find value and pride in doing their part, however small, to make the world a slightly better place.

When it comes to carts, not putting the carts back is a problem. It makes parking lots dangerous and does real damage to people’s properties. If you dislike driving into a parking lot and not being able to find a place to park your car because all the spots have carts in them, then the question you need to ask yourself is this: are you part of the problem or part of the solution. Because if you are not putting your carts back, you are part of the problem. Only putting them some of the time means you aren’t putting them back all the time.

Imagine if everyone put their carts back. Now, go and do your part to make that happen. Be a Humanist and do the right thing every time and not just when it is convenient.

Make it your responsibility

I wanted to share this video today because it has to do with responsibility.  In it, you will see adults ignore a child's pleas for help.  It's rather upsetting.

The problem is a well known phenomenon that occurs in groups, which is that the larger the group, the harder it is to get help because responsibility is so diffuse, no one is responsible.  The good news is that this phenomenon is easy to overcome. All it takes is for one person to stop and take responsibility to cause a cascade effect. Once people know someone is taking responsibility - they feel more comfortable stopping to help as well.

Obviously, most people would like to think they are the sort of person that if the situation called for it that they would be that one person who steps up, but the reality is, most aren't. The problem is though, that if we don't step up, we are part of the problem of what's wrong with society.

Here's how to ensure you aren't part of the problem.  MAKE IT YOUR RESPONSIBILITY!  This is something you have to choose for yourself as a matter of principle. If you haven't already decided that if a situation arose where you weren't sure if someone needed help or not that you were going to make it your responsibility to find out, decide that you will.  You have to decide in advance that you are willing to be late and to be inconvenienced when you see someone who needs help. And then, the next time you see someone who might need help, make it your responsibility to find out if they do or not.

I made that decision for myself immediately after learning about the group effect back when I was a young adult. I decided I didn't want to be part of the problem, and that I would make it my responsibility to be that one person who stops to help.  I have helped several complete strangers over the course of my life and I know in at least one instance I helped to save someone's life by stopping to help, it's entirely possible I saved a couple of others, though I don't know for sure because I left after professional aid arrived.

I know what sort of person I am, I'm the sort that stops to help even if I'm not completely sure help is even needed. The question is: are you the sort of person who makes it their responsibility to help others, or not?