Humanism and Human Rights and the US

As Humanists, it should go without saying that we should be concerned about Human Rights.  The first thing necessary about “being concerned” is objective viewpoints.  The media often presents us viewpoints about Human Rights in Russia, or Cuba, or China.  And while many of these Human Rights articles give us viewpoints, often they are not objective but are subjective.  But seldom does the media give us viewpoints on Human Rights regarding the United States.  (I want to say “never”, but I never say “never”.) 

I consider myself a Global Citizen.  (This is a personal decision and is not tied to my being a Humanist.)  I prefer to view myself as a citizen of the world rather than a citizen of any particular tribe or nation.  As a global citizen, that means that I should try to understand global issues, and understand them from a global perspective rather than a provincial perspective.  I need to understand the rest of the world from a global perspective.  And it also means I need to understand how the rest of the world perceives issues in the United States.  For instance, how does the rest of the world perceive Human Rights in the United States.  Especially since the United States raises the issue of Human Rights more than any other country when judging other countries. 

UN Report on Human Rights Concerns in US

The US media does a poor job of describing the viewpoints of the rest of the world pertaining to the United States.  This is true regarding sex in politics, economics, and Human Rights among many others.  I saw this article in the Guardian, from London, a few days ago entitled “US Human Rights Record Chastised in UN Report”.  The article describes a UN report by the UN’s Human Rights Commission which included members from many countries – many who are friends and allies of the US.  The report was an assessment of how the US complies with the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR) and was chaired by a British Law Professor.  The main concerns were dealing with torture, drone strikes, the failure to close Guantanamo Bay, and the NSA’s bulk collection of person data (both domestically and internationally).

The report’s concerns with torture was that the US had failed to prosecute high level personnel in the use of torture (both in Guantanamo Bay and also in Iraq) and only a “meagre number” of low level personnel.  The US was urged to "ensure that all cases of unlawful killing, torture or other ill-treatment, unlawful detention, or enforced disappearance are effectively, independently and impartially investigated, that perpetrators, including, in particular, persons in command positions, are prosecuted and sanctioned". 

The concern with the NSA was that the supposed legal oversight had largely been kept secret and failed to protect the rights of those affected.  The UN committee urged the US to overhaul its surveillance activities to ensure that they complied with US law and also conformed to US obligations under the ICCPR. 

The committee also gave a “scathing” [this term was used by the Guardian] report about Washington’s “legal justification” for targeted killings by the use of drones.  The committee criticized the US’ justifications as being too broad and said it was unclear what precautionary measures were being taken to avoid civilian deaths.  The committee said that the US needed to review its policies and see that they should be subject to independent oversight.

The report also criticized the US for failure to fulfill a commitment to close Guantanamo Bay.  It noted that many detainees “have been held there, and in military prisons in Afghanistan, for more than a decade without charge or trial. It called on the US to speed up the transfer of detainees and ensure that any criminal cases are dealt with by the US justice system rather than a military commission.”

“The committee also expressed alarm about the continued use of the death penalty in 16 states, the "still high number" of fatal shootings by certain police forces, notably in Chicago, and the high proportion of black people in the country's jails.”  Not mentioned in the article was that the US is the only country which will sentence a youth offender to life in prison.

Whether we agree with these finding or not, these are Human Rights issues here in the United States that we as Humanists should be prepared to explore and arrive at our own convictions as to what should be done.  

The US and the UN's Universal Declaration of Human Rights

What this article did not cover was the position of the Unites States with respect to the UN’s Universal Declaration of Human Rights (UDHR).  Although much was made when Eleanor Roosevelt put together these Rights, the United States has still not ratified all of them.  Because of political issues at the time, namely the Cold War, both Russia and the US would not sign the list.  So for political expediency, the list was divided into two Covenants – the Covenant for Civil and Political Rights and the Covenant for Economic, Social, and Cultural Rights.  The US has signed the Covenant for Civil and Political Rights and that was finally ratified in 1992 with five reservations, five understandings, and four declarations.  (Wikipedia entry)  This Covenant is what the above report was referencing because the US is held to its principles in international matters.  (Although the US ratified it for international dealings, it expressly kept it from being a part of our domestic law which is very unusual.) 

But the US has failed to pass the Covenant for Economic, Social, and Cultural Rights even though the USSR/Russia and many other countries have signed it. 

I have a problem with our media in that I need to go to media outside the US to find out about these things.  I have been looking at NPR.org CNN.com and others and haven’t seen anything about this report.  The US media seldom reports on anything on the United Nations except as it may pertain to the General Assembly, the Security Council, or the peacekeeping efforts of the UN in areas of armed conflict.  The provincialism of the US media keeps me from knowing how the rest of the world views the US in aspects of Human Rights, Sustainability, international economics, international affairs, etc. 

As a Global Citizen, I need to be informed of Human Rights issues in the US.  As a Humanist, I need to be concerned about these Human Rights.

David Kimball

Humanities and Humanism

As some of you may know, I define Humanism as encompassing “all that it means to be human”.  This, of course, includes science, but it also includes the non-rational mind of the creative, the social, the psychological, and all of those subjects that the universities include in their “Humanities” subjects like art, literature, history, etc.  (Humanism is soooo much more than pro-science and anti-religion.)  And it also includes all of the efforts included in the National Endowment for the Humanities (NEH).  As such, I subscribe to “Humanities” magazine which is the bi-monthly magazine published by the NEH

As I was perusing the latest issue, I became aware of the Annual Jefferson Lecture in the Humanities.  This is the highest honor that the Federal Government confers for “distinguished intellectual achievements in the humanities”.  This award has been conferred upon individuals since 1972.  I did some research on this annual award and found a wealth of interesting articles/biographies. 

This year, 2014, the award will be presented to Walter Isaacson, author, journalist, and president and CEO of the Aspen Institute.  The award ceremony will be held on Monday, May 12, 2014 at the John F. Kennedy Center in Washington, D.C.

I thought I would share some of the past recipients here.  These introductory paragraphs are from their site http://www.neh.gov/about/awards/jefferson-lecture  The links, following the introductory paragraph are to a full biographical sketch of the person.

Martin Scorsese – 2013

In a number of interviews, on stage, in print, and on television, Martin Scorsese has already told his life story. The beginning sounds like a script in development, like a Scorsese project that hasn’t yet gone into production.  http://www.neh.gov/about/awards/jefferson-lecture/martin-scorsese-biography

Wendell E. Berry – 2012  (One of my favorites)

At seventy-seven years old, Wendell Berry continues as a great contrary example to the compromises others take in stride. Instead of being at odds with his conscience, he is at odds with his times. Cheerful in dissent, he writes to document and defend what is being lost to the forces of modernization, and to explain how he lives and what he thinks.  http://www.neh.gov/about/awards/jefferson-lecture/wendell-e-berry-biography

Drew Gilpin Faust – 2011

“I felt very much that I lived in history,” said Drew Gilpin Faust as she recently described her childhood in an interview for Humanities magazine. A well-known scholar of the antebellum South and the Civil War era and, since 2007, president of Harvard University, Faust had two histories in mind. First was the history of the Civil War.  http://www.neh.gov/about/awards/jefferson-lecture/drew-gilpin-faust-biography

Jonathan Spence – 2010

For over fifty years, Jonathan Spence has been studying and writing about China. His books and articles form a body of work notable for groundbreaking research, fine literary quality, and extraordinary public value. If the West understands the culture and history of China better now than it did a half century ago, Jonathan Spence is one of the people to be thanked.  http://www.neh.gov/about/awards/jefferson-lecture/jonathan-spence-biography

Leon Kass – 2009

Leon Kass was born in 1939, on the twelfth of February, when we celebrate the birthdays of Abraham Lincoln and Charles Darwin. A mere coincidence, of course, but an interesting one. In celebrating Lincoln, which we do this year for the sixteenth president’s bicentennial, we pay homage to human dignity; in celebrating Darwin, which we also do this year for it is also his bicentennial, we pay homage to the progress of scientific knowledge.  http://www.neh.gov/about/awards/jefferson-lecture/leon-kass-biography

John Updike – 2008

His pen rarely at rest, John Updike has been publishing fiction, essays, and poetry since the mid-fifties, when he was a staff writer at the New Yorker, contributing material for the “Talk of the Town” sections. “Of all modern American writers,” writes Adam Gopnik inHumanities magazine, “Updike comes closest to meeting Virginia Woolf’s demand that a writer’s only job is to get himself, or herself, expressed without impediments."  http://www.neh.gov/about/awards/jefferson-lecture/john-updike-biography

Harvey Mansfield – 2007

For more than forty years, Harvey Mansfield has been writing and teaching about political philosophy. His commentary "demonstrates the virtues that should guide scholars of the humanities," writes Mark Blitz, a former student. Blitz explains those virtues as "patient exploration of the intention of a superior author, attention to other scholars and generosity to trailblazing teachers, brilliance and wit, and an eye toward what can improve us here and now."  http://www.neh.gov/about/awards/jefferson-lecture/harvey-mansfield-biography

Tom Wolfe – 2006

"I think every living moment of a human being's life, unless the person is starving or in immediate danger of death in some other way, is controlled by a concern for status," Tom Wolfe has said. As the man in the iconic white suit with a swaggering pen, Wolfe has spent the past fifty years chronicling America's status battles and capturing our cultural zeitgeist.  http://www.neh.gov/about/awards/jefferson-lecture/tom-wolfe-biography

Donald Kagan – 2005

"Throughout the human experience people have read history because they felt that it was a pleasure and that it was in some way instructive," says Donald Kagan. "Without history, we are the prisoners of the accident of where and when we were born." Known to his students as a "one-man university," Kagan has illuminated the history of the ancient Greeks for thousands of students and readers.  http://www.neh.gov/about/awards/jefferson-lecture/donald-kagan-biography

Helen Vendler – 2004

“When you’re in a state of perplexity, sadness, gloom, elation, you look for a poem to match what you are feeling,” says Helen Vendler. She writes that “Poetry is analytic as well as expressive; it distinguishes, reconstructs, and redescribes what it discovers about the inner life. The poet accomplishes the analytic work of poetry chiefly by formal means.”  http://www.neh.gov/about/awards/jefferson-lecture/helen-vendler-biography

David McCullough – 2003

He is called the "citizen chronicler" by Librarian of Congress James Billington. His books have led a renaissance of interest in American history--from learning about a flood in Pennsylvania that without warning devastated an entire community to discovering the private achievements and frailties of an uncelebrated president. His biography of Harry Truman won him a Pulitzer, as did his most recent biography of another president, John Adams.  http://www.neh.gov/about/awards/jefferson-lecture/david-mccullough-biography

David Kimball

Free Will and Determinism

A few nights ago, those of us at Concord Area Humanists had a speaker, Tom Clark, discuss free will and determinism (among other topics of Naturalism).  I’m not going to say that I followed everything he said, but I wanted to present my theoretical model that I have created which allows me to accept both free will and determinism without any distortions to my worldview. 

The problem with free will and determinism occurs when we feel that our behavior is strictly the result of our will – or our desire.  The problem comes up when we experience behavior that seems contrary to our desires.  There seem to be other causes, or contra-causes acting within our psyche that determines our behavior in addition to our wants and desires.  Sometimes we know what those contra-causes are – like behavior patterns that we learned when growing up.  Sometimes those contra-causes are not known immediately, but after some reflection or work, we can discover the reasons.  And sometimes we have no idea why we do what we do no matter how much time we try to analyze it.  (This is along the line of the Freudian metaphor of the conscious, the pre-conscious, and the sub-conscious.) 

Now that scientists have begun to observe the workings of the mind, they have seen that while we may “will” a particular action up to a point, there is a small slice of time, in microseconds, where we react to our impulses (these contra-causes) from our intuitive mind (the amygdala) rather than our rational mind (the pre-frontal lobes) where we create our will.  It is in this small slice of time, which we would call “NOW” that we lose our free will according to some people.

However if we re-define “free will” to be in the future instead of “NOW”, then there isn’t a problem.  Our immediate reactions are the result of several factors and will always cause us to react immediately a certain way.  Unless we decide to change that process.

For example, take a baseball batter who always swings at balls thrown high and outside.  He realizes that to be a better ballplayer, or a better batter, he needs to change that reaction.  No matter how much he resolves not to swing, how hard he grits his teeth and scowls at the pitcher, he still finds himself swinging at balls that are high and outside. 

So he decides to change his reaction.  He practices and practices and works hard on overcoming those immediate reactions.  Finally, after much work and practice, he is able to watch a high and outside ball go by without swinging.  He has overcome that previous initial reaction. 

Now, when he sees a ball that is high and outside, he watches it rather than swings at it.  The same causes are now creating a different response from him.  And this is called adaptation – where the same causes create a different effect.  And we humans are known to be great at adapting.   If the same causes always created the same effect, then there would be no adaptation and we would be deterministic automatons rather than free moral agents making choices.

When the ballplayer decided to work on overcoming his immediate reactions, he was exercising his free will.  He made the observation that to develop, he needed to change.  And so he worked on changing and thus succeeded in overcoming. 

So it is with us humans who consider ourselves “morally responsible”.  We can elect and choose what our reactions will be in the future and are free to choose to change.  Free will is defined as free to choose to change those immediate reactions.  We cannot exercise free will in the immediate “NOW”, but we can exercise free will by working and taking time to learn to overcome those immediate reactions.

When it comes to people who commit crimes, the same applies.  Perhaps they were not free moral agents at the time of their crime, but in the past, if they had known that they would respond in a particular violent way, they had a responsibility to change their immediate reactions.  They could have changed but didn’t and so their crime was in not taking control of their lives and changing when needed.  If a person knows that he has a violent temper when drunk, then he has a responsibility to avoid that scenario.  And, as Tom mentioned, our justice system should be set up to help these people overcome their immediate reactions which are anti-social.  Rather than let the reactions remain the same and just incarcerate them, we should help them so that when they are returned to society they have changed their old immediate reactions.  They should be trained to overcome these anti-social reactions so that the same set of circumstances in the future will not result in a violent manner as it had in the past.

And those of us who can’t resist that chocolate cake, or who find ourselves spending money selfishly when we say we want to give it to charity, can work on these natural and immediate reactions (through behavior modification?) by exercising our free will of what kind of humans we will become.  We are NOT marionettes. 

David Kimball

Enough is Enough

Book Review by David Kimball

“Enough is Enough”   by Rob Dietz and Dan O’Neill

As the authors say in their Preface, “Enough is Enough was conceived as a collection of policy proposals for achieving a prosperous, but non-growing economy (known as a steady-state economy)”.  So it is an apologetic for steady-state economics.  (“Apologetics – the discipline of defending a position through the systematic use of information. Wikipedia)  As such, it deals with ecological economics at the macro level and integrates all the systems necessary for a global approach.  The book argues for a paradigm shift from the current approach of “A larger economy implies progress” to an approach where “Enough is better in order to sustain our ecosystem”.  It defines economics as a means of controlling all the systems within our ecosystem rather than define economics strictly in terms of the managing of the scarce resource of only money.

Part I raises the “Questions of Enough”, Part II the “Strategies of Enough”, and Part III “Advancing the Economy of Enough”.  This book does a good job of sounding the alarm that there are many problems with the current economic systems.  What is different about this book from the many other books that also sound the alarm regarding the issues of Sustainability, is that it tries to present the problems and the solutions to these problems with a label – “steady-state economics”.  So it sounds as if it alone is sounding the clarion call for solutions and doesn’t give credit to the many other Sustainable causes such as Triple Bottom Line Accountability, Conscious Capitalism, Natural Capitalism, Shared Value Capitalism, Creative Capitalism, B Corporations, etc.  Of course, this is a problem shared by all of these approaches who try to limit themselves by attaching a label if they present themselves as “the” solution rather than “a” solution.

This book is meant to provoke (in a good sense) discussion around its own policies and provide fodder for discussions around the policies of governments and corporations, but it totally ignores the NGO and grassroots sector.  It is written in an informal style and although there are many facts, figures, charts and references to economic terms, it is written to be understood by laymen. 

It does a good job of describing our current culture in terms of consumerism where we want “more objects, more food, and more resources such as energy” where we should be creating, instead, a culture which values “doing, being, and connecting”.  Because our planet is finite, we cannot consume indefinitely and so it is our responsibility to see what and how much we should consume in order to be sustainable.  Sustainability can be defined as “What do we need to do today to assure that we will be just as viable in 50 years?”  To answer the question of “How much can we consume”, they quote Herman Daly:  “(1)  Exploit renewable resources no faster than they can be regenerated; (2) Deplete nonrenewable resources no faster than the rate at which renewable substitutes can be developed; and (3) Emit waste no faster than they can be safely assimilate by ecosystems.”  The book does a great job of expressing the problems we face not just in terms of ecological sustainability, but also social sustainability and personal values.

It is acknowledged that reducing our wants only applies to those who already have enough so that some poorer societies will need to go from an Undesirable Degrowth State first to a Desirable Growth State while we richer societies will need to go from an Undesirable Growth State first to a Desirable Degrowth State.  Only then can we can all reach the goal – a Steady State Economy (SSE).

Several strategies are presented for passing through these States to reach the point of SSE.  The first strategy is to limit the use of materials and energy to sustainable levels.  Because we are already beyond the “Safe Operating Boundaries” of three of the seven identified planetary processes - Climate Change, Biodiversity Loss, and Nitrogen Cycle – we need to cut back immediately.  These cutbacks may be by direct interventions such as bans, rationing, tradable permits, or “cap and share” or they may be by indirect interventions such as ecological tax reforms, or conservation of natural areas.  This cutting back should be done in a way to assure that we achieve a more equitable distribution of income and wealth and should include a comprehensive monitoring system.  What is needed in changing to these States is heavy cooperation across all levels of governments.  Governments need to experience a paradigm shift from one of competition and control to one of collaboration and cooperation.

It is important to stabilize population through compassionate and non-coercive means.  Since this issue is tied to divisive topics such as poverty, reproductive health, women’s rights, immigration, and cultural religious beliefs, this strategy needs to be dealt with not only politically but also culturally with the key being the empowerment of women.  Another recommendation for this strategy is to change immigration policy to achieve equal levels of immigration and emigration. 

Another strategy is to achieve a more favorable distribution of income and wealth (or assets).  The key here is to put control of companies, government agencies, and nonprofit organizations into the hands of the people who work in them, use their services, or live in the communities affected by them.  This is known, in other approaches, as creating a paradigm change from focusing on the shareholders to focusing on all of the stakeholders. 

Probably one of the most controversial strategies addressed in this book is to reform the monetary and financial systems.  It is evident that the current system is broken and needs to be fixed.  But if there are to be limits on economic growth, then there should be limits to debt and limits to investments.  The book promotes a neutral international currency that is not controlled by any single country or group of countries. 

As stated above, we need a comprehensive monitoring system to replace our GDP as the GDP does not measure the values of our culture – only the output of our society.  It suggests a measurement called the Gross National Happiness (GNH) monitor which is currently being used in a few areas.  The four pillars of GNH are the promotion of equitable and sustainable socioeconomic development; Preservation and promotion of cultural values; Conservation of the natural environment; and the Establishment of good governance.

The next strategy is to secure meaningful jobs and full employment.  I was pleased to see the authors recommend looking at the Civilian Conservation Corps (CCC which included the Work Projects Administration - WPA) that brought us out of the depression.  It states that guaranteed jobs are included in Article 23.1 of the United Nation’s Universal Declaration of Human Rights (UN UDHR).  (However it did not mention that although the United States had ratified the political section of the UN UDHR, it had refused to ratify the social section which includes this right.)  The book gives good examples of less-work societies by presenting the European work-time policies which are much more favorable to the workers than here in the US.

The last strategy presented is “Enough Business as Usual:  Rethinking Commerce”.  Instead of placing the ROI to shareholders as the highest value, businesses need to address the value they create in the social and environmental sectors.  This is to have the businesses driven by purpose to the ecosystem and society rather than duty to the shareholders.  There are several business models already in existence in the US such as the Low-profit Limited Liability Company (L3C) and the B-Corporation where dividends to shareholders are limited and where the purpose is for the community or wider public interest. 

After describing these strategies, the book details what is necessary to advance the Steady-State Economy.  One of the biggest ways is to change consumer behavior to seek personal values rather than status.  The goal of the management of a society should be to provide the resources (time and opportunities) for each member to achieve a state of “well-being”.  For members in our society to achieve well-being, instead of relying on consumerism, they should strive to connect, be active, take notice, keep learning, and give.  Politicians and the media should be held accountable to consider the “constant growth of GDP” paradigm and consider the paradigm of a steady-state economics.    I would include a call for controls on the lobbyists and the influencers of Congress as needed for such a transformation. 

Since this transformation is global, it requires all the nations to work together as one nation cannot address these issues as an isolate.  The book discusses the need for the United Nations, the World Bank, the International Monetary Fund and the World Trade Organization to be democratized and work together collaboratively. 

The book does a good job of identifying several problems with our current economic system driven by consumerism and the goal of “more growth”, and also does a good job of providing a lot of food-for-thought for several solutions.  However because these strategies are presented in one, all-unifying package of steady-state economics, it is difficult to see how these strategies could be applied piecemeal, or along with other approaches, or from the micro-level of a nation to say nothing about an individual or a civil service/grassroots organization (CSO).  It is evident, though, that the problems we are currently experiencing today are of such a magnitude that the solution needs to be a complete transformation rather than just a fix.  It would be great to see some dialogues on steady-state economics where these as well as other approaches could be discussed and especially if they could lead to some deliberations on actions. 

David Kimball