1. Humanists think independently for themselves.
We have no qualms about challenging, doubting, or exploring any line of thought.
We are allowed to ask questions and then decide whether we agree or disagree with any assertion.
If a doctrine, a set of beliefs, or a set of values doesn't personally appeal to us, we won't follow them.
We want to be accountable for the choices and judgments we make, which calls for us to be in charge of them.
It is possible to learn new things and develop fresh perspectives on the world and on ourselves through this unrestricted spirit of open inquiry.
Without it, we are left in the dark and unable to do anything to better our situation.
2. We make rational decisions because our experience with methods that forgo reason has persuaded us that such methods are insufficient and frequently ineffective for achieving human goals.
There is no "court of appeal" where disagreements in opinion can be resolved when reason is abandoned.
Instead, we discover that if one's reasoning is guided by arbitrary faith, authority, revelation, religious experience, changed states of consciousness, or other replacements for reason and evidence, then any belief is possible.
Therefore, we discover that reason is our most trustworthy source of information for comprehending the world and making decisions in questions of belief when combined with the data provided by our senses and our body of knowledge.
3. We base our knowledge of the world on what our senses and minds can perceive and understand.
Anything that is said to make sense must make sense to us as humans in order for it to serve as the foundation for our choices and behavior.
It is impossible for humans to learn from alleged transcendent knowledge or intuitions that are purported to be beyond human comprehension.
Humans arbitrarily take a leap of faith and reject reason and the senses in order to accept pretended transcendent or holy knowledge. This approach is unacceptable to us because it leads to the adoption of a set of purportedly absolute moral principles that are themselves arbitrary due to the arbitrary nature of the leap.
Furthermore, transcendental or religious knowledge cannot be verified as true, and there is no rational means to understand the incomprehensible or to determine its validity.
As a result, we are dedicated to the idea that only information that is firmly rooted in the world of human understanding and verification can be referred to as knowledge.
4. Despite our rigid view of what knowledge is, we don't have any issues with the places where ideas come from.
The best approaches, perspectives, discoveries, and ideas frequently come from intuitive sensations, hunches, speculative thoughts, and inspiration.
We just assert that the only method to judge whether a concept is genuine as knowledge is to test it against reality. We don't criticize those ideas obtained from religious experience, heightened states of awareness, or the emotions.
5. Knowledge held by people is fallible.
All of our knowledge and scientific conclusions about the nature of the world are provisional because we are aware that the instruments for testing knowledge—the human senses and human reason—are flawed.
Our moral judgments and social policies are subject to frequent review in light of both the flawed and tentative character of our knowledge and the ongoing changes in social situations. This is true for our scientific conclusions, but it is much more true for our moral judgments and social policies. This will appear to many as an unstable foundation on which to build a philosophy.
However, we think it is the strongest foundation conceivable because it interacts honestly with the outside world.
To increase a sense of security, attempts to base ideologies on extraterrestrial origins and transcendent "realities" only serve to produce worldly illusions that, when used as the foundation for judgments and social policies, lead to mistakes. We humanists have vowed to accept life as it is and put out the effort that such an honest approach necessitates in order to avoid making these expensive mistakes.
In order to actively participate in the laborious process of developing our understanding of the universe and so contribute to the solution of the issues that have afflicted humanity throughout the ages, we have willfully abandoned the allure of an easy security afforded by basic systems.
6. According to us, only the context of human life can explain human values.
Therefore, the environment in which our values must function cannot contain a supposedly nonhuman existence beyond death.
Our ethical concerns, our objectives, and our aspirations are related to the present-tense physical reality of our senses.
As a result, we entirely embed our ideals within this setting. If we were to act differently—if we were to set our values in the broader context of a merely hoped-for extension of the reality we already know—we might find ourselves either putting aside our true interests in favor of fanciful ones or attempting to connect our needs as humans here with a very different set of needs among nonhuman animals elsewhere.
Unless it can be shown that there is another life elsewhere that requires a change in focus and that this other life shares certain similarities and relations with this one, we won't forfeit the ethical good life here.
7. Human need and concern, rather than the purported needs and worries of purported deities or other transcendent entities or powers, serve as the foundation for our ethical judgments and standards.
We gauge a choice's worth by how it impacts human life, which includes each of us individually as well as our families, societies, and all of the world's inhabitants. We will still base our answer on human need and interest in any relationship with these higher powers, if higher powers are discovered to exist and to which we must respond.
This is due to the fact that all of the philosophies and faiths that we are aware of were developed by humans and, as a result, cannot ultimately avoid the inherent bias of a human perspective.
This human perspective restricts us to using just human motivations and ways of understanding the world.
8. Rather than in a perfect setting, we apply our ethics in real-world situations.
Ethics are ideals, but in real-world situations, principles can only act as recommendations.
We reject moral absolutism because it attempts to impose ideal moral principles inflexibly, as if the world were perfect.
We acknowledge that moral challenges and conflicts do arise, and that moral decisions are frequently challenging and cannot be made using crude guidelines and generalizations.Making moral decisions frequently requires considerable deliberation, thorough research into the topic at hand, critical assessment of the present and future repercussions, and balancing of the available options.
It's not always simple to lead a good life or even to recognize the right decisions to make.
Therefore, when we affirm that we are committed to a humanist approach to ethics, we are demonstrating our readiness to put in the extensive thought and work that moral life in a complicated world demands.