Humanism should be the ideology behind all societal governance
Debate Rounds (3)
First round is acceptance.
ChosenWolff forfeited this round.
Castermite forfeited this round.
I) Defining Key Terms
I want to define a few terms very quick which I should of done in R1. Humanism, is a philosophy known for collective benefit of a populace or group, and approaching desicions from a secular POV, or in other words, not resorting to one form of archetype in the desicion making process. Humanism can loosely be interpreted as "utility for the benefit", which is hopefully what we will abide by. Governance, is the act of managing or presiding over a group of people. Governance may be in the form of whole scale democracy, or individual rule. Societal, should be translated to social, or social governance. So, to conclude, the resolution for this debate is "Humanism should be the ideology behind all societal governance".
II) Collectivity is the backbone of stabillity and democracy
Rule by the collective, or what constitutes humanism, is the only way a nation can stay stable and functional. If you're are not ruling with each citizen in mind, or at least not giving every citizen the abillity to influence the majority, then you are working against your own people. Humanist movements were the backbone that led to the foundation of democracy. That government can be influenced by the people, for the people. Humanism can exist in many forms. Some argue governments should provide all citizens with an equal standard of living, including healthcare, education, and housing. Other forms simply advocate for simple defense and infrastructure building. None the less, one fact remains constant. You are either ruling by the majority or the minority, and humanist movements support the much better alternative.... democracy. Democratic institutions have been proven the most successful, and economic and political collectivity have always worked. The idea is that making the collective happy makes the nation stronger.
III) Expansion on the idea that collectivity creates strength
The greatest examples of Humanism at work have been the social policies implemented between 1940 and the late 1960's. For example, unchecked market regulations in the 20's and 30's led to intense inequality, and much unemployment. Despite having the capabilities to suit the populace, the system remained of corporate rule remained in place. Most people gave up on higher education. Many worked for food rather than money. The problem was very easy to solve. People needed the stimuli to get back on their feet. Before social security was implimented, over 50% of our retirees were living in poverty. Today, that number has went down to 10%. Before medicaid and medicare were instated, millions were sick and unable to join the work force. After implimenting labor reforms, raising wages (soon to be lowered), and expanding social health programs, many re-entered the workforce. In fact, the nation was at one of its strongest points in history during the time of social reform.
Note, I am not arguing how much social reform, or advocating for more to this day, but simply the fact that a nation can increase its prosperity, strength, and prestige by extending all humans to a single point. Or in other words, just enough where they can be self sustaining. This is collectivity, and as a nation we developed our morals, and we worked as one unit to reach greater heights.
IV) A nation without humanism
It is important we give examples of non-humanist nations and how they function. A non-humanist ran nation is more than likely to be built on bigoted principles, advocation for inequality, or outright disdain for people of equal traits. The correct term would be more along the lines of fascism. We all know how those turned out. Fascist nations such as North Korea, Iran, Socialist Italy, Nazi Germany, and Francoic Spain all slowly saw a decrease in prosperity from within, leading to their eventual downfall. The simple fact is that they didn't support their strongest links. The 50%. Humanist movements attempt to help the 100% as one collective unit. Populist movements that seek to benefit everyone. As an ideology, it doesn't have to be realistic, but it should be a goal. If nations can try to make desicions that benefit everyone, then that is enough for me. Just because something is an ideology and principle, doesn't mean it should be implimented wholly, but the simple fact remains. Humanism is a great movement, and although not always realistic, there is no reason it can't be strived for in our policy making process. I thank Castermite for the debate.
Castermite forfeited this round.
2 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 2 records.
Vote Placed by ESocialBookworm 2 years ago
|Who won the debate:||-|
Reasons for voting decision: FF & unrefuted arguments
You are not eligible to vote on this debate
This debate has been configured to only allow voters who meet the requirements set by the debaters. This debate either has an Elo score requirement or is to be voted on by a select panel of judges.