Do you think a more defined set of principles would strengthen the movement's identity?"

A more defined set of principles might not necessarily lead to better adherence among humanists. The very nature of humanism, with its emphasis on individual autonomy and critical thinking, could make it difficult for any rigid or universal framework to be accepted or followed consistently.

Humanists tend to value personal responsibility in making ethical decisions, rather than adhering to a predefined moral code. Humanists often resist dogma and fixed ideologies, preferring a more fluid approach that allows for ongoing moral reflection and adjustment based on new evidence and experiences.

So, while a defined set of principles might offer a clearer identity, it could also feel restrictive or contrary to the humanist ethos of encouraging independent thought. This flexibility that defines Humanism in my opinion, while potentially making collective identity more diffuse, is ultimately more aligned with the spirit of humanism.

Humanism's flexibility and emphasis on individual autonomy do seem to align more with the spirit of the movement, even if it comes at the cost of a more unified or clearly defined identity. It allows for a more inclusive and adaptive framework, where individuals can tailor their ethical beliefs based on their own reasoning and experiences rather than adhering to a prescribed set of rules.

This can foster personal growth and societal progress, though it does make the collective identity a bit more diffuse. I value this flexibility and see it as a core strength of humanism, even if it creates some challenges in terms of coherence.

​