As humanists, we lack those collective principles, which puts us at a disadvantage. Without a moral framework, it becomes difficult to move forward or address the challenges our society faces. For instance, societal values change over time today, we can agree that aspiring to be like Hitler is clearly wrong. But without a set of principles, what’s to stop such an idea from being normalized in the future, just as certain harmful practices, like child marriage, have been justified in the name of tradition or culture? We can critique religions like Islam for using cultural excuses to justify child marriage, but we do so based on values we collectively agree upon today.
Religious groups have moral codes, but they at least have something to evolve from. They engage in debates and discussions around their principles. In contrast, I feel that humanism lacks a clear set of guiding principles that we can stand by. Without these, how do we progress as a movement? How do we establish a foundation from which we can evolve and shape society? 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 define 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. The argument above brings up a valid concern about the potential disadvantages of not having a defined moral framework.

Without clear collective principles, it may seem like humanism lacks a solid foundation for moral reasoning, especially when compared to religious traditions that provide structured guidelines. There’s merit to the idea that having a shared moral foundation could offer a common ground for humanists to navigate complex ethical dilemmas and societal challenges. However, I’d respond by highlighting that humanism’s strength lies in its flexibility and adaptability, which makes it uniquely equipped to deal with changing societal values and new challenges. Religious groups often evolve their moral codes over time, but this can be slow due to the weight of tradition and doctrine.

Humanism, on the other hand, encourages ongoing moral reflection and debate based on reason, evidence, and empathy. This allows humanists to adapt more quickly and thoughtfully to new issues, like bioethics, climate change, and technological advancements, without being tied to an ancient set of rules. While it's true that without collective principles, the movement might struggle to present a unified moral front, humanism’s foundation is built on key values like human dignity, empathy, rational inquiry, and secularism.

These values offer a moral compass that guides humanists without being rigid or dogmatic. Humanists reject practices like child marriage not because of a static moral code, but because these practices violate principles of human well-being, autonomy, and justice, which are central to humanist thought. The example of Hitler and the normalization of harmful ideas is important, but humanism already has the tools to address this. Humanists can argue against such ideas based on ethical reasoning, historical evidence, and the harm such ideologies cause to human welfare.

Humanism doesn’t need a fixed set of principles to reject these ideas it relies on the critical assessment of what promotes or diminishes human flourishing. In a sense, humanism doesn’t need an immutable set of moral rules to move forward—it needs a commitment to continuous ethical evaluation and a core set of adaptable values.

So, while religious groups may have fixed principles to evolve from, humanists are more dynamic in their approach, able to evolve with society rather than trying to adapt old frameworks to new realities.​​