Humanist Manifestos I and II

by Paul Kurtz (Editor)

This is a stirring document outlining a philosophy for survival and fulfilment in our time. Signed by Andrei Sakharov, B.F. Skinner, Corliss Lamont, Betty Friedan, Sir Julian Huxley, Sidney Hook, Jacques Monod, Gunnar Myrdal, and 275 other distinguished leaders of thought and action, it has been hailed as a classic.

Genres: Philosophy, Nonfiction, Politics, Religion, Science

32 pages, Paperback

First published April 1, 1973

About the author

Dr. Paul W. Kurtz was a prominent American skeptic and secular humanist. Before his retirement, he was Professor Emeritus of Philosophy at the State University of New York at Buffalo, having previously also taught at Vassar, Trinity, and Union colleges, and the New School for Social Research.

Reviews

[J.C. · Rating 4 out of 5]

While reading this I kept highlighting all the main points. My niece, watching me do so was puzzled at me and asked why I was doing such a thing. I told her that I wanted to understand what the text was about, clearly and for ease of future reading.

A lot here is exactly what i believe in, particularly when it comes to eliminating poverty and enhancing free will for all, and viewing the world as one ecosystem instead of just one singular nation on its own. Because, it might not be apparent to those who have it bludgeoned into their brains, but it really is one giant ecosystem, and we are all connected, and a doom for one is a doom for all.

How can a philosophy that believes in the freedoms for all and the bettering of tomorrow be such an evil thing? I've read many reviews for this here on Goodreads and was shocked by how many people compared this to communism, which i find utterly hilarious. Especially since a majority of these people don't seem to properly understand the humanist text they apparently just read, or the communist ideas they are apparently so against. Because anything that is different is Marxist, right? it is evil and should be banished. Which is utterly ridiculous and without any merit. How on Earth can we progress forward if we don't embrace more open minded ideas, instead of old, outdated ideas?

anyway, i hope reading this will lead me to a lifetime of working hard for the betterment of humanity and life as a whole.

[John Yelverton · Rating 1 out of 5]

This is without a doubt, one of the scariest books that I have ever read due to the fact that there are people out there who actually think like this.

[Mike · Rating 5 out of 5]

Finally, a discovery of my philosophy written, in text.

[Judit · Rating 2 out of 5]

I read the Humanist Manifesto III as well, and you can really tell that there is a development and an improvement for the better. But what is quite shocking is that the first iteration is explicitly trying to define Humanism as a religion, literally. It was very strange. But the following ones are much better.

[Richard Kolivoski · Rating 4 out of 5]

Humanism in a nutshell

It is not easy to define Humanism. It is not a religion, but it has a system of beliefs. It has structure, but no dogma. The 2 manifestoes presented here are attempts to convey the spirit of Humanist thought by appealing to human reason, while avoiding dogmatic statements that might inhibit free inquiry. The manifestos are meant to enlighten our minds and stimulate human creativity to direct all of us to become the best we can be as individuals as we work together for the common good.

[Aubrey]

Definately interesting. Totally opposite from my worldview, but interesting nonetheless.

[Steven H · Rating 5 out of 5]

THE 1933 AND 1973 MANIFESTOS, WITH INTRODUCTIONS

Humanists, you might say, like to write "Manifestos"; the first was written in 1933, and the second in 1973. The third was written in 2003, and in-between this had been the 1980 'A Secular Humanist Declaration,' the 1988 "A Declaration of Interdependence," the 1996 "IHEU Minimum Statement on Humanism,'"' the Humanist Manifesto 2000: A Call for New Planetary Humanism,' and the 2002 "Amsterdam Declaration."

The first Manifesto was signed by 34 people (of whom 15 were Unitarian ministers), and it was infused by a spirit of liberal (if naturalistic) religion; e.g., "Nothing human is alien to the religious"; "religion must work increasingly for joy in living"; "Religious humanism maintains that all associations and institutions exist for the fulfillment of human life," etc.

Paul Kurtz, the author of Manifesto II, commented in his Preface, "Humanist Manifesto I, important as it was in its time, has since been superseded by events; though significant, it did not go far enough. It could not and did not address itself to future problems and needs." Thus, Manifesto II "addresses itself not only to the problems of religions and ethics, but to the pressing issues of civil liberties, equality, democracy, the survival of humankind, world economic growth, population and ecological control, war and peace, and the building of a world community." (Pg. 3)

Kurtz and Edwin Wilson (who was one of the few individuals to sign both Manifestos; see his 'The Genesis of a Humanist Manifesto') state in the Preface, "As in 1933, humanists still believe that traditional theism... is an unproved and outmoded faith. Salvationism... still appears as harmful, diverting people with false hopes of heaven hereafter. Reasonable minds look to other means for survival." (Pg. 13)

Manifesto II is subdivided into sections on Religion ("As non-theists, we begin with humans not God, nature not deity... No deity will save us; we must save ourselves"; pg. 16); Ethics ("moral values derive their source from human experience... Reason and intelligence are the most effective instruments that humankind possesses"; pg. 17); The Individual ("Although science can account for the causes of behavior, the possibilities of individual FREEDOM OF CHOICE exist in human life and should be increased"; pg. 18); Democratic Society ("the separation of church and state and the separation of ideology and state are imperatives"; pg. 19); World Community ("This world community must renounce the resort to violence and force as a method of solving international disputes"; pg. 21); and Humanity as a Whole ("We urge that parochial loyalties and inflexible moral and religious ideologies be transcended"; pg. 23).

Whether one agrees/disagrees with all/some/none of these instruments, they are historically-important documents, and are of continuing interest to persons from all forms of beliefs.

[Chase · Rating 2 out of 5]

I actually typed up a surprising amount of notes on quite a few little pieces from this dusty rag, but I won't waste your time, nor strain my subpar editing skills.
Here's the gist:

This work nearly completely disregards the subjectivity of human experience. It is a utopian vision of a completely unattainable future: A work of hopeful, feelgoody fiction in which everybody agrees to the tenets of this document. It is structured in such a way, albeit haphazardly, that if there were to exist any number of those opposed to it (like, say, the entirety of all religious communities on this planet), the whole system would fail to get off the ground, thereby not taking into account the fact that there have, and will always be, a great number of people who just suck.

[Ariel Armaita · Rating 4 out of 5]

Was an interesting read. It is a utopian personal moral code. One that I happen to share, and sociopaths seem to despise. Which is always a plus.

Humanist holds self-accountable for actions; both good and evil.

[Justin · Rating 5 out of 5]

A great tool for me to learn more about what I believe I am, a Humanist. I loved how well it read and how the manifest was laid out. Will own a copy soon.

[Jonathan · Rating 1 out of 5]

Humanism is a religious faith commitment. This document shows how.

[Shayne · Rating 4 out of 5]

While I think the broad points should be non divisively revealing, a couple of the more specific points may need more detailing and revision.

[Alex · Rating 5 out of 5]

It was a very enlightening book on how Secular Humanists think. The first part of the book is mild and without politics. Basically, Secular Humanists are trying to replace what the religious people think is the benefit of their guiding beliefs with the belief of no God residing in life. They, the Secular Humanists, see the benefits of having no religious basis in their beliefs. Religion, in terms of belief in the supernatural, is a hinderance to society and individuals. In part II, they announce their political beliefs and freedoms of sexuality. Secular Humanists ally themselves with anyone or any belief system, that tramples religious fundamentalism and Conservatism. This includes Deists, Agnostics, and Liberal religious institutions. Only humans matter in both part. I an none of these things, but I am glad to here the other sides' beliefs and what they are seeking. These people reject a good God and traditional, national politics and give people "rights." Science in the natural world will be their guide.

[Deanna Sutter · Rating 1 out of 5]

Wow, talk about a piece of work. This is something else. If you want to see the Humanist Manifesto in action just check out The Soviet Union and China. With this work the humanists take out our self-evident rights with one quick swoop. I'm not going to give up these rights that our Founding Father's fought and bleed for.

In a nutshell they believe in free love (I have young readers to my reviews so I'll leave it at that), environmentalism, no God or any higher power, no dualism of Spirit and Body, euthanasia, no poor, no rich, and no families. Doesn't that sound like a wonderful world to live in? And that's just the beginning.

I noticed that John Dewey signed the original one. Is that the John Dewey of the public school system?

[Stephanie · Rating 1 out of 5]

I read the Humanist Manifestos I, I, and III, and what struck me the most was that the signers would only sign their names to "generally" accept what was written. "We, the undersigned, while not necessarily endorsing every detail of the above, pledge our general support to Humanist Manifesto II for the future of humankind." In contrast, the signers of the Declaration of Independence "mutually pledge[d:] to each other [their:] lives, [their:] fortunes and [their:] sacred honor." It is amazing what one is willing to risk for truth.

[Royce Ratterman · Rating 3 out of 5]

Read for personal research. I found this work of historical interest.
I found this book's contents simple and an easy read - number rating relates to the book's contribution to my needs.
Overall, this work can be a good resource for the researcher and enthusiast.

[Kl · Rating 3 out of 5]

Didn't read this particular version. Do think these are documents everyone should read.

[Eli Poteet · Rating 3 out of 5]

I wanna work on a 4th installment