To the Editors:
Did anyone actually read Cory Helgeson's article about humanism ("Getting Real About Humanism," Feb. 3) before it went to print? Did Cory even read it? I am so confused. You should be confused, too, because the article doesn't make sense.
In the first paragraph he drops this gem: "Today, let us begin by establishing the basic truth that each of us is autonomous since we are neither physically nor mentally linked to anyone else. Therefore, each individual is in charge of himself of herself and is 100 percent responsible for his or her actions." First of all, there is a logical hole between those two sentences that you can toss a cow through. The second statement isn't predicated on the first one at all. Those are just two completely baseless assertions that he stuck next to each other. That's nonsense!
If I was going to argue with him (I don't really have to, because there's no reasoning to what he's saying) I would ask him which specific deity popped by to inform him that nobody is "physically or mentally linked" to anyone else. Aren't there whole societies based on ethics of shared responsibility and the fundamentally interconnected nature of human action rather than Western constructs of individual claims to rights? Oh, that's right, there are! There are plenty! But I guess we can discount them if we feel like it, because apparently we're acting under a moral imperative to evaluate all societal structures in an objective framework.
I pretty much agree with Mr. Helgeson's ideological stances on drugs, drunk driving, prostitution, et al. However, framing these issues in the rhetoric of individual autonomy misses the point. Drunk driving is bad precisely because the drunk creates unnecessary risk for others as well as himself. It is arguable that such action causes harm not because it impinges upon the autonomy of others, but because it violates shared societal ethics of care and responsibility. If Mr. Helgeson wishes to be taken seriously as a philosopher, he would be wise to rethink the nature of those "truths" which he holds to be self-evident.
