Vivism and Humans
"Respecting life and well-being of
humans to a degree as large as possible"
The aspect of human behavior that concerns the treatment of other people already is regulated to a considerable extent in laws and other written or unwritten norm systems.
Among other things it's legally forbidden to kill or to cause injury to other humans; also inflicting material and to some extent non-material damage in most national legal systems is prohibited to the extent that one is obliged to compensate for violations.
Additionally several religions contain norms on dealing with others, whereas some of them say that the other basically has to be treaten as gentle as one wants to be treaten oneself.
Further more the secular Humanism points centuries that courtesy relative to the other may increase mankind's quality of life significantly.
Contemporary Vivisme also states that it's in man's own interest to spare life and well-being of others as optimally as possible, be it that according to this philosophy man must be equally appropriate to all kinds of non-human beings, since so far is sufficiently clear that without it simply won't work for people to live in peace with each other.
As regards to Vivism's interpersonal aspect, twinned under the term of "Humanivism", hereunder an effort will be made to describe as fully as possible what this entails.
In this respect special attention will be paid to the facets that are currently hardly or not concerned by any regulatory or moralization.
Elements of humanivistic behaviour
All elements of humanivistic behaviour are implicitely mentioned in the definition of Vivism. As regards this behavior towards persons the definition is as follows:
"In principle not conciously killing, mutilating, wounding, harming in health otherwise, hurting, or disobliging other persons either directly or indirectly, and more than that preventing as far as possible to commit these acts unintentionally, that they are committed by others, and that one profits of them in case they are committed anyway."
One of the elements in this definition that currently are concerned by regulatory or moralization only in a relatively small extent, whereas in everyday practise they are relevant very often, is: "in principle not disobliging other persons, either directly of indirectly".
Not disobliging other people
Only a few ways of behaviour that come under this denominator are legally ruled.
Stealing for instance doesn't (directly) cause any physical damage to the victim, but certainly is a way of disobliging him or her.
As said above also inflicting material damage in other ways and to some extent inflicting non-material damages are prohibited in most national legal system to the extent that one is obliged to compensate for violations.
Many other ways of disobliging others however are not legally ruled, nor implicitely moralised by certain religions.
a) Lying and being dishonest otherwise;
(particularily in personal matters; e.g. slandering)
b) Hindering, hampering, impeding, obstructing, annoying, teasing;
c) Polluting air, water and/or soil within legal limits;
d) Unnecessary interventions in nature, which make it less enjoyable for others;
(e.g. mowing overgrowth of verges more than once a year, at the end of winter).
e) Several kinds of unnatural behaviour; such as:
- confusing others by changing one's outward artificcially;
- use of appliances that cause an unnatural increase of personal physical abilities;
- committing sexual perversions that are not prohibited by law;
f) Infringement of other people's natural territory;
g) Abuse of other people's hospitality, tolerance, or kindness;
h) Withdrawing more financial resources from the government than justified.
(As a result of which other residents will have to suffer from certain deficiencies or defective government tasks).
Humanivism implies that these forms of ill human behavior and their negative impact on the quality of human life in general deliberately be left out as well, partly because according to this doctrine they ultimately clearly have a boemarang effect at the hands of the action of certain natural laws.
According to this philosophy even if other persons evidently seem to deserve some kind of natural punishment, one shouldn't venture to execute it oneself one way or another, as this matter is too complex for the human brain, as a result of which one too easily will go awry, whereas nature by definition will not default to do it in the most fair and appropriate manner itself.
© Copyright Nicolas Pleumekers (Founder and president of the Nature Protection Foundation)