What is the trouble with humanitarianism?

…nascent transitional morality… Jesus Christ. You know, it’s real simple. If it doesn’t work for me, you don’t get to sit at my table. And if others in the world feel the same way about cultures who throw perfectly healthy women upon the funeral pyres of their predeceased husbands, or torture and kill others for their political or religious beliefs or sexual preferences, fine. I have no problem refusing to do business with people that do and very little patience with assholes who are afraid to do the same. And if those who do believe that such things are right try to impose these things upon me, there will be war. Simple as that.

I think you’ll find at least two types of argument against humanitarianism.
One is that it’s just another *ism with people telling other people what to do and how to act.
Another is that it’s bad for business… our current global economy has outsourced the least desirable jobs and factory processes from “first-world” Western countries to countries where they can pay people as close to nothing as possible, and pollute as much as they care to, for the profit of multinational corporations.

Personally I don’t think either of those arguments is any good and would advocate a humanist/populist set of values. Civilized society demands some sacrifices to work (e.g. use of physical force is a monopoly of law-enforcement, not a privilege of every individual) and treating each other fairly is part of it.

It is seen at its best when helping out after a disaster of some sort when the state concerned is overwhelmed and unable to deal with the situation. At other times it is often tainted by self-interest and is seen as an excuse to interfere. Where it takes the form of bombing it is almost guaranteed to be counter-productive from a humanitarian point of view.

I will always believe in the universality of basic human rights as something worth striving for at home and abroad. The principles were laid down by the UN in 1948.

Humanitarianism is defined as the philosophical doctrine holding that it is a human being’s duty to improve the lives of other people. The moral tenet of all major religions is the principle of humanitarianism; house the homeless, feed the hungry, heal those sick in body and mind. It is not merely “a nascent transnational morality.” The use of “political, economic and military” power to repress and exploit a portion of a population is what is “controversial.”

Your post consists of a broad question and an unsupported assertion or definition:

Humanitarianism – that is, the political, economic and military interference in the domestic affairs of a state justified by a nascent transnational morality – is one of the defining and most controversial features of the post-Cold War period.

I prefer the Wikipedia definition of the term: “Humanitarianism is a moral of kindness, benevolence, and sympathy extended to all human beings. Humanitarianism has been an evolving concept historically but universality is a common theme in its evolution.”

In its simplest form, humanitarianism is practiced on a “retail” level: person to person, small group to person or small group to small group. As you have defined it to be “political, economic and military interference”, it seems to be more governmental in nature – in other words “as practiced by a government”. Most governments do not operate in the main in “humanitarian” mode. (Perhaps after large scale catastrophes such as tsunamis, earthquakes, major storms and war damage, but that is specific aid – almost never “military interference” – directed to the victims of the particular event. But even that mode of operation is short-lived; it’s not a Standard Operating Procedure.)

When governments seem to be acting from “humanitarian” modes over long periods of time, then there is usually an ulterior motive. For example, the recent massive influx of “refugees” into Europe from the Middle East and Africa, while it seems to be humanitarian in nature (“helping refugees”), it also has the political and economic benefits to Europe of helping to hide the declining birth rates there that eventually threaten the economies of the European nations in decades to come. Europe does need more people to shore up its population, and this is a way to get a lot of new people, mostly young and of child-bearing age, who could, if they would assimilate and adapt, add to the economies there – and provide some kind of public relations bonus points to the leaders of the nations who act on these “humanitarian principles”. It looks like the idea is blowing up in their faces, but since the Germans had earlier experience allowing a large influx of mostly Turkish immigrants, it might have seemed like a good idea at the time.

In answer, then, one of the problems of humanitarianism is attempting to perform acts that “appear to be” humanitarian in nature while accomplishing something quite different. And “humanitarianism as government policy” almost never works for very long.

As a humanist, I honestly don’t think there is a problem with humanitarianism as far as its core principles are concerned. Humanitarianism is a positive thing.

But sometimes people, governments and activists identifying as humanitarians overstep their bounds and enforce their morality onto others. To me, such people are just not doing the job the way they should. A good humanitarian should aknowledge different cultures so long as it is not endangering the lives of others.

As @CWOTUS pointed out, you have given humanitarianism a misleading definition.

Seems like the question is missing the part where it explains why it is asking “what is the trouble”? I see no trouble to answer about.

I think though that some people strongly value things related to “tradition” and “authority”, appreciating that when a culture agrees on one set of values, and follows rules and authorities without questioning them all the time, that it tends to lead to peace and cooperation… at least, within that group. Those values tend to map to people identifying as “conservative”, and can often tend to conflict with “humanitarianism”, because it claims a non-traditional source of authority, and suggests breaking rules and changing traditions and laws, and tends to lack a central authority or cultural identity.

Humanitarianism doesn’t work with, or on, humans.