DIM hypothesis and secular humanism

 Secular humanism is the result of mostly D; sometimes M2.

• Predominant pattern (D: disintegration)

  • Many contemporary secular‑humanist statements ground ethics in pragmatic “what works,” democratic consensus, or cultural pluralism. That maps to the D‑modes: pragmatism, relativism, subjectivism, consensus‑ism. Result: standards float, burden of proof blurs, and principles oscillate with opinion—disintegration.

• Secondary pattern (M2: rationalist misintegration)

  • When secular humanism is framed as a top‑down moral construct—e.g., Kantian duty rules or utilitarian “maximize overall happiness” as a single master principle—it fits the M2 types: constructivist moral rationalism and one‑factor ideologism. Result: an internally neat system imposed irrespective of causal facts—misintegration.

• Rare exception (I‑mode)

  • A minority, “Enlightenment” strain that reduces ethics to the causal requirements of human life, defines concepts by essentials, and defends individual rights as objective principles, can approach I. This is not the mainstream posture today.

How to classify a given secular‑humanist text

• If it argues “truth/values are what our community endorses” or “what works now,” expect D.
• If it lays down universal duties or a maximizing calculus independent of causal context, expect M2.
• If it reduces claims to human nature, causal mechanisms, and objective rights, it’s aiming at I.