It seems to me that the Humanist ideal is universal comfortable self-preservation, that is to say for all human beings to live as comfortably as they want for as long as they want.
It also seems to me that Humanists should consider it praiseworthy for someone who lives comfortably to risk his comfort and even his life in trying to actualise that ideal.
Thirdly, it seems to me that Humanists should even consider it praiseworthy for a majority to do so for a minority--indeed, especially praiseworthy! This would mean that the reason they consider it praiseworthy is not that they consider the comfortable self-preservation of any number of human beings worth the sacrifice of any smaller number.
But if universal comfortable self-preservation were attained, there could no longer be praiseworthy actions of this kind.
Therefore, it seems to me that, instead of universal comfortable self-preservation, the Humanist ideal ought rather to be the universal risking of one's comfort and even one's life--not for that self-preservation but for something higher even than self-sacrifice. Comfortable self-preservation is subhuman!
In order to distinguish this genuine Humanism from the prevailing, subhuman so-called "Humanism", I've christened it Superhumanism. But what is higher even than self-sacrifice? What's higher than all reconciliation?