Humanism Versus Mystrikism
2. Key Humanist Documents
2.1 Human-Centric Focus
The key Humanist documents McDonald [2024] reviews are Humanist Manifesto III (2003), The Amsterdam Declaration 2002, A Secular Humanist Declaration (1980) and Humanist Manifesto II (1973). He also considers documents that are not official Humanist pronouncements. These are The Oxford Declaration on Freedom of Thought and Expression (2014), The Brussels Declaration (2007) and the United Nations Universal Declaration of Human Rights (1948). What I hope will become clear in the following discussion is that McDonald regularly takes a very restrictive and less than charitable interpretation of the documents and of humanism more generally.
So, what problems did McDonald find in his examination? In the problem area of 'Human-Centric Focus', McDonald concludes that 'Across the primary humanist documents, the emphasis on human well-being and progress is consistently prioritised over other sentient beings and the natural environment.' To support his case, McDonald first turns to Humanist Manifesto III [American Humanist Association 2003]. He points out that:
the text explicitly states that humanism is about "the greater good of humanity". The focus on human welfare is clear in the statement: "Ethical values are derived from human need and interest as tested by experience. Humanists ground values in human welfare".
However, the final sentence of the above quotation is incomplete. It stops short. In Humanist Manifesto III, that entire sentence reads, 'Humanists ground values in human welfare shaped by human circumstances, interests, and concerns and extended to the global ecosystem and beyond.' This is hardly a prioritization of human beings over the environment and other sentient beings. In the same universalist vein, the concluding section of Humanist Manifesto III calls on our 'civic duty to participate in the democratic process and a planetary duty to protect nature's integrity, diversity, and beauty in a secure, sustainable manner'.
Furthermore, the compilation and signing of Humanist Manifesto III was the work of the American Humanist Association (AHA). Readers digging a little deeper in the AHA website will discover the AHA organized the Environmental Justice Summit and released its Resolution on Environmentalism [American Humanist Association 2019] a few years ago. In that document, the reader will find the following: 'WHEREAS all life on this planet has intrinsic value and holds the right to access clean air, clean water, and healthy habitats . . .' Understandably, it also contains a number of declarations about the importance of conservation, sustainability, veganism and a number of other important ecological principles. Far from devaluing non-human sentient life and the natural world, the humanist authors of these documents are enjoining us to act urgently on the principles that McDonald is criticizing humanism for ignoring.
McDonald next turns to considering A Secular Humanist Declaration [Council for Democratic and Secular Humanism 1980]. Here, he similarly complains that in this document there is 'no significant mention of the welfare of non-human life or ecosystems'. However, the Introduction makes clear the specific purpose of the document in pushing back against undemocratic and anti-secularist 'dogmatic authoritarian religions' as well as new 'cults of unreason' and bizarre paranormal and occult beliefs. Even though the focus of this Declaration is not on non-human life and ecosystems, it nonetheless highlights their importance. It is difficult to understand how McDonald can complain that there is 'no significant mention' of these when the signatories state categorically that they 'are aware of, and oppose, the abuses of misapplied technology and its possible harmful consequences for the natural ecology of the human environment'. The authors here are not beating around the bush about their opposition to ecological damage.
McDonald complaining that a key humanist document does not focus on his preferred primary message when its express intent is on allaying one or more other great evils is a blind spot that recurs in his review of the next document in his sights. Reading The Brussels Declaration [Humanists International 2007], he complains that 'the natural world is mentioned in the context of how it benefits human life rather than as an independent moral consideration'. The operative sentence in the Declaration is this: 'We recognise our duty of care to all of humanity including future generations, and our dependence on and responsibility for the natural world.' Note, however, that the second instance of the conjunctive 'and' in that sentence introduces a separate and independent concern and not one of subservience to human needs. As one of the conjuncts, 'we recognise our responsibility for the natural world', it stands on its own.
If the writers had intended what McDonald says they meant, they could have easily put their supposed human exceptionalism less ambiguously as: 'We recognise our duty of care to all of humanity including future generations, and responsibility for the natural world ensuing from our dependence on it.' Furthermore, later in that same document, the humanist authors write: 'Free inquiry must be limited only by respect for the rights of others and by concern for all sentient creatures.' Again, this is hardly an expression of human exceptionalism coming at the expense of the natural world.
McDonald's reading of the Declaration is uncharitable in another way. The express purpose of the document was to reaffirm the unity of Europe against the historical backdrop of religious persecution and sectarian wars. Celebrating the 50th anniversary of the Treaty of Rome and the foundation of the European Union, the authors seek to 'reaffirm the common values that have shaped and guided the foundation of modern European civilisation, and that will continue to inspire and shape our future'. The authors put the central message of the Declaration this way:
The Secular Vision for Europe is neither a manifesto nor a program of action, but a re-statement of the ground rules that enable all Europeans whatever their origin or background to live together in peace and harmony. They are based on an understanding of our common humanity, individual human rights, mutual tolerance, and agreement neither to resort to threats or violence nor to seek to impose our own particular worldview on others.
[Humanists International 2007]
For McDonald to quibble that the Declaration doesn't put enough emphasis on the natural world is to fundamentally misread the authors' purpose in writing the Declaration. It's akin to complaining that Mary Wollstonecraft's classic polemic against male domination, A Vindication of the Rights of Woman, doesn't put enough emphasis on industrial pollution.
In the list of documents he reviewed, McDonald includes the Amsterdam Declaration 2002 [International Humanist and Ethical Union 2002]. He makes no mention of it in his critique and seems unaware Humanists International released an updated version on the Declaration's twentieth anniversary. Perhaps he did not mention it because even in this earlier version it declares: 'Humanism ventures to build a world on the idea of the free person responsible to society, and recognises our dependence on and responsibility for the natural world.'
The updated Amsterdam Declaration 2022 [Humanists International 2022] builds on its earlier sentientist and environmentalist position expressed in the 2002 version. The very first principle in the 2022 document emphasizes the moral salience of sentience, stating that 'morality is inherent to the human condition, grounded in the ability of living things to suffer and flourish, motivated by the benefits of helping and not harming'. The fifth principle further emphasizes that 'we are part of nature and accept our responsibility for the impact we have on the rest of the natural world'.
If McDonald had looked a little wider, he would have found that moral concern beyond humanity is again emphasized in Humanists International's [2019a] Reykjavik Declaration on the Climate Change Crisis in which it advocates for urgent action to protect 'non-human animals and natural ecosystems'. Summarizing its Advocacy Issues, Humanists International [2019b] states unambiguously that 'Humanists care about many things: humanity and other non-human animals, human rights, democracy and secularism, the environment, and the future.' To gain membership of Humanists International, Humanist organizations around the world are required to agree to this moral philosophy of inclusion. In their application for membership [Humanists International 2019c], they are required to confirm that they support the IHEU Minimum Statement on Humanism, which states in part that humanism 'stands for the building of a more humane society through an ethic based on human and other natural values' [Humanists International 1996]. I think a fair reading of these key humanist documents show that the humanist philosophy enjoins us to look beyond our parochial human concerns to include other sentient creatures and the natural environment.
