Humanism Versus Sentientism
5. Is Humanism Blind to Animal Suffering?
In the previous section, I pointed to an important distinction that some critics, including Woodhouse, fail to notice. That is the distinction between the philosophical assertions of a world view, including its ethical commitments, and what its representative organizations choose to focus on because of limited resources and expertise. With limited capabilities, organizations need to focus strategically on their core mandate if they are to make substantive progress on their campaigns. In this regard, Humanist organizations are no different, focusing as they do largely on issues of religious overreach and providing community for the non-religious.
Nonetheless, Woodhouse could say appeals to the necessity of strategic focus do not justify humanism and Humanist organizations turning a blind eye to the industrial scale cruelties meted out to animals in factory farming. As Woodhouse [2020a] points out: 'So far, Humanist organisations focus their programmes almost entirely on the human species, many humanists are still not yet vegan (implying they do not grant even a base level of moral consideration to farmed animals)'.
I agree with Woodhouse that citizens consuming animal products produced from factory farms are contributing to massive amounts of avoidable animal suffering. And we all need to do more to wind down the cruel commercial trade in animal products, including humanists. One point to note is that this is not a failing unique to humanists and unique to this kind of suffering. There are existential threats that, if not eliminated, may, in time, wipe out not only all of humanity, but all sentient creatures. These threats include global warming, nuclear proliferation and large meteor strikes. The increasing hold of despotic rulers is another existential threat to add to the mix.
If Humanist organizations are guilty of not sufficiently directing their attention and that of their members to the harms of consuming animal products, then, it seems to me, Woodhouse and Sentientists as a group are equally responsible for not spending enough time campaigning on these existential threats that will potentially kill all sentient life on this planet. And as inaction on these threats simply allows the political momentum towards extinction to continue, Woodhouse and the Sentientism community are also culpable of not doing enough to change their own behaviour.
But is the charge of hypocrisy against humanist organizations credible? Woodhouse [2024h] delivers his sharpest critique in a Facebook comment suggesting this thought experiment:
. . . imagine humanist organisations made a range of pronouncements about universal human rights and moral consideration yet considered the ethics of modern enslavement or even human infant farming as "an open question" or took a neutral stance on it. The organisations would not have any policy stance or campaign against these things (maybe an occasional mention of "better welfare" for the enslavement and the infants?)- and while the vast majority of self-declared humanists continued to enthusiastically and needlessly support these practices through their consumption choices.
The sting here is the analogy to Humanist organisations currently making pronouncements advocating moral consideration for all sentients, yet at the same time considering the enslavement of non-human sentients and of animal farming as morally an open question or taking a neutral stance on it. To be fair, I'm not aware of any Humanist organization to date declaring neutrality on the moral question of factory farming. I also think it unfair on that basis to assume silence on the matter to mean moral neutrality. Taking on board the important distinction I made in the previous section, a more charitable view is to interpret that silence as indicating that this issue, as important as it is, is not within the purview of the organization's strategic focus.
Secondly, I don't think Woodhouse's scenario is analogous to current humanists' practice on consuming animal products. Far from the 'vast majority' of self-declared humanists consuming animal products, as Woodhouse [2019a] himself recognizes, 'approximately 40 percent [of U.K. humanists] said they were vegan or vegetarian—a rate much higher than that of the general population'. Woodhouse puts this propensity down to how 'evidence and reason' underlie both atheism and humanism. This is the second aspect for which, I think, Woodhouse's scenario is uncharitable to the program focus of Humanist organizations.
Thirdly, I don't think the practices of 'self-declared' humanists ought to be our guide to humanist moral norms, no more so than expecting the behaviour of 'self-declared' Catholics to represent official Catholic teaching. Fourthly, I don't see any evidence for Woodhouse's generalization that the remaining 60 percent of self-declared humanists who consume animal products do so 'enthusiastically and needlessly'. I suspect most have not fully cognized the level of suffering endured by factory-farmed animals and consider (mistakenly) animal products to be necessary for human health.
One humanist organization that has campaigned on reducing animal suffering in farming practices is Humanists UK. Woodhouse characterizes this effort as analogous to doing an 'occasional mention of "better welfare"' for the exploited. I don't think this is a fair characterization. For a start, the campaign began in 2017 and is ongoing, involving lobbying high street shops and supermarkets, making representations to government boards, responding to draft legislation and proposals, appealing to the government and endorsing the World Organisation for Animal Health's Five Freedoms for Animals [Humanists UK 2021].
Considering Humanists UK's other campaign initiatives, I find this effort over an extended period of time very admirable. This work on animal welfare happens in addition to a number of other campaign initiatives, including six campaigns in the area of schools and education, eight in the area of human rights and equality, ten in the area of secularism and six in the area of public ethical issues [Humanists UK 2023f].
It could be objected that this effort focuses mainly on ensuring that animals are stunned before slaughter. Even the support for Five Freedoms for Animals does not seek to eliminate factory farming altogether, Woodhouse might say. However, this staged approach to elimination is perhaps more realistic given that factory farms can't be dismantled in one fell swoop. (For example, Animals Australia [2025] conducted a campaign to ban live sheep exports.) In addition, Humanists UK's lobbying for removing the religious exemption for stunning makes better use of its expertise in pushing back against religious exceptionalism. Harking again to strategic focus, Humanists UK [2021] also explains, 'we do not seek to duplicate the efforts of specialist animal welfare organisations like the RSPCA or the British Veterinary Association'.
That said, I do think there is opportunity for Humanist organizations that are not currently pushing back against animal suffering, resources permitting, to broaden the scope of their campaigns. There may be more room to 'walk the talk' on humanist pronouncements, as Woodhouse has pointed out. As we have seen, Humanist declarations include how humanists 'respect our planet and all the life it supports' [Humanists Australia 2023], stand for 'an ethic based on human and other natural values' [Humanists International 1996], consider 'all life on this planet has intrinsic value' [American Humanist Association 2019] and that morality is 'grounded in the ability of living things to suffer and flourish' [Humanists International 2022]. There is more work to be done in putting these principles into action.
With help, there is scope also to enhance existing campaigns. One example where changes can be made is with the Humanists UK [2021] Animal Welfare campaign I mentioned above. The campaign portal explains how 'most humanists are strong supporters of animal welfare and recognise the necessity of sensible policy that respects and acknowledges animal sentience and their capacity to suffer' [Humanists UK 2021]. With that in mind, the campaign could be extended beyond simply requiring stunning to advocating for the phasing out of factory-farm produced meat. For example, Humanists UK could propose to the government that only vegetarian meals are offered in school canteens and public service cafeterias.
Another area of opportunity is the American Humanist Association's work on environmental sustainability. Even though it has a very specific and full agenda for winding back theocratic overreach in the United States, to its credit it did conduct its Environmental Justice Summit. One output of this summit, the Resolution on Environmentalism [American Humanist Association 2019], nobly affirmed the Association's 'support for sustainable agriculture and food consumption, including transitioning toward plant-based diets . . .' The rationale for the advocacy of plant-based diets could easily be expanded to include eliminating the suffering of animals.
One final example involves my home country. Humanists Australia [2023] runs its Climate Change and the Environment campaign. Although the campaign declares admirably that 'we value and respect our planet and all the life it supports', the motivation for environmental sustainability only mentions 'care for all human beings who live here, including those yet to come'. Here again, that motivation can easily be expanded to include the desire to avoid the needless suffering of non-human sentients.
In all three of these cases, and in other similar cases around the world, thought could be put into running a separate campaign to phase out factory farming. Here, I am on board with Woodhouse's aspirations in wanting to see more done to advance the welfare of non-human sentients. However, Humanist organizations need help. Reworking existing campaigns and developing new ones along these lines requires resources. And that is what Humanist organizations around the world are very short on. For this refashioning of campaigns to be achievable, I encourage Woodhouse and his fellow Sentientists to offer their time and expertise to those Humanist organizations that welcome the opportunity to be more effective in reducing animal exploitation and suffering. Woodhouse is doing an admirable job in educating and prompting Humanist organizations to do more in this space. As a committed humanist himself, this is where I would like to see Woodhouse progress beyond simply pointing out deficiencies in current Humanist programs. I would like to see him and his fellow Sentients put their shoulder to the wheel to help Humanist organizations move to the next phase in effectiveness.
