Humanist Viewpoints

A guide to Humanist thought on morality topics covered in the RME/RMPS curriculum

Humanist Society Scotland October 2017 Version 1.0

Contents

Foreword p2 Justice pp3-5 Purpose of punishment Rights of prisoners/suspects Causes of crime Death Penalty Relationships pp6-8 Gender roles Sexual relationships Contraception Marriage Sex Education Environment and Global Issues pp9-10 Using Natural Resources and Environmental Crises Animal Rights Poverty Medicine and the Human Body pp11-13 Sanctity of Life & Abortion Use of Embryos Organ Donation Euthanasia and assisted dying

Foreword This guide gives an overview of core topics of the RME/RMPS curriculum in Scotland. This paper also sets out to summarise some key “Humanist Perspectives” on some of these topics. All these perspectives are based on public messages espoused by key organisations in Humanism, such as Humanist Society Scotland, Humanists UK, International Humanist and Ethical Union or high profile Humanists. It should be noted that this is a guide to assist School Visitors and not a definitive answer to all moral or ethical issues. A key cornerstone of Humanism is the ability for individuals to debate and discuss important issues and in some cases therefore it is difficult to give a “defined” Humanist viewpoint. Unlike some religions that the students will have studied Humanists do not have a core text or thought leaderships that tells us how to live our lives or how to approach key issues. Under each section is a reference to key policy decisions of the International Humanist and Ethical Union which are relevant to that topic area. If challenged on some of these areas where opinions may differ in the Humanist community, it is perfectly fine to give your own personal view. Speak about how you came to that point within a broad Humanist philosophical approach while noting that these can be debated and different opinions held. Fundamentally Humanists think humans have to work things out for themselves using evidence, reason and respect and not looking to a set text or deity for guidance. If you have feedback about any of the content in this guide, or feel there is something missing that you have been asked about during a school visit please get in touch: [email protected] or 0300 302 0685. Fraser Sutherland Campaigns and Communications Manager, Humanist Society Scotland

Topic Area: Justice Purpose of punishment Humanists do not have a holy book to guide them on how criminals should be treated or punished. Humanists believe we have to work it out for ourselves using evidence, reason and respect. Many Humanists uphold the Golden Rule as the key principle to guide our thought – to treat others the way we wish to be treated. However this could raise the question have criminals forfeited the right to be treated under the golden rule by not following it themselves? Humanism has long looked at the Chinese Philosopher Confucius work. He famously noted that it was important that the victims of crime felt that justice has been done. That the wrong done by a criminal has been righted. But this could mean different things to different people and we can’t run a justice system solely on the basis of making victims feel better whatever that is. In addition many Humanists believe that any punishment should be proportionate to the crime. For example it is seen as unfair and unjust to execute someone who has stolen something.

Humanists support evidence based policy making. That means Chinese Philosopher Confucius we look to support the methods of punishment that have been thoughts, on the Golden Rule, is often a starting point for Humanist shown to best: thinking. - Protect people from the harms of crime - Deter people from committing crime - Reform criminals to stop them committing further crimes While prisons and a custodial sentences can be seen a strong deterrent for committing crime and protection of the public from those who have committed crime, rates of reoffending amongst individuals who have been in prison and Humanists believe that prison should only be used for the most released is very high. It is also very dangerous offenders expensive method of punishment which leads to many Humanists thinking that prison should only be used for the worst offences and some non-custodial methods of punishment have been shown to be better at reforming people involved in more petty crimes.

Most Humanists would agree that we should look to forms of sentencing that seek to improve behaviour in the future and reduce re-offending, especially for petty crimes rather than simply focussing on punishing an individual.

IHEU Policy on Penal Reform, 1972

Rights of Suspects/Prisoners One way to interpret the Golden Rule is to consider how we would expect to be treated if we were accused of a crime. This leads Humanists commonly to support some key rights for individuals suspected of crime (and to ensure those who turn out to be innocent are protected too): - A fair trial - Right to defend themselves in a court of law - To be treated humanely while in prison Many Humanists also believe that we must respect all persons, including criminals, as we believe they have rights the same as other people despite what they have done. We have to therefore consider the impact of particularly severe punishments in policy making. This particularly applies to young offenders and how we support the reform of that individual. Humanists also uphold internationally agreed Human Rights and respect for individuals, for example making sure people in prison have Humanists believe everyone has key rights, including a fair trial if accused of a crime access to food, proper sanitation and medical care.

IHEU Policy on Penal Reform, 1972

Causes of Crime Causes of crime are very complex however Humanists believe that the best way to solve the problems of crime is to look at the issues which push people towards it. Most crime is committed in very unequal societies and where individuals feel they have nothing to lose perhaps because they live in such poor circumstances. Mental health conditions and addictions are also major contributors to crime rates and Humanists support action to support and improve the lives of people affected by these issues which would make them less likely to resort to crime.

IHEU Brussels Declaration 2007

Death Penalty Humanists don’t support the use of the death penalty. The International Humanist and Ethical Union campaigns to remove the death penalty in countries where it exists on the basis it violates our right to life (Article 3 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights). Humanists have come to this view on the basis of reason and evidence. The death penalty for example appears to have no impact as a deterrent for murder rates. The USA having one of the highest murder rates in Western society despite some states having the death penalty. Within the USA, states with the death penalty have a murder rate that is 28% higher than in the states without the death penalty. In addition Humanists are concerned about the fact the death penalty carries the risk of making mistakes and the potential deaths of innocent people.

Topic Area: Relationships

Gender roles Humanists believe in equal respect for all people. Many Humanists believe that “traditional” views of the roles of men and women have been patriarchal and misogynistic that have sought to deny women their own equal rights in society. For example in some societies much is placed on a traditional definition of what a family should look like. That women should look after children and the home and men work and supply income. Humanists believe this discriminates against women and forces them to take on the majority of housework and childcare. It also seeks to control women and also to discourage Humanists believe in equality for all and seek to break down gender discrimination homosexuality. Humanists believe that both people in a relationship have equal status. This means neither should feel they are responsible or not responsible for certain things just because of their gender. Discussion between a couple on how to split tasks and responsibilities is a better much fairer way to ensure respect for both individuals. Sexual Relationships Humanists believe that sex is a pleasure that can be enjoyed responsibly. It is important however that individuals are responsible for their own actions and are not forced into anything that they are not comfortable with. We also must ensure that people are physically and mentally mature enough to make these important decisions before they can have sex, otherwise people can be abused by people who are not looking out for the welfare of others. Humanists generally do not subscribe to the belief that virginity must be kept until marriage, seeing no obvious benefit or reason for doing so. Neither do Humanists see having sex with more than one person in the course of our lives a problem. Humanists believe that we are all responsible for our own decisions and obviously we should consider our choices carefully before forming a close relationship with others to ensure it is really what we want. Humanists are against any form of sexual exploitation or abuse as we would see it as running against the Golden Rule principle. This also includes any form of domestic abuse, we do not believe there is any justification for such actions.

Contraception Humanists believe that contraception should be available for those who wish to use it. Humanists do not believe in a god so therefore do not subscribe to the argument that it is against God’s plan. Nor do we accept that it interferes with nature in a bad way. Humans interfere in nature in ways which are positive such as farming, wearing clothes or taking painkillers. The use of contraception ensures that people are not faced with unwanted pregnancies. Humanists support that every child should be a wanted child and no one should have to have a child before they feel ready. In addition contraception can control the spread of STDs, Humanists believe that we should support the use of contraception to reduce the spread of deadly diseases such as HIV and AIDS. Many Humanists believe the opposition of some religious groups to the use of contraception allowed the spread of HIV/AIDS especially in developing countries where it has had a devastating humanitarian and economic impact.

Marriage Humanists believe that marriage can be a positive experience for couples. However we do not believe that is necessary to a have a positive loving relationship with someone. Humanists therefore have no problems with people co-habiting while not married. For many couples cohabitation before they decide to get married can be a very useful experience to see if they really are The Humanist Society Scotland campaigned for years to get legal recognition for Humanist weddings. We also carried out the very first compatible with one another. same-sex weddings. Fundamentally we believe that marriage should be available for individuals who wish to marry one another. We believe this should be open to all couples including those of differing races, faiths and also for same-sex couples. In Scotland Humanists campaigned for and then carried out the very first same-sex marriages, something we are very proud of. Humanists in Scotland also campaigned for a long time to allow couples to be married in a Humanist ceremony. We believe this is important to allow couples to celebrate their marriage in a way that is important and speaks to them rather than require to be married in a faith that they don’t believe in. Equality is core to all Humanist weddings, the two individuals involved should agree to be equals in the relationship and no one should feel forced into a marriage with

7 someone they didn’t want to. At a Humanist wedding the celebrant (person who leads the service) works with the couple to write a ceremony that both are happy with and means something personal to them. The below is an extract from vows said at a Humanist wedding: ‘I promise to allow our marriage and each other to change and develop, supporting you in happiness and sorrows, health and illness. I promise to live with you as equal and different individuals and to recognise and accept each other’s strengths and weaknesses. I promise to learn from our Humanist weddings have respect and equality at their core shared experiences and to build from them a full and caring friendship based on trust and on respect. I promise to work together with you for the good of the community to which we belong and for the good of humanity as a whole.’ Humanists support the right for couples to divorce if their marriage is not working. Most Humanists would like to see couples try to work out their differences without having to resort to divorce, however sometimes this can’t be achieved. Humanists would seek to achieve the least amount of unhappiness and suffering and in some cases divorce is the best way to achieve this. Humanists believe that people who have been divorced should be allowed to get remarried. Humanists believe it is important that divorces are handled in a mature manner with a minimum level of hostility. This is especially true when children are involved as a divorce that involves much division can have an impact on a child’s welfare or development. However if handled well a more positive environment can be created for a child than an unhappy family.

IHEU Deceleration of Interdependence, 1988 – includes ‘the right to marry or co-habit’

Sex Education For humanists, quality, age-appropriate sex education in schools is essential. Young people should be fully informed about contraception, and a range of methods should be available to all. However, people should also be taught to think carefully about the risks and consequences before embarking on sexual relationships. We do not believe that the beliefs of some religions should stop young people receiving good, proven to work, sex education.

IHEU Deceleration of Interdependence, 1988 – includes ‘the right to sex education’

Topic Area: Environment and Global Issues Using Natural Resources and Environmental Crises While Humanists have the concerns of human welfare and happiness central to the way they approach issues this does not mean they are not concerned with the welfare of the planet. As Humanists believe there is no God, we believe that Humans have a responsibility to look after the planet, its biodiversity and the environment in general when we do things. Humans have become masters at using natural resources and manipulating the environment for their benefit whether through agriculture, mining or travel. However many Humanists recognise that failing to take care when using such resources can lead to destruction of environments or other unintended consequences. By not protecting the environment and being responsible in our use of natural resources Humanists think we should protect the environment for future generations scientists have shown us that irreversible damage can be done to the environment and other resources we rely on (for example warming oceans can result in reduction in fish stocks).

IHEU Brussells Declaration 2007, “We are all totally dependent on the natural world for our life and well-being. Unless we learn to take better care of the Earth’s environment we will put at risk the health and well-being of many living today, and the very survival of those who come after us.”

Animal Rights Most Humanists would agree that we should care for other animal species, especially from damaging effects of our own human behaviour. This would follow on from the belief we should protect the environment for future generations but also the understanding that as the dominant species on the planet we shouldn’t abuse our position of power to bring suffering and extinction to other species. Humanists, as anyone else, delight in the marvel of natural beauty including that in the animal world.

Humanists are not always vegetarian or vegan, however some do choose this as one way to live out their belief in protection of other species and respect for animal welfare. There have been debates within the Humanist community regarding vegetarianism and there is very much a split opinion on the subject. However common agreement can be found on humane treatment of animals Humanists support proper care and welfare and humane treatment both in the rearing and killing. in farming Humanists have actively campaigned against traditional religious ritual slaughter (where animals are bled to death without pre- stunning and therefore suffer unnecessarily) taking precedence over killing animals humanely.

IHEU Statement on Animal Welfare, 2002

Poverty As Humanists believe that we should respect others and that only we can shape the future, and not a higher power, Humanists believe we should care and act on poverty. The causes of poverty are multiple however there are known significant factors such as exploitation of the poor by the rich, poor education opportunities, lack of resources, environmental disaster and degradation, overpopulation and war all contribute significantly to poverty. While it is important to provide emergency help and aid, Humanists believe that to solve poverty we need to consider and deal with the causes rather than just be satisfied with alleviating the immediate crisis. Reducing violence, increasing educational opportunities, stopping environmental destruction and improving Human Rights all help to reduce the pressures that push people into poverty. Many Humanists focus on improving these areas in order to bring about long lasting improvements for people’s lives. Humanists also believe that relatively rich countries, such as Scotland, should play a leading role in helping other nations reduce absolute poverty.

IHEU Oslo Declaration on Peace 2011 – notes war as a contributing factor to poverty IHEU 1970 – notes lack of family planning and overpopulation can contribute to poverty IHEU Principles 1985 – “The right of every person to food, shelter and clothing. To make this possible, humanists advocate humane methods to control population growth such as family planning on a voluntary basis, and a just sharing of world resources.”

Topic Area: Medicine and the Human Body Sanctity of Life & Abortion Humanists believe that the law should not be influenced by religious beliefs as this excludes the many people who hold other beliefs. Humanists believe we need to take all the latest evidence we have into account when deciding whether abortion is acceptable. Humanists are pro-choice and were active campaigners in legalising abortion in the 1960s. Even with our advanced medical understanding, however, questions surrounding abortion are not easy to answer. The current law sets abortion is available before the 24th week of a pregnancy, if two doctors agree that an abortion presents less risk to the woman’s physical and mental health than continuing with a pregnancy. The law has chosen 24 weeks because this marks the point at which a foetus can routinely survive outside of the womb. Many humanists would say that the idea of sanctity of life does not help us in cases where the pregnant woman’s life is at risk. If both lives are sacred, which should we choose? The woman or the foetus? In cases where the woman’s life is not at risk then many humanists would prioritise questions about the quality of Humanist Campaigners for Abortion Rights in Glasgow life. They would consider the potential happiness and suffering of both the woman and the foetus, as well as the wider family. Humanists do not believe in a god. Therefore the argument against abortion on the basis that it’s playing god doesn’t fit with Humanist thinking. Humans frequently change the natural environment around them and in healthcare we develop medicines and treatments to counter natural disease.

IHEU Principles 1985 – Supports abortion being available around the world

Use of Embryos As Humanists use reason and rational thinking they approach their moral decision making on embryo use in medical science from two points: 1. Is an embryo a person? 2. Will the research and subsequent use of embryo cells do more good than harm? An embryo used in scientific research and medical treatment is so early in its development that it has few of the characteristics that we associate with people. It is a fertilised egg that has the ability to grow into a person, but whose cells have not yet begun to form into particular parts of the body. There is no brain, no self-awareness or consciousness, no way of feeling pain or emotion. An early stage embryo is not a person and cannot suffer. The use of stem cells, from embryos under 14 days of age, have succeeded in bringing many new advance medical treatments. Many medical scientists believe that stem cells have huge potential to revolutionise medical treatments of the future for major diseases and conditions. Given the substantial benefit to medical treatments and the fact that embryos cannot be considered people, Humanists support the use of embryos.

A Humanist Discussion on Embryo Research, Humanists UK [online]

Organ Donation Humanists believe that organ donation has proven scientific advantages in helping in medical treatments. Additionally Humanists do not believe that our bodies hold any purpose after we die, in terms of an afterlife etc. Therefore most Humanists would be happy for their organs to be donated after they die. We do not believe the current system of organ donation is fair. At the moment individuals ‘opt-in’ to a database, however after they die a family member can object to their organs being donated. We believe that this is not in keeping with the Humanist values of respect for an individual’s choice over what happens to their body. Humanists support moving to a “soft opt-out” organ donation scheme which presumes consent but individuals can opt out while alive. In addition the schemes like this that exist round the world also inform the next of kin and ask if Humanist support organ donation there were any unregistered

12 objection. This is easier for a bereaved family than asking if they want to donate the organs of their family member which currently happens if that person is not on the donation register.

Response to Scottish Government Consultation, Humanist Society Scotland, 2017 – support the move to a soft ‘opt-in’ donation scheme for Scotland. Humanists and Organ Donation, IHEU General Assembly, Mumbai, 1999 – encouraged Humanists to donate their organs and blood while alive.

Euthanasia and assisted dying Humanists have long supported assisted dying (sometimes known as voluntary euthanasia) and we currently campaign to change the law to make assisted dying legal in Scotland. With improvements in medical science we are now able to keep individuals alive that we would not have been able to in the past. These developments are clearly very welcome and Humanists believe we should always progress the research of medical treatments. However keeping people alive does not always mean that their lives are free of pain and suffering. Humanists form their decisions using reason, evidence, respect and empathy of each person. Humanists think that quality of life is very important and they believe we should respect individual autonomy, a personal choice about their life. Humanists believe that when an individual is terminally ill or incurably suffering that individual should have the choice of a painless and dignified end to their life. This should sit alongside other care Gordon Ross, a leading member of Humanist and support options, such as palliative care. Society Scotland, took a high profile legal case Humanists are not advocating that individuals should against the current law in 2015 choose an assisted death, rather it should be an option for those who wish to access it, with appropriate safeguards to protect vulnerable people. Many Humanists would argue that we already have a legal form of passive euthanasia. For example at the end of a person life doctors can withdraw treatment or switching off a life support machine in the knowledge this will cause an individual to die. Some people claim that this form of passiveness is morally acceptable whereas giving a lethal drug is not. Humanists believe there is no moral difference: the outcome is the same, the death

13 of the patient. In many instances passive euthanasia can lead to a slow and painful death, which can be particularly hard for family and friends to watch when compared to a quicker and easier death. Some Humanists and other campaigners draw comparisons between how we assist in the death of animals, especially much loved pets, when they are faced with a terminal illness. People are happy to accept that humans can take the decision on behalf of their pets in order to alleviate suffering but struggle with the concept of allowing an individual human to decide for themselves. Many Humanists find this viewpoint illogical. If we are able to accept alleviating suffering in animals, Humanists believe we should be willing to do the same for humans (if they choose that option themselves). Humanists reject the argument that legalising assisted dying is a ‘slippery slope’ to involuntary euthanasia. Some people use the Nazi extermination of disabled people during the holocaust as an example of something that could happen. There is a clear difference however between voluntary euthanasia where an individual has chosen to end their life without pain and those who are executed. Using the Holocaust as an example is not appropriate to this debate as there was no ‘slippery slope’ in that case. Hitler had set out deliberately to kill disabled people (and other groups).

Humanist Society Scotland actively campaign for assisted dying laws in Scotland currently. Euthanasia, IHEU World Congress 1999 – supports a change in the law in every country to allow a competent person who is incurably ill and suffering, to ask a willing doctor to assist them to die quickly and peacefully.