The Need for Humanist Action on Global Poverty and Injustice
What must ‘Humanism’ mean? Richard Norman thinks outside the tribe.

Richard Norman, speaking at the BHA Philosophy and the Arts day conference, 2010
If ‘humanism’ means anything at all, it must surely embrace respect and concern for all human beings, whether they are members of our own family or group or society or are people on the other side of the world whom we do not know and will never meet. It means a responsiveness to the needs of all with whom we share a common humanity. As humanists we often invoke the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, which reflects and translates into political imperatives those shared human needs, and which includes these items:
Article 25: Everyone has the right to a standard of living adequate for the health and well-being of himself and of his family, including food, clothing, housing and medical care and necessary social services, and the right to security in the event of unemployment, sickness, disability, widowhood, old age or other lack of livelihood in circumstances beyond his control.
Article 26: Everyone has the right to education…
Article 28: Everyone is entitled to a social and international order in which the rights and freedoms set forth in this Declaration can be fully realized.
But the sad truth is that we have a long way to go before we have an international order in which these rights are fully realized for everyone. Here are some facts about the world in which we live.
- Around 1.4 billion people still subsist on less than $1.25 a day, the international poverty line defined by the World Bank.
- Around one billion people suffer from hunger.
- Almost nine million children die each year before they reach their fifth birthday.
- Hundreds of thousands of women die due to complications of pregnancy or childbirth every year.
- About 69 million school-age children are not in school. Almost half of them (31 million) are in sub-Saharan Africa, and more than a quarter (18 million) are in Southern Asia. (Data)
Humanists have always been actively involved in organisations dedicated to tackling the challenges of global poverty and injustice. The BHA encourages its members to continue that tradition of involvement, but has rightly avoided duplicating the organisations which are already active in the field. For this reason there is no specifically humanist movement dedicated to combating poverty and promoting international development. There are also good reasons, parallel to the ones which Marilyn Mason mentions in the case of climate change, why humanists have not organised as humanists: we may legitimately disagree about the best way to deal with poverty and global injustice, and we are resistant to being told what causes to support.
But without creating unnecessary new organisations, it’s important that humanists are visible in their support for global justice. Actions do speak louder than words, and if we’re serious in what we say about shared human values and about living a good life without religion, then we need to put those values into action. The role of the new interest group ‘Humanists for a Better World’ should be to add a distinctive humanist presence and voice to existing organisations and campaigns. It should act as a forum for humanists to pool news and information, and to alert one another to important events and campaigns.
Here are some of the issues which I think are currently important.
In the last few years, concern for international development and concern about climate change have become increasingly linked. The problem of climate change caused by CO2 emissions has been created by the industrialised countries, but it is above all the countries of the global south which are already feeling the effects, with more extreme and unpredictable weather patterns, increased flooding in some areas, and changes in rainfall leading to crop failures and the drying up of pastureland in others. Action on climate change has to take the form of ‘climate justice’ – enabling the poorer countries of the world to follow a low-carbon route to development and not being forced to pay the price for our failures. Oxfam and the World Development Movement among others are campaigning for a global Climate Fund which is fair and effective. See:
World poverty is being fuelled by the spike in food commodity prices, which have been artificially inflated by the irresponsible behaviour of commodity speculators. We need international regulations to curb food speculation – see:
Development organisations have increasingly come to recognise that trade is the route out of poverty. But this requires more than the free-marketers’ mantra of ‘free trade’. It needs trade justice. At the level of our daily lives and our own purchases, this is something which we can promote by buying Fairtrade products and raising awareness of the value of Fairtrade. I’d like to see more Humanist groups committing themselves to using Fairtrade refreshments at their meetings and events. But it also requires political action, because the scope for trade to benefit developing countries is severely limited by the unfair tariffs and subsidies maintained by the US and Europe. The Fairtrade Foundation is currently running a campaign against American and European subsidies for their own cotton farmers, which lower world prices and hit cotton-producing countries such as Benin, Burkina Faso, Chad and Mali. See:
If you share these or related concerns, do please make use of the ‘Humanists for a Better World’ web site at www.h4bw.org.uk to communicate news, ideas and actions, and to work with other humanists for global justice and a better world.
Richard Norman is Emeritus Professor of Moral Philosophy, founder-member of the Humanist Philosophers’ Group, and Vice-President of the BHA. His book On Humanism was released in 2004.
The Need for Humanist Action on Global Poverty and Injustice,

Contrary to the title of this article There is no need for “Humanist” action on global poverty and injustice. There is only need for “Human” action. Norman wants to redefine “humanism” to mean “respect and concern for all human beings”. Ahh, how sweet! Love shall conquer all.
How we should tackle climate changes or organise our economies to control commodity speculation are not to my mind “humanist” issues, they are just human issues, and it is by no means obvious to me what the best answers are. There will inevitably be clashes of opposing interests. Different answers are given according to different political persuasions. There is no “Humanist” solution to these problems except in the sense of applying reason and gathering evidence, and avoiding wish-fulfilment fantasies, and this is already being done by competent organisations.
As indeed it says on the H4BW website, which draws attention to many of the excellent secular organisations working in these areas.
I don’t feel inclined to join the Humanist Vegetarians and am not qualified to join the Humanist Mensa Group or the Humanist Armed Forces Group, and again there’s nothing uniquely humanist about any of these interests – but I can’t see why they shouldn’t exist for like-minded humanists. Same goes, I’d have thought, for humanists who’d like to share information and actions on global ethical issues.
While Humanists For A Better World is clearly a worthwhile cause to support, the Richard Norman article above points out that there already are organisations like Oxfam and WDM in this field and it is pointless to duplicate their efforts. There are also UN organisations set up by humanists, which undertake massively important work in this field already.
If there is something humanists could do which would make a real difference without duplicating the efforts of existing development agencies, it is in the field of campaigning against all forms of governmental corruption in less developed countries. The creation of the ipaidabribe.com web site in India provides an excellent example of this sort of initiative. Can’t we support similar initiatives in less developed countries?
The truth is we could pour huge resources into less developed countries and it would make little real difference until such time as the local political elites commit themselves to honesty and transparency in all their dealings with one another and with their general populations.
I would have thought that setting up something like the Civil Service College in less developed countries could make a real difference, provided it promotes an ethos of ethical honesty and fair administration.
Is this something that people like Richard Norman and Marilyn Mason have considered?
This is a really important issue, but one that H4BW doesn’t have the capacity to take on directly – which in fact is true of all the causes and campaigns we highlight on the website. We’re not really a free-standing cause or campaign ourselves, but try to promote existing ones that humanists might be interested in supporting, in the hope that they may then take some of the requested actions: write letters, sign petitions, organise or go on demos, donate… All these campaigns are always looking for more supporters and amongst humanists seems a good place to look!
One of the campaigns we list on the website, Global Witness (http://www.globalwitness.org/) has a remit to expose corruption, and you might find that of particular interest. I recall too that one of the BHA’s distinguished supporters MP Graham Allen was active in setting up institutions for better governance in the former Eastern bloc. Something to encourage worldwide by writing to your MP perhaps?
The BHA has affiliated to some campaigns (Stop Climate Chaos and Jubilee Debt) and H4BW also acts as a kind of clearing house for all the info that comes from them, attends meetings on behalf of the BHA, and reports back.
Being right surely benefits belief in humanism.
Our decent concern for others refutes the foolish accusation of (everyday language) materialism.
On climate change, when the necessity for effective action becomes plain to all (except the apocalyptic), we can have told them so.
Being so evidently right, morally and empically, may even encourage response according to fair reason rather than dogma and selfishness.
(Many philosophical and technical underpinnings but I regret this is more a slogan than a book.)