Humanism explained for schools

Humanism connects questions about how we understand the world with questions about how we should live. In the modern non-religious sense explored here, it offers an account of knowledge, responsibility and meaning without relying on a god. Learning about this account does not require agreeing with it.

For classroom use: read the explanation, examine what an organisation's statement can establish, then try the fictional decision below. The aim is to describe a perspective accurately and explain a reason.

What humanism can mean

Humanists UK describes humanism through a natural understanding of the world, ethical concern for people and other sentient animals, and the possibility of making life meaningful. It places reason, evidence and empathy within that outlook. This is the organisation explaining its own position.

Three distinctions help keep the vocabulary clear:

• Non-religious is a broad description; it does not identify one shared philosophy.
• Atheism and agnosticism concern particular questions about belief or knowledge. They do not, by themselves, supply a complete ethical outlook.
• Humanism, as used in the sources on this page, includes positive commitments about living as well as a position on religion.

Someone's lack of religious belief is therefore insufficient evidence that they call themselves a humanist. Equally, a helpful action does not reveal the person's entire worldview. Use the atheism and agnosticism guide to distinguish the related terms.

Knowledge and enquiry

Humanists International's introduction gives reason and science a central role in understanding the world. It rejects supernatural explanations as the basis of that worldview. Read this as a stated approach to knowledge, rather than a claim that a humanist already knows every answer.

A useful classroom distinction is between a method and a conclusion. Asking for observations, checking an explanation and revising an answer are methods. The answer reached in a particular case is a conclusion. Two people can use similar methods and disagree because their information or reasoning differs.

For example, a fictional club is choosing where to hold an outdoor activity. Looking at access, weather and travel arrangements could help its decision. Saying “we considered the evidence” would not tell us which evidence was used or whether anyone's needs were missed. Ask the speaker to make the reasoning visible.

Reasoning and scientific enquiry are not exclusive to humanists. Do not use this topic to suggest that religious people cannot reason or value evidence.

Ethics and responsibility

Humanists International's 2022 Declaration of Modern Humanism sets out an organised humanist perspective. It connects ethics with suffering and flourishing, compassion and reason. It recognises dignity, responsibilities to others and care for the natural world. Its account extends concern beyond immediate personal advantage.

These commitments raise questions for discussion: whose interests are affected, which harms matter, and what responsibilities follow? They do not supply a ready-made answer to every difficult choice. A person can agree that fairness matters while disagreeing about what would be fair in a particular situation.

The ethics guide explores how different reasons can support competing decisions. Religious and non-religious people may share concerns about kindness, honesty or justice while explaining their foundations differently.

Meaning and relationships

In Humanists UK's account, a meaningful life can be shaped through happiness, relationships and helping others, without an afterlife or a purpose assigned to humanity from outside it. That account makes a claim about where meaning can come from; it does not mean that every humanist chooses the same ambitions.

Ask pupils to distinguish these questions:

1. What does a source say can give life meaning?
2. What might that look like in a fictional person's choices?
3. What evidence would we need to describe a real individual's life?

The first can be answered by reading a statement. The second invites an example. The third needs evidence about the person and cannot be answered by assigning a label.

Read an organised statement carefully

The 2022 declaration was adopted by Humanists International's General Assembly. It is a primary source for that organisation's account of humanism, not a survey of every non-religious person. The following is an original guide to using that kind of source.

When making a concept map, place knowledge, ethics, meaning and responsibility around the term humanism. Draw an arrow only when you can explain the connection. For example: “Understanding likely consequences can inform a decision about helping someone.” Mark this as your explanation, rather than a quotation from the declaration.

Try a fictional decision

This scenario is invented for discussion. A school reading club plans a Saturday visit to a park. One proposal uses the first available date. Another delays the visit because several members cannot travel that day. Delaying would mean missing a seasonal event that other members want to see.

Consider a character who wants to apply the commitments discussed above. What should the character find out before choosing? Which people would be affected? Could a different arrangement accommodate more of the interests involved?

One possible response is to find out whether another travel arrangement is realistic before deciding. This connects concern for others with enquiry about the facts. Another response may prioritise the planned event but offer an additional activity. Both need reasons; neither follows automatically from the label humanist.

Discussion questions and teacher notes

• How is describing a worldview different from recommending it?
• Why is a statement of principles different from evidence about people's behaviour?
• Can two people agree about the importance of compassion and choose different actions?
• What would be missing from “humanism just means not believing in a god”?

For a shorter activity, use the first two rows of the source table and ask pupils to complete one “this supports…” sentence and one “this does not establish…” sentence. For further challenge, ask them to explain what additional evidence could answer their remaining question.

Use the vocabulary cards to practise terms before discussion. Assess accurate explanation and the connection between reasons and conclusions. Pupils can work entirely with the source and fictional character; they do not need to disclose their own or their family's beliefs. The teacher guide explains how to plan that distinction into a lesson.