Epicureanism versus Secular humanism
Both explain the world naturally and value friendship. Epicurus believed in gods who ignore us and advised a quiet private life. Secular humanism holds that there is nothing supernatural and that we share responsibility for the wider good.
What they share
Both explain the world naturally, both reject fear of divine punishment, and both value friendship.
Where they differ
- The gods. Epicurus held that gods exist but take no interest in human affairs. Secular humanism holds that there is no supernatural at all.
- What the good life aims at. For Epicurus the aim is pleasure, understood as freedom from pain and disturbance, reached by simple living. Secular humanism aims at personal fulfilment and the greater good of humanity.
- Public life. Epicurean advice was to avoid politics where possible, and justice was an agreement not to harm or be harmed. Secular humanism says people are responsible for the wider good.
A question that separates them
- Politics. “The wise person keeps out of politics and looks after their own peace of mind” against “A good life includes working for the good of society as a whole”.
- The point of life. “Calm and freedom from pain are the point of life” against “Contributing to humanity is the point of life”.
Written by epchē in our own words, and checked against independent sources on 2 October 2026. The sources are listed below.
Read each on its own
Sources we used
- Epicurus · Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy, read on 2 October 2026
- Epicurus · Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy, read on 2 October 2026
- Secular Humanism Defined · Free Inquiry (Center for Inquiry), read on 2 October 2026