Defining Ourselves Through the First Principle Rev. LoraKim Joyner, DVM First Principle Project Facilitator (www.firstprincipleproject.org) July 14, 2014 This reflection first appeared on the blog site in the Spring of 2014 where you can continue to add to the discussion and reflection (http://www.ofeverybeing.blogspot.com) Introduction For the last several years when preaching or in participating in Unitarian Universalist activities, I state the First Principle as "the inherent worth and dignity of every being." This reframing on my part, and others, far proceeds the current First Principle Project that seeks to engender deep reflection, spiritual practice, faith development, shared understandings, and critical thought by proposing a permanent change to the First Principle which currently reads "the inherent worth and dignity of every person." With this one word change, our world changes, for we become a people called to hold how incredibly wondrous is each and every individual, and how their existence merits our consideration. In truth, the world has been changing for some time as philosophers, ministers, prophets, scientists, and poets increasingly illuminate for us how humans are not at the top of any supposed hierarchy of worth, dignity, and beauty, but instead deeply enmeshed in a world where the existence of other species calls us to greater scientific, religious, and ethical scrutiny of our assumptions and behaviors. This work of living out our principles is never easy, for our principles are not an acceptance of the reality under which we live with imperfect justice and compassion, but a vision for which we ache and long. The First Principle lays out a fundamental, yet broad basis, on which to orient our behavior, both as individuals and as a collective. It is a call to our hearts and dreams, and is not meant to be a standard to judge behavior. Instead it is a sacred calling of what might be possible in each of us. Our Principles are informed and inspired by stories, poems, songs, and even dance, pictures, and video. Because the dream our vision calls us to weave together into reality has so many rich materials from which to work, agreeing upon precise wording might not ultimately matter, for a vision is like a poem that invokes, invites, and compels, but does not define. This is not to say that we don't delve into what our words means. We do so not because there might be some inherent and unchanging reality to which each word points, but because by defining what our words mean to each of us, we build a community of understanding and a community that knows each other and this world. By struggling with sharing what we mean, we build relationships and we build possibility. Knowing and not flinching from the experiences and understandings of others, we become wiser collectively, which means we become more powerful, more compassionate, and more able to quickly alleviate suffering wherever we may. This process of sharing meaning is especially important with processes and words that pertain to values, emotions, and behavior that impacts others, such as in the case of our Principles. This is no easy task, for crafting new Principles where there is 100% agreement will prove difficult, because each paints their sense of

flourishing and tragedy differently through the filter of their genetics, cultural and family influences, and experiences. Yet, it is a worthy task before us. As Denny Davidoff, past Unitarian Universalist Moderator, once said, “The defining moment of Unitarian Universalism is always now.” Now is the time to engage in changing the First Principle, for the moment is always now to love the world and all its beings with as much heart and reason as we can muster. Let me then invite you to share with one another what the First Principle, as it stands now and with the proposed changes, means to you as a whole. Also, what do the specific words mean, and what examples or stories can you use to illustrate your meaning and understanding? Please do this with one another so that we may journey forward in fashioning common and shared understandings, taking a leap of faith that we the many may also work and love as one. You may also add comments to this reflection on the blog site: http://www.ofeverybeing.blogspot.com Here then is the Principle with the value laden words in italics and bold: (We covenant to affirm and promote) the inherent worth and dignity of every being (or person).

Inherent Worth Today we look at the words inherent and worth in the First Principle. First let us look at them separately. The Oxford Online Dictionary defines inherent in this way: "Inherent: Existing in something as a permanent, essential, or characteristic attribute." What does this mean in terms of human relationships with others? No matter the species it means that another individual exists without being defined or judged by another. Instead they have inviolable characteristics with which they come into and leave this world. Experiences, behaviors, and thoughts of themselves or others, do not impact the basic defining characteristics of what it means to be that individual. The Merriam Online Dictionary defines worth as "the value of something measured by its qualities or by the esteem in which it is held." Dictionary.com defines worth in several ways, including, "excellence of character or quality as commanding esteem," and "usefulness or importance, as to the world, to a person, or for a purpose." In all these cases worth is determined by something outside of the individual or species under consideration. It is a value given to one by another. When we combine inherent with worth, into inherent worth we come up with a strong statement about the existence of individuals. They have immutable value that does not change based on their experiences in their lives, the quality of life they lead, or the judgment of others. Tom Regan explains inherent worth in terms of the cup analogy (1). Individuals are the cup, and for Unitarian Universalists, let's say chalice. By being a chalice we are saying that individuals come into existence with worth that is not dependent on what might eventually fill the chalice, such as how humans might describe, value, or use them, or the kinds of lives they live. A dog that attacks humans and cats with little provocation might be a different kind of dog from one that rescues mountain climbers or visits people in the hospital. The individual dog's experiences and nature, and how others perceive her, is what we might pour into the chalice to describe this particular dog. But by being a dog, she comes into this world as a sparking gem in the web of life, even though her lived experiences might be described in a range from dark coal to brilliant diamond. There is no bad dog or good dog, all dogs are God's children. No matter what, inherent worth means one's existence is a luminous chalice, a sign that each life is a beacon to guide us in living a life of reverence, full of beauty and awe. How each fills that chalice and what you do with it will vary, but know that you hold something precious in your hands.

Inherent Worth versus Intrinsic and Extrinsic Worth In the last section on "Our Principles Defined" we examined the meaning of inherent worth. The claim was that all individuals have inherent worth, no matter how others may value them. Their mere existence grants them this worth. We accord this in part because as a religious people we experience reverence for life, as did Albert Schweitzer. He claimed that all individuals have a will to live and as such, their life is sacred, for all of life is sacred and it flows through all. There is a nagging concern to this approach because if all individuals have inherent worth, how then are we to apply ethical principles or make moral decisions if all lives have worth, and especially if they have equal worth? I answer this in part by inviting one to imagine life on another planet that does not have humans. We would travel to such a place and as an impartial observer would find delight in the very smallest of microbes up to the most complicated social being. All would be a marvel to us and we would experience reverence and awe that there existed life at all outside of earth with no enmeshment with human concerns. We would be hard pressed to deny that each and every individual has inherent worth, for we could not easily discern the reasons to say this collection of molecules and processes has worth, and another not, or that some have more worth than others. Then imagine that we humans will colonize the planet. Once we enter the mix a strange phenomenon occurs. We wish to strip away the worth from individuals because we know that they might have a negative impact on our life, or because we desire to use them instrumentally for our own benefit. Perhaps we do this because we desire to act in ways consistent with our values, and desire principles to guide our actions and to simplify our lives. Surely a being must have less worth if we use them, objectify them, and even harm them. If they did not have less worth, then how could we ever justify what we do to them? This other planet is our planet Earth, and we have colonized it, not from arriving from outer space but by evolving. When, on our path from one celled organism, to small rodent like mammal to hominid did the world suddenly and fundamentally change so that other beings did not have inherent worth? What did alter was that we became increasingly aware of how we valued others, and wished to communicate this with others of our kind so that we could build communities where life could prosper, mostly of the human kind. We need to keep on this path of understanding how we communicate value so that life of all kinds has the best chance to prosper. For that aim I suggest adding to our vocabulary when we talk about the Unitarian Universalist principles the concept of intrinsic value and extrinsic value. Both of these terms denote value that comes through a human filter, as opposed to inherent value which exists whether we are on the planet or not. Intrinsic in the Merriam Online Dictionary means "belonging to the essential nature of a thing : occurring as a natural part of something." Intrinsic value then means value that derives from the nature of an individual, and can differ based on their experiences, particular genetics, and cultural influences (flock, herd, ecosystem influences). We might then describe the intrinsic value of chimpanzees and whales as being quite different than that of amoebas or dust mites because of the differences in their subjective experience, and mode of operating and relationships within the web of life. It is we humans who characterize this intrinsic value.

We also characterize extrinsic value, which assigns value based on whether something is good for something else. For instance, we might say dogs have extrinsic value because they are good for humans. As social predators they help us hunt and guard our homes, and have a number of genetic adaptations that make them particularly good companions for humans. Dogs are good because they are good for us (extrinsic value) and also because they are well, just dogs (intrinsic value). Extrinsic value gives us room to say that not all dogs are good, and that dust mites are bad because they are not good for humans. These things we may need to say so we can know how to manage our lives around dogs that trouble us by biting and chasing, and mites to which our children are allergic. It is to the realm of ethics then that we assign intrinsic and extrinsic value, for we humans will always seek ways of thinking to explain, rationalize, and guide our behavior. There is a deeper understanding, however, that does not hinge on what we would make of life, and that is inherent worth. It is a transcendental claim on our part. We cannot explain it (as much as I have tried in this blog!), master it, or harness it for our own use, much as we cannot define God. Inherent worth is that which calls us beyond our human imaginings, projections, and limitations into a world of mystery, reverence, beauty and awe. It is a compelling invitation to live humbly and to walk in all the ways of love along a path forward we have yet to discern, but for which we long. As part of the First Principle, inherent worth makes explicit our vision of a world not yet obtained, but worth striving for, worth covenanting for. For as we check our assumptions and ego rationalizations against a wondrous existence, we enter the undiscovered country where we and the many others may live well.

Dignity Let us begin with a description of what dignity means according to the online encyclopedia, Wikipedia: Dignity is a term used in moral, ethical, legal, and political discussions to signify that a being has an innate right to be valued and receive ethical treatment. It is an extension of the Enlightenment-era concepts of inherent, inalienable rights. Dignity is often used in proscriptive and cautionary ways: for example in politics it is usually used to critique the treatment of oppressed and vulnerable groups and peoples, but it has also been extended to apply to cultures and sub-cultures, religious beliefs and ideals, animals used for food or research, and plants. Dignity also has descriptive meanings pertaining to human worth, although there is no exact or agreed upon definition of this worth. In general, the term has various functions and meanings depending on how the term is used and on the context. Though dignity has long been used in conjunction with protecting vulnerable human groups, it is now used in discussions for other species as well. Dignity, then, as used in the Unitarian Universalist First Principle, pertains to “beings” and their inherent right to be valued and to receive ethical treatment. To have dignity does not prescribe how each is to be treated, and what precise actions are moral or ethical, only that the vulnerable group merits moral attention because of their presence on this earth, and that individuals’ needs matter. For humans, we might more easily see the dignity of those species more closely related to us, and who are more intelligent and social, including other primates, cetaceans, and smart and social birds such as crows and parrots. Upon closer reflection, though, we can see how each species and individual evolved to exist in a particular time, place, and ecological niche, and that this placement is one that calls us to deeply respect the forces of nature that gave birth to such wonder and intricate relationships. Each individual portrays their deep embeddedness in a shared evolutionary path, and though this path may become crowded with the needs of the many, each occupies their place with dignity. We know not where the road may take us all, but we do know that we journey together. Comment by Mark Causey: There is a fairly standard philosophical distinction that I think might be helpful here. Moral philosopher, Kenneth Goodpaster, back in 1978 made a helpful distinction between "moral considerability" and "moral significance." Moral considerability is the question of whether an entity should be taken into account morally *at all.* Moral significance is about *how much* that entity is to be taken into account, It seems to me that what we are asking here in terms of inherent worth and dignity is that we expand our notion of moral considerability to include all beings. If we humans could just take that first step it would be amazing and completely transformational! After we take that first step, then can worry about the harder issues of moral significance in light of the sorts of conflicting interest claims that inevitably occur in life. It may be that we legitimately consider some entities as having more moral significance than some others, but that should be predicated upon the recognition that all possess moral considerability at least. It seems to me that we sometimes get hung up in our discussions by wanting to rush

ahead into the thorny issues of moral significance before we have even taken the first step of expanding our conception of moral considerability to all. To me, inherent worth and dignity means at the very least having moral considerability. I see no reason why moral considerability should be limited to just humans, and I don't believe that in our heart of hearts we really believe it is that limited.

Being The Online Mirriam Dictionary defines being broadly as something that exists, or even is thought to exist. In this context, being, for some, includes everything in the universe, including stars, rivers, mountains, rocks, plants, trees, fungi, bacteria and animals. Being may also refer to only things that are alive, and for some, this would include plants, bacteria, and fungi. Further refinement of being for some means only those species that are sentient. This raises the question, what do we mean by sentient? This too has variable meanings, but mostly refers to the ability to perceive or feel things, such as being able to feel, see, hear, smell, or taste. Sentience also means being aware. We Unitarian Universalists are not alone in grappling with the understanding of being. Wikipedia, for example, says: "Being is an extremely broad concept encompassing objective and subjective features of reality and existence. Anything that partakes in being is also called a "being", though often this use is limited to entities that have subjectivity (as in the expression "human being"). So broad a notion has inevitably been elusive and controversial in the history of philosophy, beginning in western philosophy with attempts among the pre-Socratics to deploy it intelligibly." How are we then to use "being" intelligibly when we speak of the First Principle? How can we as Unitarian Universalists have shared meanings when the word being refers more to poetry and metaphor than to scientific understanding or philosophic exactitude? Let me offer some insights that might develop and deepen our use of the word. 1. Language of reverence and religion is indeed like metaphor and poetry. Words only point to how we make meaning from our experiences of reality and we use them broadly in connecting to one another in themes that are beyond words. By leaving "being" open to interpretation, much as we would the word "God" we allow spaciousness for individual discernment in making meaning and determining action in life. 2. Currently the First Principle uses the word, "person," which is also open to interpretation. In Wikipedia, a person "is a being, such as a human, that has certain capacities or attributes constituting personhood, which in turn is defined differently by different authors in different disciplines, and by different cultures in different times and places." Person in ethics also denotes those individuals that merit moral consideration, including nonhuman species. In most common usage, however, person refers to Homo sapiens and for this reason replacing being with person will be more inclusive for the multiple species for which we humans have moral concern. 3. We could replace person in the First Principle with individual instead of being. This has possibilities in that individual can refer to humans and nonhumans, yet does seem to explicitly exclude non living entities (which would be a relief to some, and problematic for others). Karl Marx writes of individuality:

"It depends not on consciousness , but on being ; not on thought, but on life; it depends on the individual's empirical development and manifestation of life, which in turn depends on the conditions existing in the world." In both instances #2 and #3 above, the terms person and individual loop back to meaning being, with being suggesting the most broadly inclusive of species other than humans, at least in popular vernacular. For this reason, I suggest the use of being above all others as we have centuries of social constructs to deconstruct and need the most ample terms as possible to lead us away from drawing a firm line where worth and dignity and moral concern begin and end. Being compels our minds to wander, and our hearts to wonder, both a noble pursuit for Unitarian Universalists. Regardless of how each defines "being" the goal is to grow our circle of compassion for individuals, including ourselves, as we grow our own sense of belonging to and interconnecting with all of existence.