Nonhuman Rights Project and the Unitarian Universalist Principles

Guest author:  Steven M. Wise

President

Nonhuman Rights Project

On December 2, 2013, I filed a habeas corpus lawsuit in the Fulton County, New York, Supreme Court demanding the immediate release of a person who had been imprisoned for years, alone, in a cage in a warehouse on a used trailer lot in rural Gloversville with nothing but a small television for comfort and company. The next day I filed a similar lawsuit on behalf of another person who, for many years, had been imprisoned in a cage in the back of a cement storefront in Niagara Falls. Two days later I filed a third lawsuit on behalf of two persons who had been held for five years in the basement of a Stony Brook University computer building. There wires had been thrust into their muscles and they were forced to undergo general anesthesia every few weeks. 

I filed those three suits as an attorney for the Nonhuman Rights Project on behalf of chimpanzees. Attached to our habeas corpus petitions were nearly a hundred pages of affidavits from some of the most experienced and respected chimpanzee scientists in the world, from Japan, Sweden, Germany, Scotland, England, and the United States. They demonstrated that chimpanzees have capacities for autonomy and self-determination, that they possess an autobiographical self, episodic memory, self-consciousness, self-knowingness, self-agency, referential and intentional communication, empathy, a working memory, language, metacognition, numerosity, and material, social, and symbolic culture, that they have the ability to plan, engage in mental time-travel, act intentionally, engage in sequential learning, mediational learning, mental state modeling, visual perspective-taking, cross-modal perception, that they can understand cause-and-effect and the experiences of others, that they can imagine, imitate, engage in deferred imitation, emulate, innovate, and use and make tools. Our arguments were explicitly grounded in scientific fact, justice as it has long been understood in the Anglo-American tradition, as well as the liberty, dignity, equity, and equality of each prisoner. In subsequent cases, we filed seven more affidavits that showed that chimpanzees routinely bear duties and responsibilities both within chimpanzee communities and within human/chimpanzee communities.

In short, contrary to a species solipsism that permits us humans to pretend that only humans had minds, chimpanzees live intellectually rich, emotional, and sophisticated individual, family and community lives. They recall their past and anticipate their future and, when their future is imprisonment, they suffer the enduring pain of isolation and the inability to fulfill their life’s goals or even move about as they wish, as we humans do. In short they are, or ought to be, persons, at least to the extent of being able to demand freedom from imprisonment.

The First Principle of Unitarian Universalism affirms and promotes the inherent worth and dignity of every “person.” The word “person” has multiple senses. In the legal world I inhabit it is not a synonym for “human being”; it is a protean concept. A legal “person” is an entity that evolving ideas of justice, equality, liberty, policy, and morality demand we ought to treat as if he or she possesses inherent worth and dignity. “Person,” we show, is not restricted to humans; it is not even a biological category.

In its legal memoranda, the Nonhuman Rights Project walked the judges through an Anglo-American legal history in which, over the last quarter millennium, women, blacks, Native Americans, children, and others who were once treated as “things” - those who lack the capacity for any legal rights - and not “persons” - those who possess the capacity for legal rights. We demonstrated how even such entitles as corporations, ships, Sikh Holy Books, a Hindu idol, and a New Zealand river came to be treated as “persons” for some purpose in parts of the English-speaking world, and argued that, as a result of new scientific discoveries about chimpanzee minds, advances in public morality, and the accretion of human experience, the time had come for chimpanzees to be treated as “persons,” at least to the extent of preventing their confinement and exploitation. Oppressing a chimpanzee who suffers oppression in a way similar to how we suffer oppressions is morally wrong and is inconsistent with the vision of the First Principle. Their thinghood strips chimpanzees of their inherent worth and dignity and relegates them to the status of a nonperson, a slave; it entirely undermines their ability to exercise their autonomy, as it would undermine yours.

On the other hand, the word “person” is often understood outside the courtroom as being synonymous with “human.” To the extent this sense is enshrined in the First Principle, the “First Principle Project” seeks to widen the circle of those individuals entitled to be treated as if they have intrinsic worth and dignity to all beings. That is why the Unitarian Universalist Animal Ministry initiated the First Principle Project, which is now a collaboration of sponsoring congregations and organizations. The First Principle Project proposes that the First Principle be amended to substitute “being” for “person.” Its purpose is to emphasize that individual worth and dignity go beyond just human beings to bring all the individuals who comprise the interdependent web of existence to which the Seventh Principle speaks within the circle of moral concern. It is fully within this spirit that the Nonhuman Rights Project works to assure fundamental legal rights to those beings for whom real legal rights, as well as moral rights, are most appropriate.

The Second Principle of Unitarian Universalism is a call for justice, equity, and compassion to human beings. But in the first quarter of the 21^st Century, in light of the ongoing scientific inquiries into the nature of so many nonhumans, it would be unjust and inequitable to limit the ideals of justice, equity, and compassion to human beings. The Seven Principles derive from the Six Principles that accompanied the 1961 formation of the Unitarian Universalist Association, which were revised and extended to the Seven Principles in 1985. Both the First And Second Principles were drafted and discussed at a time before the explosion of scientific knowledge began that has allowed us to begin to understand how remarkably autonomous chimpanzees are. A more equitable, humane, and just reading of the Second Principle would take into account the evolution of scientific knowledge, morals, and human experience, and ask that justice, equity, and compassion be extended to those who can understand they are benefitting from it,

The Sixth Principle of Unitarian Universalism affirms and promotes the goal of world community with peace, liberty, and justice for all. Again the question is “who is encompassed by the word ‘all.’” An appropriate response might be that  “all” should embrace those who can flourish in the medium of peace, liberty, and justice. Whomever else may be a part of that “all,” science has left us with no doubt that the chimpanzees the Nonhuman Rights Project has chosen as its first plaintiffs should. But the science is not limited to chimpanzees. Our knowledge about the minds of nonhuman animals from great apes to elephants to whales to parrots and corvids, dogs, and others continues rapidly to expand.

The Seventh Principle, introduced in 1985, suggests respect for the interdependent web of all existence of which we are a part: as early as 1985, the Unitarian Universalists were beginning to look past the ancient prejudice that only one species, out of the more than ten million who share the earth, should count. However, the Seventh Principle is vague about the degree to which humans might respect the many individuals who comprise this web, and how.

Not only are apes, whales, elephants, and many others part of the interdependent web of all existence, they are nearly the same part. The cognitively complex qualities we share should surprise no one who knows that we also share a substantial portion of our DNA, have brains that are similarly plastic, flexible, and heavily dependent upon learning. As Mark Causey, President of the Unitarian Universalist Animal Ministry, reminds us: “we are all made of the same star-stuff and all share a common destiny. We all share the same hopes of a life free from harm and suffering and the same aspirations of happiness, love, and flourishing—being able to express our own unique natures and capacities as best we may.” Not only is the Seventh Principle a call to embrace something greater than oneself, but to embrace something greater than one’s species.

Principles of equity and equality suggest that the Seventh Principle should cause us to embrace any one of our fellow species consonant with the nature of that species. As James Russell Lowell wrote: “New occasions teach new duties. Time makes ancient good uncouth.” The respect to which our fellow beings should be entitled should harmonize with who they are, and we learning more every now who they are.

If you wish to learn more about the ongoing work of the Nonhuman Rights Project, please visit our webpage at www.nonhumanrights.org, look us up on Facebook, or follow us on twitter.

Steven M. Wise, Esq.

March 30, 2016

Engaging Jennifer

Guest Author: Meredith Garmon
Minister, Community Unitarian Church at White Plains

Editor's Note:
Thank you Jennifer and Meredith for engaging in this important and life saving conversation, and helping the rest of us think about this, and then act upon it.
Rev. LoraKim Joyner - First Principle Project Facilitator

My claims: Every being has inherent worth and dignity. Not every being has equal claim to our resources of care.

The principle of the inherent worth and dignity of every person does not mean that I am obligated to expend as much of my time and resources of care on my neighbors as on my family. (I do, in fact, take seriously our fourth source’s call “to respond to God’s love by loving our neighbors as ourselves,” but this doesn’t mean I generally spend as much time with them as I do with my family.)

Likewise, the worth and dignity of every being does not require equal distribution of my resources of care to each individual being. Dustmites have inherent worth and dignity, but I am not obligated to expend as much of my resources of care protecting individual dustmites as on pigs, cows, dogs, cats, chimps, dolphins, and blue and gold macaws.

In her post, “A Way Forward for Animal Advocates Who Would Campaign for a New UU Principle” (2014 Oct 28 - CLICK HERE), Jennifer Greene expresses doubts about the inherent worth and dignity of every being.

“As Wrong”

Part of Jennifer's position presents in terms of a dispute about “as wrong.”

“Do I believe it's as wrong to kill an ant, as a human? No, I believe it's far more wrong to kill a human than an ant.”

And she mentions, by way of contrast, Norm Phelps, who, “maintains that it's as wrong to kill an insect as a human.”

But disagreements about what is “as wrong” as what shed no light on the issue. “As wrong” is unnecessary – it doesn’t help the case for the principle of worth/dignity of every being. And “as wrong” is hopelessly ambiguous. When someone says "A is as wrong as B," they might mean

"The punishment for A should be the same as the punishment for B."

Or they might mean,

"A and B call for similar voicings of denunciation -- in the same way that we denounce stealing a candy bar as firmly as we denounce stealing a car -- though of course the punishments should differ, and the resources of law enforcement to prevent them should differ."

Or they might mean,

"It is true that A is wrong, and it is just as much true that B is wrong -- in the way that "$1 is money" is just as much true as "$10 is money.' Though $10 is certainly not equal to $1, the truth of the two statements is equal."

In the end, this "as wrong" talk should be regarded as merely a rhetorical flourish. We can affirm that all beings have worth and dignity without needing to advance any claims about equality of wrongness.

“Equal”

Jennifer helpfully mentions Mylan Engel’s distinction between “equal” and “mere” (or “nonzero”) considerability. “Equal considerability,” (EC) defended by Peter Singer and Tom Regan, says “we owe humans and sentient nonhumans exactly the same degree of moral consideration.” “Mere considerability” says “animals deserve some moral consideration, although not as much consideration as that owed to humans.” Mylan Engel, Jennifer, and I all agree that, as Jennifer puts it,

“it's not necessary to hold EC, in order to make an argument from consistency for the wrongness of even the most entrenched form of animal exploitation (i.e., the use of animals for food).”

While “inherent worth and dignity of every being” does not imply EC, notions of equality have sometimes entered the conversation. Jennifer references Mark Causey’s “Inherent Worth” (2014 Feb 20 -- CLICK HERE). Here’s Mark’s relevant paragraph:

“One of the most common objections I hear when presenting or talking about the First Principle Project is the objection that replacing the word ‘person’ with the word ‘being’ now means that we are all the same. ‘Does that mean that a tapeworm or a cockroach has exactly the same inherent value as a human being?!’ What I believe has happened here is that the objector has subconsciously inserted the word ‘equal’ into the formulation of the revised principle. What we are saying is that we are ‘called to affirm and promote the inherent worth and dignity of all beings.’ What the objector is hearing is that we are ‘called to affirm and promote the equal inherent worth and dignity of all beings.’ If every being has equal inherent worth, does that mean I can no longer swat a mosquito? But the First Principle project is not proposing to insert the word ‘equal’ into the principle. It is quite natural for us to hear the word ‘equal’ here because it is implied (although not explicitly stated) in the current wording of the principle. What we hear in the current first principle is that all persons, regardless of race, sex, ability, identification, etc., have equal worth and dignity. We are so used to fighting for the principle of equality amongst humans, as we should, that we automatically transfer this notion to the proposed changed wording including all beings.”

It’s true that the progress of morality among humans has been tied up with conceptions of “equality.” The language that emerged in Europe’s feudal period asserted that the landed classes were “betters” and “superiors.” Dismantling the lingering assumptions of that time were helped by insisting, “we’re all equal.” The work of ending discrimination continues to have a great need to invoke “equal protection of the law.” Whatever equality has meant – as a value and an ideal for human-human relations and for human institutions -- it has never meant that we expected anyone to devote the resources of their care just the same to everyone. We have always understood that people will be more devoted to their friends and family than to others. Equality has never meant the complete obliteration of loyalty.

So if people are, as Mark suggests, “subconsciously insert[ing] the word ‘equal’ into the formulation of the revised principle,” the problem isn’t that they are assuming the same kind of equality among animals that the current first principle now indicates among humans. Rather, the problem is that people may be – bizarrely -- inserting into the formulation of the revised principle a much stronger notion of equality than any kind of equality we affirm among humans.

Jennifer then says,

“But not everyone shares Mark's view. To others, ‘inherent worth and dignity of every being’ does imply equality.”

If there are, indeed, “others” who think this way, then let us endeavor to disabuse of them of their obvious mistake. I have already indicated the basic strategy: Almost certainly these “others” do not imagine that the inherent worth and dignity of every person requires equal energy of care to every person. So they cannot reasonably imagine that total equality of energy of care suddenly appears when we expand the circle of some care from “every person” to “every being.”

Speaking of Expanding the Circle…

Jennifer cites Rev. Karen Brammer’s post (2014 Oct 11 -- CLICK HERE). Karen says:

"I have difficulty increasing the reach of the first principle to non-human individuals when we have so much more intentional human bridge-building to do."

When we expand the circle of our care – expand the circle of those to whom we extend some care – it never damages those who were already in the circle. I don’t spend as much of my resources of care on my neighbors as on my family, but I nevertheless care about my neighbor. Doing so doesn’t harm my care of my family – in fact, I am better able to be present and loving to my family when I’m a generally kind person to my neighbors. Caring about, and building bridges of connection to people of a different human culture don’t harm my own culture, but strengthen it. In similar manner, caring about animals doesn’t detract from caring about people. Just the opposite. Whenever we expand the circle of care, the total “regime of care” is strengthened.

LoraKim Joyner’s post (2014 Dec 4 -- CLICK HERE) explained in some detail how helping nonhuman animals helps humans. Empathy and concern for nonhumans expands our capacity for empathy and concern for humans too. Karen’s concern for human bridge-building would rationally lead her toward, rather than away from, care for nonhuman animals.

The Prescriptive/Descriptive Thing

I made some of the above points to Jennifer in comments on Facebook. She said,

It is certainly a fact that we spend our time and resources of care more on certain individuals than on others. But when it comes to humans, we don't accept that as an argument against the idea of our "equal worth." "Equal worth" and "equality" are usually understood to be prescriptive, as opposed to descriptive. We say that humans are equal under the law—and the current first principle is widely understood to be a declaration of this egalitarian view. So I am worried that you are citing the descriptive fact of unequal allocation of time and resources of care (i.e., how things are), as if to disprove that which is prescriptive—i.e., how we think things should be, or the legal protections we agree should be applied to kin and strangers alike.

I replied by asking how she navigates the prescriptive/descriptive thing when it comes to humans -- while at the same time spending more resources of care on her own family. Whatever it is that is prescriptive about our notions of equality of all humans, it does not interfere with our sense that it is perfectly right and just to devote more of one's resources of care on one's own family than on one's neighbors. Jennifer replied,

"Well, I think we try to do that by building fairness and equality into our laws (in recognition of our instincts for things like preferential treatment and revenge)."

At issue here is, what difference does affirming the inherent worth and dignity of every being really make? What does it ask us to do differently? The answer is: we don't know. And it's just fine that we don't know. In the mid-1980s, when UUs adopted our principles, including the first one, we didn't know where affirming the inherent worth and dignity would take us -- but it was worthwhile to make that affirmation and see.

It's important that we start with description. The human rights community has broad consensus that the thing to say is the descriptive assertion, "people have rights" -- not "people should have rights." We assert a description of the moral landscape as the first move. Jefferson, in the Declaration of Independence, affirmed that all are created equal, endowed with inalienable rights. That was a moral description. Thirteen years later came the Constitution, where we sketched one of the many possible ways we might have understood ourselves as accommodating the moral reality. The Declaration inspired the Constitution, but didn't dictate any of it.

And that's the function of a descriptive moral principle -- to inspire. Out of that inspiration we may eventually come to agreement on some prescriptions. If, as Jennifer suggests, our present first principle leads us to try to build fairness and equality into our laws, that is just one of many directions we might have gone to accommodate the reality that all persons have inherent worth and dignity. That moral truth itself stipulates nothing about fairness or equality. (That's the 2nd principle -- and there's a reason these are two different principles rather than one.)

"All beings have inherent worth and dignity," is a moral truth, not a moral rule. The new, revised first principle would tell us to simply notice. In and of itself, all it prescribes is: notice that all beings have worth and dignity. The question will arise (at least, we hope it will), "OK, what do I do about this truth once I've noticed it?" The fact calls for some response, but in itself dictates no particular response. I think it will probably tend to encourage a greater conscientiousness and mindfulness in all our relations -- but different people will go different ways with it. When a community of people commits to observe (notice) a moral reality, as time goes by, particular action ideas begin to gain popular support. Animal cruelty laws might be strengthened -- and slowly expanded to more species. Or more efforts to preserve habitats may emerge. Consumer choices might gradually shift -- not because the revised first principle will tell people to shift them, but as a natural (and naturally highly variable) result of noticing, of having in mind the moral truth that all beings have worth and dignity. Some people might merely say a little prayer for the dustmites before turning on the air purifier that will kill many of them -- even that is at least a start. Some kind of start is better than none. And where that start might lead is anybody's guess.

However we respond, collectively recognizing the truth that all beings have inherent worth and dignity helps shift us toward life, connection, and greater joy in all we do -- whatever we do.

A Way Forward for Animal Advocates Who Would Campaign for a New UU Principle

Guest Author:  Jennifer Greene

Jennifer is lead author of the new food education curriculum, Demonstrating Our Values through Eating (DOVE). She has served as RE director at the South Nassau Unitarian Universalist Congregation in Freeport, NY; interim RE consultant for the Unitarian Universalist Congregation of the Great South Bay; and board member for the Unitarian Universalist Animal Ministry. Jennifer is part of the Food Justice Ministry team, and she assists Dr. Melanie Joy with her international speaking tours.

Gratitude for the vision of this project

I appreciate the invitation to share my ideas about how this project could move forward. In her invitation, Rev. Joyner refers to "the essence of the change" that is the purpose of this project. I thank her for this reminder (if I'm understanding her correctly) that the intention which unites us is not mere bylaw amendment, but of course personal and institutional transformation. 

I am terribly excited about getting UUs to hold discussions about widening our moral circle. These discussions are so challenging, but so important.

Let me begin this post by focusing on some of the questions currently posed by the First Principle Project (FPP).

Two different questions—one easier than the other

In its second sentence, the sidebar at the FPP blog poses a profound question: do species besides humans have worth and dignity? 

Most UUs could surely name some non-human species that they believe to be endowed with worth and dignity. Just a single example is all that's needed to collapse the "humans are the only ones" belief. For example, if the worth and dignity of Coco the gorilla and her kin is evident to us, we need look no further than her species in order to answer the question in the affirmative: yes, species besides humans have worth and dignity.

The sidebar continues, explaining in the very next sentence that the blog's essays will relate to the question, "Does every being have worth and dignity?"

This question, whether every being has worth and dignity, is quite a different question than the previous one. 

This question is not about collapsing the "humans are the only ones" belief. This question is asking if we can draw the circle representing those-with-worth-and-dignity so wide that it includes not just Coco, not just your dog or my cat, but every being. This question raises more challenging questions. Is a sponge a being? What does it mean for a tapeworm to have worth and dignity? And so on.

Is it clear, I hope, why these are very different questions? On more than one occasion, I have observed the conflation of the two; as if the proposed revision of the first principle is about collapsing the "humans are the only ones" belief, when in actuality the proposed revision is about asserting a far more expansive claim: "the worth and dignity of every being."

Another hard question; a common intuition versus bodhisattva-consciousness

Elsewhere, the FPP materials pose this question: are you comfortable with this statement, "…[humans] merit the same moral consideration as all [other species]." 

If you are a Buddhist, or Hindu, or Jain, you might indeed be comfortable with this statement, since Buddhist, Hindu, and Jain teachings promote this. (If my understanding about this is wrong, I hope someone will correct me on this point.)

But even ethicists known for challenging the hard line between humans and other-than-humans have held that in lifeboat-dilemma scenarios, it's possible (some of them say it's required) to give preference to a human's life over a non-human's life. [1] In other words, even prominent pro-animal ethicists seem prone to the intuition that humans may merit greater moral consideration than other species. 

I do not know if this intuition of unequal interspecies moral consideration will ever be eradicated from human cultures in general. I wonder what kind of spiritual evolution it will to take for most people to agree that it's as wrong to kill a turkey, as a human; and that it's as wrong to kill an ant, as a turkey. There are religions other than Unitarian Universalism which already teach this, and there are individuals within the Unitarian Universalist denomination who believe this. Am I one of them? Do I believe it's as wrong to kill an ant, as a human? No, I believe it's far more wrong to kill a human than an ant. I won't rule out the possibility of feeling differently someday, but that's my present view.

While I don't believe that killing an ant or turkey is as wrong as killing a human, my day-to-day behavior toward ants and turkeys and other animals is the very same as Norm Phelps' behavior toward them, and Norm maintains that it's as wrong to kill an insect as a human.  How can this be, that Norm and I do not hold the same beliefs about moral considerability across animal species, yet our behavior is the same? What lessons does this hold for UUs who would campaign to widen our moral circle? 

The "mere considerability premise" is enough

Philosophy professor Mylan Engel, Jr. explores the differences between the equal considerability premise (Norm's position) and the "mere" (non-zero) considerability premise (my position) in his essay,"The Mere Considerability of Animals." Engel demonstrates that belief in the equal considerability premise (EC) is "a stronger and more contentious premise than is needed" to take a principled stand against animals' exploitation and oppression. Engel shows that it's not necessary to hold EC, in order to make an argument from consistency for the wrongness of even the most entrenched form of animal exploitation (i.e., the use of animals for food).[2]

Needless harm is inflicted on, for instance, more than 8.8 billion birds by the United States' poultry industry each year. If you think what explains this is people's lack of belief in "moral equality" between birds and humans, then it makes sense that you might see a need to push for adoption of the EC. But there's another possibility: it could be that people don't need new belief in EC. Instead, it could be that what's needed is for people to close the gap between their presently-held belief (in the non-zero considerability of birds), and their actions, which are not consistent with their own belief. This is the essence of Engel's consistency argument.

One of the things I appreciate about the consistency argument is that it promotes a profound optimism about people's goodness. It expresses a confidence in the beliefs people already have, in their core values of kindness, justice, mercy and compassion. This strikes me as theologically very UU. 

Does the FPP promote EC, or not?

Mark Causey has argued that the proposed revision to the First Principle is not attempting to posit EC.[3]  But not everyone shares Mark's view. To others, "inherent worth and dignity of every being" does imply equality. It's easy to understand why they think it does.[4]

I recognize that some of us cherish the "inherent worth and dignity of every being" phrase. I know that it's a personal credo for some. But to the extent that it's interpreted as promoting EC, it triggers resistance in many UUs.

Let's reframe the project

I'm sure that at this point, I have not persuaded every last FPP supporter to abandon the dream of changing the first principle. That's fine; I didn't expect to. I am simply hoping to persuade you that a reframingof the project could be a productive way forward. 

Here's what I mean: we could reframe this project as the New Principle Project, taking the position that to keep up with the times, our principles ought to include acknowledgment that sentience endows other-than-humans with moral interests, and that our moral community ought to extend beyond our own species. We therefore need a new principle. And then, rather than ask UUs whether they support revising the first principle, yes or no, the question could be this: given our need for a new principle, which do you favor—a revised first, a revised second, an augmented seventh, or a new eighth? 

If we ask a different question, might we achieve our purpose better?

Rev. Brammer, in her recent guest post to the FPP blog, wrote, "I have difficulty increasing the reach of the first principle to non-human individuals when we have so much more intentional human bridge-building to do."  If we asked her to tell us which approach to a new principle she would favor, might we get a different answer? We might discover that a differently-framed question would keep the door open to inter-movement solidarity.[5]

This project could decide to seek the answer to this question: 

     In light of our need for a new principle, which do you favor?

     The inherent worth and dignity of every being (a revised first)

     Justice, equity, and compassion in all our relations (a revised second)

     Respect for the interdependent web of all existence of which we are a part, 

          and for the interests of individual beings as well (an augmented seventh)

     Respect for the sentient creatures, great and small, who dwell with us on Earth. (a new eighth)

What would be the practical implications of turning the FPP into the NPP? The essays in favor of revising the first principle would still be relevant resources, but the conversation going forward would not be limited to the question of revising the first. If I understand the conversation Rev. Joyner had recently with Jim Key, fifteen congregations must all pass the same resolution concerning the bylaw amendment. The NPP I'm proposing is compatible with that requirement.[6] 

The risk of lost opportunities, the cost to animals

I'm urging the collaboratory to embrace this course adjustment because of the reactions I've observed to the proposed first principle revision. I've seen non-vegans (and we know the vast majority of UUs are still in this category) react negatively, in part I think because the proposal seems too extreme—because "every being" makes them think about tapeworms and dust mites, rather than the chickens on their plates or the cows on their feet. 

I know you've been doing your best to address this, with thoughtful writings about the meaning of being, and about the meaning of worth and dignity—but I'm afraid the current wording will remain a stumbling block for many. The proposed first principle revision reinforces their impression that those of us who are animal advocates are rather different from them. It adds to their perception that we're pushing an "extreme" agenda (possibly even an EC premise, which, as I discussed above, runs counter to common intuitions about the moral permissibility of giving human life preference over non-human life in cases of true conflict). 

If the only proposal you continue to put forward is this first principle revision, there is a real danger you will be contributing to this unfortunate notion that to be an animal advocate requires profoundly different beliefs than the ones most people hold. The impression some people have already taken away from their encounter with the first principle proposal is that there's a considerable distance between where they are and where FPP wants them to be, a chasm which may be so wide they cannot picture themselves crossing it.[7] But if you reframe this project now by also putting forward some possibilities which are more clearly compatible with the mere-considerability position (which, I want to reiterate, is the position held by myself, by prominent pro-animal ethicists, and by at least some members of this collaboratory too), you'll mitigate the risk of making such a counterproductive impression, going forward.

A more inclusive, more productive way forward

If this project has been conceived in order to foster personal and institutional transformations, to lift up our obligation to recognize the interests of non-human beings, and to expand our circle of compassion, then it seems to me a New Principle Project as I've described here offers a way forward that could, possibly, be more inclusive while not losing the original purpose of, or existing contributions to, the First Principle Project. 

[1] Schweitzer, Singer, Regan, and Francione all hold that under the "equal moral significance" premise, it's still possible (some of them would say required) to give preference to a human's life over a non-human's life, in lifeboat-dilemma scenarios.

[2] Argument from consistency is the same approach presented by Gary Francione and Anna Charlton in Eat Like You Care: An Examination of the Morality of Eating Animals. 

[3] Mark writes: "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."

[4] As Mark notes in his "Inherent Worth" blogpost, it's natural that many UUs will understand an implication of EC in the inherent worth and dignity of every being.  They hear "equal" because the First Principle as it exists now intends exactly that message of EC among humans.

[5] As justice activists, we need to ask ourselves: does it matter, the ways that different forms of oppression mirror and interact with one another? Many of us think so, and we've appreciated the perspective of pattrice jones, for example, who explains that eating meat is something we do to someone else's body without their consent, of  A. Breeze Harper, of Jasmin Singer, of others who are making connections in justice work, explaining why, for instance, dairy is not just an issue of animal exploitation—it's an environmental issue, an issue for feminists, an issue of race and ethnocentrism, too.

These activists say that people doing various kinds of anti-oppression work need to be allies, and inter-movement solidarity is important. Part of that work is unpacking our own privilege(s), be that white or straight or male or cisgender or economic or able-bodied or another form of privilege. Does being human in a multispecies world call for some unpacking, too? Without a doubt. 

[6] Congregations could decide which of the following they want to pass:

a) We the (insert congregation name) do hereby call on the General Assembly of the UUA to omit "every person" and replace with "every being" in Article II Principles and Purposes, Section c-2.1 Principles, Line 12, UUA bylaws.

b) We the (insert congregation name) do hereby call on the General Assembly of the UUA to omit "human" and replace with "all our" in Article II Principles and Purposes, Section c-2.1 Principles, Line 13, UUA bylaws.

c) We the (insert congregation name) do hereby call on the General Assembly of the UUA to append ", and for the interests of individual beings as well" in Article II Principles and Purposes, Section c-2.1 Principles, Line 21, UUA bylaws.

d) We the (insert congregation name) do hereby call on the General Assembly of the UUA to insert "• Respect for the sentient creatures, great and small, who dwell with us on Earth." in Article II Principles and Purposes, Section c-2.1 Principles, after Line 21, UUA bylaws.

Just as FPP supplied the precise wording for congregations to pass in support of the first principle revision, the expanded NPP would supply the precise wording for congregations to pass in support of the other possibilities (a second principle revision, a seventh principle augmentation, or a new eighth principle). And it's conceivable that more than one change could be passed by fifteen congregations. This process would offer congregations more pathways to participation in the conversation, and could stimulate more attention than the binary, yes-or-no question regarding the first principle.

[7] I have found no better description of the tragedy of this lost opportunity than the following passage, written by Michael Greger in 2005 (this is an excerpt from his reflection for Satya Magazine in which he questions the wisdom of making a big deal about honey avoidance):

It’s happened to me over and over. Someone will ask me why I’m vegan—it could be a new friend, co-worker, distant family, or a complete stranger. I know I then have but a tiny window of opportunity to indelibly convey their first impression of veganism. I’m either going to open that window for that person, breezing in fresh ideas and sunlight, or slam it shut as the blinds fall. So I talk to them of mercy. Of the cats and dogs with whom they’ve shared their lives. Of birds with a half piece of paper’s worth of space in which to live and die. Of animals sometimes literally suffering to death. I used to eat meat too, I tell them. Lots of meat. And I never knew either.

Slowly but surely the horror dawns on them. You start to see them struggling internally. How can they pet their dog with one hand and stab a piece of pig with the other? They love animals, but they eat animals. Then, just when their conscience seems to be winning out, they learn that we don’t eat honey. And you can see the conflict drain away with an almost visible sigh. They finally think they understand what this whole “vegan” thing is all about. You’re not vegan because you’re trying to be kind or compassionate—you’re just crazy! They smile. They point. You almost had me going for a second, they chuckle. Whew, that was a close one. They almost had to seriously think about the issues. They may have just been considering boycotting eggs, arguably the most concentrated form of animal cruelty, and then the thought hits them that you’re standing up for insect rights. Maybe they imagine us putting out little thimble-sized bowls of food for the cockroaches every night.

Dignity - Our Principles Defined Part IV

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.

Rev. LoraKim Joyner, DVM

First Principle Project Facilitator

Draw the Circle Wide

Today's Guest Author:  Stephen Vrla

Stephen is a PhD student at Michigan State University, where he studies sociology, animal studies, and environmental science and policy.  His research focuses on how educational institutions affect children's attitudes toward animals and the environment.  He also helps facilitate the high school religious education group at the Unitarian Universalist Church of Greater Lansing in East Lansing, MI.

Sermon

Delivered 4/27/2014 at the Unitarian Universalist Church of Greater Lansing

East Lansing, MI

To listen to the sermon (and all the responses) click here.

Hi! For those of you who don’t already know me, my name is Stephen Vrla. I moved to East Lansing last summer to start graduate school at MSU, and I’ve been coming to UUCGL ever since. As the Young Adult Group was planning this Earth Day service, I volunteered to reflect on my experience with Unitarian Universalism and offer my thoughts on its connection to non- human animals and the environment. However, we all agreed that we really want to hear your experiences and thoughts, too. For that reason, we’ve decided to make this an interactive reflection. Throughout it, I’ll ask you questions and encourage you to text in your responses. So if you tucked your phone away or turned it off before the service—thanks for doing that, by the way—please go ahead and take it out. Some of your responses will be displayed on the screen, and we’ll have time to read through them before I give my own response. We’ll also have time for you to call out your responses in case you don’t have a phone with you or would prefer not to text in. To get started, please think about the following question, and, if you’re interested, text in the code on the screen, followed by your response, to the number on the screen: In a word or two, describe the feeling you had when you first discovered Unitarian Universalism. (Read some of the responses out loud.) Now, if you would like to call out a response, please do so. (Repeat responses as they’re called out.)

I first discovered Unitarian Universalism was two and a half years ago at the First Unitarian Universalist Church of Houston, Texas. Although I remember being enthusiastically greeted by a member of the welcome team, my most distinct memory is of what I saw when I entered the sanctuary: whereas the Lutheran church I grew up in had an imposing, wooden cross hanging above its altar, this church had an delicate, metal sculpture of a flock of seabirds flying over its pulpit. Before the minister had spoken a word, I knew this church was different from any other church I had been to, and it was this difference that brought me back the following Sunday, and almost every subsequent Sunday for the rest of the year. Now, to be fair, I later learned that the seabird sculpture was pretty controversial at First UU. Some members of the congregation loved it, but others hated it, and one of the ministers not-so-lovingly admitted that, when he delivered sermons, he felt that he belonged on the poster of Alfred Hitchcock’s film The Birds. So, maybe I shouldn’t have based my first impression of the church on the sculpture. Still, I believed at the time, and continue to believe now, that a church that values animals and the environment enough to put a representation of them in so prominent a position warrants a second visit.

Though that was my first direct experience with UU, I was actually introduced to it a couple years earlier. As a college senior, I took an environmental science course called Nature and Society. I had initially assumed it would focus on ecology and other natural sciences, but I soon realized that wouldn’t be the case. Instead, it focused on the relationship among people, animals, and nature. The natural sciences, the professor argued, are an important perspective through which to consider this relationship, but so are the social sciences and humanities. Indeed, one of the key takeaways from the course was an ethical concept called the Circle of Moral Community. Before I describe what my professor meant by this concept, I’d like you to think of a few words that come to mind when you hear that phrase—the Circle of Moral Community—and, if you’re

willing, text them in. Again, text in the code on the screen, followed by your response, to the number on the screen. (Read some of the responses out loud.) Now, if you would like to call out a response, please do so. (Repeat responses as they’re called out.)

According to my professor, the Circle of Moral Community is a metaphorical circle enclosing every being a community, society, or individual considers to have moral value; in other words, it’s a group including all beings considered to have inherent worth and dignity. People, animals, and nature can all be included in this group, but they can also be excluded from it. In the nineteenth century, for example, American society included white men in its Circle, but excluded non-whites, women, and other marginalized human groups as well as animals and nature. Today, our society includes many more once-marginalized groups in its Circle, but it continues to exclude many others.

Now I said that this course introduced me to UU, and I didn’t misspeak. That being said, my professor never spoke of UU directly. Rather, he addressed the need to think critically about how we as individuals and as members of society define our Circles. Implicitly, he also called for us to redefine our Circles to include human and non-human beings who are currently excluded from it, but shouldn’t be. To me, this call to draw our Circle wide is the heart of UU. What else can Standing on the Side of Love mean but using our passion and energy to draw our society’s Circle wide and hold it there against the forces pulling it back as no-longer- marginalized beings rush in to join us? To me, that’s exactly what UUs have been doing throughout our history, from Theodore Parker and other abolitionists to Augusta Jane Chapin and other suffragists to too many more people to list, including those of you in this hall. Please take a moment to think of how you have worked to draw our Circle of Moral Community wide, and consider texting in to share your work with the rest of us. Again, text in the code on the screen, followed by your response, to the number on the screen. (Read some of the responses out loud.) Now, if you would like to call out a response, please do so. (Repeat responses as they’re called out.)

Personally, I believe I can best honor the UU tradition of drawing the Circle of Moral Community wide by drawing it wider still. As a young adult and new UU, my work is still in its infancy. However, I would like to take a few minutes to share it with you in the hope that you might offer me your guidance and support, and perhaps even join me in it. Think back to the quotation by John Muir I read earlier in the service—“When we try to pick out anything by itself, we find that it is bound fast by a thousand invisible cords that cannot be broken to everything in the universe.” Think back to the video, “How Wolves Change Rivers,” we watched after that. To me, that quotation and that video epitomize the Seventh Principle of UU: “Respect for the interdependent web of all existence of which we are a part.” This Principle has much to teach us about how to coexist with animals and nature. As the video showed us, living according to it can lead to flourishing species, communities, and ecosystems, all of which can promote human flourishing, too.

As much as the Seventh Principle may help us draw our Circle wide enough to include non- human beings, some UUs, including me, believe that it alone is not enough. Almost two decades after the reintroduction of wolves into Yellowstone National Park, wolf reintroduction in the Northern Rocky Mountains has been successful enough that the gray wolf has been federally delisted as an endangered species. However, many scientists have argued that the delisting decision was based more on political values than on sound science, as many states’ responses to it suggest. Last year, 473 of Idaho’s wolves were killed by people through inhumane methods like aerial hunting and leg-hold trapping with little, if any, justification. Twenty-three more were killed during Michigan’s first wolf hunt in almost fifty years, again with little justification. These people could have peacefully coexisted with these wolves, but they chose not to. After all, why would they have? Their Circles clearly don’t include wolves. Somewhat surprisingly, this inhumane, unjustified killing is not in direct opposition to the Seventh Principle, which calls us to respect the web of all existence, but not necessarily the individual beings comprising it. So long as we “harvest” wolves within their “sustainable yield,” as inhumane and unjustified as this killing may be, we will not necessarily harm their and our ecosystems.

The UU Animal Ministry, of which I am a member, is a group of UUs committed to drawing our Circle wide enough to include individual animals as well as natural systems. Through our First Principle Project, we aim to promote critical discussion among UU congregations about how we might respond to animal issues like, but certainly not limited to, the recent wolf hunts. The Project takes its name from our goal to change the First Principle from “The inherent worth and dignity of every person” to “The inherent worth and dignity of every being.” We fully understand that our proposed change is controversial. To many UUs, the First Principle represents a victory for human rights and the culmination of a lifetime of work, and changing it would lessen this victory and work. However, we believe that, rather than lessening the First Principle, the change would honor the extent to which it has drawn our Circle wide by drawing it wider still.

I’m committed to drawing our Circle wide by promoting the First Principle Project and the UU Animal Ministry at UUCGL. If you’re interested in joining me, I would greatly appreciate your support. Even if you disagree with the Project’s goal or the way in which the UUAM is trying to accomplish it, I would appreciate your feedback, too. As much as our goal may be to change the First Principle, it is also to promote critical discussion of such a change.

So, that’s my future work, and I’d greatly appreciate your support in it. However, I’d also like to support you in your future work. You’ve already shared how you’ve worked to draw our Circle of Moral Community wide. Now, I’d like you to think of how you can draw it wider still, and, if you’re willing, text in one last time. Again, text in the code on the screen, followed by your response, to the number on the screen. (Read some of the responses out loud.) Now, if you would like to call out a response, please do so. (Repeat responses as they’re called out.)

Thank you very much for your time, attention, and willingness to share. And thank you for drawing the circle wide and for your commitment to draw it wider still.