General Assembly Updates

One of our First Principle congregations, along with help from the congregations in Athens, PA and New Orleans, LA, and the Commission of Social Witness, submitted a Study Action Item to be brought to the General Assembly in June 2018. Please vote yes for it.  For a current copy, go here. It is titled, "Dismantling Intersectional Justice."

The UUA Board at General Assembly June 2017  announced that it will appoint a Study Commission to look at possible changes to our Principles and Purposes.

We are organizing further events and projects. To find out more, read updates on the resource page.

The resources on this website were tuned for General Assembly. We will be updating them once we understand how the Study Commission will function.  To get regular updates, visit our facebook page.

Being an Advocate For the Earth by Changing the First Principle

Guest Author:  Rev. Sam Trumbore

Past President St. Lawrence Chapter of the Unitarian Universalist Minister's Association

Past President Unitarian Universalist Buddhist Fellowship

Minister First Unitarian Universalist Society of Albany

On Being an Advocate For the Earth

Since the dawn of civilization, humanity has been looking backward to the good old days. In Genesis, we see the prototype for this human sentiment in the Garden of Eden. Everything was wonderful and perfect until human beings follow their curiosity, enabled by the serpent who puts doubt in their minds, and eat from the forbidden tree. It all starts unraveling from there and we've been trying to get back to that garden ever since.

From the natural selection perspective of evolutionary theory, humanity has been a supremely successful species. Big brains are a very powerful adaptive resource to increase our ability to survive. Our ability to remember opportunities and threats and then anticipate them has helped us, reproduce and not get killed or eaten. And we've also evolved ways to communicate that learning through language and retain that learning beyond our own deaths. We're still talking about scientific, religious and philosophic learning that happened thousands of years ago.

Sadly our success hasn't been very good for most other life forms on this planet, except for rats, ticks, deer and cockroaches. At the rate things are going, our dominance of the biosphere will likely drive 90% of species to extinction. Chickens, turkeys, goats, sheep, cows and pigs along with wheat, corn and rice, however, have had their genes do very well. (A version of humanities love of the 1%)

The threat we pose to the planet by driving extinction rates through the roof is the way we disturb ecosystems. Human intervention in a particular place hunting a species till it disappears or selecting one species we'd like to encourage to multiply can create an imbalance with the other species of plants and animals. Remove predators and the deer population explodes. Introduce a new species like fast growing Brazilian Pepper to Florida and it takes over, soaking up all the light and creating barren ground under it. Understory plants can't survive with this bush that has no enemies to contain it.

Systems theory has helped us understand and appreciate the delicate balance that supports a wide diversity of species to survive. Removing just one species or introducing one new one can completely unbalance that system. Scientists think it takes a long time for that balance to reestablish itself since evolutionary change requires many generations of offspring to incorporate genetic changes to adapt. This could take hundreds or thousands of years. 

Human activity happens much, much faster than that.

This imbalance between the rapid speed of human activity and the slow rate that nature can adapt to our changes has created significant discouragement by those interested in preserving the biodiversity that currently exists. And that has led to an anti-humanism that can be sensed in the new philosophy of Deep Ecology. This philosophy puts a higher value on planetary welfare than on human welfare.

And there is logic to this. If we destroy the planet's ability to support life, it will be rather negative for humanity as we'll face mass extinction too. The dilemma of our age is figuring out how to balance human wants and needs verses the needs of planetary diversity of species to survive and flourish. 

Or, in other words, to survive, humanity must learn self-regulation.

Humanity does have this capacity to self-regulate ... but to make a commitment to this capacity as a planetary organism will require an evolution of consciousness. Every species puts its needs before all other species in the struggle to survive. It is eat or be eaten and grab as much territory as you can. The balance is created by the diversity of species not by any one species self-regulating. Humanity so far has operated outside this mechanism - to our peril.

Humanity is the first species that can consciously value diversity and actually take an active hand in helping it along. We are able to restore ecosystems after disrupting them. We have the power to stop polluting the air, land and water. We can recognize that increasing carbon dioxide will be a threat.

Commitment to interdependence is one of the highest priorities of our species and potentially one of the greatest gifts we can give our planet. We have the capacity to recreate the Garden of Eden through a commitment to the planet before our self-interest.

One way to make that commitment is to change our first principle from "The inherent worth and dignity of all people" to "every being."

Rev. Sam

A New World Needs a New Paradigm

I recommend this article by Unitarian Univesralist minister, the Rev. Peggy Clarke, that appeared in the Huffington Post on March 18, 2015.  Those working on any justice issue, as she points out, need not compete with one another about which justice issue merits more attention - "These issues are all the same."  This issue is the paradigm that is killing us, the planet, and the beings that share their biotic communities with one another.  She describes this paradigm of hierarchy as one that tells us "that the dominant class is on top and everything else is in service to it."

She asks us to instill a new paradigm of a Beloved Community "that topples the hierarchy and recognizes our radical interconnectedness, a paradigm that doesn't advantage any one group but life as a whole. In the new paradigm, all life is precious,"  and the needs and bodies of all individuals matter.

This is no easy paradigm to grapple with, for all humans experience both the benefit and harm of dominance.  We don't know how to "give up" all forms of dominance, now, and can't collectively imagine how to structure social institutions that do not enforce power and privilege of some over others.  How do we live, as individuals and as a society, in a way to maximizes benefit and minimizes harm?  

This question and others similar to it are the foundations of the First Principle Project. What would our lives look like if we did not draw a line between those of worth, and those without?  Would we break down rampant dualistic thinking that gives rise to oppression in both insidious and overt forms?  Could we live better, flourishing in beauty and belonging, and so save the earth and the beings that live in our shared biotic community?  

Would we more powerful together knowing, as Rev. Clarke says, that "the fight for justice is the fight for life in every form?"

In the shared quest and questioning,


LoraKim

Rev. LoraKim Joyner, DVM
First Principle Project Facilitator

Reading Mark

Guest Author: Meredith Garmon

Minister, Community Unitarian Church at White Plains

As the conversation has unfolded for more than a year since Mark Causey’s important “Inherent Worth” post (2014 Feb 20 – CLICK HERE), there are points I particularly want to re-emphasize. Here’s my interpretation and summary of the excellent points I understand Mark to have made.

“Inherent worth” contrasts with instrumental worth: something with only instrumental worth is valuable only as a means to an end; an entity with inherent worth is an end in itself. On what grounds, then, can we say any being lacks inherent worth?

Other animals are subjects of their own lives (Tom Regan). They have a biography, not just a biology. Nonhuman animals care about their own lives, have the capacity to experience pain and suffering, and can be harmed. Their lives can go better or worse for them. If human pain and suffering counts morally, then so does theirs, and we should never cause them harm without a sufficient reason.

“The question is not Can they reason?, nor Can they talk?, but Can they suffer?” (Jeremy Bentham)

Because they can suffer, and are subjects of their own lives, we cannot legitimately use then solely as instruments for our own purposes. The world is not a stockpile of resources for human exploitation.

The medieval hierarchy that Arthur Lovejoy dubbed “the Great Chain of Being” placed God at the top, followed by angels, then humans, other animals, plants, and finally inanimate things like rocks and dirt. Proffered bases for separating the human species into its own – and higher – plane have included: intelligence (rationality), the possession of a soul, being moral, having language, and so on. We now understand that all animals, including humans, share a common biological ancestor, and recent advances in our scientific understanding have largely discredited all of the above reasons given for human uniqueness. Scientific findings continue to further blur the distinction between human and nonhuman animals. The work of biologists and ethologists (Marc Bekoff, Jonathan Balcombe, Frans De Waal, and Jane Goodall, among many others), challenges us to expand our understanding of nonhuman animals’ amazing cognitive, emotional, and even moral capacities.

What differences remain between humans and other animals – such as humans’ advanced cognitive, linguistic, social, and moral capacities – are differences of degree not of kind. Moreover, every species has its uniqueness. Human uniqueness also includes limitations: we cannot echo-locate like dolphins or bats nor photosynthesize like plants. These differences are not morally relevant. Different beings aren’t better beings any more than different humans are better humans.

“All beings have inherent worth and dignity” does not mean all beings have the same value or have equal worth. It simply says that even tapeworms, cockroaches, and dustmites have some worth that is inherent and not instrumental.

Indeed, even plants and fungi warrant moral concern, for they, too, are integral parts of the interdependent web of life affirmed in the Unitarian Universalist seventh principle, as well as in Aldo Leopold’s Land Ethic:

“A land ethic changes the role of Homo sapiens from conqueror of the land-community to plain member and citizen of it...it implies respect for his fellow-members, and also respect for the community as such.”

The world into which we are born is much older, complex, and complete than we are. We are just beginning to understand the complex balance and intricacies of our planet’s ecosystems. We are increasingly realizing that the web of life as a whole has intrinsic, inherent value far beyond merely instrumental worth.

At the same time, we are sometimes justified in using some beings for our own vital needs. We are within our moral rights to eat carrots, cut down trees to build a house, or use antibiotics to cure an infection. Even Arne Naess’ Deep Ecology Movement, allows that

“any realistic praxis necessitates some killing, exploitation, and suppression.”

The First Principle Project is not asking for an unrealistic praxis. It asks to recognize that, along with our needs for instrumental use of other beings, we also recognize that they have inherent worth. It is a call to expand our circle of moral concern and compassion and to acknowledge the truth of our membership in the larger life community that has value in its own right. The beings of that community had value before Homo sapiens arrived on the scene, and they still do now.

We have always had to make difficult decisions when our legitimate interests conflict with the interests of other beings. The First Principle Project asks us to recognize that we face such difficult choices not merely when human interests conflict with other human interests, but also when human interests conflict with nonhuman interests.

When human interests conflict with interests of other beings, factors to be considered include:

1. Sentience (the ability to feel pains and pleasures.) Cows? Yes. Carrots. Probably not.

2. Consciousness (self-awareness). Conscious beings have a sense of self that persists over time and interests in how their lives go.

3. Sociality. Social beings have more complex capacities for relationships and experiences. It means that a harm to a member of the society causes pain to other members. The death of a social being is occasioned by mourning among survivors.

4. The importance of the interest to the being who has it. Vital interests trump non-vital interests. The interests of beings with sentience, consciousness, and sociality count for a lot – but not all their interests are vital. The human interest in eating a cow, when alternatives are readily available, is a preferential taste. That interest would normally be outweighed by the cow’s interest as a sentient and somewhat conscious being.

Recognizing the inherent worth of all beings entails recognizing that the rest of nature has value which does not depend on what use humans can put it to. Spiritually, affirming that principle expands our circles of compassion by opening our hearts and our arms to embrace the more-than-human world in which we live.

Instead of Guilt

Guest Author:  Rev. Dr. Meredith Garmon

Minister, Community Unitarian Church at White Plains

Sermon delivered:  February 15, 2015

Editor's Comments:  I lift up this sermon for us to read as part of the First Principle Project because in speaks clearly of the harm we all do, every day, in our choices and actions.  This brings humility to our endeavors to bring about social change, and can inspire each of us, no matter where we are on the curve of multispecies justice, to move just a little bit further along. We do this not because of guilt, but because we wish to bring our principles to life. (Rev. Dr. LoraKim Joyner)

Excerpt:

"....steps toward reducing harm will feel joyful insofar as we understand them connecting us with life. Connected to life and this Earth, small acts of care for ecological systems and the sentient beings with whom we share our planet develop our love, expand how loving we are."

Sermon

Instead of guilt, my hope, for myself and for all of us, is to be drawn by love, toward love, into acts of care for all of life.

The second source of the living tradition we share is:

"Words and deeds of prophetic women and men which challenge us to confront powers and structures of evil with justice, compassion, and the transforming power of love."

The prophetic tradition is all about speaking truth to power. What if the power to which you need to speak some truth is yourself? What does it look like to confront yourself with justice, compassion, and the transforming power of love?

Because we are all doing harm. Feeling guilty about that may not be the most helpful move, but I do think it’s good to recognize that fact. We harm other sentient beings and we harm the earth.

Strict adherents of the Indian religion Jainism carefully sweep the walkway wherever they go to avoid stepping on a bug, and wear a cloth over their mouth and nose lest they breathe in some organism. They’re trying really hard not to do any harm to any animal, but agriculture is not forbidden in Jainism. If you’re going to plough the ground, you’re going to cut through some worms and kill various microbes. There’s just no way around it.

The Pythagoreans of ancient Greece, besides being really into geometry, also had a very strict moral-religious code. They said, eat only fruits, berries, and nuts that have fallen by themselves from the tree. Don’t even hurt the tree by plucking it. I don’t know if that ever really worked, and I don’t think we could keep 7 billion humans fed that way. We’re going to need agriculture, and agriculture is going to do some killing. We do harm – and we have to.

We also harm our environment, and maybe, in this case, we don’t have to, but we will – unless and until catastrophe stops us.

The Earth does regenerate continuously, but we’re using it up faster than earth can replenish.

“Today humanity uses the equivalent of 1.5 planets to provide the resources we use and absorb our waste. This means it now takes the Earth one year and six months to regenerate what humans use up in a year. Moderate UN scenarios suggest that if current population and consumption trends continue, by the 2030s, we will need the equivalent of two Earths to support us. And of course, we only have one.” (Global Footprint Network)

If everyone lived the way the average American does, it would take four Earths to sustain the 7 billion people. We’re doing harm, and it’s pretty clear we’re going to go on doing harm. In this country a significant chunk of the populace still has doubts about whether climate change is the result of human activity, so, I don’t see the US substantially reducing the rate at which it uses up the earth any time soon.

As for you and me, are we ready to really live sustainably? Apparently not. Maybe, though, we could move a little more in that direction.

Sometimes it seems silly to try.

Some years ago my mother clipped out a comic strip from the Sunday paper and mailed it to me without comment. It was from the strip “Zits.”

Jeremy [to his friend, Pierce]: “Why aren’t you wearing your boots today, Pierce?”
Pierce: “Can’t. I’m boycotting leather in support of animal rights.”
Jeremy: “Then couldn’t you just wear your sneakers?”
Pierce: “Nope. The rubber soles are made with petroleum-based plasticizers, and I’m against arctic drilling.”
Jeremy: “What about your wooden sandals?”
Pierce: “And support deforestation? Not likely. I’m an activist, Jeremy. I have to set an example to show others that there is a better way to live.”
[Last panel, we finally see Pierce’s footwear]
Jeremy: “Hence, the tofu shoes.”
Pierce: “Teriyaki flavor. Want some?”

Sometimes the quest to do the right thing with our purchasing decisions might seem silly. Yet our purchases and what we consume really does have consequences. I wrote back to Mom:

"It’s worse than that. Tofu is made from soybeans, and if the soybeans aren’t organic, there’s the harm of nitrogen-based fertilizers, and there’s pesticides. Even if it’s all organic, there may have been monoculture growing, without proper crop rotation and variation. Finally, even if you fix all that, there’s almost certainly some oppressed labor somewhere along the way. So, Mom, where do you draw the line? Do you so thoroughly trust your government as to figure that anything they haven’t outlawed has got to be morally and environmentally OK to participate in?”

She never answered. When I saw her some months later at Christmas, I asked her about it. "I assumed the question was rhetorical," she said.

I can imagine my children writing to me with that question: “Well, OK, Dad, where do you draw the line?” I don’t know if I’d answer either.

* * *
This is part 1 of 4 of "Instead of Guilt"
Click for other parts: Part 2, Part 3, Part 4

Study Action Item: Multispecies Justice

One way to put forth the process of engaging Unitarian Universalists in the First Principle Project is to work towards a Study Action Item on multispecies justice (while we continue all the other goals of our project).  Below is a sample draft on a Study Action Item that your congregation could vote to put forward for a 4 year process for a topic with which all UU congregations could engage.  Congregations must vote and submit their Study Action Item by October 1, 2015.  It only takes one congregation to vote on it to move the process forward.  Please consider having your congregation be this one (and the more there are, the better).  If you'd like to know more, or would like to edit or change this draft, please comment below or contact Rev. LoraKim Joyner. Thanks for your efforts!

(the entire draft Item can be found here and more on the process here.

Study Action Item: Multispecies Justice:  How do we take care of the many in our biotic community?

Issue: 

Life on earth is under threat, fueled by humankind's false sense of separation from nature.  How can we create a biosphere sustainable for all beings while taking into account the inherent worth, value and well-being of every living individual? Addressing the intersectional of injustices, we improve life for all. 

Grounding In Unitarian Universalism:

Affirming respect for the interdependent web of all existence, we deepen our faith by taking up for the first time the call to multispecies justice. We draw on our anti-racism, animal welfare, animal rights, environment, economic justice, and environmental justice work, analysis of intersectional oppression, Transcendentalism, and earth centered spiritualities.

Topics for Congregational Study:  

·    What legal and moral responsibilities do humans hold toward other organisms -- particularly toward other sentient forms of life?  

·    To what extent do other species have a capacity to suffer, feel pain, love, grieve and endure emotional distress similar to our own?  

·    What economic, social, cultural and religious systems degrade or destroy the quality of life experienced by other inhabitants of our planet?  

·    How has science as well as theology reinforced an unhealthy and unwarranted assumption of human superiority over other living creatures, and how can they help us care for other species?

·    In what ways would our work, play, and lifestyles be altered if informed by an ethic of respect and compassion for all beings?

·    How might our current UU Principles be changed to and resources guide us in addressing multispecies justice?  

·    How can we support one another in this challenging work of multispecies justice given  the complexity of the interweaving of our lives with global systems of oppression.

• What is multispecies justice and how does it relate to intersectional justice and the theory "no hierarchy of oppression?"
•  

Possible Congregational/District Actions: 

• Form a Intersectional Justice or Multispecies Justice Committee
• Become a UUAM chapter (Engage in the First Principle Project or the Reverence for Life Program)
• Educate congregation on intersectional justice, including presenting a lay service on justice on holding an animal blessing
• Show films about relationships between humans and other species
• Learn the behavior, thinking, feeling, ecology, and evolutionary biology of species on your congregational grounds.  What is the impact on other species, both beneficial and harmful in their relationships and proximity to humans?
• Present an intersection justice working at district meetings
• Advocate for legislative positions that foster multispecies justice
• Give money to organizations that help animals – such as shelters and conservation and advocacy groups
• Create interfaith networks and committees
• Host a plant based potluck and invite discussion on the challenges and celebrations of being aware of our relationships with other species and humans through food

Related Prior Social Witness Statements

Animals and Biotic Community

Ethical Eating:   Food and Environmental Justice - Statement of Conscience 2011

Creating Peace - Statement of Conscience 2010

Threat of Global Warming/Climate Change - Statement of Conscience 2006

Responsible Consumption is Our Moral Imperative - Statement of Conscience 2001

Solidarity with the San Carlos Apache Regarding Mt. Graham - Action of Immediate Witness 1977

Toxic Substances and Hazardous Waste - General Resolution 1984

Problem of Environmental Policy - General Resolution 1977

Environmental Justice - General Resolution 1994

End Mountaintop Removal Coal Mining - Action of Immediate Witness 2006

Gulf Coast Environmental and Economic Justice - Action of Immediate Witness 2010

Safer Alternatives to the Alaska Pipeline - General Resolution 1973

Protecting the Biosphere - General Resolution 1989

Earth, Air, Water, and Fire - General Resolution 1997

United Nations and Earth Day Celebrations - Business Resolution 1994

The Green Revolution in Religion - Business Resolution 2010

Law of the Sea Treaty - General Resolution - 1982

Environment - General Resolution 1969

Safer Sources of Energy - General Resolution 1992

Endorse the Earth Charter - Action of Immediate Witness 2002

Economic Justice, Class and Racism (mixed with others)

Phoenix General Assembly 2012 - Business Resolution 2010

Youth and Young Adult Empowerment Resolution: Accountability - Responsive Resolution 2008

Self-Determination for Blacks and Other Ethnic Groups - General Resolution 1968

Condemn the Racist Mistreatment of Young People of Color by Police - Action of Immediate Witness 2013.

The Civil Rights Act of 1990 - Resolution of Immediate Witness 1990

Congregational Programs on Racism and Classism - Responsive Resolution 2006

World Conference Against Racism - Action of Immediate Witness - 2001

Toward an Anti-Racist Unitarian Universalist Association - Business Resolution 1997

Racism Imperative - Business Resolution 1981

Immigration as a Moral Issue - Statement of Conscience 2013

Economic Globalization - Statement of Conscience 2003

Economic Injustice, Poverty, and Racism: We can make a difference - Statement of Conscience 2000

Economic Conversion for Peace and Human Needs - General Resolution 1989

Working for a Just Economic Community - General Resolution 1997

Deepen Our Commitment to an Anti-oppressive Multicultural Unitarian Universalist Association - Responsive Resolution 2013

Reference (not part of one page - refer to Issue section)

            Organizations

• UU Food Justice Ministry
• UU Buddhist Fellowship
• CUUPS
• UU Animal Ministry
• UU Ministry for Earth (?)

Certifying Congregation

Endorsing Congregations:

Why I Prefer Revising the Second 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.

I love the reverence for life that's expressed by the First Principle Project!

Except…

I think maybe we should shift the campaign, and target the second principle instead of the first.

Here's why.

1. If we want to explicitly challenge humancentrism, isn't the second principle, with its "human relations" wording, the place to do it?  The first principle is not actually necessarily humancentric, since "personhood" can be understood as not limited to our own species.

2. The second principle's direct reference to "justice, equity, and compassion" makes it more clearly action-focused, which I see as a definite plus. Because at the end of the day, what really matters to animals is our actions and behavior toward them, not our beliefs about them.  "Deeds not creeds" is another way to put it.  (To paraphrase Patti Rogers: animals don't care why we stop hurting them, just THAT we stop hurting them.)

3. Conversations I've already had with UUs on this topic indicate to me that changing the second principle would be less contentious than trying to change the first principle. Why provoke more resistance than we need to? 

4. Changing the second principle may serve the animals' interests better than changing the first, since the second principle explicitly affirms justice. The harm and suffering inflicted by humans on other-than-humans needs to be understood as a justice issue rather than a matter of personal choice. The second principle is where we can make this critical point on behalf of our animal kin.

In conclusion: let's campaign to replace "human" with "all our" in the second principle, so that it reads:

Justice, equity, and compassion in all our relations.

Yours for love and liberation,

Jennifer

Please Take This Survey On Changing Our Principles

Dear Unitarian Universalists,

   Please take this survey, and distribute it widely to other Unitarian Universalists, so we can gather the wisdom and move forward with power and possibility. 

To take the survey on Facebook, click here.

 If you don't want to take it on facebook, you can take it here.

   This survey guides you in reflecting on your UU faith as expressed in our Principles, and how changing them might bring more flourishing to this earth and her beings.

   In gratitude,

   Rev. LoraKim Joyner

   First Principle Project Facilitator

Norman Phelps Speaks on the First Principle Project

Guest Author:  Norm Phelps

Animal Rights Activist and Author (The Dominion of Love: Animal Rights According to the Bible (2002), The Great Compassion: Buddhism and Animal Rights (2004), and The Longest Struggle: Animal Advocacy from Pythagoras to PETA (2007).

Excerpt from a longer blog post: An Open Letter to My Fellow UUs on Animal Liberation

The First Principle Project

Disclaimer: I have had and continue to have no involvement with the First Principle Project. I am writing strictly as an individual and the views expressed here, as throughout this article, are my own.

For the benefit of readers who are not UUs, Unitarian-Universalism is a non-creedal denomination. There is no specific set of doctrines to which one must swear allegiance. In place of a creed, we have a set of Seven Principles, which outline the commonalities that bind us together. The First Principle, a commitment to “the inherent worth and dignity of every person,” is the subject of a pro-animal initiative known as the First Principle Project (FPP). Initially created by Unitarian-Universalist Animal Ministry (UUAM), and facilitated by UU minister and wildlife veterinarian LoraKim Joyner, FPP campaigns to amend the First Principle in order to bring animals as individuals clearly and plainly under its protection.

Let me start by saying that as far as I am concerned, the First Principle—exactly as it is written—should provide the same degree of protection and nurture to animals that it provides to human beings. As I explained earlier, nonhuman animals—especially the mammals, birds, and fish that we enjoy eating—are people in every meaningful sense of the word.

But because the preponderance of UUs view it through the frame of humanism, the First Principle as written protects only human beings. Most UUs interpret “person” as a synonym for “human” and consider our relationship to animals to be governed by the Seventh Principle, “Respect for the interdependent web of all existence of which we are a part.” Thus, most UUs adopt a conventional environmental or ecological attitude toward animals and advocate protecting species and ecosystems, but not individual animals. This is a morally deficient response to the fact of animal sentience and personhood.

The First Principle Project proposes to change the First Principle to read, “the inherent worth and dignity of every being,” so that it expresses a worldview similar to what Albert Schweitzer termed “reverence for life.” Schweitzer viewed all living beings as individuals, not as species or populations, and so does The First Principle Project.

I wholeheartedly support The First Principle Project for reasons that should be clear from what I have said thus far. Because the locus of sentience is the individual, all sentient beings need compassion and respect as individuals. No one would think that so long as homo sapiens was not endangered, the enslavement and slaughter of individual human beings was morally acceptable. The same principle should hold for nonhuman animals, as well. Personally, I would prefer that an amended First Principle refer to “every sentient being,” because I fear that some will insist on interpreting “every being” to include plants and will argue that since even vegans eat plants, the consistency principle permits us to eat animals as well. This would be a misuse of the consistency principle, but I suspect we will nonetheless hear the argument made. But one of the things that makes being a UU so stimulating is that no two of us ever (or hardly ever) agree entirely about anything. And if each of us insists on their own favorite wording, we will never get anywhere. And so, I support amending the First Principle exactly as FPP proposes.

One thing that I find especially interesting about The First Principle Project website, including the Resource Guide, is that it never once states that eating the flesh of enslaved and murdered animals is inconsistent with respecting “the inherent worth and dignity of every being.” In fact, it mentions vegetarianism and veganism only in a worksheet and even there it takes extraordinary care to assure that the language is sterile and value-neutral. “Inherent worth” is quite a different matter from “instrumental worth.” When we eat the flesh of slaughtered animals, we are allotting them only instrumental worth and denying them inherent worth. To respect the inherent worth of any being, you must respect their life, and take it only under the pressure of dire necessity, as in defending yourself or someone else from attack. Enslaving and slaughtering an innocent being for one’s own pleasure—gustatory or otherwise—is a gross insult to that being’s inherent dignity.

Why this tiptoeing around the fundamental moral issue? Why this reticence where the bedrock question of right and wrong, good and evil is concerned? I do not know for certain, but it seems to me likely that the leaders of the FPP fear that a more direct approach would trigger a reflexively negative reaction from so many UUs, clergy and laity alike, that the FPP would be doomed before it ever got started. And based on my experience trying to get ethically unambiguous language inserted into the Statement of Conscience on Ethical Eating, this is a legitimate concern. And this sad reality brings us back to the larger question: Why is the UUA—and why are UU congregations and members around the country—defending the enslavement and slaughter of 65 billion innocent sentient beings every year? What has happened to us? Why did we stand still while others were moving the moral agenda forward? And, more importantly, How can we get back on track? How can we reclaim the UU heritage of moving the moral frontier forward? On the answer to that question hangs not only the fate of nonhuman people, but the fate of Unitarian-Universalism as well. If we do not get on the right side of the definitive social justice issue of our time, future generations of UUs will look back at us and see little to be proud of.

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.