What is the First Principle?
The current version of the UUA principles and purposes were passed in 1986. They are listed in the UUA bylaws Section c-2.1 Principles. These principles begin as a covenant,
We, the member congregations of the
Unitarian Universalist Association, covenant to affirm and promote The inherent worth and dignity of
every person;
The First
Principle as it exists now provides a vision, leading us to individually and
collectively embody our call to
compassion for all. It invites us to
come together to find out how we can support one another to live deeply so that
all people may live well. Though action is implied, the First Principle is more
about questioning, seeking, and faith.
Guiding us to look beyond creeds, formulas, or specific actions or
practices, the First Principle asks us to stay engaged with reality and in
relationships, though we struggle with the harshness of life and the complex
interplay of human nature as it both cares for and harms others. Lighting the way forward, this principle
supports us in being open to the other, for we are a faith founded on
continuous revelation. Everyone has something to teach us, no matter the
individual or species.
The First
Principle is a rigorous one. We
recognize that we are finite beings and cannot always have compassion, time,
focus, or energy for all manners of people and species in our communities. Not deterred, we seek to live based on our
ever growing understanding and embodiment of our interconnection to the
beautiful whole. We strive to act from knowing that other people are beautiful
and have worth and dignity, even if we
cannot act in ways consistent to that understanding. The fact that we will fall short does not
keep us from trying, for we know that as we deepen our faith, our spirits will
be more nurtured as we nourish and heal
the world.
Why change the First Principle?
A changed
First Principle affirms explicitly and more powerfully what many Unitarian
Universalists already hold to be true: that all individuals of any species
merit our compassionate consideration and that because they too are part of the
beautiful whole, they have worth and dignity. The goal of any version of the
First Principle is not to keep the circle of compassion small until each gets
their share of dignity or compassion. We are called to extend the circle, each
working to deepen their faith in the inherent worth and dignity of all. Though humans evolved both genetically and
culturally to have an anthropocentric bias - to choose the well being of humans
over other species - we also evolved mechanisms to extend compassion beyond our
own self interests, own family, own tribe, own community, or own species.
Changing the First Principle guides us to work in the world together for the
betterment of all.
Why change the First Principle - isn't it enough to
have the Seventh Principle about the interdependent web?
The First Principle is
about the vision and spirit of the worth of individuals which the Seventh
Principle doesn't address (respect for
the interdependent web of all existence of which we are a part). The Seventh Principle asks us to affirm and
promote respect for the web, but does not clearly suggest respect for the
beings within the web. Our current principles generally reflect the tension in
culture where humans think they have to chose either to care for the whole (the
web) or to care for individuals (animal well being). The preference for the
whole, without taking into consideration the individual, can lead to treating
individuals as a means without considering the welfare of all individuals.
A new paradigm is working its way into culture on how we can care of
individuals and the whole, without pitting either philosophy against each
other.
Will the proposed change mean I have to change how I interact with
other species, and humans too?
The
current principle does not give specific instructions on how we are to nourish and
heal. Instead it is a vision that we
agree to work towards, affirming and promoting in the ways that each
congregation can. The proposed new First
Principle carries this same vision forward, including that it does not dictate
how you should promote worth and dignity of every being. This is left to the conscience of the
individual and to the shared lives of the member congregations. Some people may choose to do prison ministry,
protest armed conflict, or work for women's rights, while others choose to
rescue companion animals, protest factory farming, or work in conservation of
wildlife, all of which have components that serve humans as well as other
species. Each answers the call to live
and love fully where one's deep joy intersects with the world's great
need.
How do you define "being?"
To
different people, being means various things.
For some being refers to anything that is alive, and would include
plants. For others being does not refer to plants or fungi. Some see being as
referring to those species that are sentient.
This raises the question, what do we mean by sentient? This too has variable meanings, but mostly
refers to the ability to perceive or feel things, such as being able to feel,
see, hear, smell, or taste. Sentience also
means being aware. Some too would see being as something that exists or is thought to exist, and might
include rocks, mountains, river, the earth, or anything that makes up part of
the whole of existence. Regardless of
how each defines "being" the goal is to grow our circle of compassion
for individuals, including ourselves, as we grow our own sense of belonging to
and interconnecting with all of existence.
This same situation exists for the current version of the First
Principle. The current principle does
not specify what we mean by "person."
All kinds of people are
at the margins that challenge our conception of person and impact how we are to
respond ethically to them. The goal is to hold all humans, regardless of their
situation, as precious, and as meriting our moral concern.
Does adding all beings mean that we have to choose
between the well being of humans and other animals?
The
changed First Principle helps us acknowledge the interlocking oppressions that
cause harm to humans and other species alike while valuing the needs of every
individual. Everything is at risk and is interconnected. By helping one we help the many others. This affirmation does not diminish the proud
historical traditions of Unitarian Universalists striving for human rights and
racial and environmental justice, nor
does it mean we should desist from the critical work of antiracism,
antioppression, and multiculturism within our congregations and
association. Many people have been
ignored, treated poorly, enslaved, and oppressed, and still are. We must work on this, perhaps even increasing
our pace and commitment to human flourishing.
The First Principle Project is very much about human rights and well
being.
How do I make ethical and moral decisions if all
beings and individuals have inherent worth and dignity?
Already
the First Principle means difficult decisions on how we are to live our days. To change it will only mean we have more questions
with which to engage. How can we help
support one another when we stretch ourselves with the new challenges that will
arise with embracing all beings as worthy?
How shall we live knowing that to nurture our own lives, we have to harm life or make decisions that lead
us to care more for some, and less for others, these "others" that
all have worth and dignity? How do we
stay engaged with an open heart to the suffering of others when we know that in
actuality most humans make daily decisions that favor those closest to them in
affection and form?
Each will
answer these questions differently, and will probably change their behavior
depending on context, age, and experience.
Many people choose to make decisions that reflect the guidelines of
"do minimum harm." The goal
for others is to keep suffering to a minimum, such as striving to reduce
physical or emotional distress, as well as pain and death. In both approaches,
humans take into account the needs of every individual impacted by our
decisions or behavior, and then weigh the consequence of our acts so that the
least harm and suffering results. This
is no easy task, as it means engaging in the reality that Albert Schweitzer
described as the "necessity of life."
Each of us harms others to survive; there is no escaping this. Instead
of slipping into denial about the impacts of our actions, we choose to grow in
faith and compassion so that we can witness to the suffering of others, and so
over time, reduce the harm we cause in the world as either individuals,
congregations, organizations, institutions, societies, or as a species. It is
not all doom and gloom to walk with all beings in both the beauty and tragedy
of existence. Instead, as Schweitzer wrote: "By having reverence for life
we enter in a spiritual connection with the world. By practicing reverence for
life we become good, deep, and alive."
Some might
draw the conclusion that as harm cannot be avoided, and as long as one has
reverence for life and is spiritually connected to the web, it is morally
acceptable to inflict harm on individuals, or to participate in institutionalized
oppression that causes harm on a great scale, such as wildlife trafficking or
factory farming. This point of view
incorporates the idea that as harm and violence are rampant in the web of life,
and humans are naturally part of this web that includes the predator prey
cycle, it is okay to harm others.
Indeed, one might argue, that we cannot avoid hurting other species
because we evolved to do so as an apex predator and a primate whose ancestors
were both hunters and gatherers. A human
moral conclusion however does not rest on natural behaviors, DNA, or evolution
alone. We seek instead to harness our
violent and self serving propensities, which during our cultural and genetic
evolution has included for example murder, infanticide, rape, and cannibalism. None of these are acceptable today. Through the slow march of cultural
development, violence has remarkably decreased until today when it is at an all
time low level in much of the world.
Humans choose in how they govern themselves and impose cultural
expectations to decrease violence and control their more harmful
behaviors. We can do the same in how we
behave towards all species. Evolving
certain neural and physiological pathways does not lock us into a certain
response to the world, for we also evolved to compassionately care for the
many: for our kind, for our kin, and for many peoples and species. To find out
more how human caused violence has decreased and how we can rely on the "better angels of our
nature," we invite you to the book of the same title by Steven Pinker.
Will changing the principle mean that I will judge
myself or others more harshly?
The new
First Principle again, would not tell us how to live, but it would ask us to
question how we can live more fully so that others may live well. The First Principle also is not used to judge
one another, such as saying "you aren't living up to the
principles." Instead all the
principles are a call to each of us as congregations, and as individuals, to
transform our lives and deepen our religious commitment and sense of spiritual
interconnection. Changing the First
Principle, then, is to not to dictate our lives or to choose one species or
demographic over another, but to find a way to enlarge our hearts and practices
so that together we grow our compassionate witness to the world. Each of us is
at some point on the continuum of justice, all worthy. It doesn't matter where
you start from or where you end up. The goal of our principles is urging us to
move joyfully as much as we can further along towards justice through our
thoughts, words, and actions.
How do we change the First Principle?
To change
the First Principle, it requires a bylaw change of the Unitarian Universalist
Association. This means that an amendment of the change would be voted upon at
a June General Assembly. To get on the agenda for the General Assembly, either
15 congregations or one district would need to approve the amendment.
The
amendment that each congregation would approve reads as follows: To omit "every person" and replace
with "every being" in Article II Principles
and Purposes, Section c-2.1 Principles, Line 12, UUA bylaws.
How will we know if our Unitarian Universalist
association of congregations is ready for this change?
The broader cultural milieu is undergoing a profound
paradigm shift as science, experience, and
religious life inform us that humans are one among many species, all of
which have worth as individuals and as components of the sacred whole. This is new territory for every human as we
navigate through murky ethical waters on a course that cares for each as well
as for the entirely of our ecological and social communities comprising of so
many different species, of which humans are only one. No one knows a direct route in how to live
this way. The path forward will meander,
might retreat for a while, and could even seem to spiral into and out of chaos
and complexity. We will never be ready
if we never make the attempt. We can
prepare ourselves for the best possible success if we do our work, and we do it
together with as much love, compassion, and faith as we can muster. For this reason,
the First Principle Project is as much about individual and organization
process and dynamics as it is about end results.
