Statement of Warrant: All People Have Inherent Value

Over the past year or so, my view on faith has undergone significant development. As I challenged some people’s faith assertions, my belief in the inherent value of all people was frequently brought up as an argument in favor of faith. Since I was unsure that my belief could be demonstrated empirically, I conceded that my claim that all people have inherent worth was a faith-based claim—a belief that was held without evidence. As my criticism of faith continued to develop, I began to question more whether I was willing to maintain a belief without any evidence (or worse, for which there may be counter-evidence). I determined to investigate my claim and see where it led.

What follows is a statement of warrant for the assertion that all people have inherent value. I no longer hold this as a faith-based claim, but as a warranted assertion about the realities of human existence. I also include the moral implication that therefore all people have inherent dignity, since the actions that follow from a belief are perhaps more important than the belief itself. It is possible that this statement of warrant could be better articulated with continued effort, but for the time being, I have resolved the matter to my own personal satisfaction. A word of warning to the reading-averse: It's long.

All people have inherent value.

(1) People exist, and people are living organisms.

(2) Living organisms have biological imperatives required to perpetuate their existence.

(3) Human beings must continue to exist in order for the species to continue to exist.

(4) Therefore, human beings matter to other human beings based on a biologically instilled drive to perpetuate the species.

(5) Human beings are unique among living organisms in their level of awareness and their control over their behavior.

(6) Each person influences the life of at least one other individual (and in most cases, each person influences the lives of many more than one other individual).

(7) The influence that a person has on the lives of others can cause harm or can promote happiness.

(8) Both nature and nurture play a role in the development of human personality and behavior.

(9) If it is considered desirable (moral) to (a) produce the greatest happiness for the greatest number of people, and (b) bring the least harm to the greatest number of people, then it follows that it is desirable for each individual to influence the lives of others in a way that produces the greatest happiness and brings the least harm.

(10) If it is considered desirable (moral) to (a) produce the greatest happiness for the greatest number of people, and (b) bring the least harm to the greatest number of people, then it follows that it is desirable to nurture in others the capacity and willingness to behave in such a way that produces the greatest happiness for the greatest number of people and brings the least harm to the greatest number of people.

People exist as living organisms. I realize that there may be some philosophical disagreement with the concept that people exist, but if you take issue with your own very existence, there isn’t much anyone can say to persuade you. Philosophical giants have demonstrated sufficient warrant to believe that people exist,[1] and I’m not going to rehash all of that here. The fact that people are living organisms is definitional. Life is defined as “an organismic state characterized by the capacity for metabolism, growth, reaction to stimuli, and reproduction.”[2] It is the condition that distinguishes animals and plants from inorganic matter, including the capacity for functional activity, and continual change preceding death. An organism is “an individual form of life, such as a plant, animal, bacterium, protist, or fungus; a body made up of organs, organelles, or other parts that work together to carry on the various processes of life.”[3] There should be no disagreement that human beings fall into the category of “existing living organisms.”

Living organisms have biological imperatives required to perpetuate their existence. From bacteria to the most sophisticated animals, there are certain consistently present biological drives that have been documented to influence how likely it is that a species will continue to exist. These are, generally: survival, territorialism, competition, reproduction, improving quality of life, and group forming.[4] Living organisms biologically want to survive. Living organisms biologically inhabit physical space. Living organisms within a species are biologically driven to compete with one another. Living organisms biologically want to reproduce. Living organisms are biologically driven to improve their quality of life. Living organisms are biologically driven to form groups (of two or more). Individual beings that demonstrate these biological imperatives contribute to the perpetuation of the species of which those beings are members.

Some might argue that biological imperatives apply only to the survival of individual members of a species, not to the perpetuation of a species as a whole. After all, that does seem to be what is implied by the concept of survival of the fittest.[5] If this were the case, however, reproduction would not be a biological imperative, since reproduction is not necessary for an individual’s survival. In fact, bearing and caring for young often compromises an individual’s survival, and yet the drive to reproduce is inherent to all organisms. Likewise, if biological imperatives were only natural impulses toward the survival of the individual, we would see much more evidence of cannibalism, or at least of indiscriminate violence within species. If other members of one’s species are eliminated, then the resources one needs for survival are more abundant. It may seem that some people behave in a way that is directed toward individual survival at the expense of the species, but this is not how our biological imperatives developed. Biological imperatives instill in each members of a species the drives that will allow for the perpetuation of the species.

For the purpose of this argument, some of these qualities as they apply to human beings are more significant than others. Of course, those human beings who demonstrate a biological desire to survive will perpetuate the human species most effectively. Human beings are complicated beings, however, and for most individuals, survival involves more complex thoughts and behaviors than, say, survival for an individual walrus or toucan. The important thing is that nature equips human beings with a desire to remain alive. If this were not so, the species would not be able to continue.

Human beings also take up physical space, and thus are biologically required to inhabit a territory. This means different things in different contexts. It is possibly this biological imperative that prompts some individuals to purchase homes that enclose exorbitantly more space that the individuals require, since at some point in our species’ past, controlling greater territory meant more access to food, water, and shelter for oneself and one’s family.[6] Territoriality is not a significant component of the argument that human beings have inherent worth, however. The same can be said of the biological imperative to reproduce. Human beings are biologically compelled to engage in the activities of sexual reproduction, and this naturally-imbued desire persists despite human ability to take steps to ensure that the exercise is not successful. Possessing the insight and wisdom to take preventative measures when one is not yet willing or able to care for a child does not remove the biological drive to engage in reproductive activities. This, in and of itself, does not demonstrate human value, however, except to say that one’s desire to engage in successful reproductive activities can only be satisfied through the participation of another human being. Thus, the biological imperatives of territorialism and reproduction are less significant to this particular argument.

Competition as a biological imperative, however, does offer an interesting dynamic to consider. Organisms do not generally compete with the very fittest specimens within their species; they don’t even seem to have conscious awareness that there could be such a thing as a “fittest specimen.” Organisms more frequently compete with the other members of their species that are readily apparent and present some threat or obstacle. Male lions do not compete with cubs, for instance, although they may destroy the cubs of another male lion. They compete with other mature male lions that represent a threat to dominance or an obstacle to mating.[7] Likewise, although human beings are biologically compelled to compete with other human beings, people generally restrict their competition to individuals within their own limited geographic and/or operational zones. A salesperson might compete with other salespeople across the world, but only within a specific industry. The American kitchen appliance salesperson does not consciously compete with the Ugandan rug merchant; there is very little on which to base such competition. There is not really any physical competition between average human beings and sports celebrities. Our competition is with a small group within the larger species, not with every member of the species.[8]  

The biological imperative of competition in most species leads to the fittest of the species reproducing more effectively that the less fit specimens within the species. This benefits the species as a whole. Without a natural benefit to competition, less adaptive members of a species might reproduce as successfully as more adaptive members, which would threaten the long-term sustainability of the species. As will be explored at greater length further along in this argument, human beings are not like most other animals in that they are capable of analyzing and adjusting their own behavior. Competition among human beings has become convoluted because, for some people, “survival” has become more complicated than merely having sufficient food, water, and shelter for oneself and one’s family. For instance, wealth often implies survival benefit, whether consciously or subconsciously, even though a significant enough disproportionate distribution of wealth may actually threaten the survival of the human species overall.[9] Human beings sometimes create social and economic structures that seem to allow for the “survival” of the individual while jeopardizing the well-being of the species.[10] This is a misapplication of natural drives that, in most organisms, promote the well-being of the species as a whole. Human beings sometimes respond to primitive biological imperatives through sophisticated means beyond the capability of any other organism, yet do so without regard for the species as a whole. Competition, or the biological drive to be the fittest available mate, does not necessarily promote the sustainability of the species at our current level of technological and economic sophistication, because that sophistication is paired with profound emotional immaturity.[11]  

Competition is not biologically about being better than every other member of one’s species. No species could survive that way. What we have taken to calling competition is really a natural drive to be the best version of oneself possible. When a particular animal fails to claim territory or a mate from another member of its species, that animal may just go find some other territory and some other mate. It may be adaptable enough to benefit the perpetuation of the species, but it is simply not fit enough to successfully compete with one particular member of its species. Its biological goal (although most organisms would not consciously be able to frame such a thought) is to be the best specimen it can be—not to be the best specimen theoretically possible.[12] Human beings, as shall be elucidated, have some advantages over other biological organisms. We can recognize that our biological imperative toward competition no longer needs to be focused on the same things that our primitive ancestors had to focus on for survival. We can recognize that the purpose of our natural desire to compete is really a biological invitation to be the best versions of ourselves possible. We can still live well as individuals and benefit the species without being the strongest, wealthiest, or most intelligent specimens theoretically possible.

The idea of competition is also connected to the biological imperative toward improving our quality of life. Members of many species do not make conscious decisions about improving their quality of life. The actions of the most adaptive members instinctively tend in that direction, but this does not mean that they make a conscious decision to move the herd to a more reliable water source, or to kill one of a brood of young so that the others will have ample food as they grow and less competition for it. Human beings can be thoughtful, and consciousness sometimes works against us. We draw conclusions that seem correct without fully understanding the causes of the effects we experience, or even understanding what we want as individuals. Some people may think of their “quality of life” as a new car when one is desired, convenient appliances in the kitchen, private schools, and disposable income for vacations to exotic places. These things may represent quality of life in a consumer culture, but they do not actually produce a higher quality of life in terms of the perpetuation of the species.

The biological imperative toward higher quality of life in every other species reduces stress to the individual and improves health. Stress alone can decrease a being’s physical and emotional health.[13] If an organism is able to live longer and more healthily, then (biologically speaking) that individual will have the opportunity to be of greater benefit to the perpetuation of the species. Human beings have turned the biological imperative toward improved quality of life on its head, creating more stress, and physical and emotional unhealthiness, through the very means we believe to be improvements to our quality of life.[14] Overall, the species does not benefit from many of the things that human beings in consumer cultures believe to improve quality of life, and the individual does not benefit because the pursuit of those things increases stress and limits health. This is disguised by medical advances that artificially extend life and manage physical and mental unwellness, of course, which might be considered to be an improvement to the quality of a stressful life. Many times, though, we are simply thoughtless in our pursuit of distractions to provide convenience and entertainment, and we consider having access to those distractions to be improvements to our lives.

Quality of life is not the same as “standard of living.”[15] Quality of life has to do with maximizing joy, affection, and gratitude; and minimizing anger, anxiety, and sadness.[16] Quality of life involves reducing crime and harm, increasing safety and health. Quality of life is enhanced more effectively by becoming emotionally mature than it is enhanced by becoming wealthy. Poverty seems to play a role in increased stress and decreased safety, and yet above an income of about $75,000 a year, there is no apparent benefit to quality of life.[17] Granted, there are plenty of people in the world living below this rate of income, and in the current state of affairs, it would seem that consistently having more money would improve their quality of life. It is important to recognize, however, that quality of life is not really about possessions and disposable income; it is about safety, health, and genuine happiness.

The term happiness warrants a bit of attention, since it comprises a significant portion of the definition of morality employed in this argument. Simply put, happiness is defined as continuous well-being.[18] Although Maslow’s hierarchy of needs has been called into question with regard to its structure, most psychological research confirms the existence of basic universal human needs.[19] Happiness is having those needs met. According to many (including Maslow), those needs include: access to the physiological needs of the body (breathable air, potable water, adequate food, clothing, and shelter from the elements), safety (personal safety, financial security, health, and useful protection against physical impairment), love and a sense of belonging, esteem (self-esteem, respect by others, respect for others, competence, self-confidence, and achievement), and self-actualization (moral integrity, creative outlets, problem solving, and essentially the capacity to be the best version of oneself possible).[20] Happiness results from these needs being met. It may be that the greater the number of needs met, and the greater the confidence in having those needs met, the greater the happiness. Or, perhaps, the greater importance an individual places on the specific needs being met, the greater the happiness. In any case, happiness refers to continuous well-being with regard to having basic universal human needs met.

This is one reason, perhaps, that organisms developed a biological imperative toward group building. Groups can be as small as two members of a species, and can theoretically be as large as an entire species. Human beings are clearly social organisms.[21] Among natural drives, group forming perhaps has the greatest significance in terms of inherent human worth. Since this will be covered at greater length under another point, it suffices here to establish that human social interaction and influence is prompted by a biological imperative that functions to promote the perpetuation of the species. It is also important to note that human beings need other human beings in order to form groups and to improve actual quality of life (and to reproduce), but this does not automatically lead to treating all people with respect and dignity.

Human beings must continue to exist in order for the species to continue to exist. If more needs to be said about this statement, I’m at a loss. Logically, the species cannot exist as an actual reality unless members of the species continue to exist. When the last human being dies, the species will not continue to exist. As we have seen, human beings, like all biological organisms, are naturally imbued with imperatives that promote the perpetuation of the species.

Therefore, human beings matter to other human beings based on a biologically instilled drive to perpetuate the species. When we consider whether something has value or not, some would say that it is necessary to consider an object for that value. Value here is not in terms of a price tag, of course, but rather in terms of being important or beneficial. So, to say that every person has value is not to say that one can place each individual on a continuum and determine a quantitative worth for every member of the species. Rather, to say that every person has value is to say that every individual has importance and can be of potential benefit. The obvious question then is: to whom?

The claim that human beings have value to a higher power is satisfactory for some people. This argument is not the place for discussion of supernaturalism or faith. Pretending to know things that one does not know is not a valid justification for any position. Instead, the conclusions here are intended to be based on evidence and reason, and thus, in order to assert that all human beings have value, they must be considered important or beneficial to something demonstrably congruent with actual reality.

In order for something to have value, whatever is doing the valuing must also have sufficient ability to consciously consider a thing’s importance or potential benefit.[22] Most organisms do not seem to be capable of this level of conscious thought, and thus cannot actually value much of anything.[23] Among those more advanced organisms that seem capable of considering a thing’s importance or potential benefit (some primates and a few other mammals), it is not clear that such organisms have any capacity to evaluate human beings comprehensively or accurately.[24] Although it is perhaps reasonable to suggest that a pet owner has direct importance or benefit to the pet, for instance, it would be difficult to extrapolate from that that human beings are necessary for the continued successful existence of the planet. In fact, the planet might be better off in a purely biological sense if human beings just disappeared one morning.[25]  

The fact is, however, that human beings do currently exist, and our biological imperatives and our capability to act on them suggests that human beings will be in existence for a little while yet. As long as human beings exist as biological organisms, they will manifest the biological imperatives to survive, be the best versions of themselves possible, improve the quality of their lives, and form groups. Since these adaptive behaviors will always be important and beneficial to the perpetuation of the species, it may be said that all human beings have value to the species. However, the species as a whole is not a thinking, reasoning organism, and thus the species is not actually able to value its members. Only the members of the species capable of conscious thought can value something—can consider a thing to be of importance or potential benefit.

Thus, when it is asserted that all human beings have inherent worth, the actual assertion is that all human beings have inherent worth to human beings. As organisms capable of reasoning and capable of analyzing and changing our own behavior, human beings are in a rather unique position among other earth-based organisms. Human beings have the potential to consciously consider the consequences of actions to a far greater extent than other organisms. This is not to say that we always do so successfully, only that the capacity for such conscious thought exists. While every individual human being may not recognize that all people inherently have importance and potential benefit, the aim of this argument is to demonstrate that this is indeed the case. While every individual human being may not consider actions of personal survival (the biological imperatives previously detailed) to have evolved for the perpetuation of the species, that is the actual natural purpose for the biological imperatives with which all adaptive organisms are imbued. Thus, every human being is wired biologically to care about the perpetuation of the species—and to care about what happens to other members of the species.[26] It is therefore natural for human beings to see value in other people, even though we sometimes limit which people we are willing to consider important or potentially beneficial. It is the statement that all human beings have inherent value that perhaps requires more extensive examination.

Human beings are unique among living organisms in their level of awareness and their control over their behavior. It has been mentioned that human beings have some capability that other organisms seem to lack. It is worth mentioning that the ability of human beings to be aware of their behavior and its consequences and the ability of human beings to control, manage, and change their behavior makes this argument significant. If one were to argue that all cottontail rabbits are innately important and beneficial to the cottontail rabbit species, from the standpoint of purely biological perpetuation, one would perhaps be correct. Individual cottontail rabbits (to the best of our knowledge) do not think about such things, and even if they did, it is unclear that they could analyze their behavior and adjust it accordingly to create greater happiness and less harm among the entire cottontail collective. Human beings are different. Human beings are able to do some things that other organisms do not seem to do.

Thomas Suddendorf has suggested that humans are unique among organisms because of two primary traits.[27] First, human beings have the desire and ability to share our thoughts with one another. Second, human beings can think about potential outcomes and consider alternatives better than any other species. Since we can create and combine ideas and complex mental symbols, and since we can think in abstract terms, we are more capable than any other organism of analyzing and managing our beliefs and our behavior. These traits also grant us the capability to evaluate the influence of other people on our behavior and vice versa.

Thus, we should not expect any other being to think about value, importance, and potential benefit in the same way that human beings are capable of thinking. Human beings are the only beings able to ascribe worth because human beings are the only organisms capable of the kind of abstract thinking and idea generation necessary to do such a thing. Since human beings are uniquely capable of analyzing and managing their beliefs and behaviors, human beings are thus also uniquely responsible for analyzing and managing their beliefs and behaviors. While there may be some differences in capability between different individuals, a distinguishing characteristic about human beings is the ability to understand that actions have consequences and that people influence the lives of other people. Personal responsibility is a choice that individuals are able to make. Indeed, personal responsibility is congruent with the biological imperatives to survive, to improve one’s quality of life, and to be the best version of oneself possible.

Each person influences the life of at least one other individual (and in most cases each person influences the lives of many more than one other individual). In addition to potentially contributing to the overall perpetuation of the species, every human being influences the life of at least one other person. Just by virtue of being born and being cared for by a single mother, an infant influences the life of another human being. The only way that a human being could have zero influence on any other person is for that individual to be born in a laboratory and raised by machinery that was pre-programmed to provide the necessary sustenance, and for that person to die without ever interacting with another human being. It might even be necessary for that person’s body never to be discovered by another human being to ensure that such an individual would have no influence on another human being. Even a reclusive individual has some influence on other human beings at some point during the course of a lifetime.

Most human beings are not reclusive, though. Most human beings exist within a familial structure, a larger community of social relationships, a geographic community, and perhaps a collection of professional and academic relationships. In many cultures, human beings are connected to one another in a multitude of seemingly impersonal ways as they purchase food and medicine, hire contractors, visit a dentist, go to movies or nightclubs or live music events, and engage in any number of mundane activities. Even the most fleeting casual connection with another human being can influence a person’s attitudes and actions.[28] 

This influence is sometimes obvious. Within the context of close friendship or familial bonds, it is perhaps easiest to discern how people influence one another. Certain human behaviors and attitudes have been deemed “contagious” by researchers because of the profound influence that individuals have on people who are close to them.[29] We can see direct influence when one person takes the life of or commits some act of violence against another human being; even automobile accidents give us clear evidence that human beings can have dramatic influence on the lives of other people. Nearly every time a person receives an award, there is a list of people the recipient publicly thanks for their positive influence.[30] First responders and other medical professionals save lives every day, and ordinary people donate blood and even organs so that other human beings can live longer.

The influence people have on one another is often more subtle. The laws that a politician votes for or against can have unforeseen consequences in the lives of numerous individuals. How a person interacts with a waiter or store clerk can have ramifications in other interactions both individuals have for the rest of the day, or even longer. A teacher in a classroom may say something that sticks with a student for years, influencing any number of decisions, even if the teacher and student never realize the extent of one statement’s influence. Since we exist in systems with other human beings, other people’s decisions are constantly affecting us.[31] Sometimes our lives benefit from other people’s behavior, and sometimes we are inconvenienced or harmed because of what other people do. Our own behavior has an effect on the systems in which we operate, too. Our decisions can cause harm or promote happiness. 

The influence that a person has on the lives of others can cause harm or can promote happiness. While striving for emotional maturity (or self-differentiation) involves taking responsibility for one’s own beliefs and decisions,[32] it is clear that the behavior of a human being affects other people. A driver who runs a stop sign may not affect anyone else in a particular instance (although some self-inflicted emotional or psychological harm may occur), but a reckless driver will inevitably cause harm to other people, even if that harm goes no further than elevated stress. No amount of self-differentiation can protect a person from a gunshot or a collision with a drunk driver. These are potential negative results of human behavior, but positive results are also apparent.

People experience love, purpose, compassion, and happiness because of the actions of other human beings, too. In honest relationships, people can learn how to live satisfying lives, how to develop partnership and create something beyond the scope of the individual, or how to be vulnerable without feeling weak. Even interactions that are not in the context of an ongoing relationship can have an influence on an individual. A helpful store clerk who goes out of her way might inspire a person to go above and beyond with other people throughout the rest of the day—and this influence may not even be noticed by the clerk or the person she helps. A smile from a stranger can change a person’s perspective, and thus could change an entire series of actions.[33] 

Sincere encouragement can give people the confidence to work diligently toward a desirable goal. Insincere encouragement can keep people on paths of misery and destruction, for themselves and potentially for other people as well.[34] Human beings are influenced by one another. Each person has the power to determine in each moment whether that influence will tend toward happiness or toward harm. Imagine a quality inspector at a factory in a far off country, and imagine that this factory produces an item that you have purchased. The quality inspector can directly influence your level of happiness or harm. If he has been diligent, then you (and everyone else who has ordered a product made in that factory) may have some increased happiness because of that item’s benefits. If the inspector has been lazy, then you (and everyone else who has ordered a product made in that factory) may be subject to harm, if not potential physical harm, then potential emotional harm.[35] You are connected to this distant person without ever realizing or considering it. This individual has some influence in your life.

To be even more realistic, a woman on the other side of the world, in southern Punjab, emerged from an abusive and unjust situation, and she started a school to educate women in order to overcome the levels of abuse and injustice that had become normalized in her society.[36] I will probably never meet this woman, and yet when I read her story or see her interviewed, her actions resonate with me and influence my perspective of the world, and thus she influences my actions in the world. Many people have read or seen this woman’s story, and thus many people have been influenced, even if in some small way, by what this one individual did. A woman who was not in any position of extraordinary power (quite the opposite actually), because of her extraordinary actions, was able to have influence in the lives of many people she will never see face-to-face, in addition to the many people she influences because of her courageous education initiative. No one can predict what the students at her school will do, or what other bold women will do as a result of her example.

This one person’s actions need not be extraordinary. This one person was not equipped with any natural advantages that other people do not have. She had parents who were willing to stand against their prevailing culture, and she had supporters in her community. This need not be extraordinary among human beings. All people are equipped with the capacity to recognize whether their actions are likely to promote happiness in the lives of other people, or whether their actions are likely to bring harm.[37] Surely, there are more nuanced decision in which considerable thought must be given to which action out of all possible actions will bring the least harm or the most happiness to the greatest number of people, but the basic mechanisms to behave morally are intrinsic to all human beings (except perhaps for the less than two percent of people who have psychological disorders that hinder those mechanisms from functioning optimally).[38] 

Even beyond our in-person interactions, then, human beings have the potential to influence an unknown number of people, and that influence can promote greater happiness or greater harm. It is not even clear that we are aware of the number of in-person interactions we have in the course of a given day.[39] If we drive down the road when any other driver is present, we have the potential to influence someone’s life without even realizing it. If we shop at a location where any other shoppers are present, we have the potential to influence someone’s life without even realizing it. There can be little doubt that human beings are innately important and potentially beneficial to other human beings, and there is clear evidence that even the most seemingly insignificant person can have a broad influence.

There is no way to fully calculate how much influence a person may have over the course of a lifetime—and even beyond. Some historic figures are still influencing people’s decisions long after their death.[40] They had personal responsibility for their beliefs and decisions during their lives, just as everyone has. Once decisions have been made, however, one can rarely truly control what happens as a result. This is one reason that it is important to develop an intentional and thoughtful response to the awareness that all human beings influence other human beings, and are thus important and potentially beneficial to individuals and to the human species. Since the influence that people have can either cause harm or can lead to greater happiness, it would seem to be worth being intentional about our beliefs and decisions.

Recognition that human beings have control over their actions is fundamental to the universals of morality that exist throughout human culture.[41] Societies could not survive, for instance, if the arbitrary killing of one’s peers was considered morally appropriate behavior. The concept of ownership universally carries with it the concept that it is not morally appropriate to steal another’s property. Human beings are also creative enough to contrive justifications and excuses for immoral behavior, but this does not change the universals regarding human concepts of right and wrong. Usually, our justifications for immorality involve somehow perceiving the victim of the behavior as Other. It is wrong to kill another person, except that it is justified in time of war to kill enemy soldiers—or even civilians, by the reasoning that some people use. They are not Us; they are Other. The same rules do not apply.

When one acknowledges that human beings need one another, and when one acknowledges that the influence human beings have on one another is potentially beneficial and more extensive than we usually comprehend, matters of morality become much more straightforward. The definition of morality that will be applied in this argument is that moral actions produce the greatest amount of happiness for the greatest number of people and the least amount of harm for the greatest number of people. Viewed as members of a species, this moral definition applies to human beings across the board. In other words, there is no case in which causing more harm than happiness for the majority of people affected could be considered moral.

Human beings have evolved with universal agreement about matters of basic morality, but people do not always apply moral concepts thoughtfully or diligently, especially when some level of fear is involved in the decision-making process. Before exploring the moral implications of all people having inherent value, then, it is appropriate to consider that natural processes alone are not responsible for human behavior. We can discern naturally that human beings have inherent value, and we also know that human beings are influenced by their culture and environment, in addition to the influences of nature.

Both nature and nurture play a role in the development of human personality and behavior. In an effort to be intentional, it is worth considering that nature plays a certain role in human identity and behavior. There are some things human beings do not directly, consciously control, and there are some aspects of identity and behavior that human beings may never understand completely. This suggests that we should exercise caution in our judgments against others and tolerance where no clear harm is evidenced. Homosexuality is a clear example of this. Over the course of centuries, cultural trends toward acceptance or rejection of homosexual behavior ran the gamut from “capital offense” to “normal behavior in certain contexts” to “psychological disorder,” but those judgments about homosexuality were really more public opinion than scientific assessment. More recently, objective scientific inquiry has produced compelling evidence that nature plays a role in homosexuality.[42] We can invent answers to questions as to why, but we are misguided if we blame or punish or denigrate homosexual individuals, since their identity is naturally derived. Until some actual evidence (as opposed to fear-driven conjecture) arises that indicates that homosexuality is directly harmful to homosexual individuals or the people around them, homosexual people are simply different from heterosexual people, but they are people nonetheless. The same cannot be said of people who commit acts of violence because of a chemical imbalance, for instance, because the actions of those people blatantly cause harm.     Just as it is clear that some aspects of human identity and behavior are driven by nature, we can also clearly see how environment and nurture play a role in the development of identity and behavior.[43] It may not always be easy to know where that line is, but objective examination of the subject has at least shown that both are important. We do not control what nature provides to other people, and even if we were able to do so, making such decisions may not be wise. We do control our own behavior, however, and we can act in such a way that not only portrays the best version of ourselves possible, but also promotes others to mature into the best version of themselves possible.

If it is considered desirable (moral) to (a) produce the greatest happiness for the greatest number of people, and (b) bring the least harm to the greatest number of people, then it follows that it is desirable for each individual to influence the lives of others in a way that produces the greatest happiness and brings the least harm. A well-established definition of morality holds that moral behavior produces happiness and immoral behavior produces harm.[44] Along that continuum, the most desirable moral behavior produces the greatest happiness for the greatest number of people while simultaneously producing the least harm for the greatest number of people. There may be other definitions of morality that an individual prefers, and one could potentially apply those definitions of morality to this argument and find that the assertions here are equally valid regardless of how morality is defined.

Since natural drives compel human beings toward survival, improving our quality of life, becoming the best versions of ourselves possible, and forming groups; since all human beings influence other human beings and are thus important and potentially beneficial to an unknown number of other human beings; and since human beings can analyze and manage our beliefs and behaviors, it follows that human beings should strive for our beliefs and behaviors to produce the greatest happiness possible for the greatest number of people possible and to produce the least harm to the greatest number of people possible. Since all human beings have the potential to influence other human beings positively, and since human behavior can change, we cannot justifiably exclude any individual from the category of “inherently valuable,” even though it would be convenient to do so. Thus, as far as our own potential to influence the lives of other people, it follows that we should treat all people with dignity and respect.

This does not mean that we must accept the ideas or practices of all people. Many beliefs and practices are harmful to a great many people, and these beliefs and practices should be addressed if we are seeking the greatest happiness for the greatest number of people. In addressing harmful beliefs and practices, however, respect can still be shown to the individuals who hold those beliefs and engage in those practices. Indeed, they are often within the subset of people harmed by the beliefs and practices in question.[45] Since we cannot know the extent of an individual’s influence, we should treat all people as valuable members of the species—even when we cannot directly discern what their benefit to the species might potentially be. 

If it is considered desirable (moral) to (a) produce the greatest happiness for the greatest number of people, and (b) bring the least harm to the greatest number of people, then it follows that it is desirable to nurture in others the capacity and willingness to behave in such a way that produces the greatest happiness for the greatest number of people and brings the least harm to the greatest number of people. Our influence extends beyond our own beliefs and decisions, even though we only control our own beliefs and decisions. While it is important for our individual behavior to be governed by a moral response to the inherent value of all people, we also can influence other people toward developing a moral response to the inherent value of all people. Indeed, this influence promotes the greatest happiness for people and prevents harm, since understanding the inherent value of all people and responding morally to that understanding is one facet of maturing into the best version of oneself possible. The more human beings who engage in intentional progression toward the best versions of themselves possible, the more sustainable the entire species becomes.

Thus, based on the definitions articulated here, there can be little doubt that all human beings have importance and offer potential benefit to some other human beings, and thus have value. There can be little argument against the observation that human beings operate in social systems, and the extent and reach of these systems is difficult to determine. Since all human beings influence one another, our interactions with other people can reflect our awareness of every person’s inherent worth, and this intentionality can be said to acknowledge each person’s dignity—worthiness of respect. The inherent worth and dignity of all people is thus naturally and reasonably demonstrated.

---

[1] In philosophical circles, there may be a distinction between being and existence, and different categories of existence may be important. For this argument, existence is simply intended to imply that human beings are. See, in particular, Jonathan Dolhenty, “Part Thirteen: The Criterion of Truth,” The Problem of Knowledge: A Brief Introduction to Epistemology, http://archive.is/lk3kD (accessed January 14, 2014), and René Descartes, Principles of Philosophy, translated by Valentine Rodger Miller and Reese P. Miller (Dordrecht: Kluwer, 1991). For more on the discussion of existence, also see Antoine Arnauld and Pierre Nicole, Logic, or the Art of Thinking, translated and edited by Jill Vance Buroker (Cambridge: Cambridge University, 1996); John Stuart Mill. A System of Logic (Calgary: Theophania, 2012); William of Ockham, Ockham's Theory Of Terms (Book I of the Summa Logicae), translated by Michael J. Loux (South Bend: St Augustine’s, 2011); Plato, The Republic, translated by Desmond Lee (London: Penguin, 2003); Aristotle, The Metaphysics, translated by Hugh Lawson-Tancred (London: Penguin, 1999); Heraclitus, Fragments, translated by Brooks Hexton (London: Penguin Classics, 2003); Terry Eagleton, The Meaning of Life: A Very Short Introduction (Oxford: Oxford University, 2007); Bryan Magee, The Story of Philosophy: A Concise Introduction to the World’s Greatest Thinkers and Their Ideas (New York: Dorling Kindersley, 2001); C. J. F. Williams, What is Existence? (Oxford: Oxford University, 1981); Arthur Schopenhauer, The World as Will and Representation, vol. 1, translated and edited by Judith Norman, Alistair Welchman, and Christopher Janaway (Cambridge: Cambridge University, 2010).

[2] Merriam-Webster.com, s.v. “Life,” accessed January 14, 2014, http://www.merriam-webster.com/ dictionary/life.

[3] AHDictionary.com, s.v. “Life,” accessed January 14, 2014, http://www.ahdictionary.com/word/search. html?q=organism.

[4] See Alasdair I. Houston and John M. McNamara, Models of Adaptive Behavior: An Approach Based on State, (Cambridge: Cambridge University, 1999); Cecie Starr, Ralph Taggart, et al., “Animal Behavior,” Biology: The Unity and Diversity of Life, 12th edition (Belmont, CA: Brooks/Cole, 2009), 780–793; Davie M. Buss, and Heidi Greiling, “Adaptive Individual Differences,” Journal of Personality 67, no. 2 (Apr, 1999): 209-243; and David Sohn, “Two Concepts of Adaption: Darwin’s and Psychology’s,” Journal of History of the Behavioral Sciences 12, no. 4 (Oct 1976): 367–375.

[5] Herbert Spencer, The Principles of Biology (Sligo: HardPress, 2013), and Charles Darwin, The Origin of Species: By Means of Natural Selection of the Preservation of Favoured Races in the Struggle for Life (New York: Signet Classics, 2003).

[6] Allen W. Stokes, editor, Territory, (New York: Van Nostrand-Reinhold, 1974); Malcolm N. Shaw, “Peoples, Territorialism and Boundaries,” European Journal of International Law 8, no. 3 (Jul 1997): 478–507; Peter H. Klopfer, Habitats and Territories: Study of the Use of Space by Animals (New York: Basic Books, 1969); and Fritz R. Walther, Elizabeth C. Mungall, and Gerald A. Grau, Gazelles and Their Relatives: A Study in Territorial Behavior, Noyes Series in Animal Behavior, Ecology, Conservation, and Management (Park Ridge, NJ: William Andrew, 1984).

 [7] Anna-Louise Taylor, “Why Infanticide Can Benefit Animals,” BBC Nature News (21 May 2012). Accessed January 14, 2014. http://www.bbc.co.uk/nature/18035811; Craig Packer and Anne E. Pusey, “Cooperation and Competition within Coalitions of Male Lions: Kin Selection or Game Theory?” Nature, 296, no. 5859 (Apr 1982): 740–742.

[8] Mark V. Flinn, David C. Geary, and Carol V. Ward, “Ecological Dominance, Social Competition, and Coalitionary Arms Races: Why Humans Evolved Extraordinary Intelligence,” Evolution and Human Behavior, 26, no. 1 (Jan 2005): 10–46; David M. Buss, “The Evolution of Human Intrasexual Competition: Tactics of Male Attraction,” Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 54, no. 4 (Apr 1988): 616–628; Stuart A. West, et al., “Cooperation and the Scale of Competition in Humans,” Current Biology 16, no. 11 (Jun 2006): 1103–1006.

 [9] Richard H. Robbins, Global Problems and the Culture of Capitalism, 6^th edition (New York: Pearson, 2013); Neil Brooks and Linda McQuaig, The Trouble with Billionaires (London: Oneworld, 2013); an d Laura Westra and Bill Lawson, editors, Faces of Environmental Racism: Confronting Issues of Global Justice (Studies in Social, Political, and Legal Philosophy), 2^nd edition (New York: Rowman & Littlefield, 2001).

[10] Among common examples, one might include the arsenic levels in wells dug in Bangladesh to provide bacteria-free water (Allan H. Smith, Elena O. Lingas, Mahfuzar Ahman, “Contamination of Drinking-Water by Arsenic in Bangladesh: A Public Health Emergency,” Bulletin of the World Health Organization 78, no. 9 (2000): 1093–1103. Accessed January 14, 2014, http://www.who.int/docstore/bulletin/pdf/2000/issue9/bu0751.pdf), not to mention the numerous chemical agents intended for useful peaceful purposes and repurposed as weapons. See also  Andrew Simms, Ecological Debt: The Health of the Planet and the Wealth of the Nations (London: Pluto, 2005); Robert A. Dahl and Charles E. Lindbloom, Politics, Economics, and Welfare (New Brunswick: Transaction, 1991); Herman E. Daly and Joshua Farley, Ecological Economics: Principles and Applications, 2^nd edition (Washington, DC: Island, 2011).

[11]  In some systems-based models, this is acknowledged by the term “regressive society.” See Kenneth D. Allan, The Social Lens: An Invitation to Social and Sociological Theory, 2^nd edition (Los Angeles: Sage, 2011), and Ona Cohn Bregman and Charles M. White, editors, Bringing Systems Thinking to Life: Expanding the Horizons for Bowen Family Systems Theory (New York: Routledge, 2011).

[12] Robert Axelrod, The Evolution of Cooperation, Revised (New York: Basic Books, 2006); Trevor D. Price and Mark Kirkpatrick, “Evolutionary Stable Range Limits Set by Interspecific Competition,” Proceedings of the Royal Society (Biological Sciences) (Feb 2009). Accessed January 14, 2014. http://rspb.royalsocietypublishing.org/content/early/2009/02/21/rspb.2008.1199.full#cited-by; E.A. Herre, et al., “The Evolution of Mutualisms: Exploring the Paths between Conflict and Cooperation,” Trends in Ecology & Evolution 14, Issue 2, no. 1 (Feb 1999): 49–53; J. L. Sachs, “Cooperation Within and Among Species,” Journal of Evolutionary Biology 19, no. 5 (Sep 2006): 1415–1418; and Marcel Cardillo, “Phylogenetic Structure of Mammal Assemblages at Large Geographical Scales: Linking Phylogenetic Community Ecology with Macroecology,” Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society (Biological Sciences) 366 (Aug 2011): 2545–2553. Accessed January 14, 2014. http://rstb.royalsocietypublishing.org/content/366/1577/2545.full.pdf+html.

[13] Suzanne C. Segerstrom and Gregory E. Miller, “Psychological Stress and the Human Immune System: A Meta-Analytic Study of 30 Years of Inquiry,” Psychological Bulletin 130, no. 4 (Jul 2004): 601–630; George S. Everly, Jr., and Jeffrey M. Lating, A Clinical Guide to the Treatment of the Human Stress Response, 3^rd edition (New York: Springer, 2013), particularly 67–95.

 [14] Meni Koslowsky, Avraham N. Kluger, and Mordechai Reich, Commuting Stress: Causes, Effects, and Methods of Coping (New York: Plenum, 1995); Bruce S. McEwen and Peter J. Gianaros, “Stress- and Allostasis-Induced Brain Plasticity,” Annual Review of Medicine 62 (Feb 2011): 431–445; Cécilia Cabaniols, et al., “Links between Private Habits, Psychological Stress and Brain Cancer: A Case-Control Pilot Study in France,” Journal of Neuro-Oncology 103, no. 2 (Jun 2011): 307–316; Tarani Chandola, Stress at Work (London: The British Academy, 2010); Juliet Schor, A Sustainable Economy for the Twenty-first Century (New York: Seven Stories, 1998).

[15] Even “standard of living” seems not to have a common definition, but for the purposes of this argument a distinction is being made between “quality of life” as it is defined in the body of the paragraph, and a degree of wealth, luxury, and material comfort, for which the term “standard of living” is being used.

[16] Richard D. Young, “Quality of Life Indicator Systems: Definitions, Methodologies, Uses, and Public Policy Decision Making,” University of South Carolina Institute for Public Service and Policy Research (Columbia, SC: University of South Carolina, 2008). Accessed January 14, 2014. http://www.ipspr.sc.edu/publication/Quality%20of%20Life.pdf.

[17] Daniel Kahneman and Angus Deaton, “High Income Improves Evaluation of Life but not Emotional Well-Being,” Proceedings of the National Academy of the Sciences of the United States of America 107, no. 38 (Sep 2010). Accessed January 14, 2014. http://www.pnas.org/content/107/38/16489.long#cited-by.

 [18] Immanuel Kant, The Cambridge Edition of the Works of Immanuel Kant: Practical Philosophy, edited and translated by Mary J. Gregor (Cambridge: Cambridge University, 1996); Sam Harris, The Moral Landscape: How Science Can Determine Human Values (New York: Free Press, 2010).

[19] There is much debate about just how many basic human needs exist and what the identities of these needs may be, but the idea that human beings have basic needs is not contested. Louis Tay and Ed Diener, “Needs and Subjective Well-Being Around the World,” Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 101, no. 2(Aug 2011): 354–365; Manfred A. Max-Neef, et al., Human Scale Development: Conception, Application and Further Reflections (New York: Apex, 1989).

 [20] Abraham H. Maslow, A Theory of Human Motivation, (Eastford, CT: Martino, 2013); Toward a Psychology of Being, 2^nd edition (New York: Van Nostrand-Reinhold, 1968).

[21] Aristotle, The Politics, translated by Carnes Lord (Chicago: University of Chicago, 1985); Matthew D. Lieberman, Social: Why Our Brains Are Wired to Connect (New York: Crown, 2013).

[22] Gordon B. Moskowitz and Heidi Grant, editors, The Psychology of Goals (New York: Guilford, 2009); Colin McGinn, “Animal Minds, Animal Morality,” Social Research 62, no. 3 (Fall 1995): 731–747.

[23] Stephen T. Newmyer, Animals, Rights, and Reason: in Plutarch and Modern Ethics (New York: Routledge, 2006); Bert Musschenga and Anton van Harskamp, editors, What Makes Us Moral? On the Capacities and Conditions for Being Moral, Library of Ethics and Applied Philosophy 31 (Amsterdam: Springer, 2013).

[24] Geoff Hosey, “Hediger Revisited: How Do Zoo Animals See Us?” Journal of Applied Animal Welfare Science 16, no. 4 (Sep 2013): 338–359.

[25] Alan Weisman, The World Without Us (New York: Picador, 2007).

[26] It is perhaps for this reason that so many recent studies have determined altruism to be on par with other biological imperatives in human beings. See Sadie Dingfelder, “Altruism: An Accident of Nature?” Monitor on Psychology (Dec 11, 2006). Accessed on January 14, 2014. http://www.apa.org/monitor/dec06/altruism.html; Daniel J. Kruger, “Evolution and Altruism,” University of Michigan. Accessed on January 14, 2014. http://www-personal.umich.edu/~kruger/; Robert K. Logan, “Altruism and the Origin of Language and Culture,” University of Toronto. Accessed on January 14, 2014. http://www.physics.utoronto.ca/~logan/AltruismUnivCult.doc; Jorge Moll, et al., “Human Fronto-Mesolimbic Networks Guide Decisions about Charitable Donations,”  Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences (Oct 17, 2006). Accessed on January 14, 2014. http://www.pnas.org/cgi/reprint/0604475103v1; Raymie Stata, “What Is Individualism,” Massachusetts Institute of Technology, 1992. Accessed on January 14, 2014. http://rous.redbarn.org/ objectivism/writing/RaymieStata/WhatIsIndividualism.html#EgoismVsAltruism; John Tierney, “The Altruist's Paradox: Should It Hurt To Be Nice?” New York Times (June 18, 2007). Accessed on January 14, 2014. http://tierneylab.blogs.nytimes.com/2007/06/18/the-altruists-paradox-should-it-hurt-to-be-nice/; and “Activation of Brain Region Predicts Altruism,” Duke University (Jan 22, 2007). Accessed on January 14, 2014. http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2007/01/070121162756.htm.

[27]  Thomas Suddendorf, The Gap: The Science of What Separates Us from Other Animals (New York: Basic Books, 2013).

[28] Robert B. Lount, Jr., “The Impact of Positive Mood on Trust in Interpersonal and Intergroup Interactions,” Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 98, no. 3 (Mar 2010): 420–433; Brian C. Gunia, et al. “Contemplation and Conversation: Subtle Influences on Moral Decision Making,” Academy of Management Journal 55, no. 1 (Feb 2012): 13–33; Dustin B. Thoman, et al., “How Students Socially Evaluate Interest: Peer Responsiveness Influences Evaluation and Maintenance of Interest,” Contemporary Educational Psychology 37, no. 4 (Oct 2012): 254–265.

[29] Thomas Sy, Stéphanie Côté, and Richard Saavedra, “The Contagious Leader: Impact of the Leader’s Mood on the Mood of the Group,” Journal of Applied Psychology 90, no. 2 (Mar 2005):295–305; Daniel Grosser, Norman Polansky, and Ronald Lippitt, “A Laboratory Study of Behavioral Contagion,” Human Relations 4 (1951):115–142; Jonah Berger, Contagious: Why Things Catch On (New York: Simon&Schuster, 2013).

[30] See for instance Rebecca Rolfe’s project on the Academy Awards at http://www.rebeccarolfe.com/projects/thanktheacademy/sections/network.html (Accessed January 14, 2014).

[31] Philip J. Runkel and Joseph E. McGrath, Research on Human Behavior: A Systematic Guide to Method (New York: Holt, Rinehart and Winston, 1972); Paul Watzlawick, Janet Beavin Bavelas, and Don D. Jackson, Pragmatics of Human Communication: A Study of Interactional Patterns, Pathologies and Paradoxes (New York: W. W. Norton, 2011); and Ralph E. Anderson and Irl Carter, Human Behavior in the Social Environment, 5^th edition (Piscataway, NJ: Transaction, 1999).

[32] Carolyn Saarni, The Development of Emotional Competence, Guilford Series on Social and Emotional Development, Claire B. Kopp and Steven R. Asher, editors (New York: Guilford, 1999); Vermont Center for Family Studies, “What Are the Eight Interlocking Concepts of Bowen Family Systems Theory?” Accessed January 14, 2014. http://www.vermontcenterforfamilystudies.org/bowen_family_systems_theory/eight_concepts_of_bowen_theory/.

[33] Millicent H. Abel and Malcolm Abel, “The Effects of a Sales Clerk’s Smile on Consumer Perceptions and Behaviors,” American Journal of Psychological Research 3, no.1 (Apr 2007): 17–28; J. O’Doherty, et al. “Beauty in a Smile: The Role of Medial Orbitofrontal Cortex in Facial Attractiveness,” Neuropsychologia 41, no. 2 (Jan 2003): 147–155; Marianne Sonnby–Borgström, “Automatic Mimicry Reactions as Related to Differences in Emotional Empathy,” Scandinavian Journal of Psychology 43, no. 5 (Dec 2002): 433–443.

[34] George P. Barker and Sandra Graham S, “Developmental Study of Praise and Blame as Attributional Cues,” Journal of Educational Psychology 79, no. 1 (Mar 1987): 62-66; Jennifer Henderlong Corpus, Christin M. Ogle, and Kelly E. Love-Geiger, “The Effects of Social-Comparison Versus Mastery Praise on Children's Intrinsic Motivation,” Motivation and Emotion 30, no. 4 (Dec 2006): 333-343; Jennifer Henderlong and Mark R. Lepper, “The Effects of Praise on Children’s Intrinsic Motivation: A Review and Synthesis,” Psychological Bulletin 128, no.5 (Sep 2002): 774-795; Wulf-Uwe Meyer, “Paradoxical Effects of Praise and Criticism on Perceived Ability,” European Review of Social Psychology 3 (1992): 259–283; Claudia M. Mueller and Carol S. Dweck, “Praise for Intelligence Can Undermine Children’s Motivation and Performance,” Journal for Personality and Social Psychology 75, no. 1 (Jul 1998): 33-52; Farideh Salili and Kit-Tai Hau, “The Effects of Teachers’ Evaluative Feedback on Chinese Students’ Perceptions of Ability: A Cultural and Situational Analysis,” Educational Studies 20 no. 2 (1994): 223-236.

 [35] Legally, in the United States at least, this might be considered negligent infliction of emotional distress, and there would most likely be no possible legal action for a disappointing purchase. I am considering here the potential for increased distrust, anxiety, and anger as a result of the inspector’s negligence to be emotional harm, even though this may not fit a precise legal definition of actionable harm.

[36] The story of Mukhtar Mai (and many others) can be found in Nicholas D. Kristof and Sheryl WuDunn, Half the Sky: Turning Oppression into Opportunity for Women Worldwide (New York: Vintage, 2009), 70–79. Also see http://www.halftheskymovement.org/ for more information about related projects. (Accessed January 14, 2014).

[37] Albert Bandura, “Toward a Psychology of Human Agency,” Perspectives on Psychological Science 1, no. 2 (Jun 2006): 164–180; Eliot Turiel, The Culture of Morality: Social Development, Context, and Conflict (Cambridge: Cambridge University, 2002).

[38] Zina Lee and Randall T. Salekin, “Psychopathy in a Noninstitutional Sample: Differences in Primary and Secondary Subtypes,” Personality Disorders: Theory, Research, and Treatment 1, no. 3 (2010): 153–169; American Psychiatric Association, DSM-IV-TR (Washington: American Psychiatric Association, 2000), 704.

[39] Damiano Florillo and Fabio Sabatini, “Quality and quantity: The Role of Social Interactions in Self-Reported Individual Health,” Social Science & Medicine 73, no. 11 (Dec 2011): 1644–1652; J. S. House, D. Umberson, and K. R. Landis, “Structures and Processes of Social Support,” Annual Review of Sociology 14 (1988): 293–318.

[40] These may well-known figures like Constantine, Martin Luther King, Jr., or former heads of state, or these may be figures within an individual’s personal history—deceased ancestors or even parents whose decisions determine some aspects of their descendents lives.

[41] Richard T. Kinnier, Jerry L. Kernes, and Therese M. Dautheribes, “A Short List of Universal Moral Values,” Counseling and Values 45 (Oct 2000): 4–16; Liane Young and Rebecca Saxe, “Moral Universals and Individual Differences,” Emotion Review 3, no. 3 (Jul 2011): 323–324; Richard A. Shweder, et al., “The ‘Big Three’ of Morality (Autonomy, Community, Divinity) and the ‘Big Three’ Explanations of Suffering,” Morality + Health, edited by Allan M. Brandt and Paul Rozin (New York: Routledge, 1997), 119–172.

[42] Kenneth B. Ashley, “The Science on Sexual Orientation: A Review of the Recent Literature,” Journal of Gay & Lesbian Mental Health 17, no. 2 (Apr 2013): 175–182.

[43] Alice H. Eagly and Wendy Wood, “The Nature-Nurture Debates: 25 Years of Challenges in Understanding the Psychology of Gender,” Perspectives on Psychological Science 8, no. 3 (May 2013): 340–357; Gordon T. Harold, et al., “Biological and Rearing Mother Influences on Child ADHD Symptoms: Revisiting the Developmental Interface between Nature and Nurture,” Journal of Child Psychology and Psychiatry 54, no. 10 (Oct 2013): 1038–1046.

[44] Aristotle, The Eudemian Ethics, translated by Anthony Kenny (Oxford: Oxford University, 2011); Augustine of Hippo, On the Trinity, translated by Arthur W. Haddan, edited by Paul A. Boer Sr., and William G. T. Shedd (Veritatis Splendor, 2012); Thomas Aquinas, Summa Theologica (New York: Benzinger Bros., 1948); David Hume, An Enquiry Concerning the Principles of Morals, edited by Eric Steinberg (Indianapolis: Hackett, 1983); Francis Hutcheson, An Inquiry into the Original of Our Ideas of Beauty and Virtue (Chestnut Hill, MA: Adamant, 2005); William Paley, The Principles of Moral and Political Philosophy (University Park, IL: Liberty Fund, 2002); Jeremy Bentham, An Introduction to the Principles of Morals and Legislation (Mineloa, NY: Dover, 2007); John Stuart Mill, Utilitarianism, second edition (Indianapolis: Hackett, 2001); Hastings Rashdall, The Theory of Good and Evil: A Treatise on Moral Philosophy (Charleston: BiblioLife, 2009); Sam Harris, The Moral Landscape: How Science Can Determine Human Values (New York: Free Press, 2010).

[45] Joel Feinberg, Harm to Self: The Moral Limits of the Criminal Law (Oxford: Oxford University, 1986); National Collaborating Centre for Mental Health, Self-Harm: The Short-Term Physical and Psychological Management and Secondary Prevention of Self-Harm in Primary and Secondary Care, National Clinical Practice Guideline Number 16 (London: British Psychological Society and The Royal College of Psychiatrists, 2004); Mark Cresswell and Zulfia Karimova, “Self-Harm and Medicine’s Moral Code: A Historical Perspective, 1950–2000,” Ethical Human Psychology and Psychiatry 12, no. 2 (2010): 158–175.

Isaiah 13-14: Beyond Provincial Depictions of Divinity

The next segment of Isaiah contains many proclamations against the enemies of Judah, as well as some brief comments about what the kingdom of Judah can expect. Some of the "predictions" are so vague that one cannot really assess whether they were made before or after some historical event, and some of what the author of Isaiah predicts clearly never actually transpired. Based on this, then, it may be that these proclamations amount to wishful thinking expressed during a time of turmoil, rather than (as much of biblical prophecy is) "predictions" written down after the facts are known. For now, we will concentrate on a lengthy proclamation against Babylon and its king, with a hopeful prediction about Judah inserted in the middle, and two short proclamations against Assyria and Philistia.

These proclamations are supposedly sourced by Yahweh, the Judeo-Christian version of God, who is unchanging (based at least on Malachi 3:6 and James 1:17). So, what of God's character is revealed in these proclamations? To begin with, Yahweh is going to send a multitude of warriors from distant nations to execute his anger and destroy the world. A day of judgment is announced, at which time every person will experience physical and emotional anguish. The entire earth will be destroyed and every person who has ever missed the mark will be destroyed along with it. The stars, including the sun, will stop shining (and the moon will stop "shedding its light" too, but we won't go into the science of that). In order to punish people whose lives are characterized by wickedness, tyranny, and arrogance, Yahweh is going to destroy everything through a divinely commissioned army. This army of God will slaughter infants (who have had no opportunity to be wicked, tyrannical, or arrogant) in front of their parents, plunder the houses of the conquered, and rape the women they encounter. Suddenly, it seems that God was overly enthusiastic when he said he would destroy everything, because it turns out he was just talking about Babylon. But when God's army is through killing men, slaughtering babies, raping women, and plundering the houses of Babylon, the place won't be fit for human life ever again: "It will never be inhabited or lived in for all generations" (Is 13:20). We're talking about the modern-day country of Iraq, just to be clear. Surely, it's not considered a popular place by a lot of people, but it's still teeming with human life.

Despite destroying everything (or just Babylon) with his immoral army, Yahweh will spare Judah. The people of Israel will settle comfortably back in their own land, and people from other nations (who somehow escaped the total destruction) will flock to Israel to be slaves. Indeed, Israel will own the other nations as slaves. Instead of behaving any differently from the people who oppressed them, the people of Judah will take their oppressors captive and rule over them. That is, whatever is left of them once the army of God sweeps through slaughtering babies, raping women, and destroying every man alive. This never happened, of course. Yet, does this sound like any sort of god invoked in the twenty-first century? Unfortunately, in some peoples' minds, this isn't far from the totalitarian deities many people still envision choosing sides in war, promoting violent solutions to international problems, and justifying collateral damage in the name of power or prosperity.

If there is any doubt about the sort of deity depicted in these proclamations, Isaiah continues with Babylon's king. The king of Babylon is taunted, primarily because he will eventually die and is thus as weak as any other human being. It's odd how a person can say, "You are no better than us," in a way that sounds so similar to, "We are better than you!" Predicting that an imperialist nation will be overthrown is not a risky prediction. Such has ever been the case, and it will likely happen again, even though people now build empires a little bit differently than they did thousands of years ago. Notice that the king of Babylon goes unnamed in this proclamation. This is either because there was no way to know which king of Babylon would eventually be overthrown, or because the author of Isaiah was attempting to rob the ruler of immortality by refusing to record his name. The name of the Babylonian king overthrown by Cyrus was Nabonidus, incidentally. I mention this because, if the authors of Isaiah had recorded the ruler's name, and if this portion of Isaiah could be reliably dated to a time prior to Nabonidus' rule, then this would perhaps be a more convincing prophecy. As it is, the author(s) of Isaiah simply indicate that all of the disgraced ruler's sons should be executed--not because of their own wickedness, tyranny, or arrogance, but because of who their father was.

This, then, is the kind of god Isaiah promotes: a god who commands the slaughter of infants (provided they are not Israelite infants), a god who demands the execution of people based on the actions of their parents, a god who condones rape and humiliation of women (provided they are not Israelite women), and a god who approves of slavery (provided the slaves come from nations other than Israel). Obviously, the people of Judah had reason to hate the Babylonians who conquered them and took them into captivity, as they had historical reasons to hate the Philistines. It would have been natural for a human representative of Judah to curse Judah's enemies and make hopeful predictions about Judah's future. If one wishes to be biblically sound in one's depiction of Yahweh, though, then this Yahweh is a localized, nationalist shill for Judah, not a monolithic deity for all people in all places and times. Yahweh clearly wishes brutal harm upon nations who are behaving as Judah is given permission to behave, the only difference being that Yahweh likes Judah. This is not congruent with the idea of a supernatural being who supposedly created the universe and cares about everything in it. Moreover, the proclamations are false on a number of accounts, which either means that the Israelite god lied or was mistaken, or that the Bible is not a reliable source of information. Most likely, there was no supernatural entity involved in the proclamations at all, and the human being(s) who wrote these passages was a bit off base (historically and morally), as emotionally-based human predictions often tend to be.

Biblical proclamations like these in Isaiah are obviously based on subjective personal preferences rather than objective data. Surely, some people have a feeling that continuing along the same trajectory is eventually going to be harmful or beneficial, and they just can't articulate why they think things will have a particular result. That does not amount to divine insight from some external supernatural source. The more we learn about human psychology and physiology, the more we can accurately predict what people will do in various situations; that doesn't mean that an action was foreordained or destined. It means that people are prone toward some patterns of behavior that can be scientifically analyzed. The authors of Isaiah weren't performing any sort of scientific, objective analysis, though. They were simply writing down what made sense to them and what they hoped would happen. Their recognition that empires get overthrown was strongly colored by their emotional reaction that they would enthusiastically gloat when this particular empire was overthrown. Of course, they couldn't have known that the conquerors would be any more pleasant than their current oppressors, which may suggest that the whole thing was written after Cyrus the Great swept through Babylon.

It has been said before, and it bears repeating: the problem with claiming to know what God is going to do is that such a claim is completely unfalsifiable. Of course, any "prediction" made after the fact is immediately dismissible. "I knew God would send an army to overthrow this empire," is a rather shallow statement once the army has done its slaughtering, raping, and pillaging. Even then, one would be hard pressed to demonstrate that the army showed up because of a summons from God rather than out of very human motivations. The armies that overthrew Nabonidus certainly weren't worshipers of Yahweh, and there's no evidence that they ever converted. Cyrus the Great was a respecter of various religions, and he mentioned gratitude toward the Babylonian gods specifically. Yet, nowhere do we have evidence that Cyrus acknowledged Yahweh. Announcing ahead of time that God is going to send an army to overthrow an empire is perhaps a more risky prediction, but once again, a person has no way of demonstrating that the impending army has any connection to the desires of a supernatural being. Unfalsifiable assertions are dangerous because they give people the impression that they have knowledge when what they actually have is hope. Hope is not knowledge.

We might hope that we are more important than other people. We might hope that we benefit and other people suffer. The authors of Isaiah seemed to have these kinds of hopes. We might even have the ability to make an educated guess about how to manage things so that we actually do benefit while other people suffer. What we do not have--what no person has ever had--is compelling objective evidence that a supernatural caused things to work out a particular way, or even wanted things to work out a particular way. When we assume that we have supernatural justification for our actions, we get into some dangerous territory. We might ignore the actual objective data available to us in favor of our subjective hopes and wishes.

The objective data that we have about systems of human interaction and the influence that people have on other human beings suggests that no person is actually more important than anyone else. No person deserves to benefit from the suffering of others. Morality--discerning what is right and what is wrong--is not based on identity or caste or income or title. If slaughtering an infant is immoral, it's immoral for everyone, no matter the circumstances or the cultural identity of the infant. If rape is immoral, it's immoral for everyone, no matter the circumstances or the cultural identity of the victim. If oppression and slavery are immoral, they are immoral for everyone, no matter the circumstances or the cultural identity of the oppressors and subjugators. Our own personal hatred does not justify immoral behavior against people who seem like Other--it doesn't even justify condoning or ignoring someone else's immoral behavior against people who seem like Other to us. The slanted ethnocentricity of biblical morality as depicted in Isaiah is simply unjustifiable.

I have proposed elsewhere that we locate divinity within rather than without--that many of the characteristics we ascribe to divinity are actually human characteristics. The problem is that sometimes the characteristics that are ascribed to a supernatural represent the very worst of human behavior. Surely, whenever a person believes that some communication with a supernatural has occurred, that person has only connected inwardly in an unfamiliar or unexpected way. Unfortunately, sometimes that inward connection is shallow. We get that we hate our circumstances and the people we blame for creating those circumstances, but we don't get that our hatred harms us more than it harms anyone else. The Babylonians weren't overthrown because the Israelites hated them or because a provincial god hated them. The Babylonians were overthrown because of human desire for power (which is largely rooted in fear), but that desire had nothing to do with the Israelite exiles. If we want to understand ourselves well, grow in emotional maturity, and be the best versions of ourselves possible, we have to reach a little beyond shallow comfort or imagined collusion with beings who don't exist.

What can we do then? If there is no external divine being and no supernaturals, we have only what we can know on which to confidently base our beliefs. We can hope for anything we like, but we are only justified in believing that which has objective evidence to back it up. Some people say that there is no objective truth, which is a polite way of never having to say that another person is wrong and a convenient way of never having to change what one believes in the face of evidence. Claiming that all truth is subjective is cowardly and dishonest. We are capable of better than that. We can know some things about the universe, about our world, about human beings, and about ourselves. More than ever before, we have access to an abundance of empirical evidence about reality. We may not always like what the evidence suggests, but if we try to base our lives on refusals of what actually is, where are the boundaries to that subjectivity? There are certainly some things about which the most honest answer must be, "I don't know." Problems arise when people decide to fill in those gaps by pretending to know something that they don't. Again, this is simply dishonest.

We can reach deeper within ourselves. We can be courageous in the face of new data that could warrant a change in our beliefs. We can examine what we believe and what we fear, and we can weigh our beliefs and fears against what we can know of objective truth. We can refuse to accept laziness and irresponsibility as excuses for not engaging in self-examination. We can be more emotionally mature in dismantling irrational fears and recognizing what we actually want. We are capable of growing into the best versions of ourselves possible, and we can transform the lives of countless others as a result. This is not a supernatural aim and it requires no divine endorsement. It is simply what is possible for willing, reasoning human beings. The question is: are you willing to be the best version of yourself possible?

Mark 12: Vineyards and Cornerstones

In the next chapter of the gospel of Mark, after the business with the fig tree and Jesus' refusal to credential himself, the author includes several teachings that supposedly originated with Jesus during his time in Jerusalem. The author portrays some of the religious leaders of the day as scandalized by most of these teachings, presumably because they interpreted some criticism in Jesus' words. The first of these teachings is in the form of a story, or parable, and it is copied from the gospel of Mark with some slight variation in both the gospel of Matthew and the gospel of Luke. Many Bibles call this the parable of the wicked tenants, although such titles are much later conventions than the oldest extant copies of the text.

In this story, a man hires some people to run his business (a vineyard) while he is away. They decide that they can keep all the profits for themselves, so they abuse (or kill) every person the landowner sends to collect, including the landowner's son, thinking that they will be able to keep the place for themselves. According to this teaching, there will be dire consequences when the landowner shows up himself. The author of Mark follows the story with a quote from Psalm 118, but the connection is never explained directly. There is only the general sense that the chief priests, scribes, and elders ("they" here referring all the way back to the end of Mark 11) suspected that Jesus had said something derogatory about them.

The interpretation of this parable in the gospel of Matthew is more explicit. In this variation of events, Jesus tells the chief priests and Pharisees that they are like the wicked tenants in the parable. The author also suggests what the connection with Psalm 118 is, although many ancient copies of the text don't have the verse that clarifies this connection. It was quite possibly copied from the version of the parable in the gospel of Luke, in an editorial attempt to make the different variations match up more closely.

In Luke, the basic parable is the same, but the Psalm 118 quote is shorter. There is no explicit unpacking of the teaching itself, but the author makes a direct connection of the story to the line about "the stone that the builders rejected." Some translators use the word cornerstone and others use keystone to describe how that rejected stone actually functions. In one sense, that stone is a foundational support, and in the other, it is the center stone of an archway that holds everything together. Either symbol is useful, with more or less equivalent interpretation into life application. Still, although it's obviously a reference to the consequences of the wicked tenant's actions, the identity of the symbolic stone is still vague. Even in the original psalm, the bit about the cornerstone is not specific. It is a general poetic statement that what some experts believed to be an unsuitable foundation for action has been demonstrated to be an ideal foundation for action. The credit for that revelation is attributed to God, of course, since that was part and parcel to the culture.

The main point of the parable seems to be that "the kingdom of God will be taken away from you and given to a people that produces the fruits of the kingdom" (Mt 21:43). In other words, the very thing that the tenants were aiming for will become unattainable, and other people will claim it instead. The very thing that the religious leaders were aiming for will likewise become unattainable, and other people will claim it instead. This is not a prediction of future events, but a warning to people who are trying to reach a destination with a faulty set of directions.

You can't build something truly impressive with rotten materials. You can't build loving relationships with fear. You can't build a lasting, admirable reputation on lies. You can't build the kingdom of God on political power and social coercion. There is more that we can say about this, but there are some terms here that may need to be clarified a bit. What is the "kingdom of God," that it could be taken away from people who claim to be believers? What are the "fruits of the kingdom" for that matter? And what is the foundational stone that has been rejected by the people who claim to be expert builders?

Many of these questions likely had specific answers for the original author of the quoted psalm, and for the original authors of the gospels. Such terms have been subject to interpretation for centuries, and there is little agreement among biblical scholars, although many assume that the stone referred to here is Jesus, because some epistles interpret it this way. For early biblical authors, the kingdom of God was not a synonym for Heaven, as is clear even from some of the words put into Jesus' mouth by the gospel writers. "Kingdom of God" is a tough term for us today, when we don't think very highly of monarchies and when scientific discovery has increasingly eliminated the need for belief in supernaturals. Instead of such a loaded term, we can think of this as the kind of world that everyone really wants to live in, if all of our irrational fears were dismantled and we were honest about what we actually value. The kingdom of God is simply a better world than what we experience right now--a world that is characterized by equity, justice, and compassion. These qualities are the "fruit" (outcome or result) of living like that better world is a possibility.

What would prevent the tenants in the parable and the religious leaders of the first century from practicing equity, justice, and compassion? One might say greed. Certainly that seems to be the motivating drive of the tenants. Greed is just another word for fear, though. Greed is fear of scarcity. The religious leaders may have reacted out of fear of scarcity, too. Possibly, they feared insignificance or powerlessness. Their fear overrode their capacity to find peaceful solutions to problems. Fear prevented them from dreaming big with regard to what their people and their world could become. They were more interested in control--conserving what power and wealth they could among a small number of people. This fear-driven conservatism has never resulted in long-term sustainability for any people. Not only were they not creating as much equity, justice, and compassion as they could have in the world around them, they were also preventing the very thing they claimed to want. The tenants in the story had lost the vineyard, and the religious leaders had lost the kingdom of God.

All of this is still a warning cry to the representatives of the church in the twenty-first century. While a great hue and cry often goes up against the non-believers or "unsaved" or "infidels," many of the most visible representatives of religion still build on a foundation of fear rather than equity, justice, and compassion. According to this parable, the people who will actually experience a better world ("the kingdom of God") are not just the people who claim to believe certain things or even people who claim to have a personal relationship with the spirit of a centuries-dead Palestinian. The people who will experience a better world are the ones who create that better world through displaying its evidence--people who actually practice equity, justice, and compassion. Many believers and religious leaders seem not to know that their gospel narratives make this assertion.

What is the proper foundation, then? What is the identity of a cornerstone that promotes equity, justice, and compassion. One interpretation of that stone that some have offered is hope, specifically hope in supernatural guidance and aid, and hope in a desirable afterlife. The problem with the brand of hope offered by many religious traditions, however, is that it's based on mythology and folklore. One doesn't claim sincere hope for leprechauns to make personal debt disappear, or hope for Aphrodite to actually intervene in one's romantic affairs. Genuine hope needs something a bit more solid.

Before you defend the legitimacy of religious hope too vigorously, consider the number of believers currently in prison because of fear-based actions, the number of believers who have been caught in sexual scandals, the number of believers who prefer to divorce rather than work on their relationships, and the number of believers who abuse their children and spouses. People who have legitimate hope in a supernatural who loves them and works all things for their good should presumably also have lives defined by less fear, violence, and harmful behavior than people who lack that kind of hope. The actual data suggests that believers have as difficult a time as everybody else--if not greater difficulty--behaving in a way that reflects equity, justice, and compassion, despite alleged supernatural guidance. So, I suggest that hope needs something a bit more solid underneath it.

If the stone is not a mythological savior, and the stone is not empty hope, what could possibly be an ideal that has been rejected as a worthwhile foundation by many people who strive to build a better world? Several candidates come to mind, actually. Reason is one fine foundation, for those who are capable and willing to employ it. Unfortunately, many people seem to lack the skill to reason well, and many people strangely prefer not to reason well. Self-awareness is another fine foundation. The more we understand ourselves, the more we can act intentionally in the world. This, too, may bump up against some limitations of personal ability, however. So, I'll propose a third identity for the foundation stone that has been rejected by nearly everyone: radical, unconditional love.

You may have just rejected that in your mind when you read it. You may have even rejected it out loud. We've grown accustomed to believing that love doesn't solve anything, possibly because of how we decide to define love. I'm thinking here of affectionate concern for the well-being of others. Not merely strong positive emotions toward someone, because emotions are not completely within our control. Not concern for the well-being of people such that we decide we have to manage their lives and decisions for them because they aren't capable of doing it for themselves. That's control, not love. Radical love is a conscious decision that incorporates all of humanity in that sphere of affectionate concern. Unconditional love means that we don't exclude anybody from our pursuit of equity, justice, and compassion. One advantage to calling radical, unconditional love a cornerstone is that it's exactly what the Jesus of the gospel narratives tells people, so it ought to be something with which any believer would agree.

Everyone's cornerstones don't necessarily need to be the same thing. It's important to recognize, though, that violence, oppression, shame, and dishonesty do not create the kind of lives we most want or the kind of world we most want to live in. There is no external supernatural. We are responsible for building a better world. To do that, we absolutely must learn to dismantle our irrational fears and we must strive toward emotional maturity. Beyond that, we can determine what guiding principles to build on. I believe that all people have inherent worth and dignity, and that keystone holds the entire archway of my life together pretty well. Right now, I'm happy with identifying my cornerstones as science, reason, self-differentiation, and radical unconditional love.

What are your cornerstones? Having four corners makes sense to me. Maybe you have more cornerstones or fewer cornerstones. Maybe you just have one keystone that holds everything together. Whatever the case, your foundation is strongest when it actually makes sense to you. Base your life on things you can actually trust and verify. Don't claim things out of shame or obligation when your deepest, most noble self rejects them. Build on truth, not on fear. When you feel driven toward violence, or toward trying to control other people's lives, or toward pretending to be something that you aren't, you're not building on solid ground. You are the only person who can build the life you most want. All of us together can build a better world.

Isaiah 11-12: Common Ideals (and the "law of attraction")

It's said that a little knowledge is a dangerous thing. One reason for this is that sometimes when we know a little bit about something, we misconstrue that as expertise. We often think that we have a fuller picture than we actually have -- that our grasp of a concept is more complete than it actually is. This is one reason that some ancient passages like Isaiah 11-12 get interpreted to mean things they were never intended to mean. Of course, this stretch of Isaiah isn't unique in this regard; we are often contentedly ignorant of the larger context of our knowledge. We enjoy having a certain degree of ignorance, because then we can make things mean what we want them to mean. Although it can be a challenge, it benefits us to take a broader look before we draw conclusions.

In the midst of a discussion this week, a friend of mine made reference to using the scientific method to prove the "law of attraction." Essentially, the "law of attraction" suggests that positive or negative thinking can create positive or negative results, to the extent that what one finds in the day's mail can be determined by what one expects to find in the day's mail. The idea started in the early nineteenth century as part of the New Thought Movement and has been promoted by a mixture of well-intentioned believers who are adept at fooling themselves and outright charlatans who are adept at fooling others. Recently, the idea of the "law of attraction" was promoted in the film The Secret and a variety of books that promise to show people how to think themselves into health, wealth, and happiness. They claim that the concept is based on scientific principles, but unfortunately, it's nonsense.

Why do people believe such things? Why do we latch on to an appealing idea and then seek to make it true in our lives, when we know that it doesn't quite make sense? If we were to actually employ the scientific method, we would take this "attraction" hypothesis and develop genuine experiments to disprove it. We would consider other possibilities that would better explain the results we experienced. We would honestly recognize all of the times when our thinking had not produced the reality we most desired, as well as all of the times when our thinking had effectively formed reality. Of course, we would need a controlled way to determine whether our thinking had effectively formed reality. We would not be able to take any actions toward creating what we wanted if we were genuinely testing the theory. We would have to limit our engagement to the realm of thinking positive thoughts and honestly examining the results in our lives. This would possibly be a scientific evaluation of the theory. I encourage you to test it out if the "law of attraction" seems compelling to you, but test it honestly.

There are a number of things we should take into consideration when we draw conclusions. One is that we are susceptible to confirmation bias; we know what we want the answer to be, and we orchestrate our experiments or our results to "prove" what we already want to believe. Another is selection bias; we ignore evidence contrary to what we want to believe and concentrate our attention only on those pieces of evidence that support what we want to believe. We might also consider what our conclusions mean in a broader context. For instance, the "law of attraction" sounds great when it's about getting rich and being healthy, but what happens when you get a diagnosis of cancer or get into a traffic collision? If the "law of attraction" is taken seriously, you thought those realities into being; your negative thinking caused your cancer and your collision.

Our beliefs have consequences because our beliefs inform our actions. Most likely, positive thinking plays a role in success, but not because of any "law of attraction." Positive thinking may encourage people to exert more effort toward their goal, to keep pressing toward a desired result even when the path is difficult. Our belief in our ability to accomplish what we have set out to do fuels our actions, and our actions create results.

So, what does any of this have to do with Isaiah 11-12? For one thing, people often read the Bible or other scripture and assume that what they read there is unique, that their own sacred text is superior to every other source of truth. Our assertions about where truth can be found are often susceptible to confirmation bias, selection bias, and lack of thorough examination. We often choose to believe that we have access to some special knowledge, when honestly, what we see is just one thread of a much larger tapestry.

Nearly every Ancient Near East culture expressed an ideal ruler in language similar to Isaiah 11. Many cultures connected kings with divinity, often in terms very much like Isaiah 11:2, in which the divine grants authority and capability to the ruler. Every Ancient Near East culture praised their deities for victories and successes. Many cultures had a concept of a "peaceable kingdom" in which the threat of dangerous animals was removed, and thus fear had no place. Some of these cultures foresaw a removal of the animals themselves, but Egypt's version matches Isaiah very closely: The animals remain, but their ferocity is removed. The ideals expressed in Isaiah (with the exception of a reunited Israel and Judah) are common to all of the peoples living in that area at that time. Rather than assume that Isaiah is somehow superior, it may be more informative to consider why those ideals resonated with these different cultures.

Even for people who engaged in a lot of bloody warfare, the ideal was for there to be a ruler who was wise enough to value peace. The ideal ruler is less concerned with personal gain and pride and more concerned with doing what is just and right. Justice, equity, and compassion will be valued more than wealth, power, and prestige. Peace and partnership shall gain priority over conquest and claims of superiority. Isaiah envisions this future idealized partnership between Judah and Israel as crushing their enemy nations to the point that they are no longer a threat. None of these nations ever realized these ideals, however, perhaps in part because they only envisioned justice and righteousness for themselves. Just thinking those ideals had value didn't bring them into reality.

Isaiah sees this idealized ruler as emerging from "the stump of Jesse," Jesse being David's father. From Isaiah's perspective, things had really gone awry for Israel. Although there was a perceived agreement between Yahweh and David, Isaiah was hoping for something even more than the fulfillment of that agreement. Isaiah is suggesting that there will be a new David, even better than the first -- a divinely ordained ruler emerging from what seemed like a spiritually dead line. His interest in a restored and united Israel (meaning both Judah and Israel, which he distinguishes here euphemistically as Ephraim) distinguishes Isaiah from other Ancient Near East writers, but the ideals are not exclusive to Isaiah or Israel.

Some people still hold these same ideals, or at least claim to. Some of us still recognize that peace is better than violence, although we keep finding excuses to solve our problems with violence rather than through peaceful means. Some of us still hold justice, equity, and compassion as ideals in human relationships, although we keep finding reasons to be absorbed by our fears around wealth, power, and prestige. Here's the real secret: just thinking that peace is better will not make us more peaceful. Just thinking that we value justice, equity, and compassion will not create a more just, equitable, or compassionate reality. If we really value these ideals, we have to act in accord with them. If we recognize that violence is not the best solution to our problems, and that struggling to gain or preserve wealth and power cannot create the kind of world we really hold as an ideal, it is our responsibility to do something different.

We can't change the world by just thinking of a better world. We can't even change our lives by just thinking of better lives. We can take our ideals seriously, however, and we can act like we actually value the things we claim to value. If we want a more peaceful world, we start by living more peaceful lives. If we want a more just, equitable, and compassionate world, we start by living more just, equitable, and compassionate lives. Our beliefs and our values matter, because our beliefs inform our actions, and our actions contribute toward creating the reality we most want.

What do you really believe in? What do you really value?
Are you willing to act accordingly?

Mark 11: (Don't) Let Them Eat Figs -- Problematic Lessons on Prayer

Surrounding the story of Jesus causing a ruckus in the temple in the gospel of Mark is a problematic lesson about faith and prayer which begins when Jesus curses a fig tree. The gospel of Matthew includes this fig tree episode, but places it just after the cleansing of the temple. For whatever reason the author(s) of Matthew include the end of the fig tree lesson earlier, after an exorcism story. The gospel of Luke doesn't say anything about the fig tree, or draw the same conclusions about faith and prayer (although the Gospel of Thomas twice proclaims that people can move mountains, not by faith, but by being at peace and in unity with one another). The final passage from Mark 11, dealing with the source of authority for Jesus' actions and teachings, appears in both the gospel of Matthew and the gospel of Luke, more or less just as the gospel of Mark conveys it. In Matthew, this passage follows just after the fig tree episode, just as it is in Mark. In Luke, this passage about authority occurs immediately after the cleansing of the temple.

We should also ask a question about a source of authority, but first, let's examine what happens with this fig tree. It's not the season for the fig tree to bear fruit, but since Jesus is hungry, he curses the fig tree. The next time the disciples see the tree, it has withered and died, and they assume that this is because Jesus pronounced a curse on it. Jesus goes on to tell them that if they have enough faith, they will be able to pray for anything and receive it, even if what they want defies natural law. He also says that people should forgive others when they pray.

Forgiving people is generally a good idea. Yet, this lesson leaves some gaping questions. If Jesus could ask for anything he wanted, including having a mountain go for a walk, why didn't he ask for the fig tree to bear fruit out of season? After all, what he actually wanted was food, right? Or did he really, deeply just want to make a tree wither? What is accomplished by this that would not have been accomplished by causing fruit to appear on the tree? He could have satisfied his hunger and made a very potent illustration about the power of faith. The lesson actually seems to be, "when you are bitter about not getting what you want, you can punish even nature for displeasing you, if you have enough faith." What an immature (not to mention utterly false) idea!

There are some things we know about the way the world behaves. Sure, there are plenty of things that we still have to learn, but the hypothesis that people's thoughts and wishes alone can change natural law has been tested and disproved. "Natural law" means that consistent observations made over a long period of time, by a variety of observers, has yielded predictable patterns. Trees don't wither because you curse them. Mountains don't move because you pray for them to. Don't believe me? You don't have to. Try it out.

Believe in yourself, or believe in whatever supernatural you like, and curse a tree that's in full bloom. Don't take any other actions to harm the tree; just curse it. Preferably gather some impartial observers, too. If your curse fails to affect the tree, is it really because you don't believe strongly enough? Or is it because curses don't really do anything?

Perhaps the idea of cursing something is too harsh. Try another experiment then. Pray for your lemon tree to bloom with roses. Or for your oak tree to sprout pomegranates. Pray for it. Really believe that it will happen. As the gospel of Mark says, believe that you have already received it. When your experiment is concluded, will you decide that your faith is weak? Or will you recognize that lemon trees don't produce roses and oak trees don't produce pomegranates? And don't excuse a failed experiment by quoting the line about not testing God. The same Jesus that is purported to have quoted that line to the devil is the one telling his disciples they can make mountains dance if they really want to.

Here's a better idea. Figure out what you really want, and do something to create it. If what you really want in your heart of hearts is to kill a fig tree, you can figure out a way to do it. We can even literally move big chunks of earth around with the right machinery. Even when we really, deeply want something, it isn't made available to us just because we want it, or wish for it, or pray for it -- even if we wish with every ounce of our being, and even if we pray with impeccable confidence. Some things are not within our control, even if we want them very badly. We can't wish people back to life; we can't pray disease away. Our wishes or prayers can't eliminate our debt, or make people like or respect us, or land us a job, or allow us to pass a test with no preparation. The studies have been done; the research is conclusive. Wishing and praying don't alter reality. Some things we are better off accepting.

We do have some influence over some things, though. When we are sharp about what we really want, beyond the fears and entitlements and vows that often impede our connection with ourselves, we have some capability to effect change. If we want better health, we have some control over our behavior and environment. If we want better relationships, we have some control over our willingness to listen, to be vulnerable, to love. If we want a more just world, we have some control over how we express compassion and speak out for justice. The things we really want in our lives and in the world are not about withering trees and moving mountains. More often than not, the things we really want are about growing within ourselves and influencing other people in a positive way. We don't do that by wishing or praying; we grow and influence by taking meaningful action.

When the question of authority comes up for Jesus in the gospel narrative, the authors aren't clear whether the priests and scribes are genuinely curious or are just trying to catch Jesus in some scandalous admission. What so many of us fail to realize is that we do not need authorization to create the lives -- the world -- we most want. Understanding that we can't revise natural law with wishes and prayers, and that we can't control other people, we can still accomplish a great deal in our lives and in the world. Of course, we have to dismantle our fears and our inappropriate shame in order to connect with our deepest, most noble selves and understand what we really want. When we understand that, though, we have permission to act in accord with our deepest, most noble selves. When we are ready to act, not out of fear or shame or entitlement, but out of our deep love for ourselves and for one another, we can be self-authorizing.

Often, we authorize ourselves to act anyway. Many times, though, this means we are authorizing ourselves to take or protect what we think we're entitled, or to fight or defend against what we fear. That level of authorization doesn't come from a place of emotional maturity; it's like cursing a fig tree out of season. If we really want a thriving fig tree that produces delicious fruit, we have to take some responsibility for the care of that tree. Our lives are like that. We can take some responsibility for the things we really want, and we can get better at distinguishing between our fears and our deep passions. Prayer won't change reality. We won't ever move mountains with just a thought. Yet, we can change reality -- for ourselves and for others -- if we are willing to create the lives and the world we most want.

Isaiah 9-10: Vessels of Justice

Isaiah's words to Ahaz, king of Judah, as he was preparing to be overwhelmed by foreign armies were words of encouragement. He said that the enemies that seemed so fearsome at the time would be no threat at all by the time Hezekiah -- the son of Ahaz who was about to be born -- was eating solid food. Ahaz didn't listen to Isaiah, not completely at least. He gave in to his fear and voluntarily became a vassal of Assyria. Isaiah criticized that fear and stopped advising Ahaz; he saw hope in the future king.

In Isaiah 9, the prophet (or someone writing in his name) waxes poetic about how great Hezekiah is going to be. He will be a king who is pious and wise; a king who will rule a land that is no longer oppressed by foreign powers; a king who leads with justice and righteousness. Then, the chapter becomes a rebuke of Judah's previous sister kingdom, Israel. The prophet accuses Israel (or its rulers and prophets at least) of pride and wickedness. He sees the destruction of the kingdom as the consequence of the utter depravity of the people, who wrote oppressive laws that benefited the wealthy and trampled the poor. The people of Assyria will also be punished for the pride of their king. Isaiah says that the king was intended as a tool for Yahweh, but thought himself more important than the god who wielded him. Yet, there will be some from Israel who are spared. Isaiah sees these as the ones who turned sincerely to Yahweh in their time of desperation.

We've discussed many times that decisions have consequences. Whether someone is ruler of a nation or barely ruler of a household, human decisions have consequences. This explains a fair bit of suffering (and "evil") in the world, and it certainly explains a considerable amount of what the people of Israel and Judah experienced at the hands of the empires around them. Some suffering is not the consequence of human decisions, though. Earthquakes, storms, disease, and the like cause a great deal of suffering, but their cause is natural. Maybe human behavior causes suffering in deciding to live in a place frequented by hurricanes, but every locale has its natural threats. In any case, natural causes of suffering don't occur because of human behavior. 

People like explanations, though. Belief in some higher power that orchestrates reality suggests for some people that all the suffering that people experience is ordained, whether that suffering comes from natural events or from human decisions. God is behind the earthquakes and typhoons, and God is the commander of invading armies. This is the perspective of the Hebrew scriptures, but it's not a viable way to live. It would be one thing if every person who lived as a devout believer survived unharmed when missiles or tornadoes struck, but they don't. Plenty of devout people suffer right alongside "wicked" people. The prophets' idea that the righteous are spared while the wicked suffer is based on a flawed perception of reality.

We like to be able to point fingers at something, though. When Israelites got raped, enslaved, or killed by the Assyrians, it was easy for the people of Judah to point and say, "Those Israelites must have been wicked to the core, every last one of them. That's why God made this happen to them." Certainly, that sort of belief might encourage some people to straighten up and fly right, for awhile at least. It's not reality, though. The reason people suffered was, in part, because their leaders made some bad decisions. Their suffering wasn't even necessarily the consequence of decisions those individuals made, but it was the consequence of human decision. Instead of pointing fingers and deciding that people who suffer must deserve it for some reason, the people of Judah could have had some compassion.

Isaiah does have some compassion when he writes that the people are going to suffer because of their oppressive decrees; he understands that poor people don't inherently deserve to be poor. If society was doing its job, he suggests, there would be an end to oppression; there would be light where they had been darkness. This isn't what a supernatural is supposed to do. A supernatural didn't invent their unjust laws; people did. So a supernatural isn't responsible for creating justice and equity; people are. When we understand suffering as either a natural occurrence or the consequence of human decisions, we can begin to take responsibility for the kind of world we live in. As long as we claim that a supernatural is in control, we may create the illusion that we can estimate the worthiness of people by the degree of suffering they experience, and we may fail to recognize how often our experience is the direct result of our own decisions and actions.

If people are responsible for creating what many people call Isaiah's "peaceable kingdom" (in the next chapter), then we have a guide for our day-to-day behavior. If people are capable of behaving with justice, equity, and compassion as priorities, we have the power -- and the responsibility -- to build a better world. We can vote with issues of justice, equity, and compassion in mind rather than a fear of losing power or a sense of entitlement. We can use our personal resources in a way that reflects our commitment to justice, equity, and compassion rather than fear of scarcity or an implied commitment only to our own comfort. We can speak out (in love) when we have the opportunity to address issues of justice, equity, and compassion, rather than staying silent out of fear of reprisals or a sense that someone else's suffering is none of our business. The idea that something is "none of our business" often means only that we think it inconvenient.

Isaiah put his hope in Hezekiah's rule and in the faithfulness of his god. We know now that one person cannot create a better world; we can all have a role in building a better world. We can bring the light of justice, equity, and compassion into dark places. We don't have to be messiahs or kings or any more than ourselves. There will be more to say about the peaceable kingdom and about how we connect with the "divinity" within us -- our deepest, most noble selves. For now, it is enough to read the words of Isaiah and recognize our capability -- our responsibility -- to be vessels of justice, equity, and compassion, to contribute to a better world by our intentional acts of integrity, and to engage with others in a spirit of hope and celebration.

Mark 11: Cleansing our temples

After another healing story, in which a man's faith is reported to be what cures his blindness, the gospel of Mark moves into the story of Jesus' entry into Jerusalem, often called the "triumphal entry." The other gospels echo and elaborate on the entry into Jerusalem as depicted in Mark, and this scene leads into the passion narrative, which culminates in the crucifixion scene (or the resurrection scene). While some have elevated the passion story above other teachings of Jesus as conveyed in the canonical gospels, these pseudo-historical events do not actually instruct anyone as to how people should live. They are largely constructed after the fact (at least 35 years after the fact) with the agenda of imposing Hebrew prophecies about a messiah (some of which weren't originally intended as prophecies about a messiah) onto the Jesus figure, in order to "prove" him as the Messiah. As such, the passion narratives serve primarily to bolster the faith of people who already believe in the divinity of Jesus and to portray what we already know about the power of fear.

The author of Mark has Jesus do a bit of teaching amidst the scenes of the passion narrative, however, and these teachings are of more potential use to those among us who are willing to recognize "divinity" as a human characteristic and those among us who see human beings as having inherent worth and dignity rather than seeing people as broken and in need of saving. Indeed, if Jesus' actions as stated in the passion stories really took care of "sin" once and for all, then there is nothing more for people to worry about on that front. We can all focus on the important work of building better relationships with one another, rather than judging ourselves and everyone around us and trying to determine eternal matters that no one can prove or know anything about anyway.

In Mark 11, Jesus does three things when he first enters the city of Jerusalem. First, he curses a fig tree for not having any figs, even though it isn't the season for figs. Petty, perhaps, but there it is. Next, he causes a scene at the temple by disrupting trade. This is worth a closer look. Then, he refuses to establish any outside authorization for his actions or teachings. This, as it turns out, is related to the incident with the fig tree. For now, we'll keep ourselves to the "cleansing" of the temple, a rare story in that all four gospels have a version of it. The version of this scene in the gospel of Luke is almost identical to the version in Mark. The gospel of Matthew expands it to indicate that people who had been prevented from access to the temple (people who were blind or lame) were able to approach Jesus there for healing. Placing this scene much earlier in the narrative, removed from the passion story, the gospel of John includes a prediction about Jesus' resurrection in the temple cleansing.

One must assume from the accusation against the people driven out of the temple that they were making a profit off of people coming to offer the sacrifices required of their faith. In changing coins from Roman currency (which depicted the emperor) to currency that had no hint of idolatry, it must be assumed that the moneychangers were charging a fee of some kind. In selling the sacrificial animals for people to offer in the required Jewish rites, merchants were essentially taking advantage of people's faith, making money because of the devout practices of others. The original idea behind the Jewish sacrificial system was that people would offer the best of what they had to Yahweh, but it was not intended to keep anyone from accessing Yahweh's grace and mercy. Jerusalem's temple had been turned into something even worse than a profit-making enterprise. People who were indigent or infirm were essentially unable to participate in Jewish ceremonies to the same extent as everyone else. Worship had become something for those who could afford it; God had become a commodity.

There are many who will proclaim how much good religion has done in the world, but one thing that religion seems to do very well is delineate who is in and who is out -- who belongs and who doesn't. It usually has nothing to do with any sort of god; it's more about who we're comfortable with and who makes us uncomfortable. At the temple in Jerusalem, the Jewish authorities had developed a system that helped to invite acceptable people into God's presence while keeping the unacceptable people on the fringes. The author of Mark, and perhaps a historical Jesus, had a serious problem with that system. Everybody in Jewish society was meant to have equal access to God. In fact, one of the main culminating points of the passion narrative is that the old priesthood is obsolete -- the old way of managing human access to God was eradicated. Which is a fine message, except that the church continued to find new ways to regulate access to God for centuries. In many ways, it still does.

I believe that the cleansing of the temple suggests that all people matter -- that just because someone is poor or sick or inconvenient or unsightly or annoying or somehow not like me, it doesn't mean that they are worth any less than I am. Without any belief in an actual god, I assert that all people have inherent worth and dignity, and I am challenged by that when I encounter people who are in circumstances I wouldn't want to be in. We set up barriers within ourselves, protections that we thought necessary during times of vulnerability, and those protective barriers sometimes prevent us from recognizing the deep truth, beauty, and creativity within us. When we have trouble connecting with our authentic selves, we have trouble connecting meaningfully with other people. The temple cleansing may represent the kind of housecleaning we all need to do within ourselves to dismantle the barriers we've created around our deepest, most noble selves in some misguided attempt to protect ourselves.

I also believe that people will always be drawn to help those who are less fortunate because human beings are compassionate. I don't suggest that everyone is equally willing to respond to the compassion they feel, but I do believe that there is some part of every person that cares about people who are sick, injured, poor, malnourished, abused, or oppressed. Sometimes our fears get the best of us and override that compassion, but that doesn't mean that our feelings of compassion aren't there. I believe that we, as a species, are inherently compassionate toward those who have their homes destroyed in natural disasters or who lose loved ones to violence. We don't necessarily like feeling that tug of compassion, because there isn't always something obvious that we can do. We don't like feeling helpless.

Like the temple in Jerusalem, we might decide that some people are in the circumstances they're in because of some divine proclamation. "God is in control, so whatever happened to those people is his will." We are absolved from feeling inconvenient or uncomfortable compassion when we concoct a scenario by which things are the way they're "supposed" to be. Like the temple in Jerusalem, we might also develop systems by which we can outsource our compassion, which means that -- to a certain extent -- we can more or less ignore our feelings of both compassion and helplessness and move on. Whether we are religious or not, we have a tendency to invent systems to welcome desirable people into our lives and keep undesirable people at bay.

Sometimes, though, religion helps us outsource our compassion. We can pray for people without ever having to come into uncomfortable contact with them. We can write a check or hand over some cash to a non-profit organization, and while this actually sources a lot of good for people, our monetary contributions don't necessarily address our unwillingness to be with people we see as poor, sick, hungry, abused, oppressed, or inconvenient -- to look those people in the eye and say, "You matter." Religion sometimes serves as a buffer for us, but it doesn't have to. It's possible to contribute some money to a worthwhile organization, offer some prayers, and look people in the eye and say, "You are a human being, like me."

Even better, I think, would be to scrap the whole idea that a supernatural has any control over what people experience in life. Human beings created the problems that we experience in the world, and human beings can create solutions to those problems. If we abdicate responsibility by assuming that some higher power is in control, though, we won't necessarily feel any sense of personal attachment to the kind of world that we create. Compassion is a feature of being human. It isn't something to try to dismiss or protect ourselves from. Compassion isn't weakness. We feel helpless sometimes because the real work that needs to be done is on the level of systems and structures that go way beyond what any individual can control. 

Our sense of helplessness can feed into old lies we hold about ourselves and other people, vows that we have made about what we must be or do, and fears about being taken advantage of or being worthless -- our feelings of helplessness bump up against whatever barriers keep us from being the people we most want to be in the world. Like Jesus taking radical action in turning over tables, letting loose caged animals, and whipping the perpetrators of injustice, we sometimes have to take radical action within ourselves. We have to be more conscious of what keeps us from being honest about who we are. We have to be more conscious of what we do that keeps other people at arm's length. We have to be more conscious of how we respond to feelings of compassion. We have the capability to do something different, if we choose to. 

When we recognize the importance of living by the principle that every human being matters, we can start creating something better. When we refuse to outsource our compassion, even as we continue to fund organizations that are doing meaningful work in the world, that emotional fuel can ignite our creativity. When we accept that we need one another in order to build a better world, we can forge stronger relationships and find ways to confront the issues that keep people poor, sick, hungry, abused, and oppressed. Tough circumstances can prevent people from recognizing their own inherent worth and dignity. At the very least, we have the opportunity to help people see that circumstances do not define a person's value. If we commit to the work of breaking through some barricades within ourselves, we influence more lives than just our own. As we continually dismantle whatever fears make our compassion seem uncomfortable, people may stop seeming inconvenient, and might just start seeming like people. Like us.