The Dignity and Worth of all individuals

The Dignity and Worth of all Individuals

Many of us have been challenged by the question of how one determines the “dignity and worth” of all individuals.  Science answers that the “worth of all individuals is $162.50 (the chemical worth of a body) times 7 billion or so. Of course if you have sufficient Black Market connections a kidney could go for $65,000 or more.  Or science might create an algorithm which shows that “I am better than you are because…  Clearly Science is a poor determiner of human worth and value.

In the 18^th and 19^th century, Jeremy Benthem, the philosopher and founder of Utilitarianism,  suggested the worth of individuals could only be determined by the “greatest good for the greatest number”, a societal measure of worth which, in analysis, is deeply flawed.

Consider the trolley car example.  A trolley car is hurtling down a track. You are the driver, and the brakes have failed.  In front of you are five men working on the track and you will shortly run them down and kill them. But at the last moment you notice a side track with a single worker.  The philosopher asks, “Will you turn the wheel”?  Most of us would answer “yes”, the greatest good for the greatest number.

In our second example the trolley car is still hurtling along, but this time there is no sidetrack, and you are not the driver, but an observer on a bridge overlooking the event. The trolley car will kill the five workers unless something intervenes. In front of you on the bridge is an extremely fat man leaning far out over the tracks.  If he falls there is a good chance he will interfere enough to save the five workers. The philosopher asks, “Will you push him” in search of the greatest good for the greatest number.

Many of us who answered “yes” to the first scenario are unsure of the second.  Why? Is it permission? No, neither the fat man nor the single worker gave permission. Is it precognition? No, neither knew what might happen in advance. You can play with this all you want but the closest you will probably come is some sort of volition. The first scenario is almost involuntary (although it is really not) and the second seems more deliberate (although it too is really not). They “SEEM” different.

In my third scenario reflecting the total collapse of the “greatest good” or “societal” solution to worth, there are five patients in the doctors waiting room. One needs a heart, one a kidney, one a lung and so forth.  In walks a twenty five year old healthy male for a routine employment physical. The philosopher asks, “Should we slay him and harvest his organs”? The greatest good for the greatest number suddenly collapses in the face of our horror.

We must then note then… that “Society”, Like science is a flawed determiner of worth and dignity.

The proof of that is in the Constitution of the United States.  The ground breaking and stellar document that owes its magnificence to the fact that it does not protect the rights of the majority, but rather, the rights of the minority, even a minority of one…..a single individual in our country has right to stand alone against the entire nation or the government and, in theory, prevail. The Constitution does not protect the rights of the majority, but the minority.  It denies Society in favor of the individual……………………………………

Some of my colleagues have suggested Religion is the answer. Religions are man- made structures rarely reflecting the philosophy of their avatars or paracletes. The goal of EVERY religion in history AND Secular Humanism, the goal of Krishna, Buddha, Christ, Mohammed, Bahaullah and all founders of religion, is unlimited compassion.  Simply put, their philosophies  each reflect the words of Christ when he said -“Love God with your whole heart, and Love your neighbor as yourself, and upon these commandments hangs all the law and the prophets”, unlimited compassion in, perhaps, its finest expression.

How are the religions of the world doing with that?  Which religion today reflects that goal? Certainly not Christianity, with its inherent denominationalism, and intolerance of homosexuals and others. It is astonishing when one realizes that most religions in the 21^st century still favor the subjugation of women. 

If you are, a Christian….Southern Baptist, Missouri or Wisconsin Synod Lutheran, Mormon or some versions of Methodist, women cannot preach in your pulpit.  If you are Roman Catholic a woman ………….. even if she has devoted her entire life to cloistered service, taken a vow of poverty, chastity and obedience and spent her entire life in the service of others…. is not even considered clergy.  One must ask the question,”Ladies, why do you permit it?”

Lord knows what today's “religious separatism” will engender.  Hatred of Islamics?  Atheists? Transvestites? Somehow religion will find a way to abrogate unlimited compassion.  And it doesn’t matter what religion you cite. The class structure of Hindi, the jihadists of Islam, The “justice” court of the Baha’i or the Scientologist, all practice separatism of some sort and fail miserably in their goal of compassion. While one might ask, what does Atheism offer in support of compassion that is worth fighting for? I might suggest it is the very word “fighting” that is an anathema for religion. What should be tolerance too often becomes intolerance. When one must fight for a belief structure, one has, already lost the war.  

Religion’s enemy is not Science. Religion comes in endless shapes and forms ... . The true enemy of both Science AND RELIGION is the substitution of thought, reflection, and curiosity with dogma."

Religion, that paragon of Dogma, cannot be the arbiter of truth. It is simply humanly flawed.

We then ask if the individual can be the arbiter of worth and truth, and many will answer “yes”. Certainly the Industrial Revolution (in which we are still engaged) and Quantum Physics is sending us in that direction.

Consider Schroedinger’s cat.  Schroedinger says to Einstein, “ Al, I have a cat in a box with a scale, two cans, one filled partway with water while water is dripping into the other can.  When the scales re-balance, with the weight of the water, a vial of prussic acid releases and kills the cat”.

Schroedinger asks, "is the cat alive or dead after two days"? Einstein answers, "I don’t know, I have to lift the lid to find out."  Schroedinger crows, “Exactly! As far as we now know the cat is either dead, alive, or presently, a state of “dead-aliveness” and we need an observer to determine the correct state!"

This idea of a required observer has led many people, particularly younger generations to avow concepts like “well, it works for me” or “that’s my reality”, or even “image is everything”. It also implies that a tree falling in a forest makes no sound without an observer, a situation, with which most of us, are tremendously uncomfortable.

It is not just physics sending us to a “me” centered universe.  The twentieth century saw, first, Existentialism, the notion that existence comes before essence, then post-modernism with the mindset that all things are relative (even God), changeable, dynamic, and as a result, only my reality matters. There is no objective truth, no “absolute” truth, nor absolute worth.  All truth must be filtered through my perception.

The Lakota Sioux warrior was told he must travel throughout the “medicine wheel”, the known universe, and see “truth” from a variety of perspectives in order to “know” truth and claim his warrior status, thus acknowledging that truth and worth changes with perspective.  “Process Theology”, is a recent concept of the same ilk.  It avows that God is changing so truth and individual dignity and worth is changing………..All values are flexible.

The result of these affirmations is that we may have approximately 7 billion “truths” and one is no better than the other. 

I submit to you my fictional, friends Bambi, Bubba and Abdul, who in turn claim to know both truth and “spirituality. 

Bambi avows, “I feel connected to the truth and spirituality whenever I sniff cinnamon. So every Sunday I go out and draw a cinnamon pentagram in my garage and kneel down to sniff my way around it. Then I fall into a spiritual swoon and truth is revealed and I feel close to God.”

Bubba suggests that if he handles poisonous snakes and drinks strychnine during his religious service he knows God is protecting him and truth comes to him.

Abdul suggests “I feel very spiritual and connected to God and Truth whenever I kill a Jew.”

Bambi’s spirituality is too sophomoric and “me” centered to deserve further consideration.  Bubba needs to inject an element of danger which is incompatible with either truth or spirituality. Abdul’s “truth” must be summarily dismissed as unacceptable. 

The point of these three is to show that not all “truth” or “Spirituality” is equal, developed, acceptable …….or even sane.

The individual is, therefore a flawed arbiter of truth or worth.

If Science, Society, Religion, and he Individual are flawed in the value of the dignity and worth of all individuals, what benchmark can we use?

The answer, I believe, is none.

There is no dynamic truth… no dynamic reasoning that establishes the worth of individuals beyond $162.50.

But somehow, we know people are worth more.

I have used the word “spirituality” several times and must now explain it further.

Consider certain physical facts.  When we die, in time we become fodder for the worms and fertilizer for the roses.  The bird eats the worm and the cat eats the bird. The deer eats the rose and is, in some, cases then eaten by the wolf. What do we call this extended period of our existence……spiritual life?  Similarly we know that if we could travel at a fast enough speed, with the right equipment, we could hear Lincoln’s Gettysburg address, live, since his spoken words are vibrating and only traveling at the slow rate of the speed of sound.

Would a “live” hearing of the Gettysburg address extend our lives one hundred fifty years into the past? Is President Lincoln still alive?  His words certainly are. His vibrations…….his “Strings” certainly are. What do we call that extension of life? Is it an extension of his spirit? It is if one’s spirit is still alive through one’s words….then we must ask what might we call that phenomenon?

Physics confirms we cannot destroy energy.  Matter may be destroyed, but not energy.  When matter is destroyed it simply becomes another form of energy.  Perhaps, as the great philosopher Obi Wan Kenobi suggested, it becomes a “force” which could be harnessed and used. Do you notice how close I am coming to a “God” force for want of a better word? What word do we use to describe this endless sound vibration, this endless circle of life and this continuing energy?  I think “Spirituality” might be a good word since we do not understand it very well. The philosopher Spinoza called it “God” and Einstein agreed.

Many philosophers have said you cannot approach “God” with reason. It is too limiting. Thinkers such as Joseph Campbell and Karen Armstrong have suggested that “awe, mystery and reverence” are all traits common to even the most primitive societies when contemplating the stars and the cosmos and life, and truth. These are not simply emotional responses to the vastness of space. These are supernal or “supernatural” values as real empathy or love.

The common root core of awe, mystery and reverence, and spirituality appears to be the same “unlimited compassion” we mentioned previously, a common connection to others, to the observed limitations of this life, to the community and the universe.  It is a sharing of a sacrosanct pact of sisterhood and brotherhood and benevolence and an acknowledgement that our place in the universe is outside ourselves and is somehow, eternal and therefore….sacred.

In the final analysis, the worth of an individual must be absolute, unlimited, sacrosanct, holy, immutable, cosmic and eternal for no other reason than the alternatives are unacceptable or flawed.

All limitations of individual worth, all cheap human life makes us uncomfortable or even angry for no other reason than dignity and worth are compromised on some immeasurable cosmic scale.

I believe that this suggests we are not human beings in search of a spiritual existence, but rather spiritual beings having a human experience. When our Being is denied, we somehow know it on a cosmic and supernal level.

I know, I know, this isn’t a very scientific conclusion because science cannot offer a solution. But it is a conclusion which explains why no earthly force seems able to explain dignity and worth, adequately. 

We must therefore, seek unlimited compassion, for it is only through its development and awareness that we can sense that all of life has a sacredness and dignity. It is only through those goals of compassion and love that the worth of individuals is verified. The avatars of religions and spiritual Paraclete's knew this. And we know it intrinsically as well.

The rock guitarist Jimmie Hendrix may have stated it best when he said, “the world can never know peace until the power of love overcomes the love of power.”

 In the end it is only through compassion and love that we will know peace and oneness with the cosmos and all other beings. With that peace comes the truth that each individual is sacred, eternal and beyond any earthly standard of “worth”.

   

May The Lord bless you and keep you;

May He make his face to "shine upon you and be gracious unto you?

May the Lord bring the light of his countenance upon you………..and grant you peace." ' 

Bless you and Thank you

 John P. Middleton

Feb 2013