An Idea That Counts

Growing up Catholic, I remember saying the Rosary as some sort of speed challenge. I never thought about the words but only saw them as a challenge to complete in record time. I was convinced that no one in the entire world could say a "Hail Mary" any faster than I could. I've no doubt the nuns would have had something to say about it if they knew.

Sometimes we liberals aren't so very different--we express our beliefs and convictions without really thinking about the meaning behind the words and without really integrating these ideas into our lives. We take them for granted, not understanding their origin, power, and influence.

Yet ideas matter and have real consequences. One particularly powerful idea--although we would do well not to repeat it as a type of liberal religious mantra--is "to affirm the inherent worth and dignity of each individual," sometimes phrased as "equal worth and dignity."

What exactly does this mean? Does it mean that each of us is actually equal in some radical egalitarian notion? No. Common sense tells us we are indeed sometimes vastly different in ability, behavior, morality, and usefulness to each other--even in value to each other. If by worth we mean relative worth, the reality is that we judge each other by our own standards. We in fact do regard each other differently. From a totally relativistic perspective, one could claim that all judgments are relative and arbitrary. I don't make such a claim but do leave open as a possibility.

To think of the inherent worth and dignity of each person as something inherent in the world, as an objective truth and demonstrably true, would be a delusion. The origin of this humanist principle has its roots in the Enlightenment, when certain rights were given to people regardless of who they were. The philosopher Emmanuel Kant startled the people of his day by espousing that we should treat people as an end in themselves rather than as a means. This was a revolutionary concept in its day. It means, in effect, that how useful or valuable another person is to us isn't an appropriate measure for determining our behavior toward that person. Each person counts no matter what is her or his behavior or utility to society or ourselves. The implications are clear that all of us have some inherent worth regardless of who we are, and all people should enjoy some measure of dignity and rights no matter what.

When we talk of the inherent worth and dignity of each person, then, this idea should be interpreted as prescriptive not descriptive. Worth and dignity are things we are enjoined to give not because they are in some sense true but because a rational morality depends on it. It's something we find useful to do rather than something that is. We use this idea because it works in the real court of human affairs. This isn't a trivial difference of perspective.

The idea of equal worth and dignity asks us to "see" the other person as having the same value as ourself despite any difference in race, gender, nationality, sexual orientation, religion, age, ideology, morality, behavior--indeed anything. Without diminishing the importance of the very real differences between us, we acknowledge our common humanity, joys, hopes, desires, fears, and complex inner life. We realize that despite our differences we have a common core of human experience that when ignored leads to a world less capable of human moral action. The truth of this statement is written in rivers of blood throughout history.

There are four areas where the concept of equal worth and dignity in our lives takes place: the personal, the interpersonal, the societal, and the planetary, each of which carries a different perspective. Let's study these more closely.

The Personal

I suspect that at some point in our lives we each have seriously questioned our own worth. One study in the United States found that 70 percent of all neuroses are bound up in shame of some sort. Around thirty-five years ago Albert Ellis borrowed from ancient Greek and Roman Stoic thinkers on the subject and developed Rational Emotive Behavioral Therapy (REBT). His is a system based on the simple principle that no one gives us self-esteem; we give it to ourselves. Our attitudes are products not of how the world is but how we view it. Self-worth and self-esteem are a matter of choice, and no one can give them or take them from us unless we allow them to do so. We don't have to think alike or act alike to accept the humanity of others and ourselves. Unconditional self-acceptance is a radical idea that works. In my voluntary activities with addicts as a coordinator for SMART Recovery (Self-Management and Recovery Training), I have seen a crack prostitute who was suicidal, shorn of all dignity and hope, grab onto the concept of unconditional self-acceptance and inherent worth and dignity as a lifesaver in her darkest hour and in a short time recover successfully. Such can be the power of an idea.

Liberalism, especially in the form called pluralism, as coined in the twentieth century by Isaiah Berlin, sees human diversity as a rational outcome and says that we don't need, nor should we expect there to be, one rational way to live our lives. There are many ways to live the good life. And I say this without falling into a postmodern relativism.

Abraham Maslow saw self-acceptance as only the first step to a full life where individuals extend their sphere of acceptance and identification outward as they mature. But, he felt that one, cannot effectively deal with the other, wider spheres of influence until one wholly accepts oneself and believes in one's inherent worth.

The Interpersonal

The underlying premise put forth by all of the self-help books that focus on interpersonal relations might be boiled down to one basic idea: seeing every person as human. For example, one humanist/feminist, frustrated after being told by different people that feminism was this or that--however they interpreted it--blurted out: "Feminism is simply the radical idea that woman are people." Often it is so hard for us to get past the differences and see the humanity of each person. And this goes beyond the Golden Rule of "doing unto others as we would have them do unto us." It involves seeing and treating all others as uniquely important.

Evolutionary psychology tells us that we have instinctual prejudices against people different from us. One of the tasks of a civilizing culture, then, is to educate and work against this inherent tribalism--to look beyond the differences in order to identify the similarities; to recognize, share, and rejoice in those things that unite us rather than divide us. Of course, some cultures relish their tribalism and even their prejudice. After all, it feels good to root for our tribe whatever it may be. But a civilized people must look beyond such differences--even those aspects we may judge as distasteful, wrong, or ugly--and see each person's inherent worth and dignity.

This is not just an idea; it's a practice. We don't have to fall into a superficial pluralism, where we go to the extreme and say that behaviors, ideas, and cultures aren't important or in some cases shouldn't be judged. There are indeed harmful and even evil ideas and cultures. Rather, our pluralism asks that we not allow these aspects to interfere with our perception of the individual's integral personhood. This isn't easy work for any of us, for we're always at odds with our instincts toward prejudice.

Martin Buber, a Jewish theologian, used a tool of seeing each person as a thou or sacred, God-filled presence. Some Christians try to see God's love in each individual. The Stoic Roman emperor Marcus Aurelius said, "When men are inhuman, take care not to feel toward them as they do other humans." Humanist Albert Schweitzer spoke of "reverence for life." Regardless what term or method we choose to use, it seems imperative to me that each of us find an imagery that allows us to look beyond separatist behaviors and beliefs so as to view each person as unique and worthy.

Societal

The third sphere of concern has to do with society. All wars have a point at which one group stops seeing the other as fully human. We use dehumanizing words like Jap, queer, infidel, gook, savage, or red to relieve us of moral duties to such "non-human" opponents. The psychologist Eric Ericson calls the process de-speciation. For example, the chief Sephardic rabbi in Israel recently said that one couldn't trust the Palestinians because they were "snakes."

Once we see another group of people as "the other" and subhuman, not at all like ourselves, we reactivate humankind's long history of tribal, state, and religious war. It ends in the ovens of Auschwitz. It ends in the Cambodian killing fields. It ends in ethnic cleansing in Yugoslavia.

Those who die in any holocaust die because of an idea: the belief that certain people are different and not fully human and therefore it is all right to kill them. In the recent film about the trials at Nuremberg, one of the characters sought to answer the question: "What is evil?" His answer was, "When someone shows no sign of empathy."

But killing is done in a number of ways. For the underclass in the United States, it is the slow death we perpetrate when we vanquish the spirit. When we in Illinois give $3,907 per student in poorer districts compared to $16,138 per student in rich suburban communities, we kill hope and opportunity. We kill the spirit. One legislator dismissed putting education money in the poorer downstate districts to equalize opportunity as a losing proposition because "they're just coal miners down there."

All of our civil rights, equal protections, equal opportunities, and principles of equal justice and democracy are based on the idea of equal worth and dignity. With the U.S. Declaration of Independence's proclamation that "all men are created equal" and the French Revolution's call for "liberty, equality and fraternity," the voices of the Enlightenment had reached political fruition in a bold new experiment that now shows its humanizing power.

But don't think that the idea of inherent worth is universal. In fact, most societies are clannish and nonempathetic beyond the immediate family and tribe. Many Eastern scholars point out that the idea of universal empathy is a foreign concept in much of the East. Even though it's a principle that works for all, it must not be assumed that it's either natural or globally accepted.

The Planetary

The same empathy that allows us to relate to others should be applied as well toward the biosphere. Being able to see the glories of nature in our biosphere and the inherent worth of nature itself is a learned skill just like learning empathy toward other humans. Edward O. Wilson, Harvard biologist and the 1999 Humanist of the Year, points out that human beings have an instinctual biological drive toward what he calls biophilia. He argues that biodiversity should be nurtured not just for its economic usefulness but equally for our own inherent need for a feeling of completeness and oneness within nature. In other words, we must see nature as having inherent worth rather than as a means to some end. We must recognize ourselves as a part of and not separate from nature.

Like many Holocaust survivors, Nobel prize--winning author Elie Wiesel lost his religious faith in the horrors of the death camps. Somehow, although Wiesel lost his faith in God, he gained a deeper faith in justice--in the inherent worth and dignity of each human being--and became a fierce opponent of the forces that would strip people of their dignity and lives.

In my own experience in the U.S. Army, I saw many soldiers who used war as an excuse to let their basest emotions play out and refused to see the underlying humanity in everyone. We called them "John Wayne types"--Lieutenant William Calley, who participated in the Mai Lai massacre, is an example. Conversely, there are those who never reduced themselves or others to barbarism. They kept their sense of humanity and acknowledged the worth and dignity of all.

So, indeed, the concept of equal worth and dignity is an idea that counts. It's a core principle of humanism. When I'm asked by people, "What is humanism?" I reply that it's the idea that, if we are indeed alone in the universe with no mastering deity governing us, then we are solely responsible for our fate. We have the ability and necessity to develop our morality and therefore determine whether we create a heaven or hell on this Earth. We have a responsibility to use the best tools of reason, science, justice, and compassion to find the ideas that serve us best.

If we want a better world, we must embrace the inherent worth of every individual and of our planet. Experience shows clearly where not doing so leads. When we see ourselves as less than human, it results in feelings of shame. When we can t recognize the core humanity in others, we see only their differences and flaws. When our inherent tribalism darkens our view of other groups, prejudice and oppression surely follow. And when we refuse to recognize the inherent worth of nature, our planet is lost.

We must commit to that very Enlightenment idea that all human beings' hearts are our heart. Their dreams are our dreams. Their fears and their loves are ours as well. Alone on this small planet, we have only ourselves to set things right, and we must all breathe the common air of freedom, justice, worth, and dignity to be fully and most fruitfully alive.

The past is dead and we can't indulge ourselves in despairing of history's damages. But we can create a future of hope, fullness, and worth if we accept our role as "gods" if you will. Not the magic-laden being of supplicating prayers but intentional beings of natural worth and dignity. I believe this is summed up well by Bette Chambers, a former president of the American Humanist Association:

   Humanism is the light of my life and the fire in my soul. It is the
   deep-felt conviction, in every fiber of my being, that human love is a
   power far transcending the relentless, onward rush of our largely
   deterministic cosmos. All human life must seek a reason for existence
   within the bounds of an uncaring physical world, and it is love coupled
   with empathy, democracy, and a commitment to selfless service which
   undergirds the faith of a humanist.

Michael Werner is a former president of the American Humanist Association and is an adjunct faculty member of the Humanist Institute. He can be reached at mwwernera@ol.com.

COPYRIGHT 2001 American Humanist Association
COPYRIGHT 2001 Gale Group