Training in Compassion 9: Turn All Mishaps into the Path

As we reflect on dignity this month, recall these words of the Roman emperor and Stoic philosopher Marcu Aurelius:

“When anything tempts you to be bitter: think not, 'This is a misfortune' but instead: 'To bear this worthily is good fortune.'"

Mishaps happen. If we treat them as part of our spiritual path, then they are. Often, though, we don't want the mishaps to be there. We want them gone as soon as possible. We think they are certainly not the spiritual path toward wholeness.

But turn all mishaps into the path. When something difficult or terrible happens to us -- a loss, a setback, a frustration, an insult -- naturally we immediately feel dismay, anger, disappointment, or resentment. The training in compassion is to remind ourselves to turn all of this into the path! When we catch ourselves trying to run away from the things that make us feel bad, we can, instead, reverse course and turn toward our afflictive emotions, understanding that they are natural, under the circumstances.

Dismay, annoyance, anger, anxiety, resentment arise sometimes for all of us -- this is how the human heart works. Allow them all to be present with dignity. Forgive yourself for having the negative emotions. Forgive others -- whoever you might be blaming for your difficulties. With these forgivenesses come relief and even gratitude.

We can say to ourselves, for example:

"Oh, yes, I am angry and upset right now, but this is what animals feel under such conditions -- so of course I feel this way. And I am grateful to feel what anyone, under such circumstances, would feel. I am glad to stand in solidarity and understanding with other beings who may be, right now, also having these feelings.”

This is not far-fetched. It does, however, take training. Repeat the slogan, “turn all mishaps into the path,” to yourself at various points during your day. Write it in your journal, and reflect on how it is working in your life. Keep doing this until it is thoroughly internalized.

Each time you turn a mishap into the path it becomes easier than the last. Little by little you establish a new habit of turning toward rather than away from all of life, including the parts we don’t like. Eventually, you can even welcome mishaps, for it is when we face difficulties, not when things are going smoothly, that we learn the most.

* * *

For the full version of this post: SEE HERE.

Money, money, money

Here is what I have to say today. I'll say it now, and I'll say it again at the conclusion. It is this: Through the practice of generosity, we are connected, made whole, better able to be the people we want to be.

Generosity isn’t entirely about money, but it does include money. Money, money, money. If you are unusually self-aware, you might have noticed a very slight feeling of tightening or closing at just the mention of the word. If you're that self-aware and spiritually evolved, you may have allowed that reaction to pass on as quickly as it arose. If you didn’t notice it, that doesn’t mean it’s not in there pulling the strings your reactivity unconsciously.

Research suggests that simply having the idea of money planted in mind has a tendency sometimes to reduce inclinations toward generosity. So I’m taking a risk by just saying the word money. I’m hoping that knowing about human psychology around money will allow us to consciously override the usual reactivity.

The average income per person worldwide is less than $10,000 a year. Perhaps your income is a little above the world average. Our very wealth itself can make us less generous, if we let it – if we don’t intentionally counter-act the effects of wealth through the practice of generosity.

In one study, experimenters enlisted undergraduates to play monopoly, two players at a time, but with different rules. One randomly selected player started the game with $2,000 of monopoly money, got $200 for passing Go each time, and threw two dice for every move – which, you may recall, is the normal way monopoly is played. Let’s call this player Bob. The other player, let’s call him Bill, started with $1,000, got $100 for passing Go each time, and threw one die for every move. “The students play for 15 minutes under the watchful eye of two video cameras, while down the hall researchers huddle around a computer screen, later recording the subjects’ every facial twitch and hand gesture.” What happens? Initially Bob "reacted to the inequality between him and his opponent with a series of smirks, an acknowledgment, perhaps of the inherent awkwardness of the situation. 'Hey,' his expression seemed to say, 'This is weird and unfair, but whatever.' Soon, though, as he whizzes around the board, purchasing properties and collecting rent, whatever discomfort he feels seems to dissipate.... He balloons in size, spreading his limbs toward the far ends of the table. He smacks his playing piece as makes the circuit – smack, smack, smack – ending his turns with a board-shuddering bang!...As the game nears its finish, [Bob] moves his [piece] faster....He’s all efficiency. He refuses to meet [Bill’s] gaze. His expression is stone cold as he takes the loser’s cash."

Privilege can function to shut down compassion – if we don’t consciously decide not to let it. Another study “showed through quizzes, online games, questionnaires, in-lab manipulations, and field studies that living high on the socioeconomic ladder can, colloquially speaking, dehumanize people. It can make them less ethical, more selfish, more insular, and less compassionate than other people.” In one experiment, wealthier people were more likely to take candy from a bowl of sweets designated for children. If there is such a thing as entitlement culture, it is more often the wealthy who feel most entitled. As psychologist Paul Piff concludes, “While having money doesn’t necessarily make anybody anything, the rich are way more likely to prioritize their own self-interests above the interests of other people. It makes them more likely to exhibit characteristics that we would stereotypically associate with, say, [jerks]....People higher up on the socioeconomic ladder are about three times more likely to cheat than people on the lower rungs.”

The extent to which people with money behave as if the world revolves around them was further illustrated in another study. Paul Piff and this research team “spent three months hanging out at...a gritty, busy corner with a four-way stop....[They] would stake out the intersection at rush hour, crouching behind a bank of shrubs… and catalog the cars that came by, giving each vehicle a grade from one to five. (A new-model Mercedes would be five; an old, battered Honda would be one.) Then the researchers would observe drivers’ behavior. A third of people who drove grade-five cars, Piff found, rolled into the intersection without first coming to a compete stop....‘Upper-class drivers were the most likely to cut off other vehicles even when controlling for time of day, driver’s sex [as it appeared to be to the observers], and amount of traffic.’"

A similar experiment tested "drivers’ regard for pedestrians....A researcher would enter a zebra crossing as a car approached it. The results were more staggering....Fully half the grade-five cars cruised right into the crosswalk. ‘It’s like they didn’t even see them,' [said Piff]."

Timothy Judge (Notre Dame), Beth Livingston (Cornell), and Charlice Hurst (U of W. Ontario) published a study, "Do Nice Guys -- and Gals -- Really Finish Last?" “Subjects were asked to assess whether they had a forgiving nature or found fault with others, whether they were trusting, cold, considerate, or cooperative. Then they were given an agreeableness score. Men with the lowest agreeableness earned $42,113 in a given year; those with the highest agreeableness earned $31,259."

In another study researcher Kathleen Vohs merely planted the idea of money in subjects' minds. As the subjects filled out questionnaires, some of them were in a room with Monopoly money present (left over from a prior monopoly game), and some were not. "Vohs got her result only after the ¬subject believed the session was over. Heading for the door, he would bump into a person whose arms were piled ¬precariously high with books and office supplies. That person (who worked for Vohs) would drop 27 little yellow pencils, like those you get at a golf course. Every subject in the study bent down to pick up the mess. But the money-primed subjects picked up 15 percent fewer pencils than the control group." (Miller) That’s just from the thought of money planted by having Monopoly money nearby.

Vohs stressed that money-priming did not make her subjects malicious — just uninterested. She said: 'I don’t think they mean any harm, but picking up pencils just isn’t their problem.'

Over and over, Vohs has found that money can make people anti-social – less pro-social. She primes subjects by seating them near a screen-saver showing currency floating like fish in a tank or asking them to descramble sentences, some of which include words like bill, check, or cash. Then she tests their sensitivity to other people. In her Science article, Vohs showed that money-primed subjects gave less time to a colleague in need of assistance and less money to a hypothetical charity. When asked to pull up a chair so a stranger might join a meeting, money-primed subjects placed the chair at a greater distance from themselves than those in a control group. When asked how they’d prefer to spend their leisure time, money-primed people chose a personal cooking lesson over a catered group dinner. Given a choice between working collaboratively or alone, they opted to go solo.” (Miller)

In some ways, on some measures, there may be a plus side. Thinking about money makes people more oriented to efficiency and productivity – like Bob, the advantaged monopoly player who became all efficiency. Money-focus encourages thoughts of self-sufficiency: less willing to help, but also less interested in being helped. Research so far hazards no guess as to where the tipping point is after which personality transformation kicks in – and that point is surely highly variable from individual to individual.

There is a basic human tendency to protect what we have, and the more we have, the stronger the tendency to put our energy into the having. It requires intentionality to avoid being sucked into that pattern. So we come to the spiritual practice of generosity. Deliberate generosity counter-acts that self orientation. Warm-heartedness also reduces blood pressure, anxiety and stress and improves health.

You’ve got however much money you’ve got. How much of it can you give away and still meet your material needs? Give it away. We can make it into something that connects us to others, that connects us to the world’s suffering. Otherwise, it will be a force of disconnection, tending to makes us less social, less caring. Give it away as a regular practice – weekly if possible.

You will never meet a generous person who was bitter or a bitter person who is generous. That bears remembering. Generosity and bitterness are incompatible. It’s not entirely clear whether generosity causes reduction in bitterness, or reduction in bitterness causes generosity – just as it isn’t always clear whether wealth causes disagreeableness or disagreeableness facilitates wealth acquisition. Either way, they go together.

Generosity – also known as hospitality, kindnesss, largesse, benevolence, bounteousness, magnanimity, openhandedness, warmheartedness, compassion – life as overflow – enriches our lives. When we live from an awareness of abundance rather than in the grip of the delusion of scarcity, generosity becomes possible. And generosity grows through practice.

To develop in an area requires disciplined commitment. The skilled athletes are not the ones who exercise when they happen to be in the mood for it. The skilled poets or musicians do not just write poetry or rehearse when they feel like it. They show up for daily practice, whether they feel like it or not. Generosity develops in us through a disciplined commitment to develop it as a way of being.

The baseball catcher and later manager and coach, Yogi Berra, once said, “You can’t think and hit at the same time.” He meant that we have to show up for the discipline of training our habit muscles, so that the habit muscles can be our guide when, as in most of what we do in the days of our lives, there isn’t the time or the inclination to think them through very much. For hitting, as for many actions, we must rely on habits, so the formation of the habits we'll need is crucial. For that matter, even when there is time for reflection, the way we think is governed by the feelings and values formed as habit.

Consider the story I’ve heard of a woman getting off a subway train. As she readies for climbing the steps into the cold outside air, she reaches into the pockets of her coat for her gloves. She finds only one glove. The other must have fallen out of her pocket. She turns around and looks back into the subway car, and she can see the seat where she had been sitting, and, sure enough, there’s her other glove on the seat. But now the doors are closing. She won’t have time to get back in and retrieve her glove. So she takes the glove she has, and throws into the subway onto the seat next to its mate – just as the doors close.

I love that story. One glove isn’t going to do her much good, but now somebody else can have the complete pair. That’s the reflex of a person who has cultivated generosity as a deep habit of being, a habit of the heart. It’s the reasonable thing to do, but if you rely on reason, the train will be long gone before you’ve worked it out. Random acts of kindness and senseless beauty flourish as the fruits of disciplined habit-formation that is not at all random or senseless.

I picked up this story from my colleague Rev. Terry Sweetser. Rev. Sweetser remarked:

"You know she must have lived a long life of generosity, a life of wild and creative generosity of spirit, to be able to think so quickly, to act so urgently and healthily, to know precisely in that moment what would bless the world right then and there. It happened in an instant, but that was planned giving through and through. Something in her past, or everything in her past, prepared her for her gesture -- habits of living and giving practiced and refined her whole life long."

As a piece of the happy discipline of generous giving, the piece that has to do with giving away our money, it will help to think in terms of percents. This gift comes from you. It is you, so place it in the context of your overall income. Are you giving away twenty percent? Ten percent? Five percent? I ask you to decide the percent first – what percent are you going to give away? Maybe this year it can be a higher percent than last year. After you’ve decided the percent, do the math and figure out what dollar amount that comes to. Don’t start by thinking about a dollar amount. Start by thinking about a percent.

Percent of what? The general guidelines would be AGI – adjusted gross income. Certain vital expenses are subtracted, but itemized or standard deductions are not. Adjusted Gross Income is the benchmark used by researchers into giving rates. And what percent of your AGI do you choose to give?

The traditional “tithe” for the church is 10 percent. The Torah, the central part of the Hebrew Bible, also known as the first five books of the Old Testament (Genesis, Exodus, Leviticus, Numbers, Deuteronomy), set forth law requiring that a tenth of all produce, flocks, and cattle be given to support the Levites, the priestly class in ancient Israel. The Torah also emphasized assistance to foreigners, orphans and widows, those in need, in addition to the tithe of support for the priestly class. The Christian Testament mentions no specific rules about tithing. Jesus is simply clear that we are obligated to be cheerfully generous to those in need.

The tithing rules in the Torah were based on the religious and social system of ancient Israel and on an agricultural economy. The Torah is not authoritative for us. Even it were, it does not address modern-day questions about what percentage we should give, how much to the church and how much to other charities. Still, I do find there’s something psychologically significant about 10 percent – just move the decimal over one place, and that’s what you give away. If you’re just starting out with generosity practice, giving away 10 percent is a good start. Those who have been at it longer, or are better established in life, can think about higher percentages.

Giving is a crucial part of your spiritual life, a necessary component of your spiritual growth, and growing ethically and spirituality is the mission of this congregation. It is our business – it is our mission -- collectively to encourage compassion in each other. It's really good for us to do this.

"Research from the University of British Columbia and Harvard Business School shows that spending money on someone else — as little as $5 a day — can significantly boost your happiness. Students who practiced random acts of kindness were significantly happier than those who were not given this task. In another study, college students were given money and directed to either spend it on themselves or spend it pro-socially (on activities meant to benefit other people). Participants who spent it pro-socially were happier at the end of the day than those who spent it on themselves." (Mark Ewert, The Generosity Path, 2)

Part of your giving goes to charities. Charitable giving is an important spiritual practice. For this part, I encourage looking at website called givewell.org. They’ve put thousands of hours into researching which charities are most effective, dollar for dollar, and are underfunded. They search for the charities that save or improve lives the most per dollar. Right now, their charities include the Malaria Consortium, which dispenses malaria prevention medicine. The Against Malaria Foundation, which provides mosquito nets to reduce risk of exposure to malaria. Helen Keller International which provides supplements to counteract vitamin A deficiency in children under 5. And New Incentives, and organization that provides cash incentives for routine childhood vaccines. Those are some good charities to receive a portion of the percentage that you set aside for giving away. They are listed at givewell.org.

Other websites you might take a look at:
Giving What We Can http://www.givingwhatwecan.org/
80,000 Hours http://80000hours.org/
The Life You Can Save http://www.thelifeyoucansave.org/
Effective Animal Activism http://www.effectiveanimalactivism.org/

Peter Singer mentions these websites in his TED talk where he makes the point that helping others is a requirement of an ethical life. Singer addresses the questions: How much of a difference can I make? Am I expected to abandon my career? Isn't charity bureaucratic and ineffective anyway? Isn't it a burden to give up so much?

Once you’ve decided the total percentage you’re going to give away – for the sake of the wellbeing of others, and for the sake of your own spiritual wellbeing – then there’s the question of how much of that goes to support your congregation and its programs. If you determine a percent first, then calculate what dollar amount that comes to, your pledge amount will probably not be a nice round number. But you’ll know it’s a nice round percent.

For your congregation's thriving, and for your thriving as a part of it, I suggest thinking in the range of three to five percent of adjusted gross income. Again, the more well-established you are in life, the higher the percentage can be. If you’re a young couple just starting out, two percent is a level of generosity you can feel really good about.

Pledging is a part of the meaning of membership, a part of what makes membership meaningful, and part of your spiritual practice and development. Through the practice of generosity, we are connected, made whole, better able to be the people we want to be.

May it be so. Amen.

Training in Compassion 8: Turn Things Around

Where there's confusion or pain in your life, make use of it instead of trying to get rid of it. Trying to get rid of it usually doesn't work anyway. It only makes things worse. Of course, if your painful situation can be resolved somehow, resolve it. Otherwise, try accepting it and looking for the lesson it contains.

Whatever comes into our consciousness will spur a reaction in us, and this reaction will be one of these three: we will either like, dislike, or be neutral to the object. Greed, hate, and delusion are the emotional activities we indulge in response to liking, disliking and feeling neutral. We are greedy for what attracts us; we hate what repels us; we are confused or indifferent about neutral objects.

Turn things around" means turning the three reactions and the emotions that go with them into seeds of virtue. Things constantly arise, and we are constantly trying to grab them and make them stay or push them away as soon as possible, depending on the style of our reactivity and emotion. The flow of these objects and emotions goes on constantly, usually below the level of conscious awareness. Three seeds of virtue appear when turn around our standard reactions.

We don't have control of much, but we do have control of whether to turn around the greed, hate, and delusion that appears in our lives. The basic human mess of likes and dislikes, in which we seem to be trapped and which seems to be so dangerous and troublesome, is actually wonderful, a real treasure. Our messes and our problems are our treasures! Our suffering, our troubles, our problems, the things that we really don't like and want to get rid of but can't, or the losses we feel, the things we wanted to keep and sadly cannot -- all of this is a treasure to us if we can understand it in the right way.

Everything painful and difficult has the potential to bring us great joy and deep spiritual riches. We can turn toward and appreciate our suffering, our problems, and the suffering and problems of others. Turn things around means recognizing that our very likes and dislikes and the suffering they bring us, can be the source of spiritual growth.

So: try writing down "turn things around." Try to fix it in memory. When you find yourself annoyed or upset by instances of liking and disliking that are causing you suffering think: turn things around. This practice might help you to let go a little in that moment. Even if you don't believe it and are only a little intrigued by it, it can be helpful to practice this slogan. It will have the effect of causing you to stop your lamentation for a moment and recall that it might just be possible that there is something potentially good and positive in this agony in which you are right now enmeshed.

* * *

For the full version of this post, SEE HERE.

Dignity

A. HOW THE CONCEPT OF UNIVERSAL DIGNITY EMERGED
B. USES OF UNIVERSAL DIGNITY
C. THREE DIGNITIES AND THE TENSION BETWEEN UNIVERSAL AND ATTAINED DIGNITY
D. THE CAPABILITIES APPROACH

Our theme for March is “dignity.” Last spring, when Faith and I were discussing what themes to have for the upcoming year, we decided to include “dignity” because the new article II bylaws of our denomination, the Unitarian Universalst Association, speak of dignity under the “equity” value. The bylaws say,

“Equity: We declare that every person is inherently worthy and has the right to flourish with dignity, love, and compassion.”

This has clear echoes with the historic UU first principle:

We, the member congregations of the Unitarian Universalist Association, covenant to affirm and promote: the inherent worth and dignity of every person (or every being).

So what is this dignity thing that our faith affirms?

Proto-Indo-European is the hypothetical original source language from which the 500 or so Indo-European language. Linguists think that the English word dignity derived from the Proto-Indo-European “dek,” which meant “to take, accept.” By the time it had become the Latin dignitas, it meant worthiness or merit -- suggesting something that is acknowledged or accepted as valuable. When we treat someone with dignity, we take or accept that they are worthy of respect, honor, and esteem. Dignity is conferred by acknowledging worth.

A. HOW THE CONCEPT OF UNIVERSAL DIGNITY EMERGED

Generally, up until modern times, it was understood that not everyone could be regarded as having worth. Stoic philosophers like Seneca (born 4 BCE), and Epictetus (born 50 CE), had a counterpoint. They maintained that all humans have an inner worth due to their rational nature, regardless of external status. But theirs was very much a minority viewpoint. For most of the Roman and on through the medieval world, dignity was reserved for the special, the noble. This meaning is still present in words like “dignitary,” or “dignified.”

Augustine, born 354, did say that all humans have a divine essence, and Christian thinkers have often invoked the concept imago dei -- creation in the image of God -- but not until centuries later did it become popular to say that this meant that all humans have dignity.

In Islamic thought, there’s a passage in the Quran declaring that God has bestowed dignity upon all humans. Muslim scholars Al-Farabi (born 870), and Ibn Sina (born 980), emphasized rationality as central to human dignity. Along similar lines, Thomas Aquinas (born 1225), built on Aristotle, arguing that dignity comes from rationality and moral capacity, given by God.

Pico della Mirandola (born 1463), wrote Oration on the Dignity of Man, which emphasized human potential and freedom, and strengthened the idea of universal dignity. In England, John Locke (born 1632), argued that all humans are equal and possess natural rights. Immanuel Kant (born 1724), transformed dignity into a moral concept, saying that all rational beings have intrinsic worth and should be treated as ends, and not as a means only.

While these philosophers’ ideas were gradually seeping into the general populace, most people still thought of dignity as a property of the dignified dignitaries and not a property of the hoi polloi rabble. Before about 1830, writes Remy Debes,

“neither the English term ‘dignity,’ nor its Latin root dignitas, nor the French counterpart dignité, had any stable currency as meaning ‘the unearned status or worth of all persons’, let alone the grounds of universal rights or equality.”

So what changed around 1830? The abolition movement to end slavery. That, and early labor rights movements were driven by the idea that all humans have dignity regardless of race or class.

Finally, in 1948, in response to the atrocities of World War II, the new United Nations adopted the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. Its article 1 declared: “All human beings are born free and equal in dignity and rights.”

B. USES OF UNIVERSAL DIGNITY

The claim that dignity is universal -- an equal possession of every person -- implied a universal moral duty to recognize and respect that dignity. Thus the idea of universal dignity was important to the abolition movement, and the UN's move to protect groups subjected to atrocities in World War II. Indeed, dignity has been invoked in every 20th and 21st century social justice movement, including the civil rights movement, the feminist movement, the LGBTQ rights movement, and workers’ rights movements. Policies that ensure access to healthcare, to education, or to social services are apt to be framed as affirmations of human dignity. Advocates of criminal justice reform invoke dignity. The argument that the death penalty is incompatible with the dignity of human life contributed to the European Union banning the death penalty.

These are examples of dignity used as a grounding for individual autonomy, human rights, personal freedoms and protections. On the other hand, conservative perspectives appeal to dignity in support of traditional values, social harmony, and respect for authority. Communitarian perspectives appeal to dignity as embedded in relationships and societal structures, arguing that dignity demands social policies that uphold communal well-being rather than just individual rights. Some non-Western societies critique Western conceptions of dignity for imposing individualistic values that do not always align with their cultural traditions.

You know the stone soup story, in which a stranger shows up in town and claims to have a magic stone that will produce nutritious soup merely by being placed in simmering water. The stranger then coaxes the villagers to make the soup even better by adding some cabbage, some carrots, maybe some beans, onions, et cetera. In the end, it’s all the other ingredients that do the work of making soup.

We may wonder whether dignity is like the stone in stone soup. We get one sort of soup if we add in human rights, another sort if we add in traditional values and respect for authority, yet another if we add in structures of relationships and communal well-being. Dignity may be claimed as the support for any of these, but maybe the human rights, or the traditional values, or whatever sort of soup we may be desiring, can stand on its own. We don’t need that stone thrown in the pot. Or do we?

The hungry villagers were unable to bring forth those other ingredients and produce a communal pot of soup until coaxed to do so by that stranger with his stone. So in some sense the stone is not superfluous – it’s necessary.

We have to think of ourselves as beings of worth -- bearers of dignity -- in order to get any other social or political project going. The expansion of dignity to apply to everyone thus reflects a relatively new tendency to want to involve everyone – or as many people as we can – in our social and political projects.

C. THREE DIGNITIES AND THE TENSION BETWEEN UNIVERSAL AND ATTAINED DIGNITY

We may identify three broad categories of meaning that dignity has signified across context and history.

First, dignity as status: noble or elevated social position or rank – dignity as what a dignitary has. This sort of dignity, like the word “nobility,” tends to conflate a standard of character or gravitas with the accident of birth class, though social status can, at least in principle, be attained by those not born to it.

Second, dignity as dignified behavior. This might be gravitas: a poise or grace associated with behavioral comportment. This might sometimes be particularly associated with the sophisticated manners or elegant speech in which the upper classes are typically trained, though it is not exclusive to class. Or it might indicate composure in the face of insult or duress – a dignified response to hardship that people of any class might display. Or dignified behavior might be living with integrity -- living up to personal or social standards of character and conduct, either in one’s own eyes or the eyes of others.

Third, dignity as universal: the unearned worth or status that all humans share equally.

With the first two, one might have dignity – or not. You either have a high social status or it’s somewhat less. You either retain composure under stress or you don’t, live with integrity, or don’t. But this third category of dignity applies to everyone equally. One’s dignity in this sense cannot be increased or diminished, it can only be recognized or not recognized. This universal dignity can be violated, as when we treat people as not having dignity, when we fail to recognize the worth, the value that a person has simply in virtue of being a person. But this is a sense of dignity as something everyone always has, whether it is respected, ignored, or violated. So we have these three dignities:

1. Dignity as high status, as being a dignitary.
2. Dignity as a standard to live up to – an aspiration to live in a dignified way, with composure and integrity, and a measure of poise. And,
3. dignity as universal – as something that everyone has, and has equally, and so cannot be achieved or aspired to and cannot be lost. The first one I’m not going to pay much attention to.

I'm not going to give further attention to the first meaning. I suppose unequal status will always be a thing among humans, and, yes, there is a lot to be said about how higher status is assigned, and how it functions, but a concern with dignity today doesn’t have much to do with who is a dignitary and who isn’t. Rather, it’s those other two that are the concern: acting and living with dignity, and recognition of universal dignity. And I think both of those are important and valuable.

There is something in the area of dignity for us to work on and develop in ourselves – composure and integrity -- and there is also something called dignity that is universal and equal and unearned. And both matter.

There is, though, this rather obvious tension between attained dignity and universal unearned dignity. If we seriously believe in human dignity – and maybe expand the circle beyond humans to a concept of primate dignity, or mammal dignity, or warm-blooded dignity, or vertebrate dignity, or beings dignity – this dignity can’t be gained or lost, and isn’t something to attain.

We might try to deal with this tension by distinguishing between ourselves and others. I might say: for myself, I will aspire to composure, poise, and integrity. I want to live in dignified way, and when I have behaved in an undignified manner, I want to learn from that and get better. At the same time, I will regard others as having inherent, equal universal dignity.

I’m not sure that approach will work. We might cut others more slack than we do ourselves, but if we’re paying attention to standards for ourselves, we can’t help but notice which other people are models for us to emulate and which ones seem to be exemplifying what we’re trying to avoid. Also, if there is a dignity that is universal, then I kinda have to allow that "universal" includes me, too. So I don’t think distinguishing between the way I approach myself and the way I approach others helps with this tension between attained dignity and universal dignity.

D. THE CAPABILITIES APPROACH

I think the idea that will help us here to either resolve the tension or live creatively in the tension is: capability. There is in the world of ideas a thing called the capabilities approach. The capabilities approach was first developed by Indian economist Amartya Sen in the 1980s. Sen argued that traditional measures of well-being, such as income or utility, are insufficient. Instead, well-being should be evaluated in terms of an individual's capabilities to function. Capabilities are influenced by a range of factors, including income, education, health, and social environment.

In the 1990s, American philosopher Martha Nussbaum picked up on Sen’s work and began collaborating with him to further develop and expand the capabilities approach. Her book, Women and Human Development: The Capabilities Approach, came out in 2000, and is a key work in the development of the approach. Nussbaum’s version of the approach particularly emphasizes human dignity and the opportunities individuals need to lead a flourishing life.

True well-being depends not, or not just, on GDP and wealth, but on whether people have real opportunities to live a meaningful life. A person with the legal right to vote but who lacks education or access to polling places does not truly have the capability to participate in democracy. Providing a wheelchair to a person with a disability is helpful, but real dignity comes from ensuring they have accessible environments to function independently. Thus, instead of just looking at what people have, Nussbaum focuses on what they can do and be.

Nussbaum identifies ten essential capabilities that societies should support to ensure human dignity:
1. Life – Being able to live a full life of normal length.
2. Bodily Health – Having good health, adequate nutrition, and shelter.
3. Bodily Integrity – Security from violence and bodily autonomy.
4. Senses, Imagination, and Thought – Access to education and intellectual development.
5. Emotions – The ability to love, grieve, and form meaningful relationships.
6. Practical Reason – Being able to exercise thought and conscience to make choices about one’s life.
7. Affiliation – The ability to engage in social relationships and be treated with respect.
8. Other Species – Living in a way that respects nature and other life forms.
9. Play – The ability to engage in recreation and leisure.
10. Control Over One’s Environment – Political participation and property rights.

A just society, per Nussbaum, ensures that every person has the capability to achieve these functions rather than merely providing formal rights without real access. A fair and just distribution of primary goods is important, but we must also consider how individuals can actually use these goods in their real circumstances. Can all their capabilities be exercised? Can their capabilities be developed and brought into full flower? Here we have a way to approach dignity that is both affirms the universal and leaves room for the attainable.

What’s universal is that we all have these capabilities. We have the universal dignity that we are beings capable of living a lifespan that our genetics allow –
Capable of the bodily health that reasonable nutrition, exercise, sleep, and shelter allows –
Capable bodily autonomy and security from violence -
Capable of learning and intellectual development –
Capable of loving, grieving, and forming meaningful relationships --
Capable of reflecting on our values and how to live by them in the choices we make --
Capable of social relationships, friendships, and group affiliations within which we are treated with respect –
Capable of loving and respecting nature and other life forms –
Capable of play and recreation –
Capable of political participation and owning things and effectively using what we own.

What’s universal is that we all have these capabilities – and we have the inherent dignity that comes from having these capabilities.

The dignity that is left to be attained is the fuller development of the capability, the exercise of the capability. We don’t always get the chance to do what we are capable of. Of course, no one can do ALL that ze is capable of doing, but one can develop in all 10 of the basic capabilities. A world is possible in which all of us have some chance at all of the 10 basic capabilities.

An individual may attain a life of dignity, may be a dignified person who retains grace under pressure, composure under stress, integrity with poise. Collectively, we may aspire to ensure that everybody has the chance to develop their capability for a dignified life, however they may conceive of it. And both the individual and our collective attainments are grounded in recognition of the universal, equal, unearned dignity that we are beings with these capabilities.

I said at the beginning that the root of dignity was to take, accept. When we treat someone with dignity, we take or accept that they are worthy of respect, honor, and esteem. What Amartya Sen and Martha Nussbaum help us see more clearly is that it is their capabilities that make them so worthy of respect, honor, and esteem. Some of us haven’t had much chance to do and be what we are capable of doing and being – but the capability alone warrants our respect, our esteem, our honor. And by respecting, honoring, and esteeming every person’s capabilities, we encourage and assist the use and development of those capabilities – and make way for the greater flourishing of all life.

May it be so.
Blessed be.
Amen.