My husband plays a lot of video games. That’s not too surprising, since he used to be a video game programmer. One of his favorite types of games has a “quest” theme. In the quest game, the hero is on a mission to accomplish something epic. The entire game is built around the hero’s ability to complete his or her challenge.

But in a capitalistic society, it seems to me that there are many more ways to deal in living beings—ways that might not seem obvious until they are deconstructed.

I realized recently that I am on a quest in real life. My “epic” goal is twofold: 1. I want to heed my calling to help others; and 2. I want to integrate my ethics and values—and the faith from which both stem—into my professional life.

This isn’t as easy as it seems, at least not for me. Part of the Buddhist Noble Eightfold Path addresses “right livelihood.” Dealing in living beings is listed as one way in which people can harm others while earning a living. For this reason, dealing in living beings is to be avoided for those aspiring to live their lives according to the path.

I’ve been sitting with the idea of dealing in living beings as it relates to truly helping others. Raising animals for slaughter and engaging in slave trade and prostitution are examples of dealing in living beings that are called out in the Noble Eightfold Path. These are obvious examples. But in a capitalistic society, it seems to me that there are many more ways to deal in living beings—ways that might not seem obvious until they are deconstructed.

We are all being dealt like cards every day, in one way or another. When a healthcare management company focuses on making its partnering physicians and its own executives wealthy instead of focusing on optimizing healthcare and minimizing costs for its patients, is that not dealing in living beings? When university-administered nutrition education programming is both funded and governed by the USDA—a deeply conflicted organization whose partnership with the dairy and beef industries impedes its ability to promote an optimal diet—is that not dealing in living beings?

In the first scenario, the profits are not possible without moving people through the health system. In the second, the programs cannot operate without the recipients of the programming. In each case, who is benefiting? Who is being exploited and potentially left in a worse state than before the interaction with the system? Who is being traded for profit?

At its core, right livelihood means doing work that is ethical. Since I decided to leave the field of communications, I have been trying to find the right path, one that supports and furthers my ethics. Because I want to live a life of service that is guided by respect—for myself and others—I need to find work that is in alignment with those goals.

Gaia University puts it aptly when they discuss the relationship many of us have with our work:

Most of us think in terms of “getting a job” as the primary way to earn a living—which means, of course, that we’re accepting a livelihood that’s been created by someone else and will be working on projects that meet the goals of other people’s agendas, not necessarily our own.

This is not, however, the only way to work in the world, and it’s certainly not the most fulfilling approach. As Ruth Purtilo, et all, state in Health Professional and Patient Interaction: “ … a life guided by respect depends in part on the ability to identify and shape one’s own life according to personal values and those that help to build a stronger community.”

This is what I’m looking for. This is my quest. And, like my husband’s game characters who get knocked down repeatedly in their efforts to find what they need, I’ll continue to get knocked down—and get back up again—until I become the hero of my own life and rise to this challenge.