Two Second-Personal Conceptions of the Dignity of Persons (original) (raw)

The Relational Structure of Human Dignity

This article argues that received accounts of the concept of human dignity face more difficulties than has been appreciated explaining the connection between human dignity and the duty of respect dignity is supposed to generate. It also argues that a novel, relational account has the adequate structure to explain such connection.

Two Conceptions of Dignity

Perspectives on Human Dignity (Springer, 2007), 43 - 58.

This paper explores two conceptions of dignity - a traditional one and a more modern one - and explores the question of whether our contemporary notions of dignity provide a coherent foundation for the idea of human rights. The version here was later revised for publication in Jeff Malpas and Norelle Lickiss (eds) Perspectives on Human Dignity, Springer 2007)

Dignity and the Form of Human Existence

HELLENIC-SERBIAN PHILOSOPHICAL DIALOGUE SERIES, 2022

This paper aims at showing that Human Dignity is neither something that exists separately from human being, nor a property, or an abstract idea, but as a relation between a human being and their own knowledge of the form of human existence, which can be expressed as the form 'I.' In other words, human dignity means that a person acknowledges that they owe the formed aspect of her existence to the form 'I.' Because human beings cannot actualise the form 'I' in a self-sufficient manner, the violation of the dignity of one person derogates also the dignity of the person or the persons who are causing it. This means that if I debase someone, I debase also myself because I impair my own knowledge of the form 'I.' In other words, my dignity relation to the form 'I' obliges me to acknowledge and to respect the dignity relation of any other human being. The problems arising from the cognitivist concept of dignity disappear if one takes into account that this concept only says that in order for dignity to exist there must exist at least one full-fledged cognizing person. As long as one human being in the world is able to have direct knowledge of the form 'I' every other human is entitled to dignity, even if the rest of humanity were not in position to realise this fact. Human dignity cannot thus be determined as an individual human right, but as a duty of every person against herself and any other human being.

Human Dignity

This article focuses on human dignity as a moral idea and, in particular, on a single but fundamental question: what conception of human dignity, if any, can generate an egalitarian duty to respect all persons? After surveying two mainstream and two alternative conceptions, the article suggests that explaining how human dignity generates an egalitarian duty of respect may be more difficult than has been appreciated. The idea of human dignity has recently generated enormous scholarly interest. 1 This article will focus on human dignity as a fundamental moral idea and on a single but basic question: what conception of human dignity, if any, can generate a duty to respect all persons? Ref lection on this question is important because, it will emerge, explaining how human dignity can generate such a duty may be more difficult than has been appreciated. To show this, the article begins by presenting three standard conditions of adequacy for an account of human dignity. It then examines the two leading contemporary philosophical conceptions of dignity, either as rank (§2) or as a transcendent value (§3), while presenting some of their main challenges in accommodating an equal duty of respect. Section 4 presents two alternative conceptions, one second-personal, the other genealogical and considers whether these approaches can fare better. The article concludes with some ref lections on where this leaves us with regard to human dignity as a moral idea.

The Nature and Basis of Human Dignity

Ratio Juris, 2008

We argue that all human beings have a special type of dignity which is the basis for (1) the obligation all of us have not to kill them, (2) the obligation to take their well-being into account when we act, and (3) even the obligation to treat them as we would have them treat us, and indeed, that all human beings are equal in fundamental dignity. We give reasons to oppose the position that only some human beings, because of their possession of certain characteristics in addition to their humanity (for example, an immediately exercisable capacity for self-consciousness, or for rational deliberation), have full moral worth. What distinguishes human beings from other animals, what makes human beings persons rather than things, is their rational nature, and human beings are rational creatures by virtue of possessing natural capacities for conceptual thought, deliberation, and free choice, that is, the natural capacity to shape their own lives.

Human Dignity - Functions and Meanings

Global Jurist Topics, 2000

The concept of Human Dignity has become more and more prevalent in legal, moral and philosophical discourses. However, as much as linguistic functions of the concept have become widespread, its meanings have become ambiguous and blurred. This paper seeks to map and depict the main functions and meanings that the concept of human dignity encompass, and, hence, to enable both those concerned with law and its interpretation, and moral-philosophers to discern the different linguistic-spheres and the different meanings this concept encircle. The analysis will show that the meanings of human dignity are socially constructed in accordance with particular cultural and historical contexts. There is no one "true" meaning of human dignity, but rather different levels of "thickness" and "thinness" that are culturally determined in each society. The paper advances insights regarding the use of human dignity in both the legal parlance -as a justification for human rights in legal documents; and in the moral-philosophical parlance -as compared to a worldview on the one hand, and as related to humiliation on the other.

The varieties of human dignity: a logical and conceptual analysis

Medicine, Health Care and Philosophy, 2013

The word 'dignity' is used in a variety of ways in bioethics, and this ambiguity has led some to argue that the term must be expunged from the bioethical lexicon. Such a judgment is far too hasty, however. In this article, the various uses of the word are classified into three serviceable categories: intrinsic, attributed, and inflorescent dignity. It is then demonstrated that, logically and linguistically, the attributed and inflorescent meanings of the word presuppose the intrinsic meaning. Thus, one cannot conclude that these meanings are arbitrary and unrelated. This categorization and logical and linguistic analysis helps to unravel what seem to be contradictions in discourse about dignity and bioethics, and provides a hierarchy of meaning that has potential normative implications.

Reconsidering Dignity Relationally

Ethics and Social Welfare, 2017

I reconsider the concept of dignity in several ways in this article. My primary aim is to move dignity in a more relational direction, drawing on care ethics to do so. After analyzing the power and perils of dignity and tracing its rhetorical, academic, and historical influence, I discuss three interventions that care ethics can make into the dignity discourse. The first intervention involves an understanding of the ways in which care can be dignifying. The second intervention examines whether the capacity to care should be considered a distinguishing moral power – as rationality often is – in light of which humans have dignity. In the third intervention, I cast dignity as a fundamentally relational concept and argue that relationality is constitutive not only of dignity but also of the wider enterprise of normativity. I understand relationality as the condition of connection in which all human beings stand with some other human beings. A thought experiment involving the last person on earth helps to reframe the normative significance of human relatedness. Dignity emerges as fundamentally grounded in relationality.

Human Dignity between Competing Moral Traditions

Ratio Publica, 2023

This article analyses competing understandings of human dignity in two rival traditions of moral enquiry. Since the end of World War II, human dignity has played a fundamental role in human rights and constitutional law. While initially, its understanding was significantly influenced by personalism, the liberal conception of dignity has been gradually gaining on importance. Post-war personalism was an influential offshoot of the Aristotelian-Thomistic tradition. It offers a specific conceptualisation of human dignity, which can be contrasted to a liberal one. In this paper, I will show how the conflict between the two traditions still persists revolving primarily around the adequate meaning of the concept of individual autonomy, which many liberal scholars associate with human dignity. According to the Aristotelian-Thomistic tradition, autonomy constitutes merely one part of a broader conception of human dignity, which is why we need to direct our attention elsewhere. The main goal of this paper is to clarify which meanings these competing perspectives ascribe to the concept of dignity; inevitably, this will lead us to analysing the clashes between their representatives over the proper interpretation of the concept. Finally, after delineating these intellectual disputes, I explore the grounds on which some agreement on the meaning of human dignity is possible between the adherents of these traditions.